Bob Reich at coffee rightly thwacked me for not making enough of John Kenneth Galbraith in my Slouching Towards Utopia, forthcoming on September 6 <https://bit.ly/3pP3Krk>. So here’s a gesture in partial atonement: From 2006, in Foreign Affairs...
“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. Too many party intellectuals and politicians drink cocktails on Martha's Vineyard, in Parker's view, and too few spend time on the shop floor learning what issues are important to those sweeping up or manning an assembly line or tending the convenience-store cash register from midnight to six a.m.”
I think the reason for the eclipse of Galbraith was a failure to integrate his insights with the role of relative prices. (This is not the same thing as failing to build Samuelsonian models.)
The idea that Democrats became “interested above all in balancing the budget” is pretty laughable (although not as laughable as the idea that Republicans were “interested above all in balancing the budget”) and more laughable because they have not spent enough time on the shop floor as if Galbraith did!. Oh that Democrat WERE interested among other things (redistributing income, freeing trade, increasing skilled immigration, subverting NIMBYism, taxing net CO2 emissions) in balancing the budget. Heck it would be better if even Republicans were interested in balancing the budget in their determination to restrict trade and immigration and redistribute income upward).
And I get your point. It’s a friendly debate we should have over a cocktail. Hope it’s a beautiful day where you are. Gorgeous here and I have yard work to do. :-)
Nice piece on Galbraith. I'm one of the seventy year old economists who believe his work is important. One of the sad things about right wing economists is that intellectual honesty is not a priority in their work. The JEL review of Chicago school, by a member, included a quote which emphasizes this. Paraphrasing, if data contradicted theory then the data must be wrong. My "Big Book" project involved writing a history of thought treatment of Industrial Organization. Chicago had a major influence on IO, but I've never figured out how to even handedly present it. As an empirical economist, I put my faith in data. As you say, theoretical models address an intuition pump, not the TRUTH.
As a non economist (who’s forgot a lot of what Dr. Bear taught him at UCSD in 1980), I’ll add the following to the reasons for JKG not having dominated policy in the latter half of his life: He was awful on TV. As a youngster I’d watch the “debates” he’d have with those masters of smug, Milton Friedman and Wm.F.Buckley, and watch him get used like a mop. And even though I could recognize that he had the better (and more humane) arguments, I could tell he would be making no headway with the general audience. The ‘70’s and ‘80’s were the TV age and if you couldn’t carry your personality across the airwaves, you made no impression. And I’m guessing that was just as true for the Martha’s Vinyard set. Prof. DeLong’s analysis is certainly more salient, but I don’t think Galbraith’s TV appearances did him or his ideas any favors.
“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. Too many party intellectuals and politicians drink cocktails on Martha's Vineyard, in Parker's view, and too few spend time on the shop floor learning what issues are important to those sweeping up or manning an assembly line or tending the convenience-store cash register from midnight to six a.m.”
I completely agree with this.
The absence of an "organic" political class. Indeed...
I completely do not.
I think the reason for the eclipse of Galbraith was a failure to integrate his insights with the role of relative prices. (This is not the same thing as failing to build Samuelsonian models.)
The idea that Democrats became “interested above all in balancing the budget” is pretty laughable (although not as laughable as the idea that Republicans were “interested above all in balancing the budget”) and more laughable because they have not spent enough time on the shop floor as if Galbraith did!. Oh that Democrat WERE interested among other things (redistributing income, freeing trade, increasing skilled immigration, subverting NIMBYism, taxing net CO2 emissions) in balancing the budget. Heck it would be better if even Republicans were interested in balancing the budget in their determination to restrict trade and immigration and redistribute income upward).
Your post is exactly what’s overheard at Martha’s Vineyard cocktail parties.
But of course. I have my spies ... :)
And I get your point. It’s a friendly debate we should have over a cocktail. Hope it’s a beautiful day where you are. Gorgeous here and I have yard work to do. :-)
I'm more of a beer guy, but yeah. :)
Nice piece on Galbraith. I'm one of the seventy year old economists who believe his work is important. One of the sad things about right wing economists is that intellectual honesty is not a priority in their work. The JEL review of Chicago school, by a member, included a quote which emphasizes this. Paraphrasing, if data contradicted theory then the data must be wrong. My "Big Book" project involved writing a history of thought treatment of Industrial Organization. Chicago had a major influence on IO, but I've never figured out how to even handedly present it. As an empirical economist, I put my faith in data. As you say, theoretical models address an intuition pump, not the TRUTH.
As a non economist (who’s forgot a lot of what Dr. Bear taught him at UCSD in 1980), I’ll add the following to the reasons for JKG not having dominated policy in the latter half of his life: He was awful on TV. As a youngster I’d watch the “debates” he’d have with those masters of smug, Milton Friedman and Wm.F.Buckley, and watch him get used like a mop. And even though I could recognize that he had the better (and more humane) arguments, I could tell he would be making no headway with the general audience. The ‘70’s and ‘80’s were the TV age and if you couldn’t carry your personality across the airwaves, you made no impression. And I’m guessing that was just as true for the Martha’s Vinyard set. Prof. DeLong’s analysis is certainly more salient, but I don’t think Galbraith’s TV appearances did him or his ideas any favors.
Very interesting...