The Affluent Society (1958)

Galbraith's assessment of the 1950's economic scene, the populace's choices, and the then current reasons for the post-war boom, are particularly relevant to our choices today: Affluenza, the decaying environment, decreases in social services, worker rights, materialism, etc.

I disdain economic dogma, the economic beliefs that are so commonly bandied about, and seemingly plausible, but generally unproven and with little merit. Economics abounds with such things, and Galbraith's insights then are wholly relevant now, both as a critique of the current administration's policies, and as a guidepost for a better future. ( )

I registered a book at BookCrossing.com!
http://www.BookCrossing.com/journal/13696960

A profoundly silly book from a once revered, now largely forgotten economist.

It is really an updating of the arguments Sismondi and Mill (among others) were making over a century before, namely that we, as a species, now had enough stuff and the pursuit of more was self defeating. Sismondi and Mill made this argument when most of humanity didn't have the proverbial to piss in, and Galbraith's rehash is little more convincing. Some of the things he records as needless fancies include wall to wall carpets and vacuum cleaners, both pretty much necessities these days. Still, Galbraith could probably afford a maid.

As ridiculous is his famous argument about private plenty and public squalor. As Galbraith was writing this, governments were increasing their spending endlessly to the point we now have where, in may countries, government debt is approaching or over 100% of GDP. We have public plenty to a degree we can no longer afford. ( )

Published soon after I left school, this was hailed at the time as an important analysis of what some (and particularly Galbraith) saw as a set of problems and issues associated with what was seen as increasing affluence, reduced need for work etc. Sadly, like many (perhaps most) economists and sociologists, Galbraith either overlooked, misunderstood, or perhaps failed entirely to consider, the wide and unpredictable outcomes of technological development - the strange interactions between people, societies, economies and new products and mechanisms. People use new products and services in new ways, and these new ways give rise to opportunities and demands for new types of products and services, and for new societal behaviours and modes. In this respect, 'The Affluent Society' is as interesting, but also as misleading, as 'Future Shock' and all the other predictions of the doom that will befall if we fail to prepare ourselves for what is to come. Since we cannot predict, we cannot prepare, which is what makes political decision making so difficult. Except of course in a dictatorship, where politics seeks to decide the future rather than prepare for it - and that doesn't work either! By the way, its still a good read - if you enjoy or can live with his leftish bias. ( )

This book was on Newsweek's list of the top 100 books, which I am currently reading through. I don't have much of an interest in reading about economics, which accounts for a mere three stars in this review, but as far as economics goes, The Affluent Society was well-written and easy to read and contained quite a bit of interesting information, even if I didn't always agree with the author. In some ways it seems he really has a handle on the post WWII economic society in America, not only at the time he wrote the book in 1958 but even today. However, many of his ideas sound good on paper but do not necessarily work in practice. I am all for keeping our public roads in good shape and our parks clean and, most importantly, open, but heavy taxation today may not result in any better care of our roads or parks and may just end up lining the pockets of our government leaders. Also, his ideas on unemployment insurance and social welfare (which basically have been put in to practice), may be good ideas in a society where idleness is frowned upon, but this no longer seems to be the case and the system is often abused at taxpayer expense. ( )