von Neumann in the USNavy: why?
susupply
> "ferrante formato" <ferrante...@libero.it> wrote:
> >It is hardly envisageble that Navy was interested in econometric
> >subjects.
The Statistical Research Group was formed at Columbia University in 1942 as
a subsidiary of the Office of Scientific Research and Development by the
economist Allen Wallis (later the dean of the Business School at U. of
Chicago) to marshall the talents of the country's leading statistical minds
for the war effort.
As he tells it in an article in the Journal of the American Statistical
Association:
" During the Battle of the Bulge in December 1944, several high ranking Army
officers flew to Washington from the battle, spent a day discussing the best
settings on proximity fuzes for air bursts of artillery shells against
ground troops, and flew back to the battle to put into effect advice from,
among others, Milton Friedman, whose earlier studies of the fuzes had given
him extensive and accurate knowledge of the way the fuzes actually
performed."
Friedman, in chapter eight of "Two Lucky People" explains that he had been
working on settings of the fuse in anti-aircraft projectiles, and quotes
Wallis for an example of how work in one field can be carried over to
another:
"Friedman's inspiration to fit the fuze data by joining a positive and a
negative exponential distribution, thus generating a sharp-pointed mode,
followed an evening of conversation about economics with Arthur F. Burns,
who questioned the assumption, which is made a priori by economists, that no
economic series or distribution ever has a discontinuity in the first
derivative--or probably any other derivative either."
Friedman himself continues:
"Because of its importance, strict secrecy was maintained on the proximity
fuse. None were initially made available in the European theater because of
fear that they would fall into the hands of the Nazis who could use them to
blunt severely the heavy aerial bombardment they were being subjected to.
The ban was lifted for the Battle of the Bulge...this necessitated hurry-up
instruction in what the fuse was and how to use it....After the war, we
learned that the worst fears of the guardians of the fuse had been realized:
the Nazis had captured a box of proximity fuses; fortunately they never
realized what they were and never made use of the.
"The fuses were extremely valuable for the Navy in the Pacific in defense
against dive bombers and suicide bombers."
Friedman also notes:
" I was impressed with how much the distributions of points of burst looked
like the distributions of income by size that I had worked on at the
National Bureau [of Economic Research]....Later on, that...was part of the
stimulus for, an article "Choice, Chance, and Personal Distribution of
Income" that I published in 1953".
Patrick
Robert Vienneau
>It is hardly envisageble that Navy was interested in econometric
>subjects.
I'm not sure of the context of this thread.
Von Neumann did early work in Germany - for example, formalizing
quantum mechanics. He worked on developing Hilbert's program for
laying a foundation for mathematics and was one of the first to
appreciate Goedel's results. I think by the time of the second
world war he was at the Institute for Advanced Studies at Princeton.
The war gave a significant push to and funded the development
of such fields as computing, operations research, cybernetics,
communications, etc. Von Neumann contributed to these fields. The
computer you're reading this on probably has a Von Neumann
architecture. His economic growth model is an example of activity
analysis. Game theory arguably falls into operations research.
Eary work in cybernetics employs biological metaphors, and Von
Neumann made interesting contributions to theoretical biology in
his work on self-reproducing celluar automata and the computer and
the brain. As I understand it, scientists used the computing
facilities at Los Alamos to play around with celluar automata.
Anyway, from the war onward, much of Von Neumann's work fell in
areas that received military funding. He also was heavily
involved with the military/scientific community, whether it came
to developing computers, pushing for the development of the
hydrogen bomb, atomic strategy, or as a member of the Atomic
Energy Committee. If I recall correctly, an officer was stationed
in Von Neumann's hospital room when he died of cancer to ensure
he did not start babbling military secrets.
I hadn't recalled or known he was in the U.S. Navy, but you could
see where he might have been with this history.
Stepping back, since the war there has been other involvement
of economics and related fields with the military industrial
community. The United States Strategic Bombing Survey looked into
the effects of bombing on Germany. It included such eminent
economists as Nicholas Kaldor and John Kenneth Galbraith.
Dorfman, Samuelson, and Solow's book on linear programming was
published under the auspices of the Rand institute. And so on.
I am very vaguely aware of recent books arguing the postwar development
of various fields, including ones you might not expect, was impacted
by the cold war. If I recall correctly, the CIA thought Jackson
Pollock's abstract impressionism was good propaganda for the
American "way of life". The turn towards positivist philosophy in
the U.S. has been claimed, I think, to reflect cold war influences.
Thomas Kuhn's Structure of Scientific Revolutions has been said
to be a cold war metaphor - why cannot two paradigms in a field
peacefully coexist?
I'm looking forward to the publication of Philip Mirowski's new
book, which looks at economics in a related context.
--
Try http://csf.colorado.edu/pkt/pktauthors/Vienneau.Robert/Bukharin.html
r c .../Keynes.html
v s a Whether strength of body or of mind, or wisdom, or
i m p virtue, are found in proportion to the power or wealth
e a e of a man is a question fit perhaps to be discussed by
n e . slaves in the hearing of their masters, but highly
@ r c m unbecoming to reasonable and free men in search of
d o the truth. -- Rousseau
James McCown
[deletia]
> The United States Strategic Bombing Survey looked into
> the effects of bombing on Germany. It included such eminent
> economists as Nicholas Kaldor and John Kenneth Galbraith.
Galbraith is eminent?
I hope I never become eminent.
Mason Clark
>
>Galbraith is eminent?
>I hope I never become eminent.
My collection of quotations has a file exhibiting the level of
intelligence on the Usenet. Thanks.
Mason C
Robert Vienneau
flec...@yahoo.com (James McCown) wrote:
My apologies to those reading this on ww2...@acpub.duke.edu. That's
the sort of level of conversation we get on sci.econ.
James McCown
> In article <f70ca421.01082...@posting.google.com>,
> flec...@yahoo.com (James McCown) wrote:
>
> > Robert Vienneau <rv...@see.sig.com> wrote in message
> > news:<rvien-177E81....@news.dreamscape.com>...
> >
> > [deletia]
> > > The United States Strategic Bombing Survey looked into
> > > the effects of bombing on Germany. It included such eminent
> > > economists as Nicholas Kaldor and John Kenneth Galbraith.
> >
> > Galbraith is eminent?
> >
> > I hope I never become eminent
>
> My apologies to those reading this on ww2...@acpub.duke.edu. That's
> the sort of level of conversation we get on sci.econ.
Please tell me something, Robert or Mason. What significant
theoretical or empirical research has Galbraith contributed?
David Lloyd-Jones
"James McCown" <flec...@yahoo.com> asks:
> Please tell me something, Robert or Mason. What significant
> theoretical or empirical research has Galbraith contributed?
The self-interest of the corporate institution and its managers.
Unfortunately, Gardner and Means had done the same work twenty or thirty
years earlier.
-dlj.
Robert Vienneau
flec...@yahoo.com (James McCown) wrote:
> Robert Vienneau <rv...@see.sig.com> wrote in message
> news:<rvien-D04436....@news.dreamscape.com>...
> > In article <f70ca421.01082...@posting.google.com>,
> > flec...@yahoo.com (James McCown) wrote:
> >
> > > Robert Vienneau <rv...@see.sig.com> wrote in message
> > > news:<rvien-177E81....@news.dreamscape.com>...
> > > [deletia]
> > > > The United States Strategic Bombing Survey looked into
> > > > the effects of bombing on Germany. It included such eminent
> > > > economists as Nicholas Kaldor and John Kenneth Galbraith.
> > >
> > > Galbraith is eminent?
> > >
> > > I hope I never become eminent
> >
> > My apologies to those reading this on ww2...@acpub.duke.edu. That's
> > the sort of level of conversation we get on sci.econ.
>
> Please tell me something, Robert or Mason. What significant
> theoretical or empirical research has Galbraith contributed?
That, of course, is a non sequitur, a change of subject.
In directing his countrymen and women's attention to - or
persuading them of - the coexistence of private affluence
and public squalor Galbraith was attempting to describe an
aspect of the world.
The bombing survey was not the first time Galbraith had contributed
his services as an economist to keep the US free, if you like that
kind of terminology.
A famous author; a coiner of phrases that have become common
currency among educated Americans; a shaper of the way those
educated Americans viewed society, including the economy, for
at least a generation; an inspiration for Kennedy/Johnson
anti-poverty schemes; a former Ambassador to India; a former
president of the American Economic Association; once in charge
of setting prices throughtout the United States; a retired Harvard
professor with an endowed chair; a former president of the American
Academy of Arts and Letters; a recipient of many honorary
degrees - yes, Galbraith overtowers almost any other economist
in the United States in the last fifty years. That is, he is
eminent.
Yes, David, Galbraith built on the work of those who came before,
e.g. Veblen, Keynes, Gardiner and Means, and Robin Marris.
James McCown
> In article <f70ca421.01083...@posting.google.com>,
> flec...@yahoo.com (James McCown) wrote:
> > > > Galbraith is eminent?
> > > >
> > > > I hope I never become eminent
> > >
> > > My apologies to those reading this on ww2...@acpub.duke.edu. That's
> > > the sort of level of conversation we get on sci.econ.
> >
> > Please tell me something, Robert or Mason. What significant
> > theoretical or empirical research has Galbraith contributed?
>
> That, of course, is a non sequitur, a change of subject.
>
> In directing his countrymen and women's attention to - or
> persuading them of - the coexistence of private affluence
> and public squalor Galbraith was attempting to describe an
> aspect of the world.
So, by telling us that some people are wealthy and others are not, was
Galbraith telling us something we didn't already know?
> The bombing survey was not the first time Galbraith had contributed
> his services as an economist to keep the US free, if you like that
> kind of terminology.
>
> A famous author; a coiner of phrases that have become common
> currency among educated Americans; a shaper of the way those
> educated Americans viewed society, including the economy, for
> at least a generation; an inspiration for Kennedy/Johnson
> anti-poverty schemes; a former Ambassador to India; a former
> president of the American Economic Association; once in charge
> of setting prices throughtout the United States; a retired Harvard
> professor with an endowed chair; a former president of the American
> Academy of Arts and Letters; a recipient of many honorary
> degrees - yes, Galbraith overtowers almost any other economist
> in the United States in the last fifty years. That is, he is
> eminent.
Robert, all you're telling us are the positions he has held and the
people he has influenced. You haven't made any mention of any serious
research Galbraith has conducted, because there isn't any.
Yes, Galbraith has been the darling of the left for the last fifty
years. His main function has been to serve as a useful idiot for the
left.
Galbraith has held all these illustrious jobs without contributing
much of anything to the body of knowledge of economics. But he can be
counted on to regurgitate the leftwing position on any subject, when
asked his opinion.
When some politician or journalist wants to enhance the credibility of
some position he is taking, he can call upon Galbraith. And many
people outside the economics profession are led to believe that
Galbraith is a serious economist, who has actually conducted research
on the topics he discusses.
For example, Galbraith's article "Economic Delusion, Political
Disaster" that appeared in the New York Times on March 11, 2001. This
was during the debate over W's proposed tax cut, and the editors of
the New York Times knew that they could count on John to give the
correct opinion. But in this case, Galbraith goes even further and
cites this alleged fact:
"Since the days of Herbert Hoover, who tried tax reduction with no
result..."
And now it's official! The eminent economist John Kenneth Galbraith
said that Hoover tried to cut taxes during the great depression. It
must be true, right?
The only problem is, that statement is completely false. In fact,
Hoover signed a bill that made huge increases in federal income tax
rates. This can easily be verified, but since his eminence has said
otherwise, there's no need to.
That's why I say that I hope I never become eminent.
Robert Vienneau
flec...@yahoo.com (James McCown) wrote:
> Robert Vienneau <rv...@see.sig.com> wrote in message
> news:<rvien-C09A65....@news.dreamscape.com>...
> > In article <f70ca421.01083...@posting.google.com>,
> > flec...@yahoo.com (James McCown) wrote:
> > > > > Galbraith is eminent?
> > > > >
> > > > > I hope I never become eminent
> > > Please tell me something, Robert or Mason. What significant
> > > theoretical or empirical research has Galbraith contributed?
> > That, of course, is a non sequitur, a change of subject.
> > In directing his countrymen and women's attention to - or
> > persuading them of - the coexistence of private affluence
> > and public squalor Galbraith was attempting to describe an
> > aspect of the world.
> So, by telling us that some people are wealthy and others are not, was
> Galbraith telling us something we didn't already know?
If I were clear, the above response could only be considered odd. I
was trying to get at such distinctions as between goods tending to
be invididually consumed and those collectively consumed, between
those goods which are easily sold on markets and those which are
not. Those familiar with Galbraith's contributions to economics
should recognize this theme:
"The family which takes its mauve and cerise, air-conditioned,
power-steered, and power-braked automobile out for a tour passes
through cities that are badly paved, made hideous by litter,
blighted buildings, billboards, and posts for wires that should
long since have been put underground. They pass on into a
countryside that has been rendered largely invisible by
commercial art. (The goods which the latter advertise have an
absolute priority in our value system. Such aesthetic considerations
as a view of the countryside accordingly come second. On such
matters we are consistent.) They picnic on exquisitely packaged
food from a portable icebox by a polluted stream and go on to spend
the night at a park which is a menace to public health and morals.
Just before dozing off on an air mattress, beneath a nylon tent,
amid the stench of decaying refuse, they may reflect vaguely on the
curious unevenness of their blessings. Is this, indeed, the
American genius?"
-- John Kenneth Galbraith, 1958
This problem of social balance fits into a larger Galbraithian
thesis. Galbraith argued that certain habits of thought were
adapted to a period when goods were primary necessities, when
the importance of production was in the output. Nowdays in, say,
the U.S., he argues, production is of importance more for
providing employment, the income to purchase goods, feelings of
self-worth of the producers, etc. When he propounded this thesis,
and perhaps even today, conventional wisdom still reflects the
former situation.
You might say this is merely an illustration of a dictum of
America's most original economist, that what is, is wrong:
"The situation of today shapes the institutions of tomorrow
through a selective, coercive process, by acting upon men's
habitual view of things, and so altering or fortifying a point of
view or a mental attitude handed down from the past. The
institutions - that is to say the habits of thought - under the
guidance of which men live are in this way received from an
earlier time; more or less remotely earlier, but in any event
they have been elaborated in and received from the past.
Institutions are products of the process, are adapted to past
circumstances, and are therefore never in accord with the
requirements of the present. In the nature of the case, this
process of selective adaptation can never catch up with the
progressively changing situation in which the community finds
itself at any given time; for the environment, the situation, the
exigencies of life which enforce the adaptation and exercise the
selection, change from day to day; and each successive situation
of the community in its turn tends to obsolescence as soon as it
has been established. When a step in the development has been
taken, this step itself constitutes a change of situation which
requires a new adaptation; it becomes the point of departure for
a new step in the adjustment, and so on interminably."
-- Thorstein Veblen, 1899.
Showing Galbraith fits into a research tradition that has lasted for
a century doesn't help Mr. McCown's case. Suppose Galbraith's
originality lies more in how he said what he said, than in what
he said. Still these ideas have never yet been explicitly taken
on board by mainstream economics. (One could argue that with
such developments as asymmetric information, transactions costs,
etc., mainstream economics is beginning to converge with this
Galbraithian tradition.)
But my point was that Galbraith, through his persuasive felicity
of pen, was able to modify the conventional wisdom somewhat and
thereby lead to the amelioration of those problems, some economic,
which he identified. This is an useful contribution for an
economist and a public intellectual.
> > A famous author; a coiner of phrases that have become common
> > currency among educated Americans; a shaper of the way those
> > educated Americans viewed society, including the economy, for
> > at least a generation; an inspiration for Kennedy/Johnson
> > anti-poverty schemes; a former Ambassador to India; a former
> > president of the American Economic Association; once in charge
> > of setting prices throughtout the United States; a retired Harvard
> > professor with an endowed chair; a former president of the American
> > Academy of Arts and Letters; a recipient of many honorary
> > degrees - yes, Galbraith overtowers almost any other economist
> > in the United States in the last fifty years. That is, he is
> > eminent.
> Robert, all you're telling us are the positions he has held and the
> people he has influenced.
I am justifying the statement that Galbriath is eminent - that being
the topic under discusion and the view that Mr. McCown tried to
challenge. Mr. McCown is either attempting to change the subject or
is unaware of the definition of "eminent". Microsoft tells me the
word means:
1. superior in position, fame, or achievement
2. easy to see or notice
3. in a high or raised position
So the positions Galbraith has held and the influence he has had are
right on point.
Perhaps Mr. McCown is objecting to a statement of fact - Galbraith's
eminence - based on normative considerations. Maybe he objects to
economists being able to persuade through clear writing accessible
to the general public, at least if they are moderate liberals. (In
Mr. McCown's fantasy world, this is known as "the left".
Self-identified leftists in America don't think of themselves
as having ready access to such bastions of the corporate press as
the NY Times op-ed page.) There's no accounting for taste.
Next time you're in one of those book superstores or in a good
academic library, take a gander at Schumpeter's _History of
Economic Analysis_. According to Mr. McCown's point of view,
it took no research at all to write that.
Galbraith has always adopted an informal style of presenting his
findings. (I hold a range of styles should be used in economics;
formal models have not achieved such success in economics that
all other methods should be crowded out.)
Galbraith has also had writings presented in forums of more
specialized interest to economists.
"The most commonplace features of neo-classical and neo-Keynesian
economics are the assumptions by which power, and therewith
political content, is removed from the subject. The business firm
is subordinate to the instruction of the market and, thereby, to
the individual or household. The state is subordinate to the
instruction of the citizen...
The decisive weakness in neoclassical and neo-Keynesian economics
is not the error in the assumptions by which it elides the
problem of power. The capacity for erroneous belief is very
great, especially where it coincides with convenience. Rather, in
eliding power - in making economics a nonpolitical subject -
neoclassical theory by the same process destroys its relation with
the real world...In consequence neoclassical and neo-Keynesian
economics is relegating its players to the social sidelines where
they either call no plays or urge the wrong ones...
This is what economics now does. It tells the young and susceptible
and the old and vulnerable that economic life has no content of
power and politics...Such an economics is not neutral. It is the
influential and invaluable ally of those whose exercise of power
depends on an acquiescent public. If the state is the executive
committee of the great corporation and the planning system, it is
partly because neoclassical economics is its instrument for
neutralizing the suspicion that this is so. I have spoken of the
emancipation of the state from economic interest. For the
economist there can be no doubt as to where this task begins. It is
with the emancipation of economic belief."
-- J. K. Galbraith, "Power and the Useful Economist", _American
Economic Review_. V. LXIII, 1, March 1973.
I quote the above secondhand from a Galbraith festschrift. I probably
read the entire Galbraith essay over a decade ago, assuming it was
reprinted in one of his essay collections.
Articles in this festschrift address views of Galbraith that may be
prevalent among his fellow economists. Mr. McCown is telling
me nothing new. Nor is he presenting his views in a persuasive fashion.
Perhaps Mr. McCown ought to conduct some research to see how those
sort of views have been rebutted.
"The extraordinarily intemperate, indeed strident, criticism
which _The New Palgrave_ has evoked in certain quarters is an
interesting example reminiscent of the attitude of the more
extreme followers of some religious sect."
-- Eric Roll, "What Is Economics? What Is An Economist?
The Case of J. K. Galbraith"
I have no comment on Galbraith on Hoover.
susupply
"Robert Vienneau" <rv...@see.sig.com>
having thrown Pierro aside for another pretty face,
wrote in message news:rvien-8C0804....@news.dreamscape.com...
> Showing Galbraith fits into a research tradition that has lasted for
> a century doesn't help Mr. McCown's case.
I'd say "the research tradition", as you so interestingly call it, makes his
case about as emphatically as an Ichiro strike from right to home.
> Suppose Galbraith's
> originality lies more in how he said what he said, than in what
> he said.
In other words, not any originality at all.
> Still these ideas have never yet been explicitly taken
> on board by mainstream economics. (One could argue that with
> such developments as asymmetric information, transactions costs,
> etc., mainstream economics is beginning to converge with this
> Galbraithian tradition.)
Or, one could say Galbraith's a bum.
> But my point was that Galbraith, through his persuasive felicity
> of pen,
AKA, covering his ignorance with trite, left-wing, phraseology.
> was able to modify the conventional wisdom somewhat and
> thereby lead to the amelioration of those problems, some economic,
> which he identified. This is an useful contribution for an
> economist and a public intellectual.
It's a pretty good living, anyhow.
James McCown
[deletia]
> I have no comment on Galbraith on Hoover.
Why not, Robert? Don't you want to help Sir John perpetuate one of the
biggest myths of the twentieth century?
Galbraith falls into the same category with people such as Jeremy
Rifkin. {I'll bet you like Rifkin, too, don't you Robert?}
They have a message that appeals to a certain group of people with
preconceived notions. They go ahead and preach that message,
regardless of whether or not it bears any relation with reality at
all. And they're not about to let the facts get in their way!
Mark Patrick Witte
Hoover since it is inconsistent with his book on the Great Depression.
I agree that Galbraith is overrated, even as an economics writer,
but I strongly object to the notion that he was anywhere near a zero.
McCloskey and Blaug have written a good amount on the Galbraith phenomenon
and I won't try to recall their arguments. However, I thought of
Galbraith's work twice in the last week while reading other things. One was
Krugman's _Development, Geography, and Economic Theory_ which recalled for
me Galbraith's work on modern capitialism's deviations from perfect
competition and the importance of long advanced planning and demand
management. The big failing with Galbraith's writing here was his failure
to put his ideas into an implementable model that would have testable
implications. However, as Krugman points out in the cases of "high
development theory" and geography, many important insights were contained in
older, "chatty" writings. However, those authors, like Galbraith, faced a
challenge in modelling the phenomena they studied because they lacked the
tools to model imperfect competition in ways useful to the questions they
studied. Krugman has often credited his current reputation on his coming
along at just the right time to apply to longstanding questions in
international trade theory the newly developed Dixit-Stiglitz
approach to imperfect competition. Had Krugman and Galbraith switched
places in time....
My second Galbraith moment was while I was reading a story in the NY
Times about Coke's was on water served in restaurants. It reminded me of
Galbraith's warning about how, if we are to believe that consumers can be
led around by the nose as he seems to think, privately provided goods will
be over-demanded relative to publically provided goods because of the
differing incentives for public and private sectors to advertize. His
prediction of beautiful cars and shabby buses seems to hold well.
In article <rvien-8C0804....@news.dreamscape.com>,
Mason Clark
snip:
> The big failing with Galbraith's writing here was his failure
>to put his ideas into an implementable model that would have testable
>implications.
Mark, it would be helpful if you could give us a couple of examples of
economic models with testable implications.
Mason
---------------------------------------------------
Mason A. Clark
http://masonc.home.netcom.com
political-social-psychological Economics
Ronald Reagan's amazing insight in economics
Complete book: The Healing Wisdom of Dr.P.P.Quimby
Complete book: Get Rich in Small Business
---------------------------------------------------
Best advise: do NOT read economics textbooks!
They will poison your mind with descriptions of
a world that does not exist.
Mark Patrick Witte
Mason Clark <mas...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>On 4 Sep 2001 17:41:50 GMT, mwi...@merle.acns.nwu.edu (Mark Patrick Witte) wrote:
>
>snip:
>> The big failing with Galbraith's writing here was his failure
>>to put his ideas into an implementable model that would have testable
>>implications.
>
>Mark, it would be helpful if you could give us a couple of examples of
>economic models with testable implications.
Essentially any model that is able to be used in an empirical paper.
Any model that produces hypotheses that can be falsified (or not!) by the
data.
I'd give Ricardian Equivalance, a la Robert Barro, as a nice example.
Do people save more as governtment debt levels rise with their implied
future tax liabilities? For broad measures of government debt, the answer
seems to be "No."
Galbraith's work on public versus private levels of provision of
goods was very interesting, but against what benchmark could it be tested?
What would be the "non-distorted" levels of such goods? Or his demand
management work where advertising exists mainly to create demand rather than
to bring any informational signal: interesting, reasonable sounding to me,
but what is the test? (OK, Coke and Pepsi...what information is left to
send?) However, soft drinks is not what Galbraith had in mind, it was
autobiles. Did the Edsel fail due to a bad ad campaign? Or was it just a
bad car? These turn out to be the sorts of questions that are hard to turn
into clear tests.
Mason Clark
>In article <tdiapt8n9j296tvcp...@4ax.com>,
>Mason Clark <mas...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>
>>Mark, it would be helpful if you could give us a couple of examples of
>>economic models with testable implications.
>
> Essentially any model that is able to be used in an empirical paper.
>Any model that produces hypotheses that can be falsified (or not!) by the
>data.
>
Mark, would the following meet your criteria for a such a model? -- and such as
Galbraith failed to produce?
"People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for
merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy
against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices."
It appears to have an hypothesis. It seems as though it could be
falsified (or not) by careful collection of data (perhaps by the FBI if
not the FTC).
Mason C
James McCown
> I believe that Galbraith made a typo in his quoted remark about
> Hoover since it is inconsistent with his book on the Great Depression.
I haven't read the book you refer to, but I doubt that there was a
typo in Galbraith's New York Times article. The whole point of the
article was to argue against W's tax cut.