William Vickrey Quotes (25 Quotes)

Ten billion dollars less of deficit means 10 billion less of disposable income ... and a loss of at least 100,000 jobs.

There are some significant concerns, ... especially in the area of whether or not our system is listening carefully to what (litigants) have to say and their ability to participate. This includes how they are treated by the first person they meet to how they perceive what's happening in the courtroom, whether the system is concerned about how people are impacted by what it does and how it does it.

Deficits do not in themselves produce inflation, nor does a balanced budget assure a stable price level.

If unemployment could be brought down to say 2 percent at the cost of an assured steady rate of inflation of 10 percent per year, or even 20 percent, this would be a good bargain.

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

The great increase in longevity has produced a surge in the desire to accumulate assets for retirement. It has outpaced the ability of the private sector to produce assets, so we need a larger government debt.

Practically, the desirable situation ought to be one in which any reasonably responsible person willing to accept available employment can find a job paying a living wage within 48 hours.

Currently a level of unemployment of 7 percent or more seems to be required to keep inflation from accelerating, a level quite unacceptable as a permanent situation.

The insane pursuit of the holy grail of a balanced budget in the end is going to drive the economy into a depression.

Nearly all educational expenditure should be considered a capital outlay, whether it provides a future return in the form of enhanced taxable income or in terms of an enhanced quality of life.

There is no real justification for a requirement that a budget of any sort should be balanced, except as a rallying point for those who seek to hamstring government.

This news reflects the great strides that state courts have made to reach out to the public in the past decade.

I define genuine full employment as a situation where there are at least as many job openings as there are persons seeking employment, probably calling for a rate of unemployment, as currently measured, of between 1 and 2 percent.

Don't you think you're just rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic?

Balancing a nominal budget will solve nothing, and attempting to achieve such a spurious balance will produce much mischief.

The supply-side effect of a restrictive monetary policy is likely to be perverse, in that high interest rates enter into costs and thus exert inflationary pressure.

Increasingly prices are set by sellers to raise their prices without a loss of sales sufficient to wipe out the gain.

The bottom line for me out of this is that from 1992 to today, researchers can't find a defining reason why the public view of the courts has improved. The only thing that has changed is the way we do business. The good news is we can make a difference.

This paper was one of my digressions into abstract economics.

The achievement of a reasonably full degree of employment without accelerating inflation will require development of some additional tool.

We felt it was time we received a report card from the public about how they feel about their court system so we can be guided about what to focus on in the future.

It's insane to try to balance the budget.

The nominal budget is a poor indicator of the impact of government outlays and revenues.

Firms would be given initial entitlements to gross markup on the basis of past performance. These entitlements would be transferable and a market in them would be developed.

There is no reason inherent in the real resources available to us why we cannot move rapidly within the next two or three years to a state of genuine full employment.