A Quote by Sanjaya Baru

The role of the media in economic management is not often recognised even by professional economists. Politicians, however, ignore this at their own peril. — © Sanjaya Baru
The role of the media in economic management is not often recognised even by professional economists. Politicians, however, ignore this at their own peril.
Economists often define their discipline as "the allocation of scarce resources among competing ends." But when resources or money really become scarce, economists call it a crisis and say that it's a question for politicians, not their own department.
Professional politicians often claim they are not professional politicians. Trump genuinely isn't one.
It is often sadly remarked that the bad economists present their errors to the public better than the good economists present their truths. It is often complained that demagogues can be more plausible in putting forward economic nonsense from the platform than the honest men who try to show what is wrong with it.
I write with two things in mind. I want to be right with my fellow economists. After all, I've made my life as a professional economist, so I'm careful that my economics is as it should be. But I have long felt that there's no economic proposition that can't be stated in clear, accessible language. So I try to be right with my fellow economists, but I try to have an audience of any interested, intelligent person.
The issue of climate change is one that we ignore at our own peril
Mainstream economic theories popular in the last several decades have tended to downplay the government's role in markets and to increase skepticism about even that more limited role. Austerity, particularly in Europe, has added to the problem. It has not worked, even on its own terms.
Ever since economists revealed how much universities contribute to economic growth, politicians have paid close attention to higher education.
I am often considered almost not a part of the profession of Establishment economists. I am even referred to as a sociologist. And by that, economists usually do not mean anything flattering.
What's wrong with politics in the celebrity billionaire analysis is politicians. Populism is not so much a cry for economic equality, or even a disdain for elites, but a mass revulsion against the inauthenticity of politicians. Celebrities are real celebrities, politicians are fake ones.
Physicists can only talk to other physicists and economists to economists... sociologists often cannot even understand each other.
Candidates ignore New Hampshire at their own peril. You all remember President Giuliani? He's done a great job in the White House.
Our popular economics writers, however, are not in the business of giving their readers a ringside seat on the research action; with no exception I can think of, they use their books to do an end run around the normal structure of scholarship, to preach ideas that few serious economists share. Often, these ideas are not just at odds with the professional consensus; they are demonstrably wrong, and sometimes terminally silly. But they sound good to the unwary reader.
At bank, post office or supermarket, there is one universal law which you ignore at your own peril: the shortest line moves the slowest.
When I'm at home, I do get recognised more often, and I don't need to be in sports clothes to be recognised, which is different.
There are good reasons why everybody should heed politicians' advise not to believe the media. One of the best is that the media report what politicians say.
Keynes eliminated economic theory's ancient role as spoilsport for inflationist and statist schemes, leading a new generation of economists on to academic power and to political pelf and privilege.
This site uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience. More info...
Got it!