Megan McArdle sneers:
Galbraith was a very, very good writer, but he was not a very good economist. His economic history is entertaining, but it is not theoretically sound, and his major theories, captured in The New Industrial State, were almost comically wrong. The book was being proven incorrect by history virtually as he wrote it. His tirades against advertising, much beloved by current critics of consumer culture, were backed by no research or empirical data, and still aren't. I love his books, and highly recommend them, but he was not a major economist.
Sigh. This sort of stuff is not only vicious, but staggeringly wrong. Countervailing Powers wasn't wrong, or not obviously so: a survey in 1979 -- if I remember -- found that 52% of economists agreed with it. Robert Rubin is running all around the country citing it as the most relevant theory for the current economy. As for the advertising stuff, that's a serious debate. Many folks think he's wrong (while others, myself included, think he's far more right than he got credit for), but to say he contributed no analysis of lasting economic merit is foolish.
As for the loathsome view that Galbraith wasn't an economist at all, well, let's tear that one down for a moment. Brad DeLong, an economist in good standing (certainly more so than Jane or I!) holds Galbraith in high regard. Here's how his review of Galbraith's biography begins: "If there were justice in the world, John Kenneth Galbraith would rank as the twentieth century's most influential American economist." Galbraith also, of course, headed the American Economics Association. And lest you think I'm only naming lefties, Tyler Cowen gives him some credit, and here's Greg Mankiw writing in his Econ 101 textbook: "Two of the great economists of the 20th century were John Kenneth Galbraith and Friedrich Hayek." I never thought I'd see the day. Greg Mankiw brainwashing the young into respect for the unabashedly lefty JKG.