After a recent trip to one of our local Goodwill Stores(btw great place to find investment type books, especially after the market is going through, or just coming out of a bear market), I came away with a copy of "A Journey Through Economic Time, A Firsthand View" by John Kenneth Galbraith. I was truly excited to find and purchase a book by Galbraith, the late renowned and respected economist. Furthermore I was excited that it appeared to be an economic history of the twentieth century with some commentary in a format that was easy to understand.
The book starts with the early part of the twentieth century. Galbraith discusses World War I and the aftermath. He discusses the rise of John Meynard Keynes as an economist and the unintended consequences of German war reparations. Galbraith laments the fact that economic decisions are often made by the stupid or uninformed politicians. Galbraith continues by citing causes for the Great Depression and The Crash. He also discusses the effects these events had on the developed world, particularly Europe and the United States. He went on to discuss how the Depression and war reparations led to the rise of Adolf Hitler. Please note that until this point in the book I have learned several things I previously did not know and I cannot argue or disagree in any valid way with anything that is discussed. Even his discussion of FDR and the New Deal I can't really argue with because, while he doesn't hide his affection for the previously mentioned, he does discuss the mistakes as well as the victories. One comment did throw up a red flag however. He mentions that several european countries came through that era relatively unscathed and that it was a credit to their governmental measures and resilient citizens. That comment unto itself is fine. It was the specific mention of the French and the strong implication that their "superior" societal structure helped them come through the era much better then others. He comparatively mentions little about this societal structure during the subsequent invasion and german occupation during World War II. A societal structure that prevented them from realizing the great German threat to the east and led to great suffering by certain segments of their "great" culture. Perhaps in Galbraith's eyes it is better to live in slavery than risk physical harm.
The French observation aside, he continues on to discuss the Post War Global Economy. He points out both economic successes and failures across the globe. Most of which I couldn't argue against. Even his mention of the USSR's economic strength; manufacturing. He doesn't mention the quality, or rather the lack thereof, of products produced under that economy. But, yeah they could pump widgets and cogs out like there was no tomorrow.
Galbraith uses the last third of the book to discuss American economics and governmental policies post-WWII once again citing failures and successes. He stays on track in my opinion until his discussion of the Johnson administration and beyond. He gives the Great Society and Johnson rave reviews, arguing that Johnson helped the poor and promoted equality. However, he never mentions how Johnson helped continue the Vietnam Conflict. Nor how Johnson benefited monetarily(through his Bell-Hughes holdings) from the conflict. Not a minor oversight in my opinion.
He discusses "Tricky Dick" , Gerald Ford, the seventies, the oil crisis, and stagflation. His discussion of the Republican presidents of that period is less than glowing and probably deservedly so. Up until this point in my reading I probably would have given the book between 3 and 4 stars out of 5. That is until the rest of the book. Let's just say, he left the reservation and never got close to coming back.
As we all know, Carter's administration closed out the seventies. He talks about Carter in glowing terms while citing exactly zilch, nada, nothing of his economic policies. His opinion is that Carter called it like he saw it and because he said it publicly he paid the price for it. In my opinion Carter got voted out because he couldn't do anything right, even his eventual victories were only short term in duration and later fell apart badly.
Galbraith's pompousity started with his Carter assessment and only grows until he mercifully ends the book. He never mentions Paul Volcker and mentions little of the inflation and subsequent measures that later broke the back of it. His discussion of the Eighties begins and ends with his discussion of Reagan. His assessment is simply that Reagan and later Bush Sr. were for the rich. He cites no examples and presents no arguments for his view. The Great Galbraith thus spoke and therefore it must be. What a pompous ass! His only discussion of economic policy using any facts is his assessment of the Savings and Loan crisis and the contribution of deregulation of the industry that helped lead to it's demise. The books ends at the end of Bush Sr.'s term. The Great Galbraith is merciful! LOL
I've put some thought into why he omits Volcker and the discussion of the double dip recessions. It ruins his assessment of Carter. Volcker singlehandedly caused the Reagan Recession of the early eighties. Volcker was a Carter appointee. Volcker decided it was better to kill inflation and suffer over the short term, than to suffer the not so slow death of high inflation over the longer term. Having to discuss how a Carter appointee was responsible for a deep recession that caused suffering while simultaniously throwing blame upon Reagan may have proven somewhat difficult. Furthermore, any discussion of high inflation would have drawn comparisons to earlier in the book, which in some ways would have given credit to some that the Great Galbraith was opposed to politically.
To say that I was disappointed by this book would be an understatement to say the least. I expected the economic straight dope about the twentieth century from an expert who was supposed to be fairly non-political. Instead I got what started as a history lesson and digressed, ending in something akin to a left leaning op-ed piece bereft of facts or citations. Galbraith proved himself as just another pompous ass from Harvard. Because of this book I have discounted much of what Galbraith has written. I no longer trust his motives!
Comments