John Kenneth Galbraith Quotes

Economics is like a church, and it fulfills the same function the church had fulfilled for centuries: the justification of the status quo.

Why does a public discussion of economic policy so often show the abysmal ignorance of the participants?

It's true that if you advise politicians on economic policy in the U.S. today, you spend your time in a cross between inquiry and combat. You are always on the periphery of harsh partisan warfare that has nothing to do with substance.

Washington office-holders pontificating on markets, taxes, and monetary policy are usually repeating the ideas of some dead economist, often one of whom the orator had no inkling.

I do understand the free market, having my economics degree, and if someone on the right had some good ideas, I'm not so dogmatic that I wouldn't listen to them.

In the usual (though certainly not in every) public decision on economic policy, the choice is between courses that are almost equally good or equally bad. It is the narrowest decisions that are most ardently debated.

The problem is, of course, that not only is economics bankrupt but it has always been nothing more than politics in disguise ... economics is a form of brain damage.

My mantra about everything that has to do with public policy is: identify and reject the false choice.

Economic policies need to be analyzed in terms of the incentives they create, rather than the hopes that inspired them.

I don't think in national categories. For me it [policy] is about concepts and substance.

In economics, you always want to ask 'And then what?'

The accepted ideas of any period are singularly those that serve the dominant economic interest...What economists believe and teach, whether in the United States or in the Soviet Union, is rarely hostile to the institutions - the private business enterprise, the Communist Party - that reflect the dominant economic power. Not to notice this takes effort, although many succeed.

In the usual (though certainly not in every) public decision on economic policy, the choice is between courses that are almost equally good or equally bad. It is the narrowest decisions that are most ardently debated. If the world is lucky enough to enjoy peace, it may even one day make the discovery, to the horror of doctrinaire free-enterprisers and doctrinaire planners alike, that what is called capitalism and what is called socialism are both capable of working quite well.

I am...wholeheartedly a Galbraith man.

We are in effect making a - to some extent, making a choice between future inflation and getting our - getting off the floor. And we're likely - we're likely to have more inflation in the future as a consequence of the things we do to fight the present situation.

I imagine you already know that I am much more socialistic in my economic theory than capitalistic.

The Democrats have so corrupted our understanding of economics and productivity that lowering tax rates is now considered to be some kind of sop to the rich. I mean, it's just profound to me, the damage inflicted on this country by the Democrats in their pursuit of perpetual power.

We simply cannot afford to give the reigns of government so someone who will double down on trickle down

Inflation does not lubricate trade but by rescuing traders from their errors of optimism or stupidity.

The problem is a lot of what is called economics is not economics. It is more ideology or religion.

It is my guiding confession that I believe the greatest error in economics is in seeing the economy as a stable, immutable structure.

It was probably a mistake to allow gold to rise so high.

Uruguay is one of the biggest producers of software. We are breaking with the neoliberal model. We do not believe in free trade.

The only thing socialists produce is debt and self-esteem