>On Monday, December 17, 2001 at 10:01:31 (-0800) Devine, James writes: >>In general, I agree with the sentiments of Bill and F.G. But it should be >>noted that once you get beyond the start of Jamie Galbraith's book, it's >>incredibly hard to read. Even professional economists have a hard time >>(including yours truly). It's not a good source of political ammunition. > >Hmm, I've read most of it and did not find it too difficult. Perhaps >not being a professional economist makes it easier:-). What did >you find hard to read? > > >Bill
1. How James Galbraith defines value added and why he chooses to measure it the way in which he does. But I should take out the book and submit a better defined question. 2. how does the idea that gains have been monopolized by the suppliers of advanced capital goods stand up in the face of the present collapse of investment spending? Or is it just the increasing dependence on the volatile sector of advanced capital goods that Galbraith wants to explain? 3. if Galbraith is calling for big new deficits, then how does he guarantee that the long bond will not act unfavorably? Even Fed accomodation may not be enough to prevent such an unfavorable reaction. It's been two years since I read the book, I should take it out. Rakesh
