The affluent…
…A reassement by Theodore Dalrymple…
….When I was young I found him so persuasive. Sure helps to write well.
20 Replies to ““Rural Canadian made out like stink in the US””
In his (first excellent) book on economics- eat the rich – p.j. O’rourke wrote in his forward about what one should read if one wanted to know more about economics his first recommendation – to read nothing written by Galbraith. Excellent advice.
In a mini-series on economics for PBS in the early 70s JKG summed things up by stating that mega-corps were endlessly profitable entities and thus it made sense for givernmant to nationalize them so that all would prosper from them. His two examples – I kid you not – xerox And Polaroid.
No surprise there.
I had a sibling who majored in economics at the OAC at Guelph and who worshiped Galbraith.
I swiftly interpreted this idol as an aristocratic communist and was not surprised when just after that, he found an honoured, influencial place in the court of JFK.
Tall with an impressive baritone voice, similar to Mulrooney…he was intimidating and arrogant.
since I have no qualifications in economics (learned graphs in 101) I do have a question for you more knowledgeable folks.
How do Corporations in a capitalist system compete with huge sovereign funds such as China and middle East oil countries?
Not just in financial terms, but in relation to
foreign policy. As China pursues it’s long term strategic needs, are we falling behind in the west?
Sasquatch:
I was taught macro and micro and agri economics at OAC by the anti-galbraith – the then head of the econ dept – the great T. K. Warley. It was awe-inspiring to see him lay waste to the comfy sons and daughters of marketing board quota farmers.
Easily the most influential of all the teachers I had, I had the great good fortune to meet him again this summer – he’s age 93 and still sharp as a tack – still keeping up with WTO goings on. I got to tell him about his impact on my life – he said it made his day to hear that – It made my year to have the opportunity to tell him more than twenty-five years after the fact.
A great, great man.
I don’t recall him ever intimidating William F. Buckley Jr. even though they did socialize at times, and the fact that the Buckley’s came from oil money among other things. Buckley never buckled to his arguments.
Galbraith was of the left but he wove words and sentences into a magical carpet.
I, too, read Galbraith in my yute. I got over it, however, upon reading Friedman and Sowell. It doesn’t appear to have done lasting damage, although who can tell?
Now my hero is Krugman. Okay, I’m kidding. I would only worship Krugman if I wanted the U.S. to go bankrupt.
The only positive thing I can say about Galbraith is he gave us The Galbraith Effect
One good point made by Galbraith is that managers have taken over many corporations, and the shareholders now have little or no power over their own company. This results in short-term decision making, massive salaries and bonuses, and a tendency to piss away money rather than pay it out as dividends.
[Quote] he is quite unable to see the same traits in government bureaucrats. It is as if he has read, and taken to heart, the work of Sinclair Lewis, but never even skimmed the work of Kafka.[/Quote]
This trait of Galbraith’s was simply schmoozing diplomacy.
He was a political socializer and hobknobber.
Galbraith was the most mistaken and error prone of all economists, however he is tall, imposing and has a great sense of humour. Add those traits to some time spent in university and you qualify to become a popular white house gad-about.
Speaking on televised economic panels, luncheons, dinner parties and many other venues was full time work for Galbraith. He was philosophic but rarely correct.
He laughingly admits his forecasts were usually incorrect.
In the company of presidents, income is automatic.
From Galbraith’s bio… supporting a liberal (open to change) view
Hardy har har, a modern liberal open to change. There’s an oxymoron.
one bang on quote of Galbraith;
every young man should work on a farm. after that, nothing else seems like work.
Curious article, curious discussion. My own mother’s father’s people were much the same as Galbraith’s. They weren’t born rich, but were strong believers in education, and if they achieved comfortable stations in life did so by dint of hard work. They certainly weren’t aristocrats (nor was Galbraith), and I rather think they disdained aristocrats. Certainly they were no friends of inherited priviledge.
Strongly Presbyterian, of course; their politics grew out of Presbyterianism. They tended to be old-fashioned Liberals (conservative by today’s standards). They and people like them built Ontario, pretty much out of nothing.
T. K. Warley
Yeah I recall him….he loathed marketing boards….not so much economically but rather politically—-but to Warley it was one and the same.
Warley’s take on Galbraith….economists shouldn’t neither write nor have undue influence on government budgets/agendas.
please excuse the double negative….must be the meds.
As Tom Wolfe once wrote (about another Canadian), Galbraith
“hit a very large nail not quite squarely on the head”
Some time ago, I submitted a rather lengthy post detailing the “agency” problem. Galbraith correctly identified the problem in the private sector; unfortunately, he was blind to it in the government sector. I said it then, and I repeat it now:
In a complex society such as ours, we need agents. It’s all I can do to stay on top of economics and politics; most of the other stuff I have to take on credit. But our agents end up in terrible conflicts of interest, and usually we end up losing. Whoever solves the agency problem will be the greatest single contributor to humanity since Jesus Christ.
Layton must be a disciple…..?
KevinB,
Excellent point!
How to do the right thing, yet not lose Exxon and GM lobby funds to campaign effectively and hold on to the all important governing levers.
(Jack)Layton must be a disciple…..?
Posted by: jcl at February 12, 2010 2:23 PM
——————
No jcl,more like a disciple of MAO,LENIN,MARX and STALIN
In his (first excellent) book on economics- eat the rich – p.j. O’rourke wrote in his forward about what one should read if one wanted to know more about economics his first recommendation – to read nothing written by Galbraith. Excellent advice.
In a mini-series on economics for PBS in the early 70s JKG summed things up by stating that mega-corps were endlessly profitable entities and thus it made sense for givernmant to nationalize them so that all would prosper from them. His two examples – I kid you not – xerox And Polaroid.
No surprise there.
I had a sibling who majored in economics at the OAC at Guelph and who worshiped Galbraith.
I swiftly interpreted this idol as an aristocratic communist and was not surprised when just after that, he found an honoured, influencial place in the court of JFK.
Tall with an impressive baritone voice, similar to Mulrooney…he was intimidating and arrogant.
since I have no qualifications in economics (learned graphs in 101) I do have a question for you more knowledgeable folks.
How do Corporations in a capitalist system compete with huge sovereign funds such as China and middle East oil countries?
Not just in financial terms, but in relation to
foreign policy. As China pursues it’s long term strategic needs, are we falling behind in the west?
Sasquatch:
I was taught macro and micro and agri economics at OAC by the anti-galbraith – the then head of the econ dept – the great T. K. Warley. It was awe-inspiring to see him lay waste to the comfy sons and daughters of marketing board quota farmers.
Easily the most influential of all the teachers I had, I had the great good fortune to meet him again this summer – he’s age 93 and still sharp as a tack – still keeping up with WTO goings on. I got to tell him about his impact on my life – he said it made his day to hear that – It made my year to have the opportunity to tell him more than twenty-five years after the fact.
A great, great man.
I don’t recall him ever intimidating William F. Buckley Jr. even though they did socialize at times, and the fact that the Buckley’s came from oil money among other things. Buckley never buckled to his arguments.
Galbraith was of the left but he wove words and sentences into a magical carpet.
I, too, read Galbraith in my yute. I got over it, however, upon reading Friedman and Sowell. It doesn’t appear to have done lasting damage, although who can tell?
Now my hero is Krugman. Okay, I’m kidding. I would only worship Krugman if I wanted the U.S. to go bankrupt.
The only positive thing I can say about Galbraith is he gave us The Galbraith Effect
One good point made by Galbraith is that managers have taken over many corporations, and the shareholders now have little or no power over their own company. This results in short-term decision making, massive salaries and bonuses, and a tendency to piss away money rather than pay it out as dividends.
[Quote] he is quite unable to see the same traits in government bureaucrats. It is as if he has read, and taken to heart, the work of Sinclair Lewis, but never even skimmed the work of Kafka.[/Quote]
This trait of Galbraith’s was simply schmoozing diplomacy.
He was a political socializer and hobknobber.
Galbraith was the most mistaken and error prone of all economists, however he is tall, imposing and has a great sense of humour. Add those traits to some time spent in university and you qualify to become a popular white house gad-about.
Speaking on televised economic panels, luncheons, dinner parties and many other venues was full time work for Galbraith. He was philosophic but rarely correct.
He laughingly admits his forecasts were usually incorrect.
In the company of presidents, income is automatic.
From Galbraith’s bio…
supporting a liberal (open to change) view
Hardy har har, a modern liberal open to change. There’s an oxymoron.
one bang on quote of Galbraith;
every young man should work on a farm. after that, nothing else seems like work.
John Kenneth Galbraith
RIP
http://i27.photobucket.com/albums/c176/lagergeld/gravedance.gif
Curious article, curious discussion. My own mother’s father’s people were much the same as Galbraith’s. They weren’t born rich, but were strong believers in education, and if they achieved comfortable stations in life did so by dint of hard work. They certainly weren’t aristocrats (nor was Galbraith), and I rather think they disdained aristocrats. Certainly they were no friends of inherited priviledge.
Strongly Presbyterian, of course; their politics grew out of Presbyterianism. They tended to be old-fashioned Liberals (conservative by today’s standards). They and people like them built Ontario, pretty much out of nothing.
T. K. Warley
Yeah I recall him….he loathed marketing boards….not so much economically but rather politically—-but to Warley it was one and the same.
Warley’s take on Galbraith….economists shouldn’t neither write nor have undue influence on government budgets/agendas.
please excuse the double negative….must be the meds.
As Tom Wolfe once wrote (about another Canadian), Galbraith
“hit a very large nail not quite squarely on the head”
Some time ago, I submitted a rather lengthy post detailing the “agency” problem. Galbraith correctly identified the problem in the private sector; unfortunately, he was blind to it in the government sector. I said it then, and I repeat it now:
In a complex society such as ours, we need agents. It’s all I can do to stay on top of economics and politics; most of the other stuff I have to take on credit. But our agents end up in terrible conflicts of interest, and usually we end up losing. Whoever solves the agency problem will be the greatest single contributor to humanity since Jesus Christ.
Layton must be a disciple…..?
KevinB,
Excellent point!
How to do the right thing, yet not lose Exxon and GM lobby funds to campaign effectively and hold on to the all important governing levers.
(Jack)Layton must be a disciple…..?
Posted by: jcl at February 12, 2010 2:23 PM
——————
No jcl,more like a disciple of MAO,LENIN,MARX and STALIN