RE: [Futurework] Galbraith and economics

[Harry Pollard]

Arthur,   Perhaps the inability to determine what is right and what is wrong in Economics is a problem.   One only has to look at the controlled economies of the world – including our own – and one can see that the people who should get what they produce don’t, whereas those who don’t produce do get it.   I like the following quote that I archived a few minutes ago. I think you will like it too. In fact, I’m sure you will like it.   He offers a prescription which is perhaps unoriginal, but his discussion of the failure of the controlled economy to handle the most basic problems is clear – though I bet he wouldn’t agree with my interpretation.   The full column is at:   http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=3439   It’s by Moisés Naím - editor in chief of FOREIGN POLICY.   Harry   ---------------------------------------------------   And herein lies  the  danger.  Yes,  inequality  is  morally repugnant  and  politically  corrosive.  But  it   is   also stubbornly immune to direct  government  interventions.  The world has a long history  of  failed  attempts  at  fighting inequality, including changing the tax system, labor  market interventions, reform of property rights, massive subsidies, protection from foreign competition, and price controls; the list is endless.   Nothing  has  worked.    Countries  that  are unequal have stayed  unequal.  In  the  last  25  years,  no country that suffers  unequal  distribution  of  wealth  has succeeded in permanently decreasing its  inequality.  Worse, more often than not, good  intentions  have  led  to  waste, corruption, and even more inequality.   What to do, then? Let’s stop fighting a battle we can’t  win and concentrate all efforts on a fight that can succeed. The best tools to achieve  a  long-term,  sustained  decline  in inequality are  the  same  as  those  that  are  now  widely accepted as the best available levers to lift people out  of poverty. Provide access to better education and  healthcare, clean water, justice, steady jobs, housing, and credit.  The recipe is well known, even boring. These goals are not  good fodder for a rousing speech. And they will  not  bring  down inequality as quickly as one would  wish.  But  focusing  on these indispensable goals will certainly close one important gap: the gap between our good deeds and our best intentions.   ********************************* Henry George School of Los Angeles Box 655  Tujunga  CA  91042 818 352-4141 *********************************     From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Cordell, Arthur: ECOM Sent: Wednesday, May 03, 2006 1:47 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; futurework@fes.uwaterloo.ca Subject: RE: [Futurework] Galbraith and economics   He was pompous and had an over sized ego (to fit is frame ??) , but I don't think "he was wrong."   In fact the right/wrong dichotomy probably doesn't easily apply in economics.   Arthur -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of Harry Pollard Sent: Wednesday, May 03, 2006 2:31 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; futurework@fes.uwaterloo.ca Subject: RE: [Futurework] Galbraith and economics Galbraith ran price controls during WWII and this influenced him from thereon.   I think his idea of “balance” was the controlled economy.   He was wrong.   Harry   ********************************* Henry George School of Los Angeles Box 655  Tujunga  CA  91042 818 352-4141 *********************************

_______________________________________________
Futurework mailing list
Futurework@fes.uwaterloo.ca
http://fes.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework