Short and sweet, witty, humorous, and yet informative. Galbraith shares his characterization of episodes of speculation, then gives the account of a dozen such episodes, from Holland's tulip mania to the crash of October 1987.
Some key ideas:
a) The average person believes that people of great wealth (or who manage great wealth) are rich because of their superior intellect. When the average person becomes richer during an euphoria, he also tends to believe that the new riches are the product of his superior insight or intuition.
b) Euphorias end at an unpredictable time, and always in a crash, never gently.
c) Euphorias coincide with the rise of a presumed financial innovation that partly justifies the rising prices and valuations. Very few, however, true innovations ever occur, and most of these apparent innovations involve the creation of debt.
d) Crashes are followed by anger and recrimination and scapegoating. The analysis of the crash seldom places any blame on the stupidity and greed and gullibility of the people who drove the bubble, for two reasons. First, it runs counter to the presumption that wealth is associated with intelligence. Second, the market is supposed to be always right.
e) Besides educating people about their behavioral tendencies and the euphoria process, there's not much we can do. More regulation is not necessarily the solution.
Galbraith's essay pales in comparison with the exhaustiveness of, for instance, Kindleberger's history of panics, and it's not a substitute for those more extensive books. But it's much better written and digestible than those longer treatments, and so it's more likely that lay readers read it through.
Great quotes:
pp. 98-99:
"The aftermath of 1987 debacle saw an especially notable exercise in evasion even by the formidable standards of the past. The first response came from a convocation of former Secretaries of the Treasury, professional public spokesmen, and chief executive officers of major corporations. They joined in sponsoring a 'New York Times' advertisement attributing the crash to the deficit in the budget of the federal government. This deficit had already persisted in what was considered by fiscal conservatives an alarming magnitude for the preceding six years of the Reagan administration. But then, on that terrible October morning, realization was thought to have dawned. The financial markets suddenly became aware."