Comments on: Galbraith memorial thread

Galbraith memorial thread

mr_roboto — Sat, 29 Apr 2006 23:26:48 -0800

Kenneth Galbraith, an influential and unorthodox economist, has died, at age 97.

By: raysmj

raysmj — Sat, 29 Apr 2006 23:29:14 -0800

Damn. He was as old as dirt.

By: longdaysjourney

longdaysjourney — Sat, 29 Apr 2006 23:32:57 -0800

By: louigi

louigi — Sat, 29 Apr 2006 23:35:17 -0800

By: arkhangel

arkhangel — Sat, 29 Apr 2006 23:40:11 -0800

And there goes the last New Dealer.

By: greycap

greycap — Sat, 29 Apr 2006 23:44:21 -0800

By: Balisong

Balisong — Sat, 29 Apr 2006 23:47:05 -0800

. (although I'm more into the orthodox economists.)

By: dopeypanda

dopeypanda — Sat, 29 Apr 2006 23:51:09 -0800

By: wilful

wilful — Sat, 29 Apr 2006 23:51:32 -0800

By: blacklite

blacklite — Sat, 29 Apr 2006 23:53:40 -0800

I always liked him. Good guy. I am going to read more of his books now.

By: blacklite

blacklite — Sat, 29 Apr 2006 23:53:57 -0800

By: wilful

wilful — Sat, 29 Apr 2006 23:55:26 -0800

An obituary from the NY Times.

By: delmoi

delmoi — Sat, 29 Apr 2006 23:56:55 -0800

Balisong, how you knew searching for 'orthodox economists' would yield tons of single Russian girls is beyond me. (i.e. women belonging to the Russian orthodox church, and working as economists). Anyway, the guy lived a long time. I Hope I make it that long.

By: brujita

brujita — Sun, 30 Apr 2006 00:18:25 -0800

By: Sonny Jim

Sonny Jim — Sun, 30 Apr 2006 01:36:49 -0800

By: thethirdman

thethirdman — Sun, 30 Apr 2006 01:47:01 -0800

shit. .

By: matteo

matteo — Sun, 30 Apr 2006 01:56:07 -0800

good night, Professor, and thanks for all your work. .

By: By The Grace of God

By The Grace of God — Sun, 30 Apr 2006 02:15:23 -0800

By: ruelle

ruelle — Sun, 30 Apr 2006 02:57:32 -0800

By: elpapacito

elpapacito — Sun, 30 Apr 2006 03:38:34 -0800

The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness and Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite. .

By: Pseudonumb

Pseudonumb — Sun, 30 Apr 2006 04:18:02 -0800

By: nj_subgenius

nj_subgenius — Sun, 30 Apr 2006 04:46:41 -0800

By: Emperor SnooKloze

Emperor SnooKloze — Sun, 30 Apr 2006 05:00:28 -0800

A fearless man & thinker; he shall be missed.

By: Postroad

Postroad — Sun, 30 Apr 2006 05:48:16 -0800

I 'will always recall lhis saying that in America there is Socialism for the large corporations--taken care of by the govt--and Capitalism for the average citizen--he or she is on their own.

By: Smart Dalek

Smart Dalek — Sun, 30 Apr 2006 06:21:27 -0800

By: dflemingdotorg

dflemingdotorg — Sun, 30 Apr 2006 06:38:12 -0800

By: Faze

Faze — Sun, 30 Apr 2006 07:43:08 -0800

The interesting thing about Galbraith is that he was wrong about absolutely everything. As an economist, his every prediction failed to come true. He is utterly mistaken about everything. His only legacy is collection of lukewarm apothegms, carefully cherry-picked from the pile of wrong-headed urgings for state control. He was in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a moral justification for government control of people's lives and fortunes.

By: gd779

gd779 — Sun, 30 Apr 2006 07:57:53 -0800

"We associate truth with convenience, with what most closely accords with self-interest and personal well-being or promise best to avoid awkward effort or unwelcome dislocation of life. We also find highly acceptable what contributes most to self-esteem." --- J.K. Galbraith, The Affluent Society.

By: Faze

Faze — Sun, 30 Apr 2006 07:58:38 -0800

...contrast the sleazy, dishonest Galbraith, with the honorable, gentlemanly (and only recently deceased) Robert Heilbroner, a socialist with the grace and sensibility to correct himself when it became necessary, and possibly the best writer in a non-literary theoretical field until Richard Dawkins.

By: Faze

Faze — Sun, 30 Apr 2006 08:08:39 -0800

"We associate truth with convenience, with what most closely accords with self-interest... " This is just what I mean by lukewarm apothegms. A completely obvious and unsurprising observation, uttered in clumsy, economistic language. If you want to read read red-hot, superbly crafted, cynical aphoristic observations on self interest, check out Chamfort or LaRouchefoucauld (eh, y2karl?) Not the mealy mouthed utterances of the dribbling, wooly headed Galbraith.

By: Faze

Faze — Sun, 30 Apr 2006 08:09:30 -0800

Sorry about those italics.

By: foodeater

foodeater — Sun, 30 Apr 2006 08:11:55 -0800

JKG was truly a great man, who continued to write and speak with wit and candor until very recently.

By: foodeater

foodeater — Sun, 30 Apr 2006 08:14:29 -0800

faze: Grace and sensibility can apparently occur if you eventually agree with my views!

By: hoverboards don't work on water

hoverboards don't work on water — Sun, 30 Apr 2006 08:21:13 -0800

The second link is brutal. He has a lot to answer for.

By: foodeater

foodeater — Sun, 30 Apr 2006 08:28:10 -0800

I agree. That second link IS brutal. It's creator DOES have a lot to answer for!

By: foodeater

foodeater — Sun, 30 Apr 2006 08:31:13 -0800

Vested interest??? From the second links "about me" page: ...I have given lectures at schools and have run courses at the university (for bankers, management people and real estate agents)

By: foodeater

foodeater — Sun, 30 Apr 2006 08:32:10 -0800

....not that there's anything wrong with bankers, management people and real estate agents!

By: matteo

matteo — Sun, 30 Apr 2006 08:54:48 -0800

wrong about absolutely everything of course. I mean, all the stuff he talked about 50 years ago -- welfare for big corporations and ruthless savage capitalism for the poor, undue pervasive political influence of the military-industrial complex, omnipresent lying ads designed to make people buy things they don't need with money they don't have, the death of independent stores and the birth of corporate megachains -- I mean, shit, nothing of all that stuff really happened. Nothing. you just need to read his Great Crash book -- in print since, what, the early Fifties? -- to understand Enron. but then, Galbraith simply dared to speak the unspeakable (for Americans -- no wonder he was Canadian) truth: the system is rigged, in favor of the rich and powerful, and pretending that it is otherwise makes you, well, a tool. Galbraith made the right enemies (I mean, Milton Friedman?), and still has the right enemies. their squealing, this morning, even here, demonstrates this very point.

By: matteo

matteo — Sun, 30 Apr 2006 09:06:23 -0800

Let's hear it from Professor Sen:

The Affluent Society is a great insight, and has become so much a part of our understanding of contemporary capitalism that we forget where it began. It's like reading Hamlet and deciding it's full of quotations. You realise where they came from"

By: ParisParamus

ParisParamus — Sun, 30 Apr 2006 10:14:31 -0800

A great thinker and critic. Not sure his proposals were as good, however...

By: bumpkin

bumpkin — Sun, 30 Apr 2006 10:47:44 -0800

. Read the long NYT obit this morning, and highly recommend reading it rather than the second post in the FPP.

By: nickyskye

nickyskye — Sun, 30 Apr 2006 10:48:00 -0800

I like Robert Lekachman's comment on the quality of Galbraith's discourse as "witty, supple, eloquent, and edged with that sheen of malice which the fallen sons of Adam always find attractive when it is directed at targets other than themselves". I think the corporation is a dangerously flawed system that is replacing elected government as a political power and agree with Galbrainth when he said: "One of the most questionable distinctions in our time is that between the public and private sectors. It has concealed the extent to which the private sector, particularly corporate management, has moved to take over or otherwise nullify public responsibility". While Galbraith appeared elegantly concerned, underlying that was an ugly snobbery. Friedman expressed it bluntly, "Galbraith believed in the superiority of aristocracy and in its paternalistic authority." You're right hoverboards, the second link is brutal. Reading some of Galbraith's interviews now he seems to have a gift for sounding benevolently educated while stating partial truths. For example he says, "No matter how disastrous independence may be, nobody wants to go back to colonial subordination. Look at Uganda, nobody can possibly say that this has been a happy country in these last 20 years. It was certainly more peaceful, and almost certainly more prosperous when it was a British colony. But amidst all those disasters, you never hear anybody suggesting that it go back under colonial guidance -- not that anybody, I think, would want it." He doesn't mention that "a number of United States firms did a profitable business with Uganda, particularly during the Amin period...In 1973, the United States became Uganda's chief trading partner for a short time...while United States firms supplied the government with security equipment used by the army and the notorious Ugandan intelligence service." It would be unlikely in 1986, the time of the interview mentioned above, that Galbraith did not know about the United States' economic interests in Uganda under Amin. In Galbraith's statements about countries that have sought and won their independence from paternalistic, colonial governments there is some nasty smugness. He quietly implies those countries were actually better off as colonies. What he doesn't mention is the part certain developed countries, including the USA, had in undermining the independence of former European colonies, economically supporting the regimes of post-independence dictators, like Zia-ul-Haq, with devastating repercussions.

By: spira

spira — Sun, 30 Apr 2006 11:51:20 -0800

Galbraith's life and work were amazing. He was extremely prolific, and thus said a lot of things that were smart and a number of things that were stupid. As a quote above indicated, some of his work was so influential it become unnecessary to read it because we all have absorbed it elsewhere. Reading The Affluent Society is like watching a legendary movie which feels like many other movies you've seen because all the other movies copied the legendary movie's tricks. I had Galbraith as a lecturer for one of my college classes, and he was still a great communicator. Galbraith hated econimic gobbledygook; he wanted to explain economics in a way that would have impact beyond the ivory tower. He refused to compromise his ideas for poltical purposes. When many economists looked narrowly at the American economy as its own system, Galbraith saw the importance of the world economy. He understood how capitalism leads to its own corruption without regulation, and why society cannot let the economically powerful batter the economically weak. Certainly, Galbraith had plenty of weaknesses. He was far from being the most precise economist. He often did not see the drawbacks of the policies he advocated. He didn't seem to realize that the government action should be narrow anf focused rather than hammer-like. He was indeed somewhat too elitist. But at the same time he was one of a very few who brought important intellectual ideas into the public sphere. Nowadays, there is almost no one who can make a similar claim.

By: nickyskye

nickyskye — Sun, 30 Apr 2006 13:27:54 -0800

Upper class leftism may be amusing for some but it's pathetically ineffectual. spira: But at the same time he was one of a very few who brought important intellectual ideas into the public sphere. Nowadays, there is almost no one who can make a similar claim. Oh please, Noam Chomsky and Howard Zinn for starters.

By: spira

spira — Sun, 30 Apr 2006 13:48:50 -0800

Chomsky and Zimm are hardly in the same ballpark as Galbraith. But then, no one could be today, the media simply doesn't allow it. Brad Pitt and Jennifer Anniston are the important intellectual ideas of today.

By: clon7

clon7 — Sun, 30 Apr 2006 17:46:23 -0800

Here is another obit from The Telegraph.

By: storybored

storybored — Sun, 30 Apr 2006 18:48:53 -0800

you just need to read his Great Crash book... to understand Enron. but then, Galbraith simply dared to speak the unspeakable (for Americans -- no wonder he was Canadian) truth: the system is rigged, in favor of the rich and powerful, This is certainly not the message of The Great Crash, which is a seminal work written with insight and wit on the madness of crowds.

By: russilwvong

russilwvong — Sun, 30 Apr 2006 22:45:27 -0800