Christina Romer Quotes

Keynes's contribution was not just to advocate spending government money in the middle of a recession. Every government had done that going back to the days of the Irish potato famine. What he gave to us was a way of thinking about the magnitude and the dimensions and so forth.

The truth of the matter of is that stimulus money not only doesn't stimulate; it actually reduces output.

In an economy, when the government spends more and invests in the economy, that money circulates, and recirculates again and again. So not only does it create jobs once: the investment creates jobs multiple times.

If taxes and government spending are both slashed, then the salutary result will be to lower the parasitic burden of government taxes and spending upon the productive activities of the private sector.

But public works, economic protectionism, cheap money, "deficit-financed government spending," and "the animal spirits of the spendthrift in the service of boosting "consumption demand"... Doesn't Keynesianism simply appeal to the worst in human nature?

Even if the government spends itself into bankruptcy and the economy still does not recover, Keynesians can always say that it would have worked if only the government had spent more.

The BBC is locked to the reading of the economy that is run out of Ed Miliband and Ed Balls' office. They think if only you spend and borrow more money you can create growth everywhere.

I didn't wake up one day and say, you know, 'Supply-side economics doesn't make sense.'

The idea that more taxes and more government spending is the best way to help hardworking middle class taxpayers - that's an old idea that's failed every time it's been tried.

The government can't create jobs; they'll destroy jobs trying to do it. The government doesn't have any money; all they have is a printing press. We need to free markets to create jobs; if the government wants to help, they should reduce their burden on the economy.

If borrowing and spending all this money led to more jobs than we would be at full employment already.

Monetary policy cannot do much about long-run growth, all we can try to do is to try to smooth out periods where the economy is depressed because of lack of demand.

The president's grand experiment in trickle-down government has held back rather than sped economic recovery. He seems to sincerely believe we can build a middle class out of government jobs paid for with borrowed dollars.

And taking more money out of the private economy and having the government perform as it has poorly done with the stimulus I don't think is the right way to go.

The Keynesian belief that 'demand' is always at the root of underemployment and slow growth is a fallacy.

We are all Keynesians now.

I don't want to be partisan here. But please, tell me how you get out of a business recession by raising business taxes and regulations?

Whatever the economy needs to maintain itself, the government will do it.

Larger deficits are necessary and proper means to mitigate unemployment as the far greater evil in terms of human welfare.

People listen to me, and they hear about a government they want, a government... that will cut spending, cut taxes, that will focus on private-sector job creation.

What the president announced yesterday, is that somehow magically, if we just continue to prime the pump of taxpayer dollars, we're going to see magically an economic recovery.

Surely, the best and most effective measure is to get the economy moving and shorten the period of recession or slowdown. That's the rationale for Gordon Brown's 'fiscal stimulus' and it sounds like a good one to me.

Our tax policies, the tax relief and reform we passed in 2003 and 2005, helped get government out of the way of America's entrepreneurs, and our unemployment rate is now lower than it was in the 1970s, the 1980s, and the 1990s.

The left-wing agenda wants us to think that the reason there was a depression was because the government didn't do anything. That's not true.

Yes. We do think that the stimulus package is raising GDP and raising employment relative to what would have happened otherwise.