I admire both Galbraith and Heilbroner, but it always seemed clear to me that Heilbroner (save maybe his New Yorker articles or whatever) was writing at a more complex, deeper level (even in NYRB--articles on Schumpeter, Keynes, etc.). One may differ with, e.g., his interpretation of dialectics in Marxism: For and Against (about which he has always remarked that the most important word in the title was "and"), but I don't think you can say that it is 'watered down'. While it is true that Heilbroner is trying to communicate with an audience beyond professional economists or university professors, I think he does challenge the reader to put some thought into his arguments.
Recently, Heilbroner has said that he thinks of himself as in the field of education, not economics, and that his favorite work of his own is his Visions of the Future, which is not really about economics, but looks at how perceptions of the future have changed through history, and how those perceptions affect the present. Mat
