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

Rob Engle and I are concerned with extracting useful implications from economic data, and so the properties of the data are of particular importance.

A potentially useful property of forecasts based on cointegration is that when extended some way ahead, the forecasts of the two series will form a constant ratio, as is expected by some asymptotic economic theory.

I think it is true to say that I am not the first Nobel Prize winner in economics to have little formal training in economics.

Back when I went to Louisiana State University a million years ago, we got the Baton Rouge paper. But if you wanted to read 'The New York Times' or 'The Wall Street Journal,' you had to go to the reading room of the student union, and you got the edition several days after it had been published, and you had to read it on a wooden stick.

A series of studies in the 1990s and 2000s revealed that as women gained more access to education, jobs, and birth control, they had fewer children. As a result, developed countries in western Europe, Japan, and the Americas were seeing zero or negative population growth.

We have lots of evidence that putting investments in early childhood education, even evidence from very hard-nosed economists, is one of the very best investments that the society can possibly make. And yet we still don't have public support for things like preschools.

When women are paid for their work and have control over how the money gets spent, they invest much more of their income than men do in their families' education and health.