Some of the best theorizing comes after collecting data because then you become aware of another reality.

Can a controlled experiment explain why people like Kewpie dolls in one year, Beanie Babies in another, and American Girl dolls this year? Yet social scientists are asked to answer analogous questions. We economists and perhaps psychologists shouldn't overreact to the derision. That is, we shouldn't try to overlay a false sense of precision on our admittedly squooshy work.

Liberalism downplays certain of our moral senses: loyalty, authority, and sanctity.

In the longer run and for wide-reaching issues, more creative solutions tend to come from imaginative interdisciplinary collaboration.

Physicists have a bias to aspire to be "seers" like Einstein rather than "craftspeople" who do simple and practical research. I have seen that in economics departments. The same must be true to some extent in other departments.

In the short run and for decisions unlikely to have broad impact, it may be more cost effective to use just one expert.

I am worried that the collapse of home prices might turn out to be the most severe since the Great Depression.