Menu

Critical Review of James Galbraith The predator state how conservatives abandoned the free market and why liberals should too

0 Comment

He further talks of the state being able to be in charge of the economy as a way of dealing with the issues of inequalities in the society. The gap between the rich and the poor he argues can only be cured by the intervention by the government. His main arguments are that there should be tax cuts for individuals. This he explains would ensure more savings and spur economic growth. He further argues that market forces have been allowed to rule and the unions that fight for market regulation have been assaulted. He claims that the government has been twisted and cannot deal with the rogue markets. He is of the opinion that there needs to be a tight regulation of the monetary system. Galbraith says this would stop the inflation that in turn brings a mess into the economy. He proposes that there should be a system of planning to help in planning for the future. Further, the government should regulate the amount of wages payable to an individual. Lastly he argues that the United States a global leader should help bring sanity to the world economies. His thesis is that markets should not be left on their own but regulated for the sake of fairness and objectivity. While I agree with some of the findings, I do not subscribe to some of his agendas. Markets cannot be subjected to regulation by the state. Markets best work when the market forces are allowed to dictate the operations that happen in the market. When the government takes part in the regulation process, profits may reduce and people may lose jobs, as production would be declined. Reason being that a government is all about politics and politicians only act to appease the egos of their constituents. This may not be viable for an economy because the government might introduce a system for example regulating the prices of commodities. This would be done without taking into consideration the input in terms of resources invested to produce the goods. This would make the companies run into losses, thus grounding to a halt. This would also affect competition that would in turn lead to undervalued goods in the market (Epstein, Allen, and Wood, 2008 p. 6). Galbraith does not give a clear argument for free trade and appears vague in trying to compound on the point. He is of the view that airlines and telecommunication industries need external markets to meet their expectations. These kinds of industries cannot meet their targets if they were to depend on the domestic markets. Nevertheless he argues that there is a danger in a very open system of trade. On this he does not give any proposal on what is the best that can better free trade. The government cannot provide all the essential social facilities. The private sector plays a huge role in complimenting the government’s work. Galbraith argues that liberals seek market solutions for social problems. In other words he is opposed to other institutions providing the services. He is about the idea that liberals should seek employers nod to seek universal coverage. He totally disregards the private insurance firms but favors the single payer system. The notion that conservatists are for the idea that health care should be privatized is a fallacy. The government controls a big portion of the health care system and by thinking that the private sector can take over the system would only lead to a collapse. The private sectors are only there to compliment. His argument for free markets and the central planning in my opinion does not hold