Ludwig von Mises Quotes

The study of economics has been again and again led astray by the vain idea that economics must proceed according to the pattern of other sciences.

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

In economics, it is easier to agree on the data than to agree on causality.

For economist the real world is often a special case.

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.

Economics, we learn in the history of thought, only became a science by escaping from the casuistry and moralizing of medieval thought.

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

I went into the sciences very early on, but to me, economics pervades so much more of our lives and our existence.

I entered economics because of a course I took on 'information economics,' which I found fascinating.

I started off thinking that maybe the social sciences ought to have the kinds of mathematics that the natural sciences had. That works a little bit in economics because they talk about costs, prices and quantities of goods.

Economics is not a discipline that comes to correct answers - economies are too complex.

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

Economic science concerns itself primarily with theoretical and empirical generalizations about the behavior of individuals, institutions, markets, and national economies. Most academic research falls in this category.

There are many types of economic data, but the type considered by Rob Engle and myself is know as time series.

I picked economics at the end of my undergraduate time because it seemed to be a really nice combination of theory, including mathematical theory on one hand, and things that are quite practical that you can touch and see and feel. So I picked it, and I consciously thought of it as an experiment to see if I liked it. And it worked.

Any econometrician who wants to see practical application of his science will be highly concerned with applications to economic planning at the national level.

I am an economist, not an astrologer.

My interest in economics has always been in the whole corpus of economic theory, the interrelationships between the various fields of theory and their relevance for the formulation of economic policy.

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

The primary role of the economist is to find out the truth about the real world.

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.

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.

I can observe the game theory is applied very much in economics. Generally, it would be wise to get into the mathematics as much as seems reasonable because the economists who use more mathematics are somehow more respected than those who use less. That's the trend.

I studied economics with some teachers from ESADE. It's a really good school here in Spain. They helped me to understand a little about numbers, stats, economics, etc.

Economists create their own worlds. We're like little gods with our artificial economics, wanting to see what happens.