Status
Available
Call number
Genres
Description
Galbraith's classic on the "economic of abundance" is, in the words of the New York Times, "a compelling challenge to conventional thought." With customary clarity, eloquence, and humor, Galbraith cuts to the heart of what economic security means (and doesn't mean) in today's world and lays bare the hazards of individual and societal complacence about economic inequity. While "affluent society" and "conventional wisdom" (first used in the book) have entered the vernacular, the message of the book has not been so widely embraced--reason enough to rediscover The Affluent Society.
User reviews
LibraryThing member rizeandshine
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
Show More
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. Show Less
LibraryThing member BrianDewey
Galbraith, John Kenneth. The Affluent Society. Houghton Mifflin Company, New York, 1998. A thought-provoking book. I don't know if I agree with all of Galbraith's conclusions, although I certainly sympathize with his goal and his exhortation at the end of the book: the affluent society should not
Show More
allow itself to neglect the poor. Of all the things in the book, I appreciated the brief history of economics at the beginning, the presentation of the idea of conventional wisdom, and the idea of the New Class. Show Less
LibraryThing member DLSmithies
Chapter 17 on the Theory of Social Balance is brilliant.
LibraryThing member NaggedMan
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
Show More
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. Show Less
LibraryThing member JohnPhelan
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
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.
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
Show More
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.
Show Less
LibraryThing member James.Igoe
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
I disdain economic
Show More
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. Show Less
LibraryThing member Library_Lin
Let me plainly state that I am neither an economist nor a person who ever reads about economics. Econ 101 was one of the few classes in college that I came close to failing. None of it past the first lecture on the syllabus made any sense.
But I want to understand economics. And I do grasp that
The first half of the book was a bit confusing for me. In it, Galbraith reviews economic history from the past two hundred years. Since I have so little background knowledge in this arena, I struggled to follow what he was getting at, and no doubt, a lot of what he said went over my head.
However, when he started getting into the division between the conservative and liberal ideas about the economy, mainly after World War II, I found myself on much better footing. So while there is no doubt a lot of this man’s wisdom ultimately failed to penetrate my inhospitable brain, here’s what I did get from his book. Keep in mind that things have changed a lot since 1976, when the book I read was published.
First, most people have basic needs met in an affluent society like ours. Since our economy depended on production (especially before we began sending so many manufacturing jobs to cheaper labor in foreign countries), the manufacturing of wants to fill production demands was crucial. With our government’s help, American businesses have been ingenious and wildly successful at manufacturing these artificial wants.
Second, there is a divide between personal needs and public needs. Since our private needs were largely met by the mid-20th century, surplus monies could have been spent on shared needs, like infrastructure, schools, police protection, and healthcare. However, these areas were chronically underfunded, even then, due to campaigns to convince citizens that taking care of public concerns was ripping them off instead of helping them out. With more significant funds spent for public services for everyone, individuals lost private money through taxes that could have been spent on alternative, private pleasures like fancier cars, clothes, and entertainment.
Finally, while most of us suffer from poor funding for things like schools and highways, the poor are the big losers. Galbraith spends a great deal of time explaining that it’s not possible, and never has been, that everyone will be able to hold down a job to increase our production. The elderly, the disabled, and the mentally ill are often incapable. And he admits that every society contains a few people who refuse to work, whether from laziness or whatever reason unknown to the rest of us. But he asks, is forcing these people to work for a living helping business at all? He argues that it’s not; it’s more expensive to force people to work at jobs due to their lack of output and absenteeism. Instead, he argues that it’s better to pay a living through negative taxes (like the earned-income credit) to keep such people and their children from homelessness and starvation.
He dispassionately outlines the differences from the conservative perspective and makes a case for his own liberal view. However, he also acknowledges the missteps and wrong turns common among liberal thinkers and politicians of his day.
It was an enlightening but disturbing book for me. I would recommend it to anyone like me who wants a clearer understanding of the principle drivers of the insanely gigantic and intricate economic system we are all entangled in today.
But I want to understand economics. And I do grasp that
Show More
it’s one of the most important drivers of contemporary civilization. That’s why I read The Affluent Society by 20th-century progressive economics theorist John Kenneth Galbraith.The first half of the book was a bit confusing for me. In it, Galbraith reviews economic history from the past two hundred years. Since I have so little background knowledge in this arena, I struggled to follow what he was getting at, and no doubt, a lot of what he said went over my head.
However, when he started getting into the division between the conservative and liberal ideas about the economy, mainly after World War II, I found myself on much better footing. So while there is no doubt a lot of this man’s wisdom ultimately failed to penetrate my inhospitable brain, here’s what I did get from his book. Keep in mind that things have changed a lot since 1976, when the book I read was published.
First, most people have basic needs met in an affluent society like ours. Since our economy depended on production (especially before we began sending so many manufacturing jobs to cheaper labor in foreign countries), the manufacturing of wants to fill production demands was crucial. With our government’s help, American businesses have been ingenious and wildly successful at manufacturing these artificial wants.
Second, there is a divide between personal needs and public needs. Since our private needs were largely met by the mid-20th century, surplus monies could have been spent on shared needs, like infrastructure, schools, police protection, and healthcare. However, these areas were chronically underfunded, even then, due to campaigns to convince citizens that taking care of public concerns was ripping them off instead of helping them out. With more significant funds spent for public services for everyone, individuals lost private money through taxes that could have been spent on alternative, private pleasures like fancier cars, clothes, and entertainment.
Finally, while most of us suffer from poor funding for things like schools and highways, the poor are the big losers. Galbraith spends a great deal of time explaining that it’s not possible, and never has been, that everyone will be able to hold down a job to increase our production. The elderly, the disabled, and the mentally ill are often incapable. And he admits that every society contains a few people who refuse to work, whether from laziness or whatever reason unknown to the rest of us. But he asks, is forcing these people to work for a living helping business at all? He argues that it’s not; it’s more expensive to force people to work at jobs due to their lack of output and absenteeism. Instead, he argues that it’s better to pay a living through negative taxes (like the earned-income credit) to keep such people and their children from homelessness and starvation.
He dispassionately outlines the differences from the conservative perspective and makes a case for his own liberal view. However, he also acknowledges the missteps and wrong turns common among liberal thinkers and politicians of his day.
It was an enlightening but disturbing book for me. I would recommend it to anyone like me who wants a clearer understanding of the principle drivers of the insanely gigantic and intricate economic system we are all entangled in today.
Show Less
LibraryThing member mykl-s
This one was important to me when I read it years ago. Now I can only recall its impression, not its details.
LibraryThing member JBGUSA
I just finished reading The Affluent Society by John Kenneth Galbraith. This book was written in 1957, the year I was born and published in 1958. Admittedly, some of the economic information is as dated as the price of 75¢ on the book's cover. I found this book rummaging my attic, and had always
Galbraith, a noted late Harvard professor and author, makes the case that the postwar U.S. economy was producing all the goods that most people reasonably needed (he does delve into the fate of the poor). His argument is that the public sector was cash-starved and relatively low-quality. It was then and still is today.
The book foreshadows the "environmental" movement, taking the position that we as a society is frivolous in its consumption and should be investing more in people. Remember, this was the era that the Interstate Highway system was opening, the era of tail-fin cars, and the beginning of frequent international travel. The book subliminally reflects, in my view, a certain "Puritan ethic" of guilt for doing well, which has grown with time.
I am giving The Affluent Society "five stars."
Show More
wanted to read it, especially since I had heard, as a youngster, the term "Galbraithian affluence." A lot though was disturbingly current.Galbraith, a noted late Harvard professor and author, makes the case that the postwar U.S. economy was producing all the goods that most people reasonably needed (he does delve into the fate of the poor). His argument is that the public sector was cash-starved and relatively low-quality. It was then and still is today.
The book foreshadows the "environmental" movement, taking the position that we as a society is frivolous in its consumption and should be investing more in people. Remember, this was the era that the Interstate Highway system was opening, the era of tail-fin cars, and the beginning of frequent international travel. The book subliminally reflects, in my view, a certain "Puritan ethic" of guilt for doing well, which has grown with time.
I am giving The Affluent Society "five stars."
Show Less
Subjects
Awards
National Book Award (Finalist — Nonfiction — 1959)
Hillman Prize (Book — 1958)
Notable Books List (1958)
Language
Original publication date
1958
ISBN
2702100554 / 9782702100554
Local notes
aka The Affluent Society