A Quote by Sarah Steelman

I'm an economist by training. And I know that what works is a permanent increase in buying power. — © Sarah Steelman
I'm an economist by training. And I know that what works is a permanent increase in buying power.
I'm an economist by training. I don't really work as an economist. I only worked briefly as an economist.
So as I increase in my knowledge, in my training and education, I increase in my value in my worth to society that I’m trying to penetrate.
People say, 'I'm for job training. We can train people to increase the likelihood that they can be self-sufficient.' Okay, that's great, you're for job training - I like job training - but do you think the federal government should have 163 different job-training programs?
If you are a good economist, a virtuous economist, you are reborn as a physicist. But if you are an evil, wicked economist, you are reborn as a sociologist.
American consumers are not saying they will not buy GMO foods. What they're saying is "I want to know. I want to know." EU consumers are much happier because they know what they're buying, and they've seen a continued increase in sales.
We still live in a world where if you have nuclear weapons, you are buying power; you are buying insurance against attack.
Despite the belief of many career bureaucrats that elected political leadership works for them, our system is built on the idea that the permanent bureaucracy, such as it exists, works for the elected leadership, which in turn works for and represents the American public.
For training, you know what works and what doesn't work. And you know where you fall short and you need to pick up, so I'm not worried about the age factor.
One independent expert - actually, the economist who advised John McCain in 2008, so, you know, not somebody that has any predisposition toward our side - but this economist did a study. He said under [Donald] Trump's economic plans, we would lose in America 3 and a half million jobs.
There is only one difference between a bad economist and a good one: the bad economist confines himself to the visible effect; the good economist takes into account both the effect that can be seen and those effects that must be foreseen.
I'm Harvard-educated; I'm an economist by training. I'm an author, a journalist, as well as being active in community development.
Assuming that a tax increase is necessary, it is clearly preferable to impose the additional cost on land by increasing the land tax, rather than to increase the wage tax - the two alternatives open to the City (of Pittsburgh). It is the use and occupancy of property that creates the need for the municipal services that appear as the largest item in the budget - fire and police protection, waste removal, and public works. The average increase in tax bills of city residents will be about twice as great with wage tax increase than with a land tax increase.
I would never make a good economist. You know, an economist is a man that can tell you anything about — well, he will tell you what can happen under any given condition — and his guess is liable to be as good as anybody else's, too.
My tiny baby blossoming art collection is comprised of works by artists I have either assisted or been mentored by, artists I am friends with, or artists I have traded with. As much as I want to and aspire to acquire works from established artists, I love acquiring works from my contemporaries in order to participate in this moment in time. The advice I would give is know what you like, take your time, and invest in things you feel connected to, as opposed to buying something because it seems cool or "of-the-moment."
In trans-border relations, there are no permanent friends or permanent enemies or even permanent borders. There are only permanent interests and everything should be done to secure these interests.
The bad economist sees only what immediately strikes the eye; the good economist also looks beyond. The bad economist sees only the direct consequences of a proposed course; the good economist looks also at the longer and indirect consequences. The bad economists sees only what the effect of a given policy has been or will be on one particular group; the good economist inquires also what the effect of the policy will be on all groups
This site uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience. More info...
Got it!