Example collocations logo

Economists in sentence

2720 examples of Economists in a sentence

But many free-market economists are inherently suspicious of direct support for specific investments, instead harking after the pure and simple market solution – a carbon price set either by taxation or by competition for permits within an emissions trading scheme.
But normal human beings, unlike economists, do not make such calculations.
As economists Ronald Schettkat and Richard Freeman have pointed out, career women do not necessarily work more hours per week than women with part-time jobs or stay-at-home moms.
Social scientists – and economists in particular – analyze the world using simple conceptual frameworks that they call “models.”
Fully general frameworks, such as economists’ beloved Arrow-Debreu model of general equilibrium, are so broad and encompassing that they are totally unhelpful for real-world explanation or prediction.
Applied economists’ mathematical models are the most explicit example of this.
Unfortunately, economists and other social scientists get virtually no training in how to choose among alternative models.
A May 2017 study conducted by the High-Level Commission on Carbon Prices – led by two of the world’s top economists, Joseph E. Stiglitz and Nicholas Stern – found that setting a “strong carbon price” is essential not only for reducing global emissions, but also for sustaining innovation and growth.
Economists, politicians, and public figures have all raised concerns about the threat of tit-for-tat trade barriers.
Command and control financing (“directed lending,” as economists call it) works well when it comes to building bridges; it is a lot less effective when it comes to choosing what companies deserve to survive.
How Inequality Fueled the Euro CrisisBRUSSELS – Since the Great Recession of 2007-2009, most economists have begun to regard finance as a key driver of the business cycle.
Economists have identified six pitfalls that can afflict natural-resource exporters: commodity-price volatility, crowding out of manufacturing, “Dutch disease” (a booming export industry causes rapid currency appreciation, which undermines other exporters’ competitiveness), inhibited institutional development, civil war, and excessively rapid resource depletion (with insufficient saving).
Economists and policymakers have been tinkering with the international financial architecture since the mid-1990s, without much success.
Chinese leaders and economists already know all of this.
After all, economists have recognized for decades that the most important determinant of growth – and thus of gains in human development and welfare – is technological change and the knowledge it embodies.
In raising productivity in services, what economists call “intangible capital” becomes ever more important.
This assortment of “Austrian” economists, radical monetarists, gold bugs, and Bitcoin fanatics has repeatedly warned that such a massive increase in global liquidity would lead to hyperinflation, the US dollar’s collapse, sky-high gold prices, and the eventual demise of fiat currencies at the hands of digital krypto-currency counterparts.
Many influential economists are now worried that the US faces anemic growth and “secular stagnation,” owing to a persistent gap between aggregate demand and full employment.
Some 20 years ago, Alan Blinder of Princeton University corralled a number of economists, including me, to examine existing studies on the link between profit-sharing and productivity.
Economists already understand that for more than a billion of the world’s poorest people, income does not come from any bank or government program, but from the intricate tapestry of forests, oceans, and wildlife that surrounds them.
Some liberal and highly respected economists, including Larry Summers, also worry about the outcome of globalization, even if they disagree with Trump’s approach.
Back then, the Soviet Union’s vast natural resources, industrial and military expansion, and state-controlled economy caused many economists to overestimate its leaders’ ability to manage risks.
Despite this, many supposedly liberal economists toy with the naive and dangerous idea that “We don’t need democracy, give us a Russian Pinochet and to hell with freedom.”
On the contrary, the share of the black market economy has been increasing by such a speed that, according to some economists, the real economy (composed of both the "white" and the "black" economy) actually grew over the last two years, notwithstanding an official decline in GDP.
To be sure, predictions like Leontief’s leave many economists skeptical, and for good reason.
Furthermore, economists are number crunchers, and recent data show a slowdown – rather than an acceleration – in productivity gains.
Economists call the most likely outcome of this phenomenon “the polarization of employment.”
The standard checklist of what to do in a financial crisis to avoid a deep and prolonged depression has been gradually worked out over two centuries: by Bank of England Governor Cornelius Buller in 1825; by the Victorian-era editor of The Economist , Walter Bagehot; and by the economists Irving Fisher, John Maynard Keynes, Milton Friedman, among many others.
Three months ago, I argued that all but a tiny and unbalanced fringe of economists approve of expansionary open-market operations to keep total nominal spending constant in a downturn, and I was right.
I was also right to say that all but a tiny and unbalanced fringe of economists approve of central-bank guarantees of system stability, in order to prevent the risk of a collapse of the payments system from becoming a first-order consideration boosting the demand for cash to unnatural levels.
BackNext