A Quote by Jeremy Grantham

There is no single theory that is used in economics that considers the finite nature of resources. It's shocking. — © Jeremy Grantham
There is no single theory that is used in economics that considers the finite nature of resources. It's shocking.
The revolution which began with the creation of quantum theory and relativity theory can only be finished with their unification into a single theory that can give us a single, comprehensive picture of nature.
The term 'natural resources' confuses people. 'Natural resources' are not like a finite number of gifts under the Christmas tree. Nature is given, but resources are created.
The first rule of economics is that there is an infinite number of desires chasing a finite number of goods, services and resources. The first rule of politics is to ignore the first rule of economics.
We used to live in a world where the price of resources came down steadily, and now the world has changed. You have a great mismatch between finite resources and exponential population growth.
Mainstream economics scholarship produces theory without facts ("pure theory") and facts without theory ("applied economics").
We live on a finite planet. We have finite resources, and we're running out of good, arable land.
For too long we have tried to consume our way to prosperity. Look at the cost: polluted lands and oceans, climate change, growing scarcity of resources from food to land to fresh water, rampant inequality. We need to invent a new model; a model that offers growth and social inclusion... that is more respectful of the planet's finite resources. Nature has been kind to human beings, but we have not been kind to nature.
What I assert and believe to have demonstrated in this and earlier works is that following the finite there is a transfinite (which one could also call the supra-finite), that is an unbounded ascending lader of definite modes, which by their nature are not finite but infinite, but which just like the finite can be determined by well-defined and distinguishable numbers.
It is clear that Economics, if it is to be a science at all, must be a mathematical science ... simply because it deals with quantities... As the complete theory of almost every other science involves the use of calculus, so we cannot have a true theory of Economics without its aid.
Because fossil fuels are not only a finite resource but hazardous to the environment, it is imperative that we diversify the resources used in generating electricity.
Scientifically, happiness is a choice. It is a choice about where your single processor brain will devote its finite resources as you process the world.
I started in the law; and the study of law, when it precedes the study of economics, gives you a set of foundation principles about how human beings interact. Economics is very useful, and I studied economics in graduate school. But without understanding the social and organizational context of economics, it becomes a theory without any groundwork.
As Charles Darwin said,'The economy shown by Nature in her resources is striking,'' says the Spirit. 'All wealth comes from Nature. Without it, there wouldn't be any economics. The primary wealth is food, not money. Therefore anything that concerns the handling of the land also concerns me.
To state that the cost of proper medical care itself surpasses the financial resources of any of the countries in the West is of course ridiculous, not the least when one considers the other purposes for which money is freely being used and working hours spent.
My job was to teach the whole corpus of economic theory, but there were two subjects in which I was especially interested, namely, the economics of mass unemployment and international economics.
I don't think Obama understands basic economics. Not economics that work. He may understand some theory that someone in Princeton sat and dreamed up, but it's not working.
This site uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience. More info...
Got it!