BBC NEWS | Americas | Liberal thinker JK Galbraith dies — One of the last “liberals” who actually made sense. Living to 97, he must have been doing something right. His basic philosophy was that the government should actually do something postitive for its citizens as a whole.
JK Galbraith taught at Harvard University from 1948 until his retirement in 1975, but continued to publish books on socio-economic issues.
An advocate of government action to solve social problems, he focused on issues such as the distribution of wealth in society.
He was awarded the Medal of Freedom twice, by President Truman in 1946 and President Clinton in 2000.
I have enjoyed reading some of his books. He was from an era when Liberals were Liberals and Conservatives were Conservatives.
Thre are two separate issued to address though:
1) what might make economic sense.
2) what the Constitution grants the government the power to do.
These two are not necessarily aligned with each other.
The more you read about the principles on which our government was devised such as those from Locke, the more you come to believe that many did not and still do not get it. Shortly after the country was founded there were many that wanted to centralize and strengthen the Federal government. They did not get the concept of States power and self-governance. The Federal government was specifically *not* designed to try to fix all the evils of the world for everyone. The Founding Fathers realized that giving more power to a small body regardless of altruistic motives would end in disaster.
As for liberal economics, I think by now it is well established that economic socialism is an utter failure. Its fundamental error is presuming that a small body of people, however forward thinking and benevolent they may be, will be able to divine the “the greater economic good” and will always act in an unselfish manner.
One of the Unknown facts about Galbraith was that he was Canadian.
As for conservative economics, I think by now it is well established that economic capitalism is an utter failure. Its fundamental error is presuming that a small body of people, however forward thinking and benevolent they may be, will be able to divine the “the greater economic good” and will always act in an unselfish manner.
At the peoples demand, governments have constantly had to rein in lassaiz faire economics to equalize the excesses of unrestrained capitalists. From Republicans like Teddy Roosevelt and Eisenhower to Democrats like Franklin Roosevelt Truman, Presidents have had to deal with monopolies and unfair competition by those who are also known as the Robber Barons.
Nate, I knew that.
Mr. Confusion,
All pure ideologies have flaws. If we are limiting this discussion to economic theory (as opposed to political theory), there is no capitalist on the planet that does not accept that government is necessary in *some* circumstances to ensure equitable competition and to manage resources that cannot be managed by pure market forces. Lassaiz-faire does not imply absolutely *no* government interference whatsoever. No one accepts that. Rather, it has come to imply the government inteference should be as limited as is reasonably possible. When in doubt, the market should be allowed to decide rather than the government.
There is no question that capitalism is substantially better at protecting the rights of the individuals and at fostering their ability to pursue life, liberty and happiness than any other system including socialism. Socialism, and specifically communism, has shown itself to be an utter disaster.