My interests were aroused, and my faith in the cliches of the subject destroyed, as so often with other subjects, by the discussions with my friend, Aaron Director.

I met my wife, Margaret L. Mack, at the University of Chicago. We were married in 1936. She died in 1970.

After the war, I returned to Minnesota, from which I soon moved to Brown University, and a year later, to Columbia University where I remained from 1947 until 1958.

The Chicago Economics Department was in intellectual ferment, although the central issues of the 1930's were very different from those in later times. I had never before encountered minds of that quality at close quarters and they influenced me strongly.

I attended schools in Seattle through the University of Washington, from which I was graduated in 1931. I spent the next year at Northwestern University.

The delicate and intricate pattern of competition and cooperation in the economic behavior of the hundreds of thousands of citizens of Stockholm offers a challenge to the economist that is perhaps as complex as the challenges of the physicist and the chemist.

Even before I came to Chicago, I had gotten interested in the existence of dispersion of prices under conditions which economic theory said would yield a single price.

And yet I would not freely exchange my science for those of my fellow laureates. They are forever confined in their professional discussions to the small numbers of their fellow scientists.

I started working and publishing in price theory by 1938.

It was in the 1960s that I began the detailed study of public regulation.

My interests were aroused, and my faith in the cliches of the subject destroyed, as so often with other subjects, by the discussions with my friend, Aaron Director.

My main graduate training was received at the University of Chicago from which I received the Ph.D. in 1938.

In the 1950s, I proposed the survivor method of determining the efficient sizes of enterprises, and worked on delivered price systems, vertical integration, and similar topics.

In 1958, I came to Chicago where I have remained.

A Swedish physicist can not discuss his work with fifty people unless he goes abroad. A Swedish economist can get opinions and instructions in his native language from thousands upon thousands of his fellow citizens.

My teaching began in 1936 at Iowa State College where T. W. Schultz was the department chairman.

Two years later, I went to the University of Minnesota from which I was on leave for several years during the war as a member of Statistical Research Group at Columbia University.

That subject has lost its one time appeal to economists as our science has become more abstract, but my interest has even grown more intense as the questions raised by the sociology of science became more prominent.

If you never miss a plane, you’re spending too much time at the airport.

A transition period is a period between two transition periods.

Cliches and adjectives permeated my prose.

I've never understood why artists, who so often condescend to the cliches of their own culture, are so eager to embrace the cliches of cultures they know nothing about.

It is a cliche that most cliches are true, but then like most cliches, that cliche is untrue.

Let's have some new cliches.

I encourage students to pursue an idea far enough so they can see what the cliches and stereotypes are. Only then do they begin to hit pay dirt.

Attempting to get at truth means rejecting stereotypes and cliches.

I think to be oversensitive about cliches is like being oversensitive about table manners.

I would rather read a poorly structured story that has fresh ideas than a tightly structured one with cliches.

The computing field is always in need of new cliches.

Cliches about supporting the troops are designed to distract from failed policies, policies promoted by powerful special interests that benefit from war, anything to steer the discussion away from the real reasons the war in Iraq will not end anytime soon.

Most of my cliches aren't original.

We just kind saw the images and knew the cliches, so to have the opportunity to go there and learn something about Russian music and about Russian people and to see things apart from being a tourist.

The cliches are that it's the most generic Starsky and Hutch plot you can find.

I think that often times Hollywood panders to the cliches of small town life, specifically Southern small town life, and I think that this movie does the opposite.

I'm working class, and want people to know I'm not unintelligent and all the other cliches that come with it.

You need cliches. Cliches are what people respond to.

I'm one of the cliches that has grown up.

Political art expresses the cliches you agree with, unlike propaganda, which expresses the cliches you don't.

Cliches are what make you understand something.

Our writers are full of cliches just as old barns are full of bats. There is obviously no rule about this, except that anything that you suspect of being a cliche undoubtedly is one and had better be removed.

Buzzwords and cliches - those are stock in trade. There's nothing wrong with them.

The ground swell is what's going to sink you as well as being what buoys you up. These are cliches also, of course, and I'm sometimes interested in how much one can get away with.

My interests were aroused, and my faith in the cliches of the subject destroyed, as so often with other subjects, by the discussions with my friend, Aaron Director.

I never appreciated 'positive heroes' in literature. They are almost always cliches, copies of copies, until the model is exhausted. I prefer perplexity, doubt, uncertainty, not just because it provides a more 'productive' literary raw material, but because that is the way we humans really are.

Unfortunately, all the cliches we see about Hollywood are true.

I think my mistakes were kind of common - leaning on cliches and adjectives in the place of clear, vivid writing. But at least I knew how to spell, which seems to be a rarity these days.

What I think is interesting is that the more you do, you have to invent a book of rules of what you can do and what you can't do. And the very real danger is that if your book of rules becomes a book of cliches.

In every election in American history both parties have their cliches. The party that has the cliches that ring true wins.

Last, but not least, avoid cliches like the plague.