A Quote by Urjit Patel

The monetary policy committee could either keep rates constant, increase them, or bring them down. There are three options possible compared to when it is accommodative.
Arthur Laffer's idea, that lowering taxes could increase revenues, was logically correct. If tax rates are high enough, then people will go to such lengths to avoid them that cutting taxes can increase revenues. What he was wrong about was in thinking that income tax rates were already so high in the 1970s that cutting them would raise revenues.
Monetary policy has less room to maneuver when interest rates are close to zero, while expansionary fiscal policy is likely both more effective and less costly in terms of increased debt burden when interest rates are pinned at low levels.
I think that is a very important milestone in our economic history that the monetary policy is now determined through a committee process where there are both independent committee members and representation from the RBI.
The degree of monetary policy ease should be associated with the level of real interest rates, not nominal interest rates.
Monetary policy transmission encompasses the whole continuum of interest rates; of course, the central bank only determines the overnight policy rate.
I would have thought it possible to choose delegates for these larger conferences who, even if they could not speak the principal languages, could at least understand them or could have friends seated beside them who could keep them informed on essential points.
Monetary conditions exert an enormous influence on stock prices. Indeed, the monetary climate - primarily the trend in interest rates and Federal Reserve policy - is the dominant factor in determining the stock market's major direction.
If you bring [tax] rates down, it makes it easier for small business to keep more of their capital and hire people. And for me, this is about jobs. I want to get America's economy going again. Fifty-four percent of America's workers work in businesses that are taxed as individuals. So when you bring those rates down, those small businesses are able to keep more money and hire more people.
By the time the Deputy Minister presents a matter for decision to cabinet, he or she tends to present three options: ' the unacceptable', 'the politically courageous', and 'the bureaucrat-preferred' options. As such, it is usually best to get down into the department to the person doing the first drafts of any policy.
When there's downward pressure on growth, one choice is to adjust economic policy, increase deficits, relax monetary policy. That might have a short-term benefit, but may not be beneficial for the future.
Government should eschew suasion and directives to banks on interest rates that run counter to monetary policy actions.
If we want to jack up the tax rates on the really rich, the amounts of money that would bring in are trivial compared to jacking up rates on the middle class.
Of course I welcome all the normalization of monetary policy. I think monetary policy should be normal.
Hillary Clinton's position on policy on markets and trade is very plain, which is we'll do trade deals but only if they meet three criteria, increase American jobs and wages and are they good for national security. If they are and if we can enforce them, then trade deals are okay. If not, we can't embrace them.
We need to keep in mind the well-established fact that the full effects of monetary policy are felt only after long lags. This means that policy makers cannot wait until they have achieved their objectives to begin adjusting policy.
There's the new America for you. Bring them in by the millions. Bring in 10 million more from Africa. Bring them in with AIDS. Show how multicultural you are. They can't reason, but bring them in with a machete in their head. Go ahead. Bring them in with machetes in their mind.
This site uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience. More info...
Got it!