I've always argued that this country has benefited immensely from the fact that we draw people from all over the world.
Alan GreenspanRead
We ought to be opening up our borders to skilled labour from all parts of the world because [the state of the world is as follows: ] if we were to do that we would increase the supply of skilled workers that our schools have been unable to create and as a consequence of that we would lower the average wage of skills and reduce the degree of income inequality in this country.
Interpretation
Embracing immigration of skilled workers can benefit the economy and reduce income inequality.
Alan Greenspan argues that welcoming skilled labor from around the world could help increase the labor pool that educational institutions have struggled to provide. This influx would not only enhance economic productivity but also potentially lower wages for skilled jobs, thereby decreasing income inequality.
In practice
During a debate on immigration policy, one might quote this to advocate for more skilled labor.
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.
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.
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.
It has often been found that profuse expenditures, heavy taxation, absurd commercial restrictions, corrupt tribunals, disastrous wars, seditions, persecutions, conflagrations, inundation, have not been able to destroy capital so fast as the exertions of private citizens have been able to create it.
Zoning laws making housing more expensive? That's less of a problem with a universal basic income and more of a reason to put money directly into people's hands.
Thirty years ago, many economists argued that inflation was a kind of minor inconvenience and that the cost of reducing inflation was too high a price to pay. No one would make those arguments today.
If you feed enough oats to the horse, some will pass through to feed the sparrows (referring to "trickle down" economics).
There's a long list of investments that governments could and should be making. There is strengthening infrastructure, such as transport and communications; there is investment in education; there is investment in families, particularly putting measures in place that free women from having to make the choice between raising a family and work.
Does inequality in the distribution of income increase or decrease in the course of a country's economic growth?
Subscribe for the occasional hand-picked quote. No noise.