There is only one point on which the economists and I are in agreement: I am NOT an economist. It is not that I don't know enough economics—and if I didn't it would be easy enough to remedy the deficiency. And I actually sat at the feet of both of this century's great economists, John Maynard Keynes and Joseph Schumpeter. But I do not accept the basic premise on which economics as a discipline is based and without which it cannot be sustained. I do not accept that the economic sphere is an independent sphere, let alone that it is the dominant one (and even less that it is the ONLY sphere as so many economists maintain, especially the true believers of the Austrian School). It is surely an important sphere. And as Bertold Brecht said, "first comes the belly and then morality"—and filling the belly is what economics is all about in the main. I am not only willing, I insist that in all political and social decisions the economic costs are calculated and taken into account. To talk of "benefits" only—as so much of the social legislation of the post-World War II period did—I consider irresponsible and bound to lead to disaster. And I believe in free markets, having seen far too much of the alternative.