Customer Reviews

The Good Society: The Humane Agenda

5 star:		(5)
4 star:		(3)
3 star:		(3)
2 star:		(3)
1 star:		(2)

 

 

I am writing this review on the day after John Kenneth Galbraith passed away at the age of ninety- seven. He was a legendary figure in his lifetime, an economist with a world reputation. His book 'The Affluent Society" (1958) made the U.S. and the world think again about the meaning of a society primarily devoted to individual consumer consumption. He was a public servant of great ability and dedication from his days working for the Roosevelt Administration during the Second World in the Office of Price Administration through his service to the Kennedy and Johnson Administrations . He served as U.S. Ambassador to India and was a strong advocate for that country in the U.S. For over thirty years he taught at Harvard and was considered one of its most popular and brilliant teachers. He wrote over thirty books, and was involved in a tremendously wide variety of public activities and affairs.
This short book is an updating of 'The Affluent Society'. In it he tackles major economic and social questions >He speaks of a good society whose obligations are to provide for " personal liberty, basic wellbeing , racial and ethnic equality, the opportunity for a rewarding life".
In short chapters of around ten pages he tackles the problems of the deficit, the environment, migration, the proper distribution of wealth, the providing of aid to the world's poor.
Galbraith was a fighter in spirit , a person of great wit and fierce sense of social justice. His platform of a kind of social democracy as the ideal way to meet the modern world's problem certainly is questioned by many, not the least by predominant economic opinion today.
Perhaps his greatest importance was in pointing out performance problems in capitalist societies, and demanding a greater degree of concern for the commonweal.
He was one of those rare intellectual figures who could take a relatively dull subject and make it 'interesting' for the broader public.
He worked hard, long and well and his contribution will hopefully not be forgotten.

Sometime in the 1970s, several trends started to take effect in the USA that have led to many of our troubles now. One of these was the growing divide of the America into haves and have-nots. Another one of these was the privatization of numerous parts of the US economy, and the transfer of many government functions from the public role to the private market. A third effect was the de-emphasis of public infrastructure for the public good, to public infrastructure for corporate wealth. John Kenneth Galbraith addresses all three of this trends, and shows what they have done to the American society and American communities. The result is a good wishlist of probably most political liberals. The one thing lacking from the book is a comparison of what America has become, to the economic and social transformations that have occurred in societies that have incorporated many of Galbraith's ideas, such as Scandinavia, Singapore, and Japan. Overall, an OK book and a good summary of the author's works and views.

John Kenneth Galbraith sees the eternal struggles of economics as a battle between capital and labor and as things currently stand capital is delivering haymakers and body blows to labor. Labor has the numbers but capital has the advantage of... well, capital. Capital can afford the best representation and that has never been more true than today. Meanwhile Globalization has effectively destroyed labors bargaining power.

In `The Good Society' Mr. Galbraith attempts to map out an economic plan for creating a good society for all, wealthy and poor. What sets Mr. Galbraith apart from many economists is his belief in a pragmatic rather than dogmatic approach. He even compares the Republican parties 1994 `Contract with America' to the `Communist Manifesto' for its ideological inflexibility. The problems seem to occur when people start believing that economics falls under the hard sciences when in truth it's more like tracking the weather where small perturbation can cause dramatic changes. One thing that the author has maintained through the years is that Feds actual effect on inflation and recessions is negligible and more smoke and mirrors meant to give the appearance that something is being done. The other issue is that Globalization has made it increasingly difficult for the Federal Reserve to adjust the levels of our economy.

Occasionally the author comes off as a bit naive as when he talks about large scale modernization projects done in the third world saying, "The steel mills, hydroelectric plants and shiny airports, now sited among ignorant people, became sterile monuments to error - and failure." What Mr. Galbraith fails to recognize is that these projects are only failures from the perspective of the recipient countries who borrowed away their futures in order to acquire them. To the IMF and the construction companies involved it was a complete success. The author does recognize that the gift wealthy countries should have offered was the much less glamorous gift of education. In another section Mr. Galbraith says in reference to Imperialism and Colonialism, "We speak sometimes reflectively, of the end of history; here, indeed, history has come to an end." Writers who use the unfortunate term `end of history' have a bad tendency of being proven wrong in the end.

John Kenneth Galbraith is one of the few economists of late who addresses the immense danger of wealth inequality. In contrast to Milton Freidman, Mr. Galbraith believes that there are both financial and ethical sides to economics as relates to helping the poor, protecting the environment and supporting workers rights. He also supports transnational organizations and sees Globalization as the inevitable future. In most ways Mr. Galbraith is swimming upstream against the trends in the United States which is exactly why I find his views more important than ever before. The book seemed to lose some steam about half way through and many of his ideas such as the danger of the military industrial complex have been addressed in his other book, still I recommend Mr. Galbraith as a responsible voice for progressive economics.

I have two reasons for putting a high value of this book, First, I truly appreciate Mr. Galbraith's style. Its sentence is compact, logic is clear, and expression is eloquent...in short, his style is incredibly excellent. Second, it's useful. Reading this compact book,you can understand 'liberal's good society.'I believe nobody can misunderstand Mr. Galbraith's opinion. If you are a 'liberal', to read this book must be a pleasure. And, if you belong to 'conservative', missing opportunity to know your enemy is not clever.

Galbraith, the master, sums up his decades of experience and insight in this book. Well written, of course, easy to read. He makes a solid, careful case. The book is a fast read, and is highly recommended.

Galbraith's main point has less to do with any specific policy than with his belief that rigid ideologues advocate for flawed and potentially dangerous political and economic systems. He argues that capitalism is by far the most responsive and effective economic system given our nature and needs, but that pure market capitalism comes up short in many significant respects. He does exhibit his own bias in some chapters when he ignores matters of degree in favor of more dramatic claims, but his proposals are not controversial by most standards?we need a safety net, environmental regulation is necessary, etc. I couldn?t relate to most of the negative reviews/remarks here. Among them: Galbraith, onetime speechwriter for presidents, editor of Fortune magazine, and prolific author, is inarticulate to the point of incoherence; Galbraith, a onetime Harvard economics professor and head of the American Economic Association, lacks any understanding of economics; Galbraith's ideas are silly; etc. This is a book arguing that capitalism must be tempered if it is to serve society well. Someone who believes that environmental regulations, zoning laws, a progressive income tax, and organizations like the SEC are unnecessary impediments to economic growth will have a hard time with Galbraith. Others will likely recognize that the criticisms of capitalism he levels here are, to some debatable extent, legitimate.

It is refreshing to read a book by an author who provides answers and not just criticisms. Professor Galbraith truly conforms to Robert Heilbroner's colorful description of the economists throughout history as The Worldly Philosophers. Without doubt this is the work of one of our modern day Worldly Philosophers.
This book was written in 1996 when Mr. Galbraith was a very old man. The title of the book suggests a utopian message. Its subtitle is The Humane Society. But being a Worldly Philosopher and a professional economist, Professor Galbraith's "Good Society" is no dreamy eyed fantasy. It is an outline of not only what should be done but what is practical and achievable in a society - particularly our society here in the USA. Of course this is all predicated on the notion that we live in a society that has a moral conscience. If you believe that you live in a world that is beyond morality or conscience or that the way things are is the way that things should be, then I would predict that this book will not interest you all that much.

Richard Edward Noble - The Hobo Philosopher - Author of:

"A Summer with Charlie"

The book is well written, an easy read, and makes a clear liberal case of the dozen or so economic goals for society.

This book details what John Kenneth Galbraith views as a "good society" with what can be achieved and admitting there are goals that can't realistically be reached.

Mr. Galbraith observed that the percentage of the poor that don't vote is mirrored by the high percentage of rich that do vote.

His view on wealth and power was insightful- "Power serves the acquisition of income; income accords power over the pecuniary reward of others." Page 65.

His assessment of corporate greed was almost prophetic-
"Personal profit maximization, that universally acclaimed motivation, can and does extend to those who effectively head the firm." Page 17.

The downside with this book from one of my favorite authors on the subject of economics is the age of it.
A lot has transpired in the world of politics, global business, and economics since this book was published in 1997.

The book does serve very well as a primer on liberal economics.

John Kenneth Galbraith can be considered a pragmatic liberal, and what he has offered in The Good Society is a concise outline of how a country can - and should - both prosper and take care of its economically deprived citizens. Galbraith argues that the government should bear the responsibility for building an equitable society, and he discusses his view of the proper role of government in areas ranging from education to foreign policy.

The fundamental problem with the book is that it lacks the depth of treatment that his topics demand. Each of the chapters, which range from 8 to 10 pages in length, concentrates on a single, unique topic that would normally fill out an entire book. Accordingly, most of the points Galbraith makes are vague and general. For instance, he points out that America's foreign policy should emphasize maintaining peaceful relationships with other nations so as to encourage free trade, but he doesn't delve much further into the issue. Specific policy proposals are never mentioned.

The second problem with the book, which is a consequence of the first, is that the ideas Galbraith offers are neither novel nor particularly insightful. In the introduction, he challenges the reader by claiming that some of his proposals for society will ruffle a few feathers, but none of the views in the book fall outside the mainstream of the Democratic Party.

What makes The Good Society worthwhile is Galbraith's argument, which he carries throughout the book, that policy should never be subordinated to ideology. Policy decisions, our pragmatist demonstrates, should be examined on the particulars of the individual case and should not be based on any brand of economic dogma. Also, the topics and general proposals presented in the book remain relevant today though the book was written ten years ago.

On a stylistic level, the book is inconistsent. The writing ranges from concise and lucid to jarringly awkward. The frequent use of double-negatives, fragments, and inverted sentence structure make the reader go back over passages more than once.

Because of the somewhat facile traetment of complex issues, I recommend The Good Society primarily to those without much prior knowledge of liberal (i.e. Democratic) policy. Generally, it is a "not unpleasant" read.