A Quote by Alan Greenspan

Given our inevitably incomplete knowledge about key structural aspects of our ever-changing economy and the sometimes asymmetric costs or benefits of particular outcomes, a central bank... need to consider not only the most likely future path for the economy but also the distribution of possible outcomes about that path. They then need to reach a judgment about the probabilities, costs, and benefits of the various possible outcomes under alternative choices for policy.
Accurate processing of information about outcomes is no simple task under the variable conditions of everyday life . . . usually, many factors enter into determining what effects, if any, given actions will have, Actions, therefore, produce outcomes probabilistically rather than certainly. Depending on the particular conjunction of factors, the same course of action may produce given outcomes regularly, occasionally, or only infrequently
Nations that pay for outcomes and health actually spend a lower percentage of GDP, and they have better outcomes. And so the Affordable Care Act is starting to make that migration, but we've got to keep down that path, and we'll improve outcomes and reduce cost.
Constraint theory defines for you what outcomes are possible and what outcomes are impossible. It also eliminates wishful thinking.
Two types of choices seem to me to have been crucial in tipping the outcomes [of the various societies' histories] towards success or failure: long-term planning and willingness to reconsider core values. On reflection we can also recognize the crucial role of these same two choices for the outcomes of our individual lives.
Expected outcomes contribute to motivation independently of self-efficacy beliefs when outcomes are not completely controlled by quality of performance. This occurs when extraneous factors also affect outcomes, or outcomes are socially tied to a minimum level of performance so that some variations in quality of performance above and below the standard do not produce differential outcomes
The U.S. has the most dysfunctional healthcare system in the industrial world, has about twice the per capita costs, and some of the worst outcomes. It's also the only privatized system.
We have no control over outcomes, but we can control the process. Of course, outcomes matter, but by focusing our attention on process, we maximize our chances of good outcomes.
Investing is about making probabilistic decisions with limited information about an unknowable future. The variables are well known, as are the possible outcomes.
People don't like it, but inevitably we need to think about both the costs and the benefits of health care. We cannot avoid the financial consequences.
Two decades of experience as an entrepreneur and CEO has informed my view that our priorities must stress improving educational outcomes, rebuilding America's infrastructure, lowering health care costs, addressing climate change, reforming immigration, and ushering in an advanced energy economy.
My father's music was about revolution and changing the hearts and minds of people through love and the deliverance of everyone. We hope our brothers and sisters will follow our path and really start to consider ecology and utilizing material that benefits not only yourself but the people.
When I was in government, what we would used to mystically call 'the kinetic option' was way down on our list. In my personal thinking - in my personal thinking, I need to emphasize that - I have begun to consider that that may not be the worst of all possible outcomes.
People are very sophisticated in their concerns about various parties, in their hopes for what the next government could look like. And I'm not going to prejudge any possible outcomes.
We need a new health care architecture that will reduce costs, improve outcomes, and protect vulnerable persons.
Whether we're talking about the New Deal or the Great Society: they didn't come about because they wanted to buy people off with "hush money." They were the outcomes of struggles. They were the outcomes, in the 1930s, of a viable socialist-communist movement. They were the outcomes of a viable workers' movement. FDR didn't give in because he wanted to shut people up, he gave in because he was under pressure. He had no choice.
The chance you passed up or missed could have had any number of different outcomes, and it's easy to fantasize about how much better every one of those outcomes would have been.
This site uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience. More info...
Got it!