Customer Reviews

Friedman on Galbraith, and on curing the British disease

5 star:		(0)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

"Friedman on Galbraith: and on Curing the British Disease" is a pamphlet based on two lectures by Milton Friedman.

The first is a lecture on why Friedman disagrees with Galbraith's four most popular works: "Countervailing Power," "The Great Crash of 1929," "The Affluent Society," and "The New Industrial State". It is a short lecture followed by a Q&A session. Friedman consistently repeats that an unfettered free market, with minimal rules and regulations, is the best economic system. He fundamentally disagrees with Galbraith's assumptions and empirical evidence. In doing so Friedman almost completely ignores Galbraith's actual contentions.

Excerpts are included from critiques on Galbraith's work by other economists. Most of the critiques come from monetarists that espouse the neoclassical view Galbraith argues against. The only relevant critique in the pamphlet can be seen from Nobel Laureate Robert Solow (who is by no means a monetarist). Solow agrees philosophically with Galbraith but fundamentally disagrees with his analysis in "The New Industrial State". Unfortunately, the only critique by someone other than a monetarist is completely flawed. Solow admits that even if Galbraith's vision is true for his era (1960's) it will not hold for the future. The service industry is growing but large corporations and conglomerates do not, and will not, exist for the service industry. Professor Solow was completely misguided.

Friedman accuses Galbraith of placing his elitist normative values above positive economics. The same can be said of Friedman.

"On Curing the British Disease" is a small lecture on why shock therapy should be used on the United Kingdom. If that is not possible a series of gradual neoliberal reforms should be used to `fix' the country. Friedman often plays with statistics (ex: using `expenditures' to make his case for privatization rather than `purchases'). Like the Galbraith Q&A the questions are arraigned so as to offer simple answers to complex problems and, no surprise, make it sounds as if the entire field of positive economics agrees with Friedman.

Friedman's lectures are interesting. The propaganda and formatting this book uses, which Friedman nudges along, are not. This pamphlet should only be read by people who have a solid background in the works of both Friedman and Galbraith (The exact OPPOSITE of its intended audience).