Ok, I know their are probably some out there who consider themselves such, though they might have difficulty getting a job nowadays.

But I don't see anyone having the bold commitment and insight of the Ken Galbraith.

I would really love to be proved wrong about that.

Actually, there're quite a few major economists who're liberal-leaning in their politics and/or analysis.

Among the last 10 winners of the American Economics Association's John Bates Clark Medal, given to the most promising younger economist based on research, intellectual promise and achievement, most have been liberal-leaning (at least in their politics) economists, including Paul Krugman (at Princeton), Lawrence Summers (formerly the Treasury Secretary under Clinton and the soon-to-be ex-president of Harvard), Andrei Shleifer (at Harvard), Steven Levitt (at Chicago), Darron Acemoglu (at MIT), etc. I mention this rather than the Nobel Prize, since the winners do represent the younger generation rather than those who're already established.

Amonng winners of the Nobel Prize in economics, several of the recent American or US-based winners, including Daniel Kahnemann, Vernon Smith, George Akerlof, Joseph Stiglitz (Columbia), and Amartya Sen (Harvard) could be described as liberal-leaning in their politics and more broadly in their insights. Sen's work in particular is significant in terms of providing new understandings of the process of economic development. Akerlof and Stiglitz have been outspoken critics of the Bush administration's economic policies and politics.

[ July 18, 2006, 07:44 AM: Message edited by: fantomas ]

Clintonomicists make a u-turn.

Galbraith must be snickering in his grave.

BTW I read Krugman's column often. Very good. But he isn't in a position to affect policy as much as a treasury secretary or SEC head.

Hopefully a changed in administration could find roles for foresighted and progressive economists.

and just what were the insights jkg had?

As I read him he believed that governments have to be pro-active to maintain economies rather than wait for a crisis such as war to occur. Wikipedia has a good article. Note that his most ardent critics accuse him of inhibiting a free economy, but seem to have no complaints that international corporations do so.

who's government?

The federal government. He was one of the important American Keynesians of the 20th century. To a certain extent his ideas are considered passé, although his emphasis on public (government) support of infrastructure (roads, bridges, electrical grids, etc.) and human capital (education) has borne out. Look at the success of the Internet, or pharmaceuticals, or every other industrial sector in which the government has underwritten the infrastructure costs, allowing private interests to focus on investment and development. He also offers a different, non-Marxist critique of affluence that in some key ways links up to what other notable political scientists, economists and philosophers on the left have asserted.

[ July 25, 2006, 07:19 AM: Message edited by: fantomas ]

well written, but that slow-moving dinosaur required far too much plant material. ultimately , the forest could not support his feeding requirements. you may wish for the economic equivelant of the jurasic age . but he would not have appreciated individuals such as yourself having .....ideas that were not approved beforehand in the upper reaches of his ivory tower. even today, his economic progeny will fight tooth and nail to prevent your having control of your retirement plan.

Hmmm, not sure what you're talking about here, but if you had any familiarity with Galbraith's work you might see that your final point is in error. In fact Galbraith and his heirs would suggest that a societally aggregate plan like Social Security does not necessarily conflict with private, secondary plans, or other means that those with means have for amassing and maintaining their fortunes into retirement (except for using tax shelters and other similar financial mechanisms and instruments). It is only the potentially disastrous, privatization schemes of the entire system, which Bush and Co. keep pushing, that they would quarrel with.

LOL! I knew it would only be a matter of time before "Bush & Co." were haled into this. But more to the point, if Galbraith & Co. had more actively worked to allow SS to operate alongside private retirement and security plans - indeed, encouraged it to do so by allowing individuals to opt out of SS once their retirement assets passed a certain threshold, increased deductibility of retirement savings, and encouraged individuals to privatize their retirement plans with other carrots and sticks - perhaps their legacy would be a more substantial one.