G'day Jim, Mike & Boddhi, I'm a Galbraith fan too. And I'm very much with Jim on the mortal cost progressives pay in terms of credibility, solidarity, and potency when we waste ourselves on sectarian name-calling in these tumultuous, bemusing and socially conservative (albeit more defensively than enthusiastically so, I think) times. Anyway, just wondered if you lot think this quote from Heilbroner has any parrallel/relevance to our near future, in which concerted, if almost inevitably misdirected, international pump-priming may yet play a role: 'Neither Keynes nor the government spenders had taken into account that the beneficiaries of the new medicine might consider it worse than the disease. Government spending was meant as a helping hand for business. It was interpreted by business as a threatening gesture. Nor is this surprising. The New Deal had swept in on a wave of antibusiness sentiment; values and standards that had become virtually sacrosanct were suddenly held up to skeptical scrutiny and criticism. The whole conception of 'business rights', 'property rights', and the 'role of government' was rudely shaken; within a few years business was asked to forget its traditions of unquestioned preeminence and to adopt a new philosophy of cooperation with labour unions, acceptance of new rules and regulations, reform of many of its practices. Little wonder that it regarded the government in Washington as inimical, biased, and downright radical. And no wonder, in such an atmosphere, that its eagerness to undertake large-scale investment was dampened by the uneasiness it felt in this unfamiliar climate ... THE HALFWAY MEASURES THE GOVERNMENT DID EMPLOY WERE JUST ENOUGH TO FRIGHTEN BUSINESS AWAY FROM UNDERTAKING A FULL-SCALE EFFORT BY ITSELF ... GOVERNMENT SPENDING NEVER TRULY CURED THE ECONOMY - NOT BECAUSE IT WAS ECONOMICALLY UNSOUND, BUT BECAUSE IT WAS IDEOLOGICALLY UPSETTING.' CHEERS, ROB.
