ndrosen

This third Thursday’s Georgist Zoom lecture was delivered by James K. Galbraith, who doesn’t seem to be exactly a Georgist, and definitely not my flavor of classical liberal Georgist, but did have some things to say. His lecture, which Dr. Polly Cleveland introduced, was titled, “What Is Economics? A Policy Discipline for the Real World.” He began with pictures and brief descriptions of useful economists, in his view, who had contributed, for example, to mobilizing resources to win World War Two, and moving on to the late doyen of Georgism, Professor Mason Gaffney.

He, Galbraith, said that he’s fortunate to be at the LBJ School of Public Affairs and Government, because as a noted economist named Tobin (whom he liked) told him, he would have had no future in academic economics, since he mostly didn’t publish in refereed journals. He does not have the highest regard for academic economics, which he seems to see as infected with bad ideas and divorced from real-world problems.

He showed us a 1960s world map, with colors showing the levels of inequality. North America, Western Europe, and a few other areas had relatively low levels of inequality, with high levels in underdeveloped countries. It was expected that as they modernized, they would become more equal, with substantial middle classes, as well as becoming richer. Then he showed a more recent map, showing the United States and other rich countries with higher levels of inequality. Things did not work out as Cold War liberals and development economists like Walt Rostov expected, partly because the policies of Cold War liberals were not followed.

Dr. Galbraith said that economics should be scientific and evolutionary, rather than like 18th century theology-based economics, which existed to justify the positions of the privileged. This, he said, goes back all the way to Confucian thought. (My own thoughts: this may be a description which Thomas Malthus deserved, but I don’t think it’s entirely fair to Adam Smith or to the Physiocrats. Also, whatever your view of Confucius and the Neo-Confucians, did they really have that much influence on 18th century European thought, especially in economics?)

To be continued.