Out of Print--Limited Availability.
Have one to sell? Sell on Amazon
Flip to back Flip to front
Listen Playing... Paused   You're listening to a sample of the Audible audio edition.
Learn more

The unheavenly city; the nature and future of our urban crisis Unknown Binding


See all 2 formats and editions Hide other formats and editions
Amazon Price New from Used from
Hardcover
"Please retry"
$12.00
Unknown Binding
"Please retry"
Best%20Books%20of%202014
NO_CONTENT_IN_FEATURE

Best Books of the Year
Best Books of 2014
Looking for something great to read? Browse our editors' picks for 2014's Best Books of the Year in fiction, nonfiction, mysteries, children's books, and much more.

Product Details

  • Unknown Binding
  • ASIN: B00005X21W
  • Average Customer Review: 2.7 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (3 customer reviews)
  • Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #9,022,720 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)

Customer Reviews

2.7 out of 5 stars
Share your thoughts with other customers

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

37 of 41 people found the following review helpful By Lloyd A. Conway on January 15, 2005
Format: Unknown Binding
Did you see the movie with Eddie Murphy and Dan Akroyd where two elderly brothers make a "Pygmalion"-like bet, namely, that they can ruin Mr. Akroyd's stock-broker character and substitute for him Mr. Murphy's street hustler character, teaching the latter everything he needs to take the former's place? This book is like that movie, only as the fruit of years of scholarly research.

The central thesis of the author is that the rich really are different: They think in terms of preserving their family "line" down through several generations. Doing this requires not mortgaging the capital that underpins their position. While they may outwardly live a carefree, womanizing, drunken existence, it is merely an "experience," that they wear like an article of clothing, to be put off when it no longer suits their pleasure.

The middle class is the recepticle of traditional morality because it has to be. The margin of error which the rich enjoy is absent, so sobriety, frugality, and hard work must be instilled to ensure that they at least hold their place; failure to do so results in downward mobility.

The poor live for the moment. That is why they are poor. They cannot leave, or choose not to leave, a life devoted to sexual conquest, excitement, violence, and the like, and those seductions inhibit the capital (physical and intellectual) formation required to reach escape velocity for those wanting out of the ghetto. Shades of Jeff Foxworthy's "redneck" jokes come to mind in reading Banfield: The latter writes that a poor man's toys are always better than all but the richest man's, because the latter won't devote so much capital stock to unproductive use, and the former are not disciplined enough to do without instant gratification.
Read more ›
1 Comment Was this review helpful to you? Yes No Sending feedback...
Thank you for your feedback. If this review is inappropriate, please let us know.
Sorry, we failed to record your vote. Please try again
3 of 30 people found the following review helpful By Amazon Customer on August 4, 2006
Format: Unknown Binding
I'm only two chapters into it, but it seems to me that Banfield wrote this book from the perspective of the "upper-class", as defined by his own class paradigm. He is almost entirely un-objective, "classist" and even racist. As another reviewer also said, blaming the victim is the game here. I do agree with Banfield that personal choices (whether voluntary or "involuntary") about the future affect a person's life. Obviously! However, those choices do not affect only one's own life and one's family. The "upper-class" (or "middle-class"), forward-thinking man of Banfield's class paradigm undoubtedly made decisions that sacrificed opportunities for himself in order to gain future benefits for his progeny. But did he not also make decisions that sacrificed opportunities AND future benefits for the "working-" and "lower-classes"? When a business magnate lays off hundreds of workers from his factory, whose opportunity is sacrificed for whose benefit? And from the worker's perspective, was a personal lack of "future-orientedness" to blame for his being laid-off? Certainly he could have chosen another line of work, but to what extent could he do this on his own and at what price to the present health of his family? Contrary to Banfield's assertions, the present-orientedness of the "lower-class" is not limited to hedonistic pursuits of sex and drugs: food and housing are somewhat more important for most people, EVEN the poor.

As successful people often acknowledge, "we stand on the shoulders of giants". But what all too often goes unsaid is that the rich and privileged stand on the shoulders of the poor and underprivileged, crushing them (knowingly or not, caring or not) down further into poverty and hopeless present-orientedness.
Read more ›
Comment Was this review helpful to you? Yes No Sending feedback...
Thank you for your feedback. If this review is inappropriate, please let us know.
Sorry, we failed to record your vote. Please try again
6 of 51 people found the following review helpful By Anthony Williams on February 17, 2005
Format: Unknown Binding
The rich are hardworking, frugal, and disciplined and the poor are lazy, crazy, and stupid. We shouldn't worry about social justice because poverty doesn't have anything to do with the distribution of resources, it is 100% the fault of the poor themselves. Just like the above review says, Michael Milken didn't get rich by committing massive fraud and robbing people blind, he got rich because he's so frugal he deigned to drive a station wagon.

You'll enjoy this book if you need a dose of Ayn Randian propaganda.
1 Comment Was this review helpful to you? Yes No Sending feedback...
Thank you for your feedback. If this review is inappropriate, please let us know.
Sorry, we failed to record your vote. Please try again