I've always argued that this country has benefited immensely from the fact that we draw people from all over the world.
Alan GreenspanRead
Most high-income people in our country do not realize that their incomes are being subsidized by their protection from competition from highly skilled people who are prevented from immigrating to the United States. But we need such skills in order to staff our productive economy, so that the standard of living for Americans as a whole can grow.
Interpretation
High-income individuals often overlook how immigration policies impact economic productivity and their own earnings.
In this quote, Alan Greenspan points out that many high-income earners in the United States may not understand that their financial success is, in part, a result of protective barriers that limit competition from skilled immigrants. He emphasizes that allowing these skilled individuals to contribute to the economy is essential for overall growth and improved living standards for all Americans.
In practice
During a conference on economic policy, I might cite this quote to discuss the importance of immigration for economic growth.
I've always argued that this country has benefited immensely from the fact that we draw people from all over the world.
There's no other job in public life that is like chairman of the Fed.
Since 1948 I have spent every single day thinking how the economic and political worlds have changed.
I don't know where the stock market is going, but I will say this, that if it continues higher, this will do more to stimulate the economy than anything we've been talking about today or anything anybody else was talking about.
Every economy exists, no matter what the level of democracy, has elements of crony capitalism. It's - given human nature and given the democratic structures, which we all, I assume, adhere to, that is an inevitable consequence.
I do not understand where the backing of Bitcoin is coming from. There is no fundamental issue of capabilities of repaying it in anything which is universally acceptable, which is either intrinsic value of the currency or the credit or trust of the individual who is issuing the money, whether it's a government or an individual.
Let me put it very forcefully: No large economy has ever recovered from an economic downturn through austerity. It's not going to happen in the United States, and it's not going to happen in Europe.
When you bring in multi-brand retail items into the country, you're not just bringing the products, but you're also harming local manufacturers.
The first requisite of a sound monetary system is that it put the least possible power over the quantity or quality of money in the hands of the politicians.
The real tragedy of minimum wage laws is that they are supported by well-meaning groups who want to reduce poverty. But the people who are hurt most by higher minimums are the most poverty stricken.
History does not provide any example of capital accumulation brought about by a government. As far as governments invested in the construction of roads, railroads, and other useful public works, the capital needed was provided by the savings of individual citizens and borrowed by the government.
Money is different from all other commodities: other things being equal, more shoes, or more discoveries of oil or copper benefit society, since they help alleviate natural scarcity. But once a commodity is established as a money on the market, no more money at all is needed. Since the only use of money is for exchange and reckoning, more dollars or pounds or marks in circulation cannot confer a social benefit: they will simply dilute the exchange value of every existing dollar or pound or mark.
Subscribe for the occasional hand-picked quote. No noise.