[PEN-L] J.K. Galbraith

NY Times, February 16, 2005 BOOKS OF THE TIMES | 'JOHN KENNETH GALBRAITH' An Economist Who Didn't Just Play by the Numbers By FLOYD NORRIS There was a time when John Kenneth Galbraith was the most famous economist in America, a man whose books regularly became best sellers. But today he is little h

[PEN-L] J.K. Galbraith

April 30, 2006 John Kenneth Galbraith, 97, Dies; Economist, Diplomat and Writer By HOLCOMB B. NOBLE and DOUGLAS MARTIN John Kenneth Galbraith, the iconoclastic economist, teacher and diplomat and an unapologetically liberal member o

[PEN-L] J.K. Galbraith

Roughly speaking , how many schools of economics are there today ? Charles * From: michael perelman * We don't have a Galbraith's Law or some technical discovery that willmake him an immortal. We do have a person of moral integrity who neverlet go of either his common sense or his

[PEN-L] J.K. Galbraith

From: paul phillips You make my point exactly. Under the institution of the gold standard one result was that provided by Marx. But under fiat money and flexible exchange rates, the results are not the same. This is what I meant by saying that "If you are an institutionalist then all analysis

[PEN-L] J.K. Galbraith

* From: Ted Winslow Like Marx, Marshall looked forward to a time when, with the full development of "human nature" and the internally related development of "forces of production" , every day would be a "Sunday" (he several times quotes Marx pointing to this potential of the development of

Re: [PEN-L] J.K. Galbraith

From: Louis Proyect <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> NY Times, February 16, 2005 BOOKS OF THE TIMES | 'JOHN KENNETH GALBRAITH' An Economist Who Didn't Just Play by the Numbers By FLOYD NORRIS ... [Galbraith's] early work showed that large companies in mid-20th-century America were run more for the benefit of th

Re: [PEN-L] J.K. Galbraith

>NY Times, February 16, 2005 BOOKS OF THE TIMES | 'JOHN KENNETH GALBRAITH' An Economist Who Didn't Just Play by the Numbers By FLOYD NORRIS >... [Galbraith's] early work showed that large companies in mid-20th-century America were run more for the benefit of their managers, who seldom owned mu

Re: [PEN-L] J.K. Galbraith

Galbraith is an amazing economist. Unlike the vast majority of the profession, he is aggressive and an excellent communicator. Some of his work may seem dated. For example, I recently looked at his New Industrial State, which drew upon some of the best ideas of his time, but gave a very imperf

Re: [PEN-L] J.K. Galbraith

I remember when, at an economics national meeting, JKG walked up to the URPE table and gave them a large donation check. Jim Devine, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] web: http://myweb.lmu.edu/jdevine/ > -Original Message- > From: PEN-L list [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > Michael Pere

Re: [PEN-L] J.K. Galbraith

A truly great one! -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu

Re: [PEN-L] J.K. Galbraith

I'm sure that a lot of people on this list would like to send condolences to Jamie Galbraith, but I guess we don't want to bother him senseless with email messages. Would it make sense to do something collectively, or would that create its own set of problems? -Original Message- From: PEN

Re: [PEN-L] J.K. Galbraith

I think that your suggestion is excellent, especially because Galbraith was so supportive of the left. No economist of the left in the US has ever achieved such high positions and maintained his allegance to the left. Richard Parker's biography is a real treat to read. On Sun, Apr 30, 2006 at

Re: [PEN-L] J.K. Galbraith

Daniel: > I'm sure that a lot of people on this list would like to > send condolences to Jamie Galbraith, but I guess we don't > want to bother him senseless with email messages. Would > it make sense to do something collectively, or would > that create its own set of problems? If Michael is wi

Re: [PEN-L] J.K. Galbraith

Thanks, Sabri. I was trying to figure out how to do it. On Sun, Apr 30, 2006 at 05:12:10PM -0700, Sabri Oncu wrote: > Daniel: > > > I'm sure that a lot of people on this list would like to > > send condolences to Jamie Galbraith, but I guess we don't > > want to bother him senseless with email m

Re: [PEN-L] J.K. Galbraith

A thought? Should we consider doing a 'mini-seminar' on pen-l discussing Galbraith's contribution to contemporary economics? Paul Phillips Sabri Oncu wrote: Daniel: I'm sure that a lot of people on this list would like to send condolences to Jamie Galbraith, but I guess we don't

Re: [PEN-L] J.K. Galbraith

I would love to see that happen. On Sun, Apr 30, 2006 at 07:34:23PM -0700, paul phillips wrote: > A thought? Should we consider doing a 'mini-seminar' on pen-l discussing > Galbraith's contribution to contemporary economics? > > Paul Phillips > > Sabri Oncu wrote: > > >Daniel: > > > > > > > >>I'm

Re: [PEN-L] J.K. Galbraith

I'm in. >Daniel: > >> I'm sure that a lot of people on this list would like to >> send condolences to Jamie Galbraith, but I guess we don't >> want to bother him senseless with email messages. Would >> it make sense to do something collectively, or would >> that create its own set of problems? >

Re: [PEN-L] J.K. Galbraith

Sabri / Please, you can include my signature. - Original Message - From: "Sabri Oncu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Sunday, April 30, 2006 9:12 PM Subject: Re: J.K. Galbraith Daniel: I'm sure that a lot of people on this list would like to send condolences to Jamie Galbraith, but I

Re: [PEN-L] J.K. Galbraith

Since no one has volunteered to start the discussion, let me throw in a few comments on my own appreciation of JKG's contribution to my understanding of contemporary economics. Let me preface my comments by saying that I continued to use selections from the New Industrial State in most of my cla

Re: [PEN-L] J.K. Galbraith

paul phillips wrote: ... Looking at Ron Stanfield's comments on "Galbraith's contribution to political economy" in the Encyclopaedia of Political Economy, he writes: "A persistent theme of Galbraith's work has been the need to view the economy as an institutionalized system of power. ..."< cle

Re: [PEN-L] J.K. Galbraith

I would have to agree with Stanfield that Galbraith dealt with the dual economy. Although, as Jim notes, he emphasized the large industrial corporations, their uniqueness existed against the background of small firms. Also, in earlier works, he dealt with the agricultural sector, which certainly

Re: [PEN-L] J.K. Galbraith

On 5/2/06, michael perelman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: We don't have a Galbraith's Law or some technical discovery that will make him an immortal. we do have his concept of the "Bezel," the amount of money that's been embezzled where the embezzler hasn't been caught yet. -- Jim Devine / "There

Re: [PEN-L] J.K. Galbraith

That is a wonderful contribution. I have a section in my new book about Enron & the bezzle. On Tue, May 02, 2006 at 10:36:29AM -0700, Jim Devine wrote: > On 5/2/06, michael perelman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > We don't have a Galbraith's Law or some technical discovery that will > > make him

Re: [PEN-L] J.K. Galbraith

Jim Devine wrote: <> if JKG indeed invented the idea of the "dual economy," he deserves tremendous amounts of credit. Where was it presented? in ECONOMICS AND THE PUBLIC PURPOSE? This was in response to the criticism of  THE NEW INDUSTRIAL STATE, which emphasized only the primary sector.

Re: [PEN-L] J.K. Galbraith

Charles Brown wrote: Roughly speaking , how many schools of economics are there today ? One list that I've seen for heterodox schools of economic thought is: Austrian, Behavioural, Evolutionary, Institutional, Post-Keynesian, Schumpeterian, neo-Ricardian and Marxist. Charles * From:

Re: [PEN-L] J.K. Galbraith

Taken from the ICAPE list and my own peregrinations, so far I count: Austrian behavioral Black Political Economy complexity (Brian Adams, etc.) critical realist ecological evolutionary feminist Georgist historical (?) humanistic institutional Marxist postcolonial post-Keynesian postmodern radical

Re: [PEN-L] J.K. Galbraith

I agree with most or all of Paul's defense of Galbraith. But I want to comment on the following: On 5/2/06, paul phillips <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: If we read Smith, Marx, Ricardo, Owen, Veblen, Marshal, Keynes etc. etc. today, they all seem to be "dated". Of course they are dated if you acce

Re: [PEN-L] J.K. Galbraith

Jim, In response to another posting you wrote: Paul Jim Devine wrote: I agree with most or all of Paul's defense of Galbraith. But I want to comment on the following: On 5/2/06, paul phillips <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: If we read Smith, Marx, Ricardo, Owen, Veblen, Marshal, Keynes etc.

Re: [PEN-L] J.K. Galbraith

Charles, In institutional ecoomics, the gold standard and/or fiat money are institutions (as is the market itself). Thus, what you are asking is what political or 'fetter on capital' prompted the change. I think the answer lies in Keynes' defence of mercantilism, the need of an expanding money s

Re: [PEN-L] J.K. Galbraith

paul phillips wrote: the may not prices competition <(along with the dollar exchange rate) which determines how much power the You make my point exactly. Under the institution of the gold standard one result was that provided by Marx. But under fiat money and flexible exchange rates, the

Re: [PEN-L] J.K. Galbraith

Thans for this Ted. Marx, Keynes and Marshall makes the point much clearer than I. Paul P Ted Winslow wrote: Marx, Marshall and Keynes all adopt the social ontological idea of social relations as "internal relations". As they point out, makes theory historically specific. One of their main cr

Re: [PEN-L] J.K. Galbraith

If all theory is historically specific, why study the past? Just for fun? Because it is not therefore related to the historically specific present. >Thans for this Ted. Marx, Keynes and Marshall makes the point much >clearer than I. > >Paul P > >Ted Winslow wrote: > >> Marx, Marshall and Keynes a

Re: [PEN-L] J.K. Galbraith

On 5/7/06, Gassler Robert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: If all theory is historically specific, why study the past? Just for fun? Because it is not therefore related to the historically specific present. some things are constant over time. Marx had a pretty good take on this: the use-value catego

Re: [PEN-L] J.K. Galbraith

Jim Devine wrote: some things are constant over time. Marx had a pretty good take on this: the use-value categories (tools, raw materials, labor) are historically universal so far (at least until the labor/leisure distinction goes away). But the social categories (e.g., constant capital, variabl

Re: [PEN-L] J.K. Galbraith

I would hardly think that of Aglietta or Boyer who are very theoretical in their application of historical institutions. I also find it difficult to accept this criticism with respect to David Gordon either. Paul P Jim Devine wrote: With respect to Paul's bringing up of the regulation & SS

Re: [PEN-L] J.K. Galbraith

Robert, Ted has answered you in part, but also remember Santayana's oft-misquoted observation, that people who do not *understand* history are bound to repeat it. Paul P Gassler Robert wrote: If all theory is historically specific, why study the past? Just for fun? Because it is not theref