An Important Book
Galbraith is writing from a uniquely interesting vantage point, as a scholarly economist (son of one of the most celebrated economists of the past century) who has also spent a lot of time in the political system of the U.S. As such, he is itching to point out the numerous and serious discrepancies between political doctrine - not of any one political party, but the premises of the entire political debate - and economic reality. He sets out to do this in part one of the book.
In part two, he asks the all-important question: Who benefits?
Answer: The predators - those private parties who feast on institutions built up for the public good, using lobbyists and bought politicians, exploiting the free-market dogma to privatize gains and socialize losses.
In part three, he takes a look at what can - must - be done. The most important point here, in my view, is the need for long-term planning, and its implicit need for greater governmental control. Markets don't plan; governments can.
Sadly, I think Galbraith is too far ahead of the curve. He takes the free-market ideology as not only wrong, but self-evidently wrong. And, while I am inclined to agree with him on this, I suspect it will only make its adherents throw the book away in disgust.
Indeed, many of the more important points, points contrarian to views often encountered (indeed dominant) in mainstream media, he doesn't really argue at all. He states in the preface that
"This is a short book, lightly referenced, written for a general audience, and not especially for a scholarly one. I have by no means attempted to cover every argument or document every point [...] Readers who have followed my work will recognize this as a departure from my usual methods; some may be disappointed. A price of accessibility is that the evidence behind some of the strongest factual claims made here cannot be laid out in full; I rely on the reader's trust that while errors are certainly possible, claims are stated in good faith, based on what I believe to be true".
I found the resulting lack of depth a bit frustrating; I don't quite buy the idea of fighting rampant misperception and disinformation by relying "on the reader's trust".
But then again, psycology has shown that our perceptions of the world have little to do with actual truth and a lot to do with the claims about the world we hear repeated frequently... this may be Galbraith's attempt to up the frequency of sane claims in the meme-stream.
Further, Galbraith covers a lot of ground here. Fully arguing every point would require ten thick volumes and a lifetime of work... in this respect, the current book is likely a good trade-off: Its timing is superb, as the American public should be experiencing a rude awakening right about now, and Galbraith is offering both a very reasonable explanation of what's wrong, and an equally reasonable course of action.
But still: For my (largely intellectual) purposes, the book would have gained greatly by a (possibly short) list of references or suggested further reading. This wouldn't necessarily have to be in the book, but could be made downloadable on the publisher's website... (Free Press, that's a hint for you).
Ikke helt fornøyd med mitt eget arbeid her, egentlig. Tonen ble ganske negativ, selv om jeg jo likte boken godt (og ga den fire av fem stjerner). Og jeg ser nå noen blomster jeg gjerne skulle retta opp ("indeed" to ganger i samme setning f.eks.)... Men jeg kommer ikke til å få tid til noe særlig skriving i helga, så det måtte gjøres i går.
Den største mangelen er at jeg ikke nevner en av de mer sentrale innsiktene Galbraith kommer med, nemlig at jevn fordeling av godene i et samfunn fostrer effektivitet. Han bruker Danmark som eksempel, et av verdens rikeste land, og også et av de med minst forskjeller i inntekt (land som Norge eller Sveits er dårlige eksempler, de nyter godt av spesielle geografiske/geologiske forhold). Konklusjonen er: det som er godt for folk flest, er godt for økonomien. Et punkt jeg sikkert kommer til å utforske i en egen post...
Innlegg
