Centerfield

The fact that he and Buckley, such great icons of opposing viewpoints were the best of friends is proof that politics needn't be all consuming. POlitics should never trump friendships.

Just some gratuitous high-minded ranting for centrists to keep in mind.

I confess scepticism. What is one to make of a fawning obituary that asserts that "Parker has an explanation -- a relatively convincing one -- for the retreat of Galbraith's politics. The story behind it is the Democratic establishment's loss of nerve." Yes, Galbraith was right all along; his ideas weren't entirely discredited in practise and intellectually destroyed by Milton Friedman et al, but rather, Galbraith was right all along and was simply betrayed by "the Democratic establishment's loss of nerve." "But there are few Galbraithians on the ground. Would economics as a discipline be stronger if the 50-year-old and 30-year-old economists had a better appreciation of Galbraith," asks DeLong? We can already see, I think, that it haqs gotten better in rough proportion to the diminution of Galbraith's influence. In one hundred years, people will still read Keynes and Hayek, but we can already see the beginnings of a world where J.K. Galbraith is read only occaisionally, and then only for occaisional historical curiosity and for his undeniable gifts as a writer rather than as a theoretician. I loved the quote in the second obit, from the writer's prof: "[Galbraith's] ideas are less of a school than a conspiracy theory."

I'm afraid I think George F. Will nailed it better than either of obits:

Galbraith brought to the anti-conformity chorus a special verve in depicting Americans as pathetic, passive lumps, as manipulable as clay. Americans were what modern liberalism relishes -- victims, to be treated as wards of a government run by liberals. It never seemed to occur [to him] . . . that ordinary Americans might resent that depiction and might express their resentment with their votes . . . [and] [a]lthough Galbraith coined the phrase "conventional wisdom," and thought of himself as the scourge of groupthink, "The Affluent Society" was the distilled essence of the conventional wisdom on campuses.

I am amazed that no one has pointed out that the economy in India improve once it stopped doing what Galbraith recommend and started doing what Friedman recommended. If we listened to Galbraith in the US , then we would be immigrating to India instead of the other way around.

Different context. Galbraith was talking about an advanced capitalist system; as far as I know, he never advocated particular policies for developing countries. And, I think it's pretty simplistic to say it's a choice of Galbraith vs. Friedman. The US economy was never as laizzez-faire as many thing--and, as Friedman probably would have preferred. The government was heavily involved in economic development during the 19th century, either by providing assistance to railroads or to homesteaders.

I read Galbraith's memoirs years ago. I always thought he was an arrogant SOB. And conventional economists don't think much of him. But, today, he provides at least an alternative to the free market orthodoxy--and I think it's always good to question orthodoxy.

Remember that Galbraith's biggest contributions preceded Friedman. There would've been no need for the broad WWII price fixing that he implemented after Friedman, for example.