Put money in thy purse...

In a piece on the late J. K. Galbraith, Radio National this morning ran a rather interesting soundbite to summarize his astonishingly long career. To paraphrase, it was JKG saying that money, and economies, aren't everything: Shakespeare, after all, was the product of a country with a very low GDP.

Hmm, up to a point, Lord Copper. I certainly agree with JKG that a flourishing economy doesn't guarantee artistic creativity, but it's also clear that an unhealthy, declining economy pretty much guarantees a heavy brake on the creative impulse. People with less disposable income are less likely to go to plays, or to commission playwrights, to take the Shakespearean example.

Of course, one wonders whether Galbraith meant that the GDP of Elizabethan England was low in absolute terms - say, compared to 20th century America - or in relative terms, compared to the earlier Tudor, or later Stuart periods. My history's a little rusty, but I'd bet two angels and a hogshead of sack that the Elizabethan Renaissance coincided with a booming economy, as renaissances tend to do. In short, despite what Galbraith and the ABC would like to believe, even with Shakespeare it really is the economy, stupid.