“I think Marshall was a great economist, but he was a potentially much greater economist than he actually was. It was not that he was lazy, but his health was not good, and he worked in miniature.”

Kotaro Suzumura, An interview with Paul Samuelson: welfare economics,“old” and “new”, and social choice theory (2005)
New millennium

Adopted from Wikiquote. Last update June 3, 2021. History

Help us to complete the source, original and additional information

Do you have more details about the quote "I think Marshall was a great economist, but he was a potentially much greater economist than he actually was. It was no…" by Paul A. Samuelson?
Paul A. Samuelson photo
Paul A. Samuelson 47
American economist 1915–2009

Related quotes

Paul A. Samuelson photo
Peter F. Drucker photo

“It is not enough for the economist in a free society to be a good economic craftsman; he must also think and act as a citizen.”

Peter F. Drucker (1909–2005) American business consultant

Source: 1930s- 1950s, An Economist Looks At the Peace (1945)

Paul Krugman photo
Virat Kohli photo

“He has a lot of ability. The team depends on him. He is a star. He is going to emerge as an all-time great in the future. I see that much potential in him. It is very difficult to spot his weakness. He plays on both sides of the wicket. He plays both on the front and the back foot. He has a good temperament, technique.”

Virat Kohli (1988) Indian cricket player

Showering praise on India's star batsman Virat Kohli, legendary cricketer Imran Khan said he had the potential to emerge as an all-time great, quoted on ibnlive, "Virat Kohli has the potential to emerge as all-time great: Imran Khan" http://www.ibnlive.com/cricketnext/news/virat-kohli-has-the-potential-to-emerge-as-all-time-great-imran-khan-1218529.html, March 19, 2016.
About him

Paul Krugman photo

“What’s odd about Friedman’s absolutism on the virtues of markets and the vices of government is that in his work as an economist’s economist he was actually a model of restraint. As I pointed out earlier, he made great contributions to economic theory by emphasizing the role of individual rationality—but unlike some of his colleagues, he knew where to stop. Why didn’t he exhibit the same restraint in his role as a public intellectual?
The answer, I suspect, is that he got caught up in an essentially political role. Milton Friedman the great economist could and did acknowledge ambiguity. But Milton Friedman the great champion of free markets was expected to preach the true faith, not give voice to doubts. And he ended up playing the role his followers expected. As a result, over time the refreshing iconoclasm of his early career hardened into a rigid defense of what had become the new orthodoxy.
In the long run, great men are remembered for their strengths, not their weaknesses, and Milton Friedman was a very great man indeed—a man of intellectual courage who was one of the most important economic thinkers of all time, and possibly the most brilliant communicator of economic ideas to the general public that ever lived. But there’s a good case for arguing that Friedmanism, in the end, went too far, both as a doctrine and in its practical applications. When Friedman was beginning his career as a public intellectual, the times were ripe for a counterreformation against Keynesianism and all that went with it. But what the world needs now, I’d argue, is a counter-counterreformation.”

Paul Krugman (1953) American economist

"Who Was Milton Friedman?", The New York Review of Books (February 15, 2007)
The New York Review of Books articles

Arthur C. Clarke photo
John Maynard Keynes photo

“The study of economics does not seem to require any specialized gifts of an unusually high order. Is it not, intellectually regarded, a very easy subject compared with the higher branches of philosophy and pure science? Yet good, or even competent, economists are the rarest of birds. An easy subject, at which very few excel! The paradox finds its explanation, perhaps, in that the master-economist must possess a rare combination of gifts. He must reach a high standard in several different directions and must combine talents not often found together. He must be mathematician, historian, statesman, philosopher – in some degree. He must understand symbols and speak in words. He must contemplate the particular in terms of the general, and touch abstract and concrete in the same flight of thought. He must study the present in the light of the past for the purposes of the future. No part of man's nature or his institutions must lie entirely outside his regard. He must be purposeful and disinterested in a simultaneous mood; as aloof and incorruptible as an artist, yet sometimes as near the earth as a politician. Much, but not all, of this many-sidedness Marshall possessed. But chiefly his mixed training and divided nature furnished him with the most essential and fundamental of the economist's necessary gifts – he was conspicuously historian and mathematician, a dealer in the particular and the general, the temporal and the eternal, at the same time.”

John Maynard Keynes (1883–1946) British economist

Source: Essays In Biography (1933), Alfred Marshall, p. 170; as cited in: Donald Moggridge (2002), Maynard Keynes: An Economist's Biography, p. 424

José Mourinho photo

Related topics