60 of 66 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
Thought Provoking, Well Written Leftist Economics, September 17, 2003
This review is from: The Affluent Society (Paperback)
Galbraith's book is certainly thought-provoking & worth reading. His arguments are well thought out, and his writing is wryly witty. Even if you disagree with his views, as many have, it's worth a read.
Galbraith starts the book off by reviewing how many early economic ideas were created in periods of scarcity, and that the notion of scarcity may not appropriate for today's age of mass affluence. Those with vested interests in production (i.e. large businesses) still cling to the "conventional wisdom" that increased production equals progress, even though goods are now abundant and our basic material needs have been satisfied. To stimulate further demand, corporations must resort to salesmanship and advertising. If advertising stopped, demand would fall, production would drop, and unemployment would rise; thus, business continue to focus on increasing production to ensure their own survival.
There are other threats to production. Economic cycles may result in a depression. Poorly managed firms may have to lay off workers. As a result, people -- and especially politicians --focus on economic growth to avoid these insecurities. Growth is something that both the rich and poor will vote for, since they both want to keep their jobs and acquire more goods. Growing out of a recession also seems promising. The net result is that society as a whole focuses on increasing production by private industry.
Next, Galbraith shifts his view from private industry to the public sector. He does this by introducing the idea of social balance, which asserts that as private spending increases, public spending should increase to match. For example, if factories build more cars, more money needs to be invested in public roads. Unfortunately, private goods are sold via advertising by companies that can react quickly to changes in demand. In contrast, public investment by governments reacts much more slowly, and typically lags private spending and investment, due to regulations, bureaucracy, and voter's general aversion to new taxes. The result is a world rich in private goods but poor in public ones: beautiful cars driving on poor roads, well-dressed kids in the crumbling public school, neighborhoods with beautiful homes but polluted parks.
So what to do? Galbraith's proposed solution is that we should invest in our economic infrastructure: our parks, our roads, our educational system, long-term scientific research, police, and the like. To fund this, he emphasizes sales taxes, which reduce consumption, and make those who consume a lot pay for it. To alleviate poverty and inequality, Galbraith also proposes to expand unemployment insurance so that one could choose not to work, yet still be able to get by. In his view, this would allow more people to reduce their work week, or not work at all, or to be able to focus on work they really enjoy.
Although this is certainly a liberal view & may not be feasible, his views certainly were eye-opening and thought provoking. For that reason, I recommend the book.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
22 of 26 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
A book all students of economics should read., August 29, 2001
This review is from: The Affluent Society (Paperback)
If you agree with Galbraith's notions on economics you may find this a seminal work. If you disagree with him you will no where find a better spar for your own ideas. (Friedman spent an entire book analyzing Galbraith) Love it or hate it The Affluent Society looms large in American economic thought of the 20th century. The book itself is dedicated primarily to re-assessing the role of production in an economy of increasing affluence. Economics long ago acquired the unhappy designation as "the dismal science." This was derived from the observation by all famous early economists that economic life for the masses was inevitably harsh. Ricardo, Smith, and Marx all agreed that while a minority might enjoy abundance the majority were doomed to struggle for their very economic survival. As early as the 1950s Galbraith made the very simple point that the economic prospects of the masses are no longer dark. The average worker could (and still does) expect reasonable wages, a constant supply of luxury goods, and free time to enjoy these things. The modern economy is no longer a battle for simple survival but rather one over what an individual's share of excess production should be. Some reviewers have commented that the specifics in The Affluent Society have become dated. Indeed automotive tail-fins are no longer the common automotive add-on they once were, but the underlying questions remain valid. In the economy of 150 years ago to claim that suffering was inevitable seemed fair, for it was the state of the masses. In the economy of the present where economic deprivation is no longer the norm, to claim some must suffer while the majority live in relative affluence suddenly appears cruel.
A social scientist who argued the changes of the last 200 years were not relevant to analysis would be laughed at in any other field. Unequivocably our economic priorities have changed during that time. The Affluent Society provides a history of that change, a look at how our failure to adapt has led to a number of social problems, and suggests how we might better organize economic priorities in the present. It is no small acheivement.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
29 of 38 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Pragmatic approach to economics, September 8, 2005
This review is from: The Affluent Society (Paperback)
There is a glaring blind spot among Conservative economists who speak breathlessly about freedom and distribution of power yet completely ignore the threat brought on by the disparity of wealth. The growing gap was what Marx saw as the eventual destroyer of Capitalism. Conservatives, on the other hand, see the disparity not as a problem but as a solution to pure democracy where a street sweeper has the same one vote as a CEO. Extreme wealth puts the power back in the hands of the people most capable of wielding it.
Mr. Galbraith takes a look back at the evolution of economics starting with the early belief that the average worker would always earn just enough to survive and perhaps raise a family. Later Herbert Spencer expounded his Social Darwinian view of economics that has shown a resurgence in the last few decades. The original view was that social programs literally allow inferior genetic lines to procreate and dilute society. It was the collapse of the stock market in the 1930's that put Social Darwinism on the back burner. Although Marx correctly predicted the collapse, the economy recovered and the increasing disparity never created a revolution in the United States. This, however, may have been thanks to the many wealth redistribution programs created after the Great Depression. The author also points out that there is more of a physical separation between the economic strata's and ostentatious displays of wealth have become at best passé at worst vulgar.
The book punches a hole in the theory that productivity declines as worker security increases. One need only look at the dramatic rise in both production and security after World War II. As Mr. Galbraith points out it's always the OTHER guy who should give up security. Corporations and corporate heads work to create a broad cushion of support for themselves while decrying additional safeguards for workers as wasteful of needed capital. Although the author generally supports growth over wealth distribution as a way to improve society he is far more pragmatic than Conservative economists. Unlike right wing ideologists, Mr. Galbraith recognizes that the market often focuses on the things society needs least. There will always be a need for balance between public and private funding in particular for large scale research projects and public goods like education that the market shows a lack of interest in. The author doesn't seemed to have the same mystical reverence for market forces that some economists exhibit. He also has little respect for the federal reserves ability to even out market fluctuations using monetary policy (conservatives) or fiscal policy (liberals). Even with his support of business growth Mr. Galbraith recognizes that growth obsession can be a dangerous thing for, among other things, creating increasingly unmanageable debt in a heavily consumption based society.
There seems to be a definite slant in economics towards the desires of the business class which includes worshipping at the altar of deregulated, free market Capitalism. John Kenneth Galbraith is a refreshingly non-ideological view of economics which actually recognizes that perhaps it's better to offer opportunities to the poor rather than kicks to the teeth to encourage growth out of poverty.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
