Hail, Galbraith!!
John Kenneth Galbraith was one of the great public intellectuals of 20th century America. He advised Presidents and politicians, wrote best-selling books, taught economics at Harvard, appeared on TV, and served as the U.S. Ambassador to India. Nevertheless, mainstream economists looked down their noses at him. They scoffed at his sweeping generalizations. They questioned his technical prowess, noting that his books had no math. Many suspected that he was a "mere sociologist" masquarading as an economist.
These critics may have been jealous of Galbraith's literary fame and towering public profile. In any event, they certainly misconstrued his significance in American intellectual life. Galbraith's great gift as a thinker was his razor-sharp eye for cant. He knew where economic ideas came from, how they supported vested interests, and where they diverged from the plain facts of everyday life -- and he conveyed these lessons to educated general readers in elegant prose. In the end, he may have been a gadfly and critic, not a model builder -- but so what? If mainsteam economists taught us how to think about markets, Galbraith taught us how to think about mainstream economics.
"The Affluent Society" is one of his masterpieces. Written in the 1950s, ideas fly from its pages, touching on everything from Ricardian economics to oligopolies and inflation. The central idea, however, is arresting. Galbraith argued that modern economics was forged in the austere world of the 19th century, when national economies struggled simply to feed and clothe their populations. Sensible at the time, the core assumptions of economics were carried over to a different century facing a different set of problems. In the 20th century, supermarkets bursted with unnecessary soaps and cereals, car models changed every year, and billions of advertising dollars were spent on campaigns to convince consumers that they needed items they never even knew they wanted.
Galbraith argued that, with the problem of scarcity more or less solved, society was free to loosen the connection between income and labor, and to spend more money on public goods such as schools, hospitals, and clean air. He rejected as anachronistic the objection that such measures would reduce economic efficiency by mandating higher taxes or rewarding idleness: what was the value of having an efficient economic system if the goods it produced answered no urgent human needs? Galbraith thought that society should focus on the development of human capacities and the building of decent communities and workplaces, and not fret unduly over allocative efficiency.
Galbraith was wrong about many things, but he was always thought-provoking and mind-expanding. The continuing force of "The Affluent Society" will be clear to anyone who reflects on the crazy popularity of SUVs or tallies up the money we lavish on pets -- in a day and age when American cats get better medical care than most African children, it's safe to say that the supply side problem has finally been solved (at least for us and our pets). The book should be read by all serious students of economics or 20th century American society, and it belongs on any bookshelf of social criticism next to the works of Thorstein Veblen and C. Wright Mills.
The Hobo Philosopher
John Kenneth Galbraith is probably the economist that I have read most. This book is a classic and very much worth reading for it analysis of the market system. But when all is said and done I consider it more a work of speculative fiction. I read a book similar to this by Bertrand Russell back in the 60's but both books are lacking a bit in scepticism of the human beast. The very idea that we would all be so wealthy one day that we wouldn't know what to do as a society - or that somebody would have to mail us a check in order to encourage spending and that poverty would be a secondary problem etc. etc. etc. Is plain naivete or maybe wishfull thinking.
Books written by Richard Noble - The Hobo Philosopher:
"Hobo-ing America: A Workingman's Tour of the U.S.A.."
"A Summer with Charlie"
"A Little Something: Poetry and Prose"
"Honor Thy Father and Thy Mother"
"The Eastpointer" Selections from award winning column.
courage of thinking
it' s the first time I read something like that in economics.
Affluenza?
Written long before modern realization of how our desire for affluence as part of our "right by birth" has largely caused such things as global warming and elimination of species, Galbraith gives a very indepth exposé of the origins and tendencies of the North American material ethos. I would have given this book 4.5 or 5 stars save for the fact that it takes a bit of work on the reader to bring it fully up to date with respect to some of the consequences we now see.
That said, I would heartily recommend this work prior to reading his or other author's more recent works on the direction of modern western society.
Pragmatic approach to economics
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.
