In today’s New York Times, Robert H. Frank, who is described as “the co-author, with Ben S. Bernanke, of `Principles of Economics,’” writes that Galbraith should have won the Nobel Prize—for the ideas expressed in The Affluent Society.
In case anyone needs a refresher about Galbraith, and the fascistic nature of his ideas, be sure to see my “Galbraith’s Neo-Feudalism.”
What makes this matter important is that it almost certainly sheds light on the thinking of Bernanke himself. Call it guilt by association if you wish, but I don’t see how anyone can write a textbook with someone else and not be in agreement with him on at least the great majority of points pertaining to the subject of the textbook, which in this case, of course, is the principles of economics. Until I hear to the contrary from Bernanke, I have to assume that his views about Galbraith don’t radically differ from those of his co-author. Perhaps he should step up and give a statement on the subject, to make clear where he stands.
It’s not a comforting thought having someone in a position to wreak havoc on the economic well-being of the American people and likely being an admirer of an author who had no compunctions about doing precisely that if it appeared to serve the interests of the State. Bernanke can wreak havoc with his powers of money creation, and it looks like he’s already started to do so. He needs to assure the American people that he holds no brief for Galbraith.
If there were any other men of courage and principle in Congress besides Ron Paul, Bernanke would be brought before Congress and called upon to do so.
This article is copyright © 2006, by George Reisman. Permission is hereby granted to reproduce and distribute it electronically and in print, other than as part of a book and provided that mention of the author’s web site www.capitalism.net is included. (Email notification is requested.) All other rights reserved. George Reisman is the author of Capitalism: A Treatise on Economics (Ottawa, Illinois: Jameson Books, 1996) and is Pepperdine University Professor Emeritus of Economics.
{ 14 comments }
George has written some good and some bad pieces here, but this takes the cake as his worst. There are plenty of reasons to attack Bernanke based solely on Bernanke. You don’t need to go this low.
TGGP
I disagree with you. This is a fair comment by Prof Reisman.
Galbraith was a nasty piece of work who was around far too long. Good to see he finally keeled over. It would be best if he were forgotten and the harm he perpetrated ceased with his demise. Unfortunately there are those who will continue to use his utterances and publications to justify their corruption, theft and fraud. It appears Bernanke is likely to be one of those.
The challenge put by the Prof. is fair. The identification and warning supplied for the rest of us is worth noting.
Regards
Sione Vatu
PS BTW have you read the book “Capitalism”?
Helicopter Ben will oversee the demise of the U$D!
What about Bernanke’s wife? What is her opinion of Galbraith? I think we need to know.
What about Bernanke’s wife? What is her opinion of Galbraith? I think we need to know.
Why? It is Bernanke the one that controls the money supply, with all the tragic consequences this implies, and not his wife. Or do you know something we do not?
Francisco,
I think “Marco” was attempting to be droll.
True, though, Bernanke is the nominative Head of U.S. FedRes. ( tragicomedy, now w/ DHX, coming to a lifespan near you )
I think Mr. Reisman, does well again, by pointing to BB’s fellow travelers. Who should know better than the author, the nature of the birds indigenous to the field of Economics.
I’d hardly think it a stretch that co-authors of a book share more than space on its cover.
I’m wondering what the reaction, here, would be if the punchline was : “Frank was a great admirer of Hayek.”
The old adage: “We are known by the company we keep.” , hasn’t been inflated out of existence yet, has it ?
I think it´s possible to think that Bernanke and Frank agree about economic principles and disagree about Galbraith´s statements as advanced thoughts. The best way to discover if this is the case is reading the book they write.
Galbraith is probably the best example the Nobel Prize in Economics has for its continued existence. Galbraith received about four dozen honorary degrees, multitudes of medals from various governments, including the US Presidential Freedom medal, etc. etc. He was also possibly one of the worst economists ever, which had a lot to do with his infatuation with government planning and undeniable narcissism.
cynical,
You have catagorized, well, why it is that Galbraith is, most probably, the leading example of either: a “useful idiot”, or, a “cut-out”, take your pick…
When I saw an entry about Mr. Bernanke, I thought of a new ‘music video’ that I recently found online… And then I was surprised to scroll down, to see the title of the entry right below this one, on the Mises Blog front page. [I'm assuming it was a coincidence, though perhaps that's what prompted Mr. Reisman to do a post on Bernanke, right after seeing "Every Breath You Take..." in Mr. Carson's entry.]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3u2qRXb4xCU
The ‘CBS Follies’
I was going to post this a few days ago, when this entry was higher up on the front page… But it was Finals Week. I just saw however, that it’s already been posted here. It is a cool video, isn’t it? And it’s good to see popular culture somewhat intersecting with academic and education-related topics.
“And it’s good to see popular culture somewhat intersecting with academic and education-related topics.”
Aakash, no offense, but it has been since Oog & Og were discussing “the hunt” in front of the roasting pit… )
Let us say (to bend over backwards in fairness) that J.K.Galbraith was an “empirical” econonist who had a theory that government services did not have enough money spent on them in 1958 and were therefore not as good as private services. This does rather leave aside the point that spending on government education (and so on) was at all time record high (however measured) in 1958, but there we go.
After his work was published there was a vast increase in spending on the “public services”, yet the quality of government education (and so on) actually declined.
Did Galbraith say “I was wrong”? No he kept on demanding more spending on the Welfare State.
So it was not just that he rejected the logical (Austrian school) approach to economics, he rejected the empirical approach as well.
In short he was not an economist at all (of any school of thought).
So if a person claims that Galbraith was a great economist, that peson is either joking or they know very little about economics.
Paul, w/ this :”In short he was not an economist at all (of any school of thought).”
You get good marks. )
Paul,
btw, have you ever read, or read into, the so-called “Fabian Socialists” ?
Comments on this entry are closed.