Example collocations logo

Economists in sentence

2720 examples of Economists in a sentence

There is a growing consensus among economists that any $750 billion bailout based on Paulson’s plan won’t by itself do the trick of resuscitating our economy.
Singh is one of the best economists in the world.
Yet, even though economists like Thomas Piketty and Joseph E. Stiglitz have proved, through meticulous research, the causal link between inequality and policy choices, politicians have yet to establish what level of inequality they consider ideal.
It should be noted, for example, that most economists argue that the ideal level desired by many would undermine economic performance, leaving everyone worse off.
The book also allows readers to set their own priorities: leading economists sketch out solutions and provide cost-benefit ratios so that different policy options can be compared side-by-side, and the best ones identified and prioritized.
It is also that computers think like economists.
They could not track down phlogiston for the same reason that economists today cannot offer a measure of actual utility.
Economists use the concept of utility to explain why people make the choices they do – what to buy, where to invest, how hard to work: everyone is trying to maximize utility in accordance with one’s preferences and beliefs about the world, and within the limits posed by scarce income or resources.
Moreover, economists’ notion of utility is born of classical utilitarianism, which aims to secure the greatest amount of good for the greatest number of people.
Like modern economists following in the footsteps of John Stuart Mill, most of those designing algorithms are utilitarians who believe that if a “good” is known, then it can be maximized.
Economists do not typically conduct experiments with real money.
And, since almost every observation that economists make turns out in a way that wasn’t predicted, no unexpected observation could ever actually change an economic paradigm.
Despite this, over the course of the last 20 years, economists began to act as if we thought we could genuinely predict the economic future.
But a market is not a rocket, economists are not rocket scientists, and moral hazard is, in human affairs, the risk that matters most.
That is the claim of two important recent papers, one by a bipartisan group of German economists, lawyers, and political scientists called the Glienicker Gruppe, and the other by Ashoka Mody, a former International Monetary Fund official who is now at Princeton University and the European think tank Bruegel.
Straight Talk on TradeCAMBRIDGE – Are economists partly responsible for Donald Trump’s shocking victory in the US presidential election?
Even if they may not have stopped Trump, economists would have had a greater impact on the public debate had they stuck closer to their discipline’s teaching, instead of siding with globalization’s cheerleaders.
It’s a reaction I still get from my fellow economists.
But I have never understood why many economists believe this implies we should skew our argument about trade in one particular direction.
So when economists shade their arguments, they effectively favor one set of barbarians over another.
It has long been an unspoken rule of public engagement for economists that they should champion trade and not dwell too much on the fine print.
The standard models of trade with which economists work typically yield sharp distributional effects: income losses by certain groups of producers or worker categories are the flip side of the “gains from trade.”
And economists have long known that market failures – including poorly functioning labor markets, credit market imperfections, knowledge or environmental externalities, and monopolies – can interfere with reaping those gains.
Nonetheless, economists can be counted on to parrot the wonders of comparative advantage and free trade whenever trade agreements come up.
This reluctance to be honest about trade has cost economists their credibility with the public.
Economists’ failure to provide the full picture on trade, with all of the necessary distinctions and caveats, has made it easier to tar trade, often wrongly, with all sorts of ill effects.
Had economists been more upfront about the downside of trade, they may have had greater credibility as honest brokers in this debate.
Similarly, we might have had a more informed public discussion about social dumping if economists had been willing to recognize that imports from countries where labor rights are not protected do raise serious questions about distributive justice.
Likewise, if economists had listened to their critics who warned about currency manipulation, trade imbalances, and job losses, instead of sticking to models that assumed away such problems, they might have been in a better position to counter excessive claims about the adverse impact of trade deals on employment.
In short, had economists gone public with the caveats, uncertainties, and skepticism of the seminar room, they might have become better defenders of the world economy.
BackNext