Example collocations logo

Economists in sentence

2720 examples of Economists in a sentence

As economists say, global growth has been “convergent,” meaning that poorer countries have been catching up.
To be sure, some very able economists seem to share this assumption.
The Perils of ProphecyBERKELEY – We economists who are steeped in economic and financial history – and aware of the history of economic thought concerning financial crises and their effects – have reason to be proud of our analyses over the past five years.
On all of these issues, historically-minded economists were right.
Of course, we historically-minded economists are not surprised that they were wrong.
That means trusting economists like Paul Krugman, Paul Romer, Gary Gorton, Carmen Reinhart, Ken Rogoff, Raghuram Rajan, Larry Summers, Barry Eichengreen, Olivier Blanchard, and their peers.
Economists, for their part, have shown that these different attitudes have deep historical roots.
But economists and policymakers are not so sure.
Reading some progressive economists, it might seem that the answer to all of America’s current problems is to tax the 1% and redistribute to everyone else.
It likewise ignores the fact that many of the wealthy are sports stars and entertainers, and that their ranks include professionals such as doctors, lawyers, consultants, and even some of our favorite progressive economists.
One idea about which economists agree almost unanimously is that, beyond mineral wealth, the bulk of the huge income difference between rich and poor countries is attributable to neither capital nor education, but rather to “technology.”
The answer explains the unusual consensus among economists, for “technology” is measured as a kind of “none of the above” category, a residual – Nobel laureate Robert Solow called it “total factor productivity” – that remains unexplained after accounting for other production inputs, such as physical and human capital.
Economists have included in such analysis that people interact with others, but they have largely treated such social interactions in amechanical fashion, as if they were commodities.
As economists and policymakers, we could be content to continue looking only at prices and income and related statistics to explain people’s decisions.
Their fate is a painful example of how inequality not only undermines economic growth and stability – as economists and organizations like the International Monetary Fund are finally acknowledging – but also violates our most cherished notions of what a fair society should look like.
However, this outlook hasn’t yet taken root in the EU’s elite policymaking circles, where well-meaning economists and politicians often believe they are doing the right thing by balancing budgets and reining in spending, usually by cutting health, education, and infrastructure budgets.
In 2004-2007, I considered that I might be wrong about a relatively rapid resolution to the world’s economic distress: as the late Rudi Dornbusch put it, unsustainable macroeconomic imbalances can sustain themselves longer than economists (with their touching faith in rational human decision making) believe is possible.
Rudi Dornbusch was right: imbalances can last for longer than economists believe possible.
The Italian economists Francesco Giavazzi and Guido Tabellini have spelled out what coordinated fiscal and monetary policy could mean.
They will repeat the same exercise that some of the world’s best economists tackled in a 2004 project called the “Copenhagen Consensus”: weighing up solutions to the great challenges facing the world, and deciding what should be done first.
One hopes that this task has been made slightly simpler by the publication of a book in which the Copenhagen Consensus economists boil down their insights.
This, say the economists who took part in the Copenhagen Consensus, makes it the single best investment that the world could possibly make.
Other options that the economists favored spending some of their $50 billion include providing micro-nutrients to the world’s hungry, establishing free trade, and battling malaria with mosquito nets and medication.
At the other end of the scale, responses to climate change like the Kyoto Protocol would cost more than they would achieve, so the economists crossed them off the list of things to do right now.
Regardless of whether we agree with the economists, everybody must admit that we cannot do everything at once.
Economists believe that policies that increase national income, such as free trade and deregulation, are always socially beneficial, regardless of how these higher incomes are distributed.
But what if the compensation assumed by economists in theory does not happen in practice?
Economists’ conventional description depicts high finance as providing us with three types of utility.
But these are the benefits of high finance as they apply to the ideal world of economists – that is, a world of rational utilitarian actors who are skilled calculators of expected utility under uncertainty, who are masters of dynamic programming, and who breathe stochastic calculus in their daily life.
Economists have spent their lives attempting to evolve theories that would account for how salient features of reality might emerge if we did live in their ideal world, but since we don’t, their theoretical enterprise is of doubtful utility.
BackNext