Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
With the death of John Kenneth Galbraith on April 29, it is perhaps appropriate to reflect about the influence of two economists, Galbraith and Milton Friedman, described by Time magazine in 1975 as the modern world's most important economists along with John Maynard Keynes and Adam Smith. There were remarkable similarities between them. Both strongly influenced government policy. Both wrote prolifically, and for a broader audience than just theoretical economists. Both, of course, lived to see the age of ninety and then some. And despite their sharply contrasting views of political economics (Friedman regarded Galbraith as a socialist), the Friedman's occasionally vacationed with the Galbraith's at the latter's Vermont farm, according to biographer Richard Parker.
Galbraith, in his book The Affluent Society, argued for the importance of fiscal policy in influencing the allocation of resources between rich and poor. This was to be done through the maintenance of a progressive tax system to insure that the wealthy provided their proportionate share of funding to enable government to channel funds to such endeavors as the environment, support for the poor, and the development of the arts. The objective was to create a society that would provide a better standard of living for all.
Friedman, on the other hand, in a book Free to Choose, advocated a minimalist role for government, relying instead on lower tax rates to provide the wherewithal for Americans to decide for themselves how they wished to live and spend their increased take-home pay. In another work coauthored with Anna Jacobson Schwartz, The Monetary History of the United States, he had earlier argued, however, for a significant government role in managing monetary policy to guard against the booms and busts that characterized the early part of the twentieth century. According to this thesis, by regulating the supply of money, governments could have an immediate and important impact on such things as interest rates, inflation, and general economic prosperity.
Galbraith advocated the state's involvement in insuring the defense of the country, education for all, a just society, support for the arts and environment, and most important, a minimum standard of living. Friedman, on the other hand, while advocating a strong government role in maintaining a strong defense and the enforcement of antitrust laws, placed his primary bets on the individual. According to a friend, Ben Stein, "Professor Friedman and his wife stood up for the glory of the rights and choices of the individual. From the individual, not from the state, came creativity, progress, freedom, prosperity. From the state came oppression and stagnation." One illustration of this philosophy was contained in an article written for the New York Times Magazine in which Friedman opposed corporate philanthropy, arguing that corporations should let individual investors choose how to spend or give away their money.
One can argue that both of these economists had an important influence on the political economics of the twentieth century. But what of this century? Which set of views will most shape the policies of governments and our way of life? Or have both served their purpose, only to be forgotten? If so, will we have to relearn them at a later time? What do you think?
ClassyMissFancy said:( Grunts, groans, barking like sounds and the sounds of ass scratching)
ClassyMissFancy said:Yes.. when your opinion is accepted by the courts as an "expert opinion" I will give a **** what you think about mine.
You want to know who the real homosexuals are? They are the ones for whom same sex individuals aren't only their lovers or partners ... same sex individuals are also all of their closest friends and all of the non-familial opposite sex individuals in their social circles are also homosexuals. Real lesbians do not have male best friends and real homosexual males do not have female best friends because, while those relationships do not require romance, they DO require intimacy.
hugo said:The boy can't read. Let's give her stupid opinion again.
I guess the opposite of real homosexuals is fake homosexuals. I guess if we see a homosexual male who does bond with the opposite sex we have to label him as a fake homosexual. If she's an expert, she's a stupid one. There are idiotic experts everywhere.
hugo said:I have never argued she is wrong. I have simply asked her to back up her argument.
hugo said:I am not debating her opinion. I am asking her for evidence to back up her opinion. Sorry, true experts would have it.
hugo said:Let's give her stupid opinion again. If she's an expert, she's a stupid one. There are idiotic experts everywhere.
hugo said:The fact is her opinion is so ****in' juvenile that no real expert would address it.