Is this a joke by Galbraith or did he have something more serious on mimd? In the Sydney Morning Herald, May 1982 Galbraith is on record for saying:


  Wealth, in even the most improbable of cases, manages to convey an aspect of intelligence.


As an economist Galbraith would have had a chance to have to observe men with great wealth at close quarters, so one supposes that this acerbic little comment is drawn from life. But did he mean something more important by it, or was it simply a joke on his part at the expense of the wealthy?

note: I’ve tagged it as macroeconomics as I couldn’t hink of the right tag this should be filed under. Any sensible suggestions will be appreciated.
Not having read the article, I do not know the context in which this quote was made. But I believe it is in line with a view he also expressed elsewhere — that people mistake wealth for intelligence.
In e.g. A Short History of Financial Euphoria (1993 edition, pp. 13–16), he writes:

The basic situation is wonderfully clear. In all free-enterprise (once called capitalist) attitudes there is a strong tendency to believe that the more money, either as income or assets, of which an individual is possessed or with which he is associated, the deeper and more compelling his economic and social perception, the more astute and penetrating his mental processes. Money is the measure of capitalist achievement. The more money, the greater the achievement and the intelligence that supports it.
Further, in a world where for many the acquisition of money is difficult and the resulting sums palpably insufficient, the possession of it in large amount seems a miracle. Accordingly, possession must be associated with some special genius. This view is then reinforced by the air of self-confidence and selfapproval that is commonly assumed by the affluent. On no matter is the mental inferiority of the ordinary layman so rudely and abruptly stated: &quot;I'm afraid that you simply don't understand financial matters. &quot; In fact, such reverence for the possession of money again indicates the shortness of memory, the ignorance of history, and the consequent capacity for self- and popular delusion just mentioned. Having money may mean, as often in the past and frequently in the present, that the person is foolishly indifferent to legal constraints and may, in modern times, be a potential resident of a minimum-security prison. Or the money may have been inherited, and, notoriously, mental acuity does not pass in reliable fashion from parent to offspring. On all these matters, a more careful examination of the presumed financial genius, a sternly detailed interrogation to test his or her intelligence, would frequently and perhaps normally produce a different conclusion. Unfortunately the subject is rarely available for such scrutiny; that, too, wealth or seeming financial competence often excludes.
Finally and more specifically, we compulsively associate unusual intelligence with the leadership of the great financial institutionsthe large banking, investment-banking, insurance, and brokerage houses. The larger the capital assets and income flow controlled, the deeper the presumed financial, economic, and social perception.
In practice, the individual or individuals at the top of these institutions are often there because, as happens regularly in great organizations, theirs was mentally the most predictable and, in consequence, bureaucratically the least inimical of the contending talent. He, she, or they are then endowed with the authority that encourages acquiescence from their subordinates and applause from their acolytes and that excludes adverse opinion or criticism. They are thus admirably protected in what may be a serious commitment to error.