Paul Tudor Jones Quotes

I'm not an economist and we all know economists were created to make weather forecasters look good.

An economist is a man who states the obvious in terms of the incomprehensible.

When you cover the economy as a reporter, there's one part of the job that is always easy: finding economists who disagree.

The good news is that economists are intelligent, engaging and often charming folks. The bad news is their work is often of little use to investors.

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.

Most work in macroeconomics in the past 30 years has been useless at best and harmful at worst.

The issue of economics is not something I've understood as well as I should. I've got Greenspan's book.

Economics is a very difficult subject. I've compared it to trying to learn how to repair a car when the engine is running.

My folks are economists and have taught economics and social science so I grew up with those kind of conversations around the dinner table.

My main interest, however, was in economics, not law.

I'm an economist. I'm not a political servant.

If economists could manage to get themselves thought of as humble, competent people on a level with dentists, that would be splendid.

I studied economics and made it my career for two reasons. The subject was and is intellectually fascinating and challenging, particularly to someone with taste and talent for theoretical reasoning and quantitative analysis.

Economics has never been a science - and it is even less now than a few years ago.

I think what Bob Shiller and I are doing is we're focusing on macroeconomics and the role of psychology in macroeconomics.

Keynes was a very good economist. He was brilliant. He had wonderful insights. His work has inspired me many times.

I wonder if economics has less basic core material than is necessary for fields such as mathematics, physics, or chemistry, say.

I've been surrounded by some of the best economic minds in the country, and hopefully I've absorbed some of that.

We have professional economists who can defend any viewpoint with statistics and they do that everywhere in the world.

Economics is a highly sophisticated field of thought that is superb at explaining to policymakers precisely why the choices they made in the past were wrong. About the future, not so much.

It's because finance is so baffling that makes being an economist such a safe option. It nestles down comfortably with psychiatry and astrology as a profession where getting it patently wrong is just not a problem - and also, rather wonderfully, seems to have no adverse affect on their professional standing whatsoever.

I am a trained economist.

I'm not currently into economic textbooks, but my grandchildren tell me that the book by Gregory Mankiw, former head of the white house council of economic advisers is a model of intelligence and clarity. Why not try that one.

Macroeconomics, even with all of our computers and with all of our information - is not an exact science and is incapable of being an exact science.

Studying economics is not a good preparation for dealing with it.