More Galbraith
God I love this book!
Until the end of World War II or shortly thereafter, planning was a moderately evocative word in the United States. It implied a sensible concern for what might happen in the future and a disposition, by forehanded action, to forestall avoidable disfunction or misfortune. As persons won credit for competent planning of their lives, so communities won credit for effective planning of their environment. It was thought good to live in a well-planned city. The United States government had before the war a National Resources Planning Board. During the war, postwar planning acquired the status of a modest industry in both the United States and the United Kingdom; nothing else, it was felt, would so reassure those who were fighting that they had eventual utility as civilians.
In the Cold War years, however, the word planning acquired grave ideological overtones. The Communist countries not only socialized property, which seemed not a strong likelihood in the United States, but they planned, which seemed more of a danger. Since liberty was there circumscribed, it followed that planning was something that the libertarian society should avoid. Modern liberalism carefully emphasizes tact rather than clarity of speech. Accordingly, it avoided the term, and conservatives made it one of opprobrium. For a public official to be called an economic planner was less serious than to be charged with Communism or imaginative sexual proclivity but it reflected adversely nonetheless. One accepted and cherished whatever eventuated from the untrammeled operation of the market. Not only concern for liberty but a reputation for economic hardihood counseled such a course.
For understanding the economy and polity of the United States and other advanced industrial countries, this reaction against the word planning could hardly have been worse timed. It occurred when the increased use of technology and the accompanying commitment of time and capital were forcing extensive planning on all industrial communities -- by firms and of firms' behavior by government. The ban on the use of the word planning excluded reflection on the reality of the planning.
This ban is now in the process of being lifted -- much has been accomplished in this regard in the eleven years since the first edition of this book appeared. The need for national planning has become a reputable topic for discussion, as also legislation to facilitate it. On a matter such as energy the need is accepted but in circles of the highest repute the term czar is still preferred to that of planner, though not, one judges, because it is deemed more democratic.
However, it is still the instinct of conservatives and those for whom high banking or corporate position serves as a substitute for thought that anything called planning should be resisted. And perhaps there are useful elements of self-interest in the effort. Any discussion of planning by the government will draw attention, inevitably, to the planning by corporations that makes it necessary. Those who now, in the manner of all planners, guide or control the behavior of individuals will no longer be able, on grounds of high principle, to resist public guidance, control or coordination of their planning.
This entry was originally posted at https://graydon2.dreamwidth.org/262669.html. Please comment there using OpenID.
Until the end of World War II or shortly thereafter, planning was a moderately evocative word in the United States. It implied a sensible concern for what might happen in the future and a disposition, by forehanded action, to forestall avoidable disfunction or misfortune. As persons won credit for competent planning of their lives, so communities won credit for effective planning of their environment. It was thought good to live in a well-planned city. The United States government had before the war a National Resources Planning Board. During the war, postwar planning acquired the status of a modest industry in both the United States and the United Kingdom; nothing else, it was felt, would so reassure those who were fighting that they had eventual utility as civilians.
In the Cold War years, however, the word planning acquired grave ideological overtones. The Communist countries not only socialized property, which seemed not a strong likelihood in the United States, but they planned, which seemed more of a danger. Since liberty was there circumscribed, it followed that planning was something that the libertarian society should avoid. Modern liberalism carefully emphasizes tact rather than clarity of speech. Accordingly, it avoided the term, and conservatives made it one of opprobrium. For a public official to be called an economic planner was less serious than to be charged with Communism or imaginative sexual proclivity but it reflected adversely nonetheless. One accepted and cherished whatever eventuated from the untrammeled operation of the market. Not only concern for liberty but a reputation for economic hardihood counseled such a course.
For understanding the economy and polity of the United States and other advanced industrial countries, this reaction against the word planning could hardly have been worse timed. It occurred when the increased use of technology and the accompanying commitment of time and capital were forcing extensive planning on all industrial communities -- by firms and of firms' behavior by government. The ban on the use of the word planning excluded reflection on the reality of the planning.
This ban is now in the process of being lifted -- much has been accomplished in this regard in the eleven years since the first edition of this book appeared. The need for national planning has become a reputable topic for discussion, as also legislation to facilitate it. On a matter such as energy the need is accepted but in circles of the highest repute the term czar is still preferred to that of planner, though not, one judges, because it is deemed more democratic.
However, it is still the instinct of conservatives and those for whom high banking or corporate position serves as a substitute for thought that anything called planning should be resisted. And perhaps there are useful elements of self-interest in the effort. Any discussion of planning by the government will draw attention, inevitably, to the planning by corporations that makes it necessary. Those who now, in the manner of all planners, guide or control the behavior of individuals will no longer be able, on grounds of high principle, to resist public guidance, control or coordination of their planning.
This entry was originally posted at https://graydon2.dreamwidth.org/262669.html. Please comment there using OpenID.