I like Mitt Romney as a person. I think he's a dignified person. But I have no common ground on economics. He doesn't worry about the Federal Reserve. He doesn't worry about foreign policy. He doesn't talk about civil liberties so I would have a hard time to expect him to ever invite me to campaign with him.

First I think the science of monetary economics has clearly gotten better.

Much of what Tea Party candidates claimed about the world and the global economy during the 2010 elections would have earned their adherents a well-deserved F in any freshman economics (or earth science) class.

Economics has never been a science - and it is even less now than a few years ago.

It seems to me that socialists today can preserve their position in academic economics merely by the pretense that the differences are entirely moral questions about which science cannot decide.

Economics is a subject that does not greatly respect one's wishes.

And religion causes most of the problems war and economics of course and study your history or you're going to repeat it and if you're burning a Harry Potter book you need some serious counseling you don't get it you're missing the whole point.

I learned a good deal about economics and about America from the author of the Reagan tax reforms - the great Jack Kemp. What gave Jack that incredible enthusiasm was his belief in the possibilities of free people in the power of free enterprise and strong communities to overcome poverty and despair. We need that same optimism right now.

American influence in the world is certainly considerable but the United States does not control directly or indirectly the politics and economics of other societies as empires have always done save for a few special cases that turn out to be the exceptions that prove the rule.

Look at the declining television coverage. Look at the declining voting rate. Economics and economic news is what moves the country now not politics.