Talk:John Kenneth Galbraith

Office of Price Administration and photo

It is said in the text that "he was forced out in May 1943" (and I assume it means from the price administration). However, the caption of the photo accompanying that section says "Gailbraith in 1944 at the Office of Price Administration". Is there something wrong, or am I interpreting something incorrectly?

[Untitled]

• Are The Affluent Society, The New Industrial State, and Economics and the Public Purpose really a trilogy?

Indeed, they are frequently referred to as a trilogy. For example:

• Included in J.K. Galbraith's trilogy are 'The Affluent Society', 'The New Industrial State', 'Economics & The Public Purpose'.
• He is the author of the noted trilogy, The Affluent Society, The New Industrial State and Economics and the Public Purpose
• Galbraith's principal theoretical contribution is foreshadowed in American Capitalism (1952), and unfolds more clearly into view in his trilogy, The Affluent Society (1958), The New Industrial State (1967) and Economics and the Public Purpose (1973)

Sunray June 30, 2005 14:00 (UTC)

• Does anyone know where to find his thesis from 1931 when he graduated from OAC?

Are we happy to say that the bibliography of books JKG has written is now complete? I count 55 books, which is more than the four dozen mentioned in the intro. Also, is it worth starting another article to deal with the huge number of articles he has written? Sjeraj 09:02, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

At 97 ? President Franklin Roosevelt ?

Is the following quote from the article accurate?

Galbraith is married to Catherine Atwater, whom he met while she was a Radcliffe student. They have three sons; a fourth son is deceased. They reside in Cambridge, Massachusetts and have a summer home in Newfane, Vermont. At 97, Galbraith is one of the few living advisors to President Franklin Roosevelt. There is currently speculation, fueled by comments made by former U.S. president Bill Clinton, that Galbraith's health is in a rapidly declining state.Trade2tradewell 17:28, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Maybe it should be calling him a "former adviser" to FDR. Btw, the last sentence is now inaccurate. His health has since declined to zero. JackofOz 08:24, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

He certainly worked for Roosevelt as the prices tsar during WWII and I think before in the New Deal, whether there are any others which are still living seems possible but unlikely. Sjeraj 22:40, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Six or ten grandchildren?

Does anyone have a definitive source for which it is? Imgroup May 4, 2006 21:06 (UTC)

Yes. New York Times Article This has the correction appended to it. It seems that in the rush to announce his death, several reporers did not get their facts correct. This has upset many of his family members at this time. We should remember that this is not a number we are fighting over, it is 4 people who are mourning.

So much for the google test. Thanks, WikipediA works because of people like you. Pseudoanonymous 23:58, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Praise of Soviet and Chinese communism?

If I find some material, I plan on adding quotes from this socialist monster praising the terror-based economies of the Soviet Union and Maoist China.

When he traveled to Mao's China at the height of the artificial communist-imposed famine, he said something to the effect of "If there was any famine in China it was not evident in the kitchen", displaying arrogant indifference to the plight of the millions who were dying.

For that, and for his crimes against liberty as Price Dictator under the criminal Roosevelt regime, he is certainly burning in Hell, if it exists.

See also: 'Moron Gets Presidential Medal of Freedom'[1] -- Anonymous 207.241.227.235 22:04, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh come on, give me a break. youre just a right-wing asshole. --anonymous Sun Apr 30 19:07:31 EDT 2006

Your vandalism of my headline has been reverted. -- Anonymous 69.194.38.246 01:05, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

It's going to be rather tough to convince people you're not POV-pushing after a remark like that.

I am going to tell the truth about Galbraith, however unpleasant it is to people like yourself. If an edit war results, so be it. To be "balanced" between truth and lies is no balance at all. -- Anonymous 69.194.38.246 01:05, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

You're obviously seeking to promote a particular point of view on this subject, you are also so confident about the reliability of your sources that you choose to edit as anon. Please actually find unbiased and referenced material to support your claims. Sjeraj 13:07, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Here's a quote in which Galbraith criticises Socialist countries for curtailing freedom of the press: "Marx, I might note, would be distressed by the suppression of dissent anywhere, including the socialist world. He was first expelled from Prussia for advocating and also practicing, amongst other inconvenient reforms, freedom of the press." page 41 Almost Everyone's Guide to Economics.

In the same book he says that, "If economic performance in a socialist society had come as easily...as Marx took for granted, there would be no capitalism left." page 36

Again, in the same book he says that, 'the failure of modern socialism was performance, in relation to both material success and individual liberty' page 42

So there we have it. I find it interesting that the Anon. user appears to want to move from a statement of opinion and only then to find data, surely it would make sense to read over his books in full before coming to that type of interpretation....maybe the anon user should read some JKG books rather than relying on second-hand info from sites like 'LeftWatch'. Sjeraj 08:33, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Economist infobox?

The economics & business project needs such things.

John Kenneth Galbraith
Birth	October, 1908 (Iona Station, Ontario, Canada)
Death	April 29. 2006 (Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA)
School/tradition	tradition
Main interests	<philosophies>
Notable ideas	<ideas>
Influences	Influenced
<list of economic & political influences>	<list of students and those influenced by him>

What made/makes Galbraith's ideas controversial?

In order to retain some balance to an article which otherwise has a tendency to lapse into hero worship, it appears important to provide critical analysis of Galbraith's ideas.

Thus I created the === Controversy === section after deletions of this POV inline the === Works === section, and yesterday added a more detailed precis.

My question: should the more detailed precis be in the main article, or be an article of its own? Imgroup May 2, 2006 19:05 (UTC)

The controversy section is a useful contribution, with quotes and references to other economists. You "detailed precis" is nothing but a superficial diatribe. Anyone who is interested in a detailed critique of Galbraith's work should look at the sources you provided. --Drono 19:51, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Drono, I wrote the precis based on those sources. Why is an analysis of his most popular work from a skeptical POV a diatribe? Consider writing a counter argument section instead of attempting censorship of a POV you disagree with. Imgroup May 2, 2006 19:57 (UTC)

I have not looked at the sources you gave, but I would be extermely disappointed if the level of argumentation is similar to yours. For example, what do you even mean by "[Galbraith's] assertion [about Economics was] clearly proven false (as might be expected by students of human nature) by events since the publication of The Affluent Society." What events? What properties of human nature are we taking about? If you are really relying on credible sources, why don't you give us some additional quotes instead of paraphrasing them?

Drono, I will expand on that particular paragraph a little, as requested, although your ad-hominem and constant deletions are beginning to wear thin. I suggest actually reading the sources. Perhaps you can come up with a better precis than me. Don't forget the old maxim from Aristotle: "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." Imgroup May 2, 2006 23:37 (UTC)

Imgroup, as a good-will gesture I have edited your comments to a reasonable form. This really should have been your job. By the way, noting that your argumentation is poor is not an ad-hominem. Also by the way, I have no problem reading and understanding arguments that I disagree with. It is only when they are presented as The Truth (without supporting evidence) that I resist. --Drono 03:36, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Drono, using the term 'diatribe' and making a summary deletion several times is ad-hominen. Your reputation benefits from constructive acts such as attempting to improve on my precis. However, it is not currently up to Wikipedia standards. I will do some work to improve it over the coming days (unless someone else gets to it first). Unlike you - it appears - I am not a full-time University student with time on my hands. I work full-time for a living. Imgroup May 3, 2006 15:14 (UTC)

I suggest that this biographical article include a short description of his ideas and that a separate article be created which deals with his ideas and criticisms of them. Sjeraj 21:14, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Sjeraj, a current precedent is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Maynard_Keynes which contains a Critique section, and links through to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keynesian_economics which has 'The Critique of Keynesianism' followed by 'Keynesian responses to the critiques'. However, let's wait for a few more responses before we consider creating a Galbraithian_economics article. Imgroup May 2, 2006 21:26 (UTC)

P.S. The main issue I have with a separate article is that really there isn't a 'Galbraithian school' per se - he was not the creator of a school of economic ideas of his own - he was a populizer of others', with as Richard Parker might put it, a gift for writing. Imgroup May 3, 2006 15:27 (UTC)

I would think that criticism of particular works and ideas of a person or directed towards them should be set alongside these works and ideas rather than their biographical details - this would allow greater depth and understanding of both sides. I think the Keynes article is lacking considering the big debates about Keynesianism which should not be included in his biography as the link between Keynes and Keynesianism is disputed (but this isn't the place to discuss that article). I agree about there being no 'Galbraith' school but I think he has developed as well as popularized certain non-neoclassical ideas and theories - a nice article dealing with the themes of his works and criticisms of them would be very useful in my opinion and allow for the biographical article to cover more of his non-economic works and general information. Sjeraj 23:36, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

References or tests of market power ideas in The Affluent Society

Are there academic papers that have analysed historical data to confirm the hypothesis? Comparing European economics and US economies would seem to be a place to start, especially as ideas about how to restrict monopolies or enforce antitrust laws or regulations have diverged. If so, I'd expect to see more inline references citing these. rhyre (talk) 05:29, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Libertarian criticism

Why is there a section for "Libertarian criticism" with this entry? Should we have a liberal, conservative, federalist, moderate, libertarian, authoritarian, fascist, socialist, communist, anarchist, marxist, trotskyist, etc. criticism for every theory or point of view advanced by an individual with an entry in Wikipedia? How about a feminist, sexist, homophobic, gay, black, hispanic, asian, handicapped, Anglican, Roman Catholic, Sunni Muslim, Buddhist, Reform Jewish, etc. point of view on every entry as well? I find this entry under John Kenneth Galbraith objectionable and would like to see it removed. If this sort of ridiculous entry stands, I'll have to gather together a group of friends to go after conservative/extreme free market economists. Mp2dtw 20:16, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

It would seem to make more sense to have a general Criticism section with sub-sections dealing with various types of critics: Libertarian, Monetarist, Neoclassical, Radical/Marxist etc. Sjeraj 08:15, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with both of these comments. I believe that this section should be removed. In addition to the fact that the entire secion doesn't really make sense and seems arbitrary, the criticisms are not cited. A criticism from Friedman is acceptable; unattributed gripes about Galbraith's scholarship have no place in this article. Any objections to removal? I will check this in a week, and, if there are no objections, I'll remove this section.Tony 19:11, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I concur. No section at all is better than a vague, incoherent and unsourced section. In order to have a creditable article, we need to do a much better job than this. –Joke 19:58, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

As there are no objections, I will remove the section.Tony 15:44, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Tony, I originally created a 'Controversy' section, after deletions by Drono. Drono then modified to the current title circa 2nd May 2006, along with another mangled section that I did not have time to return to correct (see my contributions list and What made/makes Galbraith's ideas controversial? above which I get the impression has not been read by some of those in this talk section). I suggest changing the title to Criticism to make it a general section, and then specify further the labels of criticism as sub-sections. I'm with you there, Sjeraj

Less rhetoric and recognition that the ideas that Galbraith espoused were and are controversial should be included in or linked to from the article. Coherent and well reasoned arguments against those that Galbraith presented exist, and should not be 'brushed under the carpet' if we are to adhere to the NPOV. Imgroup July 16, 2006 12:33 (UTC)

Earlier in the article it is mentioned that Galbraith had problems with the Austrian school in particular. Yet the only critic mentioned is Friedman, the key figure in the Chicago school. Perhaps a critique from an Austrian economist (Hayek, von Mises) would be better in this section. 128.239.195.11 01:30, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I totally agree that a critique from von Mises or Hayek would be appropriate here, and it should be left free-standing for readers to agree or disagree. The author of this section provides a defense of Galbriath's views against Friedman's critique, which isn't even expanded upon. An editorialized defense isn't necessary and would appear inappropriate if the intent here is to be objective. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zarpazo (talk • contribs) 06:38, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I have added what I think is a very relevant and important critique by Paul Krugman. I'm confident that it should be in there, but I'll gladly answer any questions here. The Fwanksta (talk) 20:35, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Canada's export

JKG was one of the most unknown Canada's export with Basket Ball and Winnie the Poe!!!! http://aurora.icaap.org/talks/galbraith.htm

Takima 19:22, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

The Scotch

Not sure what Dekruyff's objection is to Galbraith's own title for the book, under which it first appeared in North America; mentioning only the alternate UK title (one of two, in fact) and not the original and Galbraith's own preference as a title, seems anomalous. I have restored the reference.Masalai 08:15, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Can I give kudos to whomever put quotes around 'philosopher' as Ayn Rand's description? Wilhelm Ritter 05:19, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Will you give me kudos if I put quotes around references to Galbraith as an economist? Gazpacho 23:36, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Only if you did the same for the kookier Austrians. Wilhelm Ritter 19:23, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Under capitalism etc.

This joke is attributed to JKG all over the web, evidently because it got into one of those quotation files that people use to generate e-mail signatures (for instance [2]). However, I can't find a real source for it. I recall hearing it first in the 1970s or so as an example of Soviet worker humor, along with, "We pretend to work and they pretend to pay us," etc. Google returns a few references that confirm my recollection ([3], [4]). In other words, I suspect Galbraith didn't originate this. Can anyone cite a relevant work or speech of his? Eleuther 08:23, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

It's in A Life in Our Times. Masalai 08:28, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Masalai! With your help, I found the reference, but I think it's dubious. Writing in 1981, JKG is reminiscing about a trip he made to communist Poland in 1958. He mentions a cynical remark about socialist planning by one of his hosts at a dinner meeting of the Polish Economic Society. Then he says, "Later I was asked (as I believe many have been asked since) if I knew the difference between capitalism and Communism. (new paragraph) 'Well, I will tell you. Under capitalism man exploits man. And under Communism it is just the reverse.'"

This is ambiguous. On the face of it, he seems to be claiming to have originated the quip, perhaps in after-dinner remarks on the named occasion, or perhaps in later private conversation. In any case, it was unpublished at the time, unless someone can provide a 1950s citation. And anyway, he didn't originate it – it's a well-known bit of people's humor. Another, more likely reading of the anecdote is that he was just returning a stock answer to a stock question, and didn't feel like spelling this out in his memoir.

If nobody objects, I intend to edit the article to indicate that the attribution of this quote to JKG is apocryphal ... Eleuther 20:20, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I only object in that I think you need evidence that it was "a well-known bit of people's humor" prior to the publication of his memoirs. It sounds like you're correct, but I think a little more evidence would be prudent.Tony 19:42, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

It's not ambiguous at all. At least not in the book, where the passage occurs. He is quoting the Polish questioner's own answer to the question.Masalai 20:04, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Masalai, I agree, though the passage can really be read either way. Tony, I gave 2 not-very-good sources above, and I've found some more since. Christopher Lehmann-Haupt, in his 1-May-1981 NYTimes book review of A Life in Our Times, attributes the quote to JKG ([5]), which may be the real source of the error. Evidently William Styron repeated it in a 7-June-1981 Op-Ed piece (can't find it online). Then a 13-June-1981 letter to the editor corrects the mistake ([6]). I've also found forum posts describing it as an "old Ed Sullivan" joke and as coming from the Russian humor magazine Krokodil, etc. I hope that's enough. Eleuther 01:41, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I really don't see how the passage can be read either way. Indeed, he calls it Polish humor. Here is the quotation in its entirety:

Trial and deprivation, as so often in Polish history, had nurtured the national humor. At my welcoming dinner, given by the Polish Economic Society, one of my hosts said I would discover that "No country has done so much for the theory of planning as Poland — and so little for its practice.” Later I was asked (as I believe many have been since) if I knew the difference between capitalism and Communism.

"Well, I will tell you. Under capitalism man exploits man. And under Communism it’s just the reverse."

(J.K. Galbraith, A Life in Our Times (New York: Ballantine, 1981) pp.351-352))Masalai 05:00, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree! But technically, one can read it the other way too. The problem is the paragraph break, which usually indicates a change of speaker in dialog, which would make Galbraith the speaker of the last line. Anyhow, that seems to be how Lehmann-Haupt read it, and if I didn't already know the joke, I might read it that way myself. Eleuther 07:12, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh come on. Masalai 07:50, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I even admit that I did read it that way the first 20 times I looked at it. I guess I'm just too literal-minded. Anyhow, thanks! Arguments are always most pleasant when they're between people who agree ... Eleuther 08:50, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Apocryphal Quotations

But it's not apocyrphal; it's a misattribution. Masalai 22:02, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

• Oke, you found it necessary to wreck my change, so it's all yours. However (a) that's way too much text about a very minor issue in the overall context, and (b) the "Polish acquaintance" didn't originate it either, it's a folk saying, and (c) if you're going to quote, you should do so accurately, i.e. put the paragraph break back in the right place, and (d) please don't worry about trying to explain to me what you think apocryphal means, it wouldn't help, I'm too old a dog. Cheers, and bye! Eleuther 11:11, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it certainly is a matter of trivial importance, but look at all the discussion it has engendered here. The point is that there seemed to be some inclination to accuse JKG of stealing someone else's lines, whereas he certainly coined enough bon mots of his own that he didn't need to appropriate any. Masalai 12:30, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

It hasn't engendered any discussion except from you. I'm not attacking JKG, I'm only trying to correct a fabulous internet echo. I'm reverting the article to a more appropriate form, with a link to this talk, in case anyone cares. Eleuther 13:07, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Never underestimate etc.

Is this([7]) another one? Based on googling, it's a common enough signature quote, unattributed about 80% of the time, attributed to JKG or anonymous/unknown about 10% each, plus occasional attributions to Calvin or Phil Steffen or "an old bumper sticker" etc. It appears on various T-shirts and posters you can buy, always unattributed. However, I couldn't find a source citation, and none of the quotation sites like Bartleby's lists it. And anyhow, it just doesn't sound like JKG to me, it's too mean-minded. Any opinions? Any source? Or should I just move it to the apocryphal section? Eleuther 07:58, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Bubbles

"Critics point out that Galbraith misses a larger truth- that bubbles are characterized by insufficient availability of price information."

Why does this sentence appear as Truth? Should it be deleted/changed? Does it contain any truth? (Does not seem not apply to current real estate bubble, or 2000 Internet bubble.)-69.87.194.95 23:01, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't seem even handed and even a little bit anti-JGK. It should be removed.

Obituaries

Does this article really need so many obit links in external links? 24.118.215.4 (talk) 02:32, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

You can never have too many sources saying he's dead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.6.157.14 (talk) 16:22, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:The Essential Galbraith.jpg

Image:The Essential Galbraith.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:54, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:JKG bookcover-sm-1.jpg

Image:JKG bookcover-sm-1.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 23:28, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Criticism of Galbraith's work

I don't see how are the quoted parts a criticism to Galbraith's work. It seems more like a list of adhominem attacks (He writes for self publicity, he isn't taken seriously by fellow economists, he gives over simplistic explanations to complex issues, he believes in the superiority of aristocracy, he doesn't want people to have free choice, and so on...).

What is Wikipedia's position on that kind of "criticism"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.136.6.251 (talk) 20:54, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Quite - these comments are personal abuse. Either these quoted "criticisms" of his work should be removed, or the justifying arguments given. Alternatively, as Galbraith was politically involved, and did indeed make enemies, the quotes may be worthy of inclusion under a different subheading to help illustrate the antagonism he aroused. He himself, in various of his books, recounts the attacks and threats made against him, often with self-deprecating amusement. Sasha (talk) 14:22, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

With the quotation list now gone, I don't see anything wrong with the section and I have removed the box. How can the published opinions of respected economists about Galbraith's work not be relevant? WillOakland (talk) 06:09, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Need a citation

This statement; "While some considered his views anachronistic during the pro-market, small-government, anti-regulation and low-tax orthodoxies which came to prominence in the 1980s, the downfall of those ideas' popularity with the late 2000's economic crisis has awoken interest in his theories once again." sounds some left wing conjecture. It should either be removed or cited to a secondary source. The main problem I have is with the downfall of pro-market ideas and such in the late 2000's. --AresAndEnyo (talk) 04:23, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Was JKG head of the Office of Price Administration during WWII?

Under the heading "World War II and Price Administration", it states "Galbraith served as deputy head of the Office of Price Administration during World War II". There is no mention of any change in position prior to "Galbraith would be forced out in 1943, eventually replaced by advertising executive Chester Bowles".

In the Chester Bowles Wikipedia entry, under "Biography", it states "He was appointed by President Roosevelt in 1943 as administrator of the Office of Price Administration."

Is the "administrator" the "the deputy head"? In which case there is no inconsistency but perhaps common terms would be helpful. If not, was JKG promoted from deputy to administrator?

Silasdogood100 (talk) 17:36, 4 August 2010 (UTC)silasdogood100

Broadcasting (1943-06-07, p. 44) describes him as "deputy administrator" in an article about his resignation. Broadcasting writes:

Mr. Galbraith left OPA following the stormy hearings of the Boran Committee [Broadcasting, May 31] which looked into standardization and grade labeling under a solution introduced by Rep. Halleck (R-Ind.). Even after he left this week, hearings on OPA grade labeling continued, this time before the Smith Committee investigating charges that OPA had exceeded its authority.

"Galbraith, Grade Label Advocate, Quits But Labor Fights Maxon Plans for OPA". Broadcasting and Broadcast Advertising. 24 (23). Washington, D.C.: Broadcasting Publications, Inc.: 44 June 7, 1943.

"Grade labeling" as referred to here was an OPA proposal that manufacturers of preserved foods be required to designate the primary ingredient using a government-established grading system, so that consumers could tell whether a manufacturer was responding to the OPA's price controls by reducing the quality of the product. It was extremely controversial in the advertising industry, who interpreted the proposal as an attempt to destroy branding of food products. 121a0012 (talk) 23:21, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

And a few weeks later, Prentiss M. Brown is identified as Price Administrator. So it appears that Galbraith left the OPA before Brown did, and was never in charge, except perhaps on an acting basis. 121a0012 (talk) 00:36, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Honorary degrees

Why take up so much space to recite his degrees? Surely all that's required is a couple of lines, viz: "He received many honorary degrees in his lifetime, for example from universities X, Y and Z" 82.69.28.55 (talk) 07:24, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Quotation

In the current financial climate the following quote should be added to this page, people looking for understanding of the financial system could learn a lot from these few simple words.

"The study of money, above all other fields in economics, is one in which complexity is used to disguise truth or to evade truth, not to reveal it. The process by which banks create money is so simple the mind is repelled. With something so important, a deeper mystery seems only decent." John Kenneth Galbraith: Money, Whence It Came, Where It Went 1975 Chapter I, Money, p. 5 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.178.181.151 (talk) 09:15, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Factual question under "Works" section: monopolies & market power

Consider this statement is the article: "He believed that this market power ... allowing corporations to be price makers, ... allowing corporations with the strongest market power to increase the production of their goods beyond an efficient amount." To anyone who studied economics (even Galbraith, I suspect), the conclusion is obviously exactly backward. A firm with market power exercises it by restricting production to push up prices (or vice versa). Production is below the efficient amount. You can't raise prices and production at once; demand curves slope down. So either this statement should be corrected, or the section rewritten to explain what Galbraith really meant (by someone who understands what they are reading, please). — Preceding unsigned comment added by EconGuy0 (talk • contribs) 18:52, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

World War II and Price Administration

This section is non-encyclopedic in tone, in particular the separately flagged statement. ("The result was that wages and prices were kept in check, and the U.S. enjoyed rapid growth and price stability through the war.") This assertion of causality is not neutral point of view, and also is not cited. Semiautomata (talk) 17:24, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

US Strategic Bombing Survey

I think someone who can do a lot more research than I can should re-evaluate the brief section on the "inefficiency" of the US strategy for bombing transportation and oil targets in Germany in 1944-45. Some well-researched books, such as Don Miller's "Masters of the Air," a history of the Eighth Air Force, cogently and convincingly demonstrate that the German military economy was tremendously hampered by the bombing efforts of the Eighth. Even the development of synthetic gasoline, and the fueling of industry, which was coal based (Germany had plenty of coal) was demolished by the destruction of the railroads, which prevented the transport of the coal.

John Kenneth Galbraith, a notorious anti-bombing proponent, carried his prejudices into his work on the post-war Strategic Bombing Survey. He desperately wanted to say that the bombing was ineffective, and in a breathtaking display of hypocrisy (considering his statements about "pentagonia"), he maintained that the survey showed just that. In fact, if you read the actual survey (it's available on-line), it does NOT say that the bombing was ineffective. The whole issue is clouded by the less-than candid statements from the Germans, such as Speer and others, who had their own personal agendas when speaking to interrogators. This is an important issue in WW II history, and deserves a bit of expansion here, because Galbraith was personally responsible for a lot of misinterpretation and plain nonsense about this matter.65.81.79.71 (talk) 18:22, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

US Strategic Bombing Survey

I think someone who can do a lot more research than I can should re-evaluate the brief section on the "inefficiency" of the US strategy for bombing transportation and oil targets in Germany in 1944-45. Some well-researched books, such as Don Miller's "Masters of the Air," a history of the Eighth Air Force, cogently and convincingly demonstrate that the German military economy was tremendously hampered by the bombing efforts of the Eighth. Even the development of synthetic gasoline, and the fueling of industry, which was coal based (Germany had plenty of coal) was demolished by the destruction of the railroads, which prevented the transport of the coal.

John Kenneth Galbraith, a notorious anti-bombing proponent, carried his prejudices into his work on the post-war Strategic Bombing Survey. He desperately wanted to say that the bombing was ineffective, and in a breathtaking display of hypocrisy (considering his statements about "pentagonia"), he maintained that the survey showed just that. In fact, if you read the actual survey (it's available on-line), it does NOT say that the bombing was ineffective. The whole issue is clouded by the less-than candid statements from the Germans, such as Speer and others, who had their own personal agendas when speaking to interrogators. This is an important issue in WW II history, and deserves a bit of expansion here, because Galbraith was personally responsible for a lot of misinterpretation and plain nonsense about this matter.65.81.79.71 (talk) 18:22, 11 November 2013 (UTC)