Posted on 05/24/2011 6:41:03 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
whether they wish it or desire it or not. If prices are continually rising, every trader who has purchased stock or owns property and plant inevitably makes profits. By directing hatred against this class, therefore, the European Governments are carrying a step further the fatal process which the subtle mind of Lenin had consciously conceived. The profiteers are a consequence and not a cause of rising prices. . . . We are thus faced in Europe with the spectacle of an extraordinary weakness on the part of the great capitalist class, which has emerged from the industrial triumphs of the nineteenth century, and seemed a very few years ago our all-powerful master. The terror and personal timidity of the individuals of this class is now so great, their confidence in their place in society and their necessity to the social organism so diminished, that they are the easy victims of intimidation.
Businessmen have a different set of delusions from politicians, and need, therefore, different handling. They are, however, much milder than politicians, at the same time allured and terrified by the glare of publicity, easily persuaded to be “patriots,” perplexed, bemused, indeed terrified, yet only too anxious to take a cheerful view, vain perhaps but very unsure of themselves, pathetically responsive to a kind word. You could do anything you liked with them, if you would treat them (even the big ones), not as wolves and tigers, but as domestic animals by nature, even though they have been badly brought up and not trained as you would wish. It is a mistake to think that they are more immoral than politicians. If you work them into the surly, obstinate, terrified mood, of which domestic animals, wrongly handled, are so capable, the nation’s burdens will not get carried to market.
He was an enormously talented businessman on top of it all. He started off wobbly, badly bruising his personal finances with highly leveraged currency speculation. And though he required a bailout from a wealthy friend, that early failure did not much damage his confidence in his intelligence, the lesson learned being: “The market can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent.” But the lesson was learned nonetheless, and he improved his strategy, becoming a gifted steward of his own money and that of others: Under his management, the King’s College trust fund returned an average of 12 percent from 1927 to 1946, years during which the overall British stock market declined 15 percent, and he hit those numbers with no reinvestment of dividends. This was in his spare time. Conservatives are wrong to scoff at Keynes the economist or Keynes the man of practical finance.
The strenuous purposeful money-makers may carry all of us along with them into the lap of economic abundance. But it will be those peoples, who can keep alive, and cultivate into a fuller perfection, the art of life itself and do not sell themselves for the means of life, who will be able to enjoy the abundance when it comes.Yet there is no country and no people, I think, who can look forward to the age of leisure and of abundance without a dread. For we have been trained too long to strive and not to enjoy. It is a fearful problem for the ordinary person, with no special talents, to occupy himself, especially if he no longer has roots in the soil or in custom or in the beloved conventions of a traditional society. To judge from the behaviour and the achievements of the wealthy classes to-day in any quarter of the world, the outlook is very depressing! For these are, so to speak, our advance guard — those who are spying out the promised land for the rest of us and pitching their camp there. For they have most of them failed disastrously, so it seems to me — those who have an independent income but no associations or duties or ties — to solve the problem which has been set them.
As part of a college honors program, we were required to read The Affluent Society over the summer and render a report first thing upon our return to college. I was a freshly minted college sophomore with strong but primitive conservative instincts and little wariness for the hidden agendas which motivated the political science professors running the honors program. I was shortly to be disabused of my ignorance.
Essentially, The Affluent Society, itself has an agenda, to rationalize the taking of your liberty and vesting it in the state. Galbraith exploited his agility with a pen and succeeded in convincing a large portion of our people that the elites who run the think tanks and universities and the government regulators are smarter than we are. His proof that we are stupid? We waste money on big fins attached to the back ends of our automobiles but fail to spend that money for the programs which later came to be known under the rubric, The Great Society. In fact, so well did Galbraith succeed that the popular justification for the great society was laid down in this book and ultimately accepted by the public at large.
My conservative principles, although not yet tempered, were strong enough and clear enough to see that the question was individual liberty versus collective control. Once one accepts Galbraith's premise, that society when exercising individual choice squanders its resources, the argument is virtually over. One must maintain the high ground, that individual liberty is worth the inevitable waste. That waste is the price we pay for innovation, for growth, and ultimately for economic and political freedom. Finally, that waste, compared to the institutionalized waste committed by governments, is cheap indeed. Ultimately, the question is, do you want to pay the price the Italians paid to make their trains run on time?
To college professors, the temptation to make the trains run on time is irresistible. Galbraith's career itself demonstrates that. These were the heady days along The New Frontier. We had thrown off the shackles of the boring 1950s and we had inherited from that decade wealth beyond our experience. The professors were focused on how to get their hands on that wealth while forgetting how it was created. No, they did not want it for themselves, they wanted a great society do good with it. Lyndon Johnson gave them a chance and our eletes gave us The Great Society.
These professors are all dead now, not enjoying Galbraith's longevity but their legacy and his survives mere mortal life span. The temptation to do good by ultimately invoking the physical power of the state to control people's choices and spend their money for them is difficult for any generation or culture to resist.
As part of a college honors program, we were required to read The Affluent Society over the summer and render a report first thing upon our return to college. I was a freshly minted college sophomore with strong but primitive conservative instincts and little wariness for the hidden agendas which motivated the political science professors running the honors program. I was shortly to be disabused of my ignorance.
Essentially, The Affluent Society, itself has an agenda, to rationalize the taking of your liberty and vesting it in the state. Galbraith exploited his agility with a pen and succeeded in convincing a large portion of our people that the elites who run the think tanks and universities and the government regulators are smarter than we are. His proof that we are stupid? We waste money on big fins attached to the back ends of our automobiles but fail to spend that money for the programs which later came to be known under the rubric, The Great Society. In fact, so well did Galbraith succeed that the popular justification for the great society was laid down in this book and ultimately accepted by the public at large.
My conservative principles, although not yet tempered, were strong enough and clear enough to see that the question was individual liberty versus collective control. Once one accepts Galbraith's premise, that society when exercising individual choice squanders its resources, the argument is virtually over. One must maintain the high ground, that individual liberty is worth the inevitable waste. That waste is the price we pay for innovation, for growth, and ultimately for economic and political freedom. Finally, that waste, compared to the institutionalized waste committed by governments, is cheap indeed. Ultimately, the question is, do you want to pay the price the Italians paid to make their trains run on time?
To college professors, the temptation to make the trains run on time is irresistible. Galbraith's career itself demonstrates that. These were the heady days along The New Frontier. We had thrown off the shackles of the boring 1950s and we had inherited from that decade wealth beyond our experience. The professors were focused on how to get their hands on that wealth while forgetting how it was created. No, they did not want it for themselves, they wanted a great society do good with it. Lyndon Johnson gave them a chance and our eletes gave us The Great Society.
These professors are all dead now, not enjoying Galbraith's longevity but their legacy and his survives mere mortal life span. The temptation to do good by ultimately invoking the physical power of the state to control people's choices and spend their money for them is difficult for any generation or culture to resist.
“But for progressives, sin is a matter of taste.”
How true.
Well done, I say to you again, sir!
...oh, and nice Fisking of Galbraith, too.
Full Disclosure: go read The Servile State by Hilaire Belloc. (Written in 1913, it predates the Bolshevik Revolution, but correctly predicted the societal consequences of a clash of Communism and Capitalism. G.K. Chesterton got all the credit, but this half of the Chesterbelloc wsa truly prescient.)
Cheers!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.