The Predator State, like The New Industrial State before it, dislodges a great many economic fairy tales. Galbraith senior outraged the economics profession when he declared the consumer subordinate to the corporation. I wish I'd been a fly on the wall when the political ideologues of the day confronted the argument that "planning" as per the former Soviet Union is different only in degree from the planning of the large, technologically driven transnational corporation. On this reading "the market" is the rhetorical smokescreen behind which powerful economic organizations do their damnedest to get more powerful.

To the millions of thinking people not schooled in academic economics the Galbraithian argument makes perfect sense. The gospel of the market, in contrast, rationalizes letting the rich have their way. In his new book James Galbraith does a wonderful job demolishing the policies that follow from economists' belief that "markets work." The chapters on tax cuts, balanced budgets, and free trade demonstrate the extent to which their advocates rely on faith-based readings of evidence, misleading arguments, and twisted logic. You might think these chapters are aimed at conservatives. But they are not. The economic truisms of an earlier age hamstring the thinking of liberal economists and democratic politicians. Keynes once remarked, "The difficulty lies not so much in developing new ideas as in escaping from old ones."

The predators of the predator state hide behind these old ideas, enacting policies to enrich friends, benefit family, shake down the public, and undermine the rule of law. This is a scary story. Made scarier still by the realization that predators go after the weakest first. And this has special salience for women.

Moving from critique to policy James Galbraith calls for a recommitment to Keynsian macroeconomic policies, especially a federal commitment to full-employment. Important? Yes. Necessary? You bet. Moreover, his is not just any old full employment. (He's surely not advocating more defense spending. Check out the organization he chairs, Economists for Peace and Security). Instead he argues that we need artful planning to combine rebuilding the infrastructure with solutions to the impending ecological crises.

Today's vision of full-employment rightly includes women. But wait. If women are fully employed what's going to happen to children too young for school? How many kids catch the school bus at 8:15 and have parents that leave for work at 7:30? The standard workday ends at 5:00 but the school day ends at 3:00. Then there's the care of the elderly and the infirm. And please, don't forget to wash the dishes. If the economy is really going to serve the public interest we have to deal with these realities.

Here's today's quiz question: which Keynsian spending projects translate into equal numbers of well-paid jobs for men and women? Highway engineers estimate that we'll need to spend something like $140 billion to fix America's 590,000 bridges. Rebuilding our water systems, schools, roads, and dams will cost trillions. But women hold only 9 per cent of construction jobs. This is not a trivial problem.

Standard economics says little of use on these topics. (Chicago Economist Gary Becker actually wants us to believe that polygamy is good for women because it decreases the supply of wives and increases their price. I am not making this up.) Today's liberals are likely to suggest flextime and long paid leaves to improve women's economic condition. Nonsense. The breadwinner/dependent ideal relies on the same tired logic that seeks energy efficiency through deregulation and economic development through free trade.

In 1776 Abigail Adams wrote "in the new code of laws which I suppose it will be necessary for you to make, I desire you would remember the ladies and be more generous and favorable to them than your ancestors." Ditto.