Rating: 
Summary: Most Important Book in Economics in Second Half of 20th C.
Review: Forget the fact that Galbraith is more readable than any other economist ever, this is an important work, full of insights into not only the condition of the post WWII economy, but also the history of economic thought and why economists think the way they do (and avoid thinking about real issues). Most economic theory is based on the notion of scarcity, yet we live in a society of generalized affluence. The economy changed, and continues to change, yet orthodox economists are, for the most part, still thinking about the economy as if it was 1800. As relevant today as it was when it first came out. I became an economist because of this book (though not an orthodox one).C. Clark
Rating:
Summary: Extraordinarily Timely
Review: 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.
Rating: 
Summary: Thought Provoking, Well Written Leftist Economics
Review: Galbraith's book is certainly thought-provoking & worth reading. His arguments are well thought out, and his writing is wryly witty. Even if you disagree with his views, as many have, it's worth a read. Galbraith starts the book off by reviewing how many early economic ideas were created in periods of scarcity, and that the notion of scarcity may not appropriate for today's age of mass affluence. Those with vested interests in production (i.e. large businesses) still cling to the "conventional wisdom" that increased production equals progress, even though goods are now abundant and our basic material needs have been satisfied. To stimulate further demand, corporations must resort to salesmanship and advertising. If advertising stopped, demand would fall, production would drop, and unemployment would rise; thus, business continue to focus on increasing production to ensure their own survival. There are other threats to production. Economic cycles may result in a depression. Poorly managed firms may have to lay off workers. As a result, people -- and especially politicians --focus on economic growth to avoid these insecurities. Growth is something that both the rich and poor will vote for, since they both want to keep their jobs and acquire more goods. Growing out of a recession also seems promising. The net result is that society as a whole focuses on increasing production by private industry. Next, Galbraith shifts his view from private industry to the public sector. He does this by introducing the idea of social balance, which asserts that as private spending increases, public spending should increase to match. For example, if factories build more cars, more money needs to be invested in public roads. Unfortunately, private goods are sold via advertising by companies that can react quickly to changes in demand. In contrast, public investment by governments reacts much more slowly, and typically lags private spending and investment, due to regulations, bureaucracy, and voter's general aversion to new taxes. The result is a world rich in private goods but poor in public ones: beautiful cars driving on poor roads, well-dressed kids in the crumbling public school, neighborhoods with beautiful homes but polluted parks. So what to do? Galbraith's proposed solution is that we should invest in our economic infrastructure: our parks, our roads, our educational system, long-term scientific research, police, and the like. To fund this, he emphasizes sales taxes, which reduce consumption, and make those who consume a lot pay for it. To alleviate poverty and inequality, Galbraith also proposes to expand unemployment insurance so that one could choose not to work, yet still be able to get by. In his view, this would allow more people to reduce their work week, or not work at all, or to be able to focus on work they really enjoy. Although this is certainly a liberal view & may not be feasible, his views certainly were eye-opening and thought provoking. For that reason, I recommend the book.
Rating:
Summary: Thought Provoking, Well Written Leftist Economics
Review: Galbraith's book is certainly thought-provoking & worth reading. His arguments are well thought out, and his writing is wryly witty. Even if you disagree with his views, as many have, it's worth a read. Galbraith starts the book off by reviewing how many early economic ideas were created in periods of scarcity, and that the notion of scarcity may not appropriate for today's age of mass affluence. Those with vested interests in production (i.e. large businesses) still cling to the "conventional wisdom" that increased production equals progress, even though goods are now abundant and our basic material needs have been satisfied. To stimulate further demand, corporations must resort to salesmanship and advertising. If advertising stopped, demand would fall, production would drop, and unemployment would rise; thus, business continue to focus on increasing production to ensure their own survival. There are other threats to production. Economic cycles may result in a depression. Poorly managed firms may have to lay off workers. As a result, people -- and especially politicians --focus on economic growth to avoid these insecurities. Growth is something that both the rich and poor will vote for, since they both want to keep their jobs and acquire more goods. Growing out of a recession also seems promising. The net result is that society as a whole focuses on increasing production by private industry. Next, Galbraith shifts his view from private industry to the public sector. He does this by introducing the idea of social balance, which asserts that as private spending increases, public spending should increase to match. For example, if factories build more cars, more money needs to be invested in public roads. Unfortunately, private goods are sold via advertising by companies that can react quickly to changes in demand. In contrast, public investment by governments reacts much more slowly, and typically lags private spending and investment, due to regulations, bureaucracy, and voter's general aversion to new taxes. The result is a world rich in private goods but poor in public ones: beautiful cars driving on poor roads, well-dressed kids in the crumbling public school, neighborhoods with beautiful homes but polluted parks. So what to do? Galbraith's proposed solution is that we should invest in our economic infrastructure: our parks, our roads, our educational system, long-term scientific research, police, and the like. To fund this, he emphasizes sales taxes, which reduce consumption, and make those who consume a lot pay for it. To alleviate poverty and inequality, Galbraith also proposes to expand unemployment insurance so that one could choose not to work, yet still be able to get by. In his view, this would allow more people to reduce their work week, or not work at all, or to be able to focus on work they really enjoy. Although this is certainly a liberal view & may not be feasible, his views certainly were eye-opening and thought provoking. For that reason, I recommend the book.
Rating: 
Summary: Not a Classic, But Not a Total Loss
Review: I just finished this book less than an hour ago, and already much of it is slipping from my mind. Considered a classic by many in today's world, as a trumpeted 40th anniversary reprint suggested, I always wanted to give this one a twirl to see what all the fuss was about. I was for the most part underwhelmed. This may be due in some part to the fact that most of the text is unchanged from its first printing in 1958. Since many of these ideas and theories have become the norm since I was born in 1970, it's a little difficult to see them as novel. It isn't difficult to see that many of Galbraith's conclusions are failures or completely unworkable. The book begins by laying out the idea of conventional wisdom, a term which Galbraith apparently coined, and which he crows about in his new introduction. Conventional wisdom, to Galbraith, is the big, burly force that blocks progress. Those in the know wrap themselves in the flag of conventional wisdom and refuse to acknowledge new ideas that might intrude upon their blissful solitude. Needless to say, Galbraith spends the rest of the book intruding. We get a history of economic thought from Adam Smith through David Ricardo, to Thorstein Veblen. Of course, Marx gets a chapter all to himself. Galbraith shows how their rather depressing view of the world always places the poor in the "poor house" so to speak, and is the basis for economic thought even in today's decidely less dismal world of affluence (hence the title). Galbraith proceeds to show how inflation, consumerism and poor public resources all stem from our dependence on production. In Galbraith's world, production is a roaring, runaway train that plows over everything it sees and leaves destruction in its wake. The last part of the book is a series of ideas about how to lessen production and eliminate poverty. I did give this book three stars, because Galbraith does manage to make a few brilliant observations and statements, such as this gem, found on page 199, "However, an understanding of our economic discourse requires an appreciation of one of its basic rules: men of high position are allowed, by a special act of grace, to accommodate their reasoning to the answer they need. Logic is only required in those of lesser rank." This doesn't just apply to economics, in my opinion. This is every liberal describing their programs in the last forty years! Galbraith also writes a pretty lucid chapter on how the cycle of consumerism is spinning out of control. Too many times, however, the book falls flat. Galbraith seems to think of the poor as this kind of noble mass that has suffered titanic wrongs at the hand of society. What he doesn't say is that cultural pathologies contribute mightily to poverty. Many just refuse to play by the rules that most people follow. He also advocates shorter work weeks (which never worked) and redistribution of wealth, which found full fruition under Lyndon Johnson's "Great Society", which did nothing more than breed great amounts of crime and dependency. Would I recommend this book? Yep. If nothing more than to give people a concrete target to point the finger of blame at every time they realize just how much government has intruded in their lives. There is some good information in here, though, if a person looks hard enough.
Rating:
Summary: A book all students of economics should read.
Review: If you agree with Galbraith's notions on economics you may find this a seminal work. If you disagree with him you will no where find a better spar for your own ideas. (Friedman spent an entire book analyzing Galbraith) Love it or hate it The Affluent Society looms large in American economic thought of the 20th century. The book itself is dedicated primarily to re-assessing the role of production in an economy of increasing affluence. Economics long ago acquired the unhappy designation as "the dismal science." This was derived from the observation by all famous early economists that economic life for the masses was inevitably harsh. Ricardo, Smith, and Marx all agreed that while a minority might enjoy abundance the majority were doomed to struggle for their very economic survival. As early as the 1950s Galbraith made the very simple point that the economic prospects of the masses are no longer dark. The average worker could (and still does) expect reasonable wages, a constant supply of luxury goods, and free time to enjoy these things. The modern economy is no longer a battle for simple survival but rather one over what an individual's share of excess production should be. Some reviewers have commented that the specifics in The Affluent Society have become dated. Indeed automotive tail-fins are no longer the common automotive add-on they once were, but the underlying questions remain valid. In the economy of 150 years ago to claim that suffering was inevitable seemed fair, for it was the state of the masses. In the economy of the present where economic deprivation is no longer the norm, to claim some must suffer while the majority live in relative affluence suddenly appears cruel.
A social scientist who argued the changes of the last 200 years were not relevant to analysis would be laughed at in any other field. Unequivocably our economic priorities have changed during that time. The Affluent Society provides a history of that change, a look at how our failure to adapt has led to a number of social problems, and suggests how we might better organize economic priorities in the present. It is no small acheivement.
Rating:
Summary: This book is a true classic
Review: Interesting and original analysis of the major trends in economic thinking that have shaped our times; as relevant today as 40 years ago when it was written; a great work by a thinker. Contains interesting discussion of the causes of the depression and businesses cycles and also, as a treat, amusing reflections on the habits and rationalizations of the rich through the ages.
Rating:
Summary: One relevant prescription even for today
Review: One major idea of Galbraith remains with me, and I think has relevance for today also. It is that the private enterprise economy of the United States has not given enough of its resources to infrastructure needs. This is apparent in the United States today , and great investments are needed to shore up aging systems.
Galbraith is a very fast- minded, and enjoyable writer with a real sense of humor. He made reading Economics in my college days a bit more pleasurable. It is unfortunate that the economic Abundance of the Affluent Society has not yet reached all Americans much less all of Mankind. But Galbraith did see that the dismal misery of the mass of mankind the hard economic reality which had applied through the ages no longer applied in America. This perception was true in the fifties and is even more true today.
Rating: 
Summary: An outdated and wrong book
Review: The Affluent Society is no longer relevant to contemporary economics. It was written in 1958, when the world was mired in the Cold War. Not only is this book irrelevant, it is also elitist and arrogant. Galbraith says that people who belied Karl Marx were inherently more intelligent. I think it is about time to stop calling an irrelevant book a classic.
Rating:
Summary: An outdated and wrong book
Review: The Affluent Society is no longer relevant to contemporary economics. It was written in 1958, when the world was mired in the Cold War. Not only is this book irrelevant, it is also elitist and arrogant. Galbraith says that people who belied Karl Marx were inherently more intelligent. I think it is about time to stop calling an irrelevant book a classic.
|
