Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.3 AVERAGE
3.3 AVERAGE
hopeful
informative
slow-paced
A review of 3 stars doesn't quite say how much I feel this book has influenced my thought process. The first chapter is amazing, but after that the book falls into some very dense reading that takes some time to get through. It pays off, but definitely requires a good amount of knowledge to the things the authors are referring to, or else the time to find out. Not being an economist or historian, this took me some amount of time.
The pay off is a deeper understanding about why they list the factors that they do as part of the good life in greater depth. And an ability to internalize it a bit more than if it were simply presented as their opinion, rather than how it is presented, which is their well researched opinion (a better option I think).
The last chapter is a start at application in a broader sense, but lacks the kind of closure I was hoping for from how they start the chapter off.
Overall though, I do recommend it as a means to rethink the goals of life, and provide a framework that does not place growth/wealth as the central theme.
The pay off is a deeper understanding about why they list the factors that they do as part of the good life in greater depth. And an ability to internalize it a bit more than if it were simply presented as their opinion, rather than how it is presented, which is their well researched opinion (a better option I think).
The last chapter is a start at application in a broader sense, but lacks the kind of closure I was hoping for from how they start the chapter off.
Overall though, I do recommend it as a means to rethink the goals of life, and provide a framework that does not place growth/wealth as the central theme.
Really enjoyed the short history of philosophy presented in the first several chapters and the critique of pursuing "happiness." Also liked the outline of the seven parts of what makes the good life. However, wanted this book to be more meaningful on a personal level, i.e., What can I do, right now, to pursue the good life? It touched on this, but the last quarter of the book shifted to the state and potential policy changes it could make to promote the good life. I understand the importance of the section for their argument (and their argument for a "paternalist but non-coercive state is appealing), but it seemed rushed and not as well laid-out as the other sections.
This book would seem right up my alley, and in most ways, it was. It is written by two philosophers, so it didn't suffer from the usual problems I find with popular-consumption econ books (though perhaps a philosopher reading it would find an analogous set of problems!).
Skidelsky pere is the author of the preeminent biography of Keynes, and the motivation for the book is a well-known essay by Keynes in which he speculated on the economic future. Based on his projections of the growth of income, he figured that by around now, people in developed countries would only need to work about 10 hours per week to meet their needs. Famously, his growth projections were remarkably accurate, but his conclusion was not. Given increasing incomes, people on the whole have chosen to work the same amount (or more) and consume more rather than work less and consume the same.
The authors' argument is an interesting one, which has much in common with Alasdair MacIntyre's argument in "After Virtue" (which the authors note). In traditional societies, including ancient Greece, there was a conception of "the good life" as a fairly objective thing to be aimed at, consisting in a finite set of reasonably well-defined things, chief among these, time for philosophical contemplation and public service. (I am not sure how much of a caricature this is. My sense is that people may have disagreed about the specific constituents of the good life, but that the existence of such a thing was not especially in question.)
One problem with this concept was that, due to the structure of these traditional societies, "the good life" was off-limits to most people. Eventually, the forces of capitalism came forth to offer what the Skidelskys very elegantly characterize as a "Faustian bargain": by unleashing self-interest and acquisitive impulses from the bounds of tradition, it spurs economic development toward the point where most people will have the resources needed for a basic "good life"; yet by unleashing these forces, the capitalist economy also erodes away the mental and spiritual basis of the enjoyment of the good life. The competitive market can produce "enough" for everyone, but as competition comes to play a dominant role, our concept of "enough" withers away.
So far, so good. The authors take some interesting digressions into conceptions of the good life in various Eastern traditions, and into the modern field of happiness research. (They are quite leery of this field, for interesting reasons.) They put forward their own subjective list of the elements of the good life: things that are hard to argue with, such as health, respect, relationships, etc. This list didn't seem very gripping to me, but also seemed fairly reasonable.
What really bugged me, though, was their concluding essays at possible government policies to encourage people to cultivate the good life. After an entire book of discussing these issues, they focus on a couple of specific policies: a universal basic income, where the state would provide an unconditional cash grant to each citizen, and a consumption tax (similar to the European VAT's, although oddly they do not discuss these). The economic basis of each of these policy proposals is clear: given a basic income, people will be more free to devote their time to fulfilling pursuits; a tax on consumption will incentivize people to substitute away from consumption (for example, to more leisure time). And yet...the very logic by which these policies are intended to work is the same market-based logic that the authors call out as the very basis of the Faustian bargain! It was astonishing to me that they did not focus their policy proposals more on direct government provision of basic goods, as with a single-payer healthcare system. The fungibility of things like UBI would seem to make them relatively easy for competitive, capitalist values to withstand.
I am in agreement with the authors on many points, but am not sure where I stand on appropriate responses beyond an individual or household level. It may be overly pessimistic to say that nothing can be done beyond this level. For example, I think that changes to policies around parental leave, or changes to structures that create "cliff effects" between full- and part-time work could be beneficial. But it seems somewhat wrong-headed to me to envision the state being able to "nudge" people toward the good life (or even being capable of maintaining any coherent conception thereof). If changes in attitudes are going to come, I think that they are much more likely to take root based on the actions of smaller units, from families to churches to online communities to individual companies. I think conceptions of the good life are much more likely to be driven by the availability of positive examples than by policy innovations.
Over this past weekend, Elise discovered a blog that I read, called "Mr. Money Mustache," and has really been enjoying it. Despite the silly name, I this blog (and the online/IRL community around it) is a strong and vibrant proponent of something like the good life described by the Skidelskys. I have always appreciated the anarchist line (not sure of the exact attribution) that a new society must be built "in the shell of the old." I think something like MMM is a modest but powerful instantiation of that idea, and gives me much more inspiration than the Skidelskys' policy ideas.
Skidelsky pere is the author of the preeminent biography of Keynes, and the motivation for the book is a well-known essay by Keynes in which he speculated on the economic future. Based on his projections of the growth of income, he figured that by around now, people in developed countries would only need to work about 10 hours per week to meet their needs. Famously, his growth projections were remarkably accurate, but his conclusion was not. Given increasing incomes, people on the whole have chosen to work the same amount (or more) and consume more rather than work less and consume the same.
The authors' argument is an interesting one, which has much in common with Alasdair MacIntyre's argument in "After Virtue" (which the authors note). In traditional societies, including ancient Greece, there was a conception of "the good life" as a fairly objective thing to be aimed at, consisting in a finite set of reasonably well-defined things, chief among these, time for philosophical contemplation and public service. (I am not sure how much of a caricature this is. My sense is that people may have disagreed about the specific constituents of the good life, but that the existence of such a thing was not especially in question.)
One problem with this concept was that, due to the structure of these traditional societies, "the good life" was off-limits to most people. Eventually, the forces of capitalism came forth to offer what the Skidelskys very elegantly characterize as a "Faustian bargain": by unleashing self-interest and acquisitive impulses from the bounds of tradition, it spurs economic development toward the point where most people will have the resources needed for a basic "good life"; yet by unleashing these forces, the capitalist economy also erodes away the mental and spiritual basis of the enjoyment of the good life. The competitive market can produce "enough" for everyone, but as competition comes to play a dominant role, our concept of "enough" withers away.
So far, so good. The authors take some interesting digressions into conceptions of the good life in various Eastern traditions, and into the modern field of happiness research. (They are quite leery of this field, for interesting reasons.) They put forward their own subjective list of the elements of the good life: things that are hard to argue with, such as health, respect, relationships, etc. This list didn't seem very gripping to me, but also seemed fairly reasonable.
What really bugged me, though, was their concluding essays at possible government policies to encourage people to cultivate the good life. After an entire book of discussing these issues, they focus on a couple of specific policies: a universal basic income, where the state would provide an unconditional cash grant to each citizen, and a consumption tax (similar to the European VAT's, although oddly they do not discuss these). The economic basis of each of these policy proposals is clear: given a basic income, people will be more free to devote their time to fulfilling pursuits; a tax on consumption will incentivize people to substitute away from consumption (for example, to more leisure time). And yet...the very logic by which these policies are intended to work is the same market-based logic that the authors call out as the very basis of the Faustian bargain! It was astonishing to me that they did not focus their policy proposals more on direct government provision of basic goods, as with a single-payer healthcare system. The fungibility of things like UBI would seem to make them relatively easy for competitive, capitalist values to withstand.
I am in agreement with the authors on many points, but am not sure where I stand on appropriate responses beyond an individual or household level. It may be overly pessimistic to say that nothing can be done beyond this level. For example, I think that changes to policies around parental leave, or changes to structures that create "cliff effects" between full- and part-time work could be beneficial. But it seems somewhat wrong-headed to me to envision the state being able to "nudge" people toward the good life (or even being capable of maintaining any coherent conception thereof). If changes in attitudes are going to come, I think that they are much more likely to take root based on the actions of smaller units, from families to churches to online communities to individual companies. I think conceptions of the good life are much more likely to be driven by the availability of positive examples than by policy innovations.
Over this past weekend, Elise discovered a blog that I read, called "Mr. Money Mustache," and has really been enjoying it. Despite the silly name, I this blog (and the online/IRL community around it) is a strong and vibrant proponent of something like the good life described by the Skidelskys. I have always appreciated the anarchist line (not sure of the exact attribution) that a new society must be built "in the shell of the old." I think something like MMM is a modest but powerful instantiation of that idea, and gives me much more inspiration than the Skidelskys' policy ideas.
How much is enough? It is a great question. The authors of this book try to argue (as John Keynes back in the 30s) that there is enough wealth in the world that, if it were spread equally, everyone could live "the good life". While technology goes up, the human labor necessary to produce goods goes down, and people can work half the time and make just as much money. They have a vision of humans using this "leisure" time to create and think as ancient philosophers and artists did.
I find so many flaws with the authors' theories and presentation that it would be difficult to even remember them all. In short, their theory is a great one and I believe that as a theory it has it's merits. But given how deeply rooted the Western world is it's capitalistic ways, there is no way this idea that they propose could ever, ever, ever happen. They do try at the end to give ideas about how to approach this dream for our grandchildren (as Keynes did), but IMO they would need to write volumes more before they would come close to having a blueprint for putting their theory into practical use.
To me, this is as much a fantasy book as it is about economics or philosophy.
I find so many flaws with the authors' theories and presentation that it would be difficult to even remember them all. In short, their theory is a great one and I believe that as a theory it has it's merits. But given how deeply rooted the Western world is it's capitalistic ways, there is no way this idea that they propose could ever, ever, ever happen. They do try at the end to give ideas about how to approach this dream for our grandchildren (as Keynes did), but IMO they would need to write volumes more before they would come close to having a blueprint for putting their theory into practical use.
To me, this is as much a fantasy book as it is about economics or philosophy.
Good and interesting reading, even if some things are for people that know about Economics and Ethics a little bit more than me.
THANKS TO NETGALLEY AND OTHER PRESS FOR THE PREVIEW
THANKS TO NETGALLEY AND OTHER PRESS FOR THE PREVIEW
Addressing issues of systemic inequality and human insatiability, coupled with the earth's finite amount of resources, the Skidelskys tackle the many social and personal ills associated when a society commits to a growth-focused capitalistic economy. Focusing on Keynes' mistake, the qualities of what makes a "good" life, and the intangibles most humans dearly value in terms of life satisfaction, the authors strike a sometimes messy balance between ethics and morals while still making a convincing argument that a "good" life, in the long run, cannot be purchased. And while many of the presented ideas are compelling, they don't (at first read) lend themselves to versatile, widespread action. I'd love a companion piece where the authors offer a follow-up playbook of sorts, so the average citizen could successfully lobby their representatives, employers, and other community leaders to make real change based on some of the Skidelskys' theories. Perhaps that's expecting too much from the authors. But in this day and age, and particularly with so much at stake, such an argument becomes even more compelling with action items.
hopeful
informative
medium-paced
I really had to put effort to complete the book. First of all there are lots of assumptions in the book. As a result I was bit frustrated about it. More so there is lot of philosophical discussions rather than hard facts or figures which should be the key component in any economic analysis. Also the way authors dealt with environmentalism debate was unfortunate. I mean there can be instances where one might not agree with the method or factor used. But to completely discard the seriousness around catastrophic effects of climate change was disheartening. ( probably authors would change their mind after 2020).