Take a photo of a barcode or cover
4.05 AVERAGE
4.05 AVERAGE
challenging
informative
slow-paced
challenging
informative
reflective
medium-paced
challenging
informative
medium-paced
This is an interesting reverie about the nature of economics and the nature of the goals that drive it both as an academic discipline and as it is used to understand modern society and politics. With what we now understand about climate change it's obvious that Galbraith has a point, the endless pursuit of ever more production is no guarantee of the best outcome for society and is likely to drive the world to destruction. However he sidesteps the fact that it is not simply 'production' that drives capitalism but 'production for profit'. People don't simply continue to buy more and more products because of socially a taught desire but because the owners of capital need them to, need production to continue to expand to drive the valorisation and accumulation of their capital.
Galbrath also sidesteps distribution, defining an essentially insoluble "inequality" problem where the question of sharing resources more equitably cannot even be raised because it would destabilise the truce between the affluent and the poor that is carefully mediated by never-ending growth. Galbraith instead imagines maintaining this truce by redirecting economic effort away from the production of luxury goods and towards social goods.
What this boils down to then is that Galbraith sets out a prospectus for the "good times" when moderate to high levels of growth allow the tensions within capitalism to be papered over. To some extent it suggests the politics of New Labour, with high education spending assumed to be the key to lifting children out of poverty and no real pursuit of any substantial realignment of wealth or inequality.
For all of that, this is an interesting read albeit one that feels a little dated (published in 1958) raising many questions that still feel unanswered by economics (what is production for, how do we identify and pursue what is in the best interests of society). It presents a view of the world before the neoliberal revolution, and if nothing else it feels like we sometimes need reminding that that world existed once.
You can also find this review on my blog: https://marxadventure.wordpress.com/?p=3339
Galbrath also sidesteps distribution, defining an essentially insoluble "inequality" problem where the question of sharing resources more equitably cannot even be raised because it would destabilise the truce between the affluent and the poor that is carefully mediated by never-ending growth. Galbraith instead imagines maintaining this truce by redirecting economic effort away from the production of luxury goods and towards social goods.
What this boils down to then is that Galbraith sets out a prospectus for the "good times" when moderate to high levels of growth allow the tensions within capitalism to be papered over. To some extent it suggests the politics of New Labour, with high education spending assumed to be the key to lifting children out of poverty and no real pursuit of any substantial realignment of wealth or inequality.
For all of that, this is an interesting read albeit one that feels a little dated (published in 1958) raising many questions that still feel unanswered by economics (what is production for, how do we identify and pursue what is in the best interests of society). It presents a view of the world before the neoliberal revolution, and if nothing else it feels like we sometimes need reminding that that world existed once.
You can also find this review on my blog: https://marxadventure.wordpress.com/?p=3339
It is pointless categorizing the world into left and right. Russian revolution days are over and the "communism" concept is hollow. What does it mean to label Galbraith as "leftist"? In the times of reckless (outsourced) pollution, surplus people and inequality, the squirrels must be prevented to see options outside the wheel. Just keep running.
Loved this book. Galbraith is a skilled writer who makes a dry subject vivid. Some ideas outdated after 2008 crash but others relevant. Excellent section on economic history.
Written in the Keynesian era between 1945-1975 when left-liberal/social democracy was the ruling consensus in the US. It is an interesting era with lots of good things but may have been a hopeful mirage a powerful one no doubt but a mirage nonetheless. Probably left me more optimistic about the system than I should have been. But 50 years of neoliberalism is quite the corrective. Anyway a book I read early on when I was more assimilable.
Update 4/16/2022 The book coined the much-used term "conventional wisdom" back in the 1950s. The economy described based on productive output died in the 1970s now the economy is dwarfed by a top-heavy financial sector instead of output. More money can be made by being the house in a wall street casino than actually making something useful. Also, unions and the prosperous middle class are also long gone since the seventies as well. Our economy is now dominated by knowledge workers and wall street types that is where the money goes both with nefarious designs for the rest of us. The chapter on Marx was really interesting Marx probably looms larger on the economy now than in the cold war but even back in the 1950s, Galbraith has a grudging respect for Old Karl. Definitely dated but the contrast of their light to our shadow illuminates our own times.
Update 4/16/2022 The book coined the much-used term "conventional wisdom" back in the 1950s. The economy described based on productive output died in the 1970s now the economy is dwarfed by a top-heavy financial sector instead of output. More money can be made by being the house in a wall street casino than actually making something useful. Also, unions and the prosperous middle class are also long gone since the seventies as well. Our economy is now dominated by knowledge workers and wall street types that is where the money goes both with nefarious designs for the rest of us. The chapter on Marx was really interesting Marx probably looms larger on the economy now than in the cold war but even back in the 1950s, Galbraith has a grudging respect for Old Karl. Definitely dated but the contrast of their light to our shadow illuminates our own times.
What an interesting book. Though I'll admit straight off the bat that there was a fair portion that was difficult to get my head around. What I did understand was quite informative and enlightening even though the more recent revised edition was published over 10 years ago.
A slog of a read but worth it as provides a much needed tweaking of capitalism to ensure humanity's progress toward something better.
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 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.