John Kay

Even if economic issues are more central to politics than ever before, argument today is less about the nature of economic systems than about the relative abilities of different politicians to administer a system on whose basic structure all are in agreement.

A stance which is pro-business must be distinguished from a stance which is pro-market. In the two decades since the fall of the Berlin Wall, that distinction has not been appreciated well enough.

Bogus quantification attempts to compress complex problems and analyses into single observations.

The best answer would be more Europe – an effective pan-European regulator and a single Europe-wide scheme for protecting depositors.

Dominance of an industry or activity is not the same as scale. International trade is conducted by individuals and businesses, not governments, and it is them, who negotiate the division of the value added trade creates.

Havens exist only because larger states allow them to exist, and larger states allow them to exist because the customers of havens are the rich and powerful.

Our capacity to learn from the Great Depression is limited because we do not know how economies would have evolved after 1938 if politics had not supervened.

The notion that extending intellectual property rights in the music industry would provide pensions for ageing and impoverished crooners is an engaging fantasy.

The political consequences of international trade are different from the political consequences of international investment. Yet the willingness of business to transcend political divisions in pursuit of commercial advantage is basically a force for peace.

Active financial systems don’t build more schools and factories, shops and offices. They are associated with higher shares of consumption and lower shares of investment in national income.