I agree with Kyle...I didn't see this book coming, even though I really enjoyed it. In The Affluent Society, Galbraith's remarks spurred questions in my mind about whether or not I am really a "good liberal" as he points out on page 69 stating "The test of the good liberal is still that he is never fooled, that he never yields on issues favoring the wealthy" (69). That being said, I am definitely not a "good liberal" by Galbraith's definition. I think it is interesting, though, that it is so easy to go back and forth on liberal and conservative economic viewpoints depending on ones own place in society. Many young college students take a liberal standpoint as their future still remains unknown (especially in terms of their wealth). But as Galbraith argues, many young ones will be liberal now but will become more conservative as they get older...STOP TAXING US! WE EARNED THIS FOR OURSELVES!
I found Galbraith's chapter on inequality particularly interesting as he talks about how inequality has faded as an issue. He states that inequality has faded as an issue because "it has not been showing the expected tendency to promote violent reaction" and "The drastically altered political and social position of the rich in recent times." Overall, according to Galbraith when he wrote this, stated "we need only notice that, as an economic and social concern, inequality has been declining in urgency, and this has had its reflection in the conventional wisdom" (79). This is not necessarily true nowadays, which I think Galbraith would acknowledge. When Galbraith wrote The Affluent Society in 1958, this may have been the case, but since that time, inequality has been the reason for many social and economic movements. Think about the civil rights movement. That was strongly based on equality. Even today, Obama very passionately speaks of inequality and the injustice it does to our nation almost every time he gives a speech. I think inequality is something that conservatives see as a fact of life and liberals want to combat and because of this divide, it is still an issue today. I particularly liked this youtube video that, in my opinion, shows that inequality is an issue today http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-YhZLtLGTIg. Galbraith and friends...let's keep making it an issue.
But what does inequality even mean in the United States and what facets of inequality should concern us? Is it inequality of wealth? Inequality of opportunity? Inequality of rights? Corey Brettschneider, in Democratic Rights, states that one of the core values of a democracy is equality of interests supporting the idea that democratic citizens (i.e. Americans) are free, equal and reasonable rulers. All people in a democratic society are equal in that they have substantive rights (i.e. life, liberty, happiness), but beyond that, Brettschneider makes no case for a society to be equal on material gains. The equality aspect is that everyone has the opportunity to advance in a democratic society, and thus, as a Social Darwinist may say, it is a case of survival of the fittest after that as to who gets more and who gets less. Thus, overall, inequality in terms of wealth and material gains is still an issue. In terms of democratic rights, as Brettschneider concerns himself with, we are all equal, therefore inequality would not be an issue in this regard. How to combat the issue of economic and social inequality is a question liberals want to concern themselves with while conservatives would rather sit back and watch it work itself out. Which way is better in a Democracy? Now that, is, as it always has been, up for discussion
Showing posts with label The Affluent Society. Show all posts
Showing posts with label The Affluent Society. Show all posts
Thursday, October 2, 2008
Election commentary?
While Galbraith's consistent thread of the evolved needs set of economically advanced people is quite interesting providing modern individuals with many more needs and desires than they know what to do with or than they actually need (except for the fact that as modern consumers we are always driven to the pursuit of new consumption), my interest was most piqued in the discussion of "conventional wisdom" as it particularly applies to the current presidential election. After watching last weeks fairly botched debate, where neither candidate seemed to say anything at all, Galbraith seems to pinpoint the reasoning behind the very vague nature of modern politics. Both candidates, with Obama (while I may support him dearly) doing so the most, have espoused themselves to be candidates of change with new ideas and new solutions to our country's woes. However, when posed direct questions about what they will do in office that isn't the typical, "go line by line and cut unnecessary spending," they skillfully or not so skillfully dodge the question. Perhaps they understand what Galbraith means when he says the conventional wisdom is that people like the proclamation of a push for new ideas and change but, "The politician who unwisely takes this proclaimed need seriously and urges something new will often find himself in serious trouble." While I wish this fact were not true, a look at the political realities of our time seem to lead me towards the understanding that such is the world we live in.
Wednesday, October 1, 2008
An Uncouth Note
"Those who esteem this world will not enjoy this essay. Perhaps they should return it to the shelf unread. For there are negative thoughts here, and they cannot but strike an uncouth note in a world of positive thinking." (4)
This book may not espouse what I would label as "positive thinking," given that it critiques the very foundation of our economy, but there is no doubt that Galbraith's Affluent Society breaks with traditional thinking. In fact, Galbraith finds himself defending Marx's materialistic view of history in Chapter 6, a view which he insists is not a "massive eruption to the left," but instead a part of the "central tradition" (55). Moreover, he insists that many Americans actually abide by Marxian principles. "Marx profoundly affected those who did not accept his system," he writes on p.59. However the supporting evidence he uses includes the fact that a) classes and something that looked like class conflict existed; b) people were being too hard on Marx - they weren't so hard on Adam Smith! c) if Marx was wrong, he wouldn't have been so influential, and (my favorite) d) those who don't believe in Marxian principles perhaps are just not smart enough to understand them... Afer all, "Marx is not easy to understand" (p62). Trying to look past Galbraith's often patronizing writing-style, it is clear that Marx's basic tenets can be found both in radical and nonradical thought today. Take a look at the blog entitled "Socialists/Marxists/Communists for Obama" on Obama's official campaign site:
This group is for self-proclaimed Marxists/Communists/Socialists for the election of Barack Obama to the Presidency. By no means is he a true Marxist, but under Karl Marx's writings we are to support the party with the best interests of the mobilization of the proletariat. Though the Democratic Socialists of America or the Communist Party of America may have more Socialististic values, it is pointless to vote for these candidates due to the fact that there is virutally no chance they will be elected on a National level. The members of this group are not Leninists, Stalinists, etc. and do not support or condone the actions of North Korea, China, Cuba or any other self-procalimed "Marxist States." They do not in anyway represent the Marxist philosophy nor do they represent Socialism/ Communsim. We support Barack Obama because he knows what is best for the people!
Clearly Communism (Marxism to a lesser extent) has a much smaller presence in the US than in, say, India. But Galbraith asserts that much of left-wing thinking in the US has Marxist underpinnings.
Moving beyond Galbraith's emphasis on production and the means of production, I found his arguement for relative needs rather interesting and reminiscent of our discussion of Rousseau's "Discourse on the Origin on Inequality." Rousseau explains how society can be the source of both productivity and scarcity. Specialization creates dependency and increases social complexity. Thus, society turns wants and luxuries into needs, which creates more needs and thereby creates scarcity. So even if you "win" the game, you essentially loose becasue you only win at being the best according to comarpative relative advantage. Anyone remember Hurley's brilliant example? Britney Spears! Something about how she won at being famous but "she is still one of the most pathetic people of our society." Perhaps the Britney Spearses of the world should pick up a copy of Galbraith....
This book may not espouse what I would label as "positive thinking," given that it critiques the very foundation of our economy, but there is no doubt that Galbraith's Affluent Society breaks with traditional thinking. In fact, Galbraith finds himself defending Marx's materialistic view of history in Chapter 6, a view which he insists is not a "massive eruption to the left," but instead a part of the "central tradition" (55). Moreover, he insists that many Americans actually abide by Marxian principles. "Marx profoundly affected those who did not accept his system," he writes on p.59. However the supporting evidence he uses includes the fact that a) classes and something that looked like class conflict existed; b) people were being too hard on Marx - they weren't so hard on Adam Smith! c) if Marx was wrong, he wouldn't have been so influential, and (my favorite) d) those who don't believe in Marxian principles perhaps are just not smart enough to understand them... Afer all, "Marx is not easy to understand" (p62). Trying to look past Galbraith's often patronizing writing-style, it is clear that Marx's basic tenets can be found both in radical and nonradical thought today. Take a look at the blog entitled "Socialists/Marxists/Communists for Obama" on Obama's official campaign site:
This group is for self-proclaimed Marxists/Communists/Socialists for the election of Barack Obama to the Presidency. By no means is he a true Marxist, but under Karl Marx's writings we are to support the party with the best interests of the mobilization of the proletariat. Though the Democratic Socialists of America or the Communist Party of America may have more Socialististic values, it is pointless to vote for these candidates due to the fact that there is virutally no chance they will be elected on a National level. The members of this group are not Leninists, Stalinists, etc. and do not support or condone the actions of North Korea, China, Cuba or any other self-procalimed "Marxist States." They do not in anyway represent the Marxist philosophy nor do they represent Socialism/ Communsim. We support Barack Obama because he knows what is best for the people!
Clearly Communism (Marxism to a lesser extent) has a much smaller presence in the US than in, say, India. But Galbraith asserts that much of left-wing thinking in the US has Marxist underpinnings.
Moving beyond Galbraith's emphasis on production and the means of production, I found his arguement for relative needs rather interesting and reminiscent of our discussion of Rousseau's "Discourse on the Origin on Inequality." Rousseau explains how society can be the source of both productivity and scarcity. Specialization creates dependency and increases social complexity. Thus, society turns wants and luxuries into needs, which creates more needs and thereby creates scarcity. So even if you "win" the game, you essentially loose becasue you only win at being the best according to comarpative relative advantage. Anyone remember Hurley's brilliant example? Britney Spears! Something about how she won at being famous but "she is still one of the most pathetic people of our society." Perhaps the Britney Spearses of the world should pick up a copy of Galbraith....
Ad Whore
As Galbraith asserts, our ideas about economics are a product of our continual existence in poverty (until late). Continued economic growth has placed us among the affluent societies. Suffering and social conflict, these are machinations of poverty. In this world of utopian possibilities, physical misery diminishes but new complaints and contradictions arise. Our wants multiply (no thanks to advertising) and our quest for growth unleashes new anxieties and economic conflicts that disturb the fragile social order of The Affluent Society.
To those of you appalled by Galbraith’s espousal of government spending: Not all government spending is bad. Galbraith asserts that government spending has (as of 1954) been stigmatized as a necessary evil. For him it’s all about more government spending and less private production. Friedman’s argument for private production instead of public sphere intervention is certainly more compelling here.
Not all advertising is bad. Sure, sometimes that latest Louis Vuitton ad makes me crave another unnecessary expenditure but we’re not robots. Companies can’t condition consumers to buy things they don’t want or need. Do you really feel like all spending is artificial, unfulfilling? (Nathan, don’t answer that.) Our unlimited material desires can’t be driven by advertising alone. Omnicom would be so lucky. Although our environment can shape our thinking, ultimately our ideas and the economic behavior that results is a product of more than just our environment.
What it comes down to is the distribution of income: who gets what, and why? Desert is a consideration but by and large incomes just don’t seem to rise as quickly as our desires. The rich keep getting richer and it’s hard to see where Joe Next Door fits into the picture. In Galbraith’s affluent society giant corporations provide safe jobs and benevolently control the market while the government regulates the business cycle. Globalization and the growth of technology aren’t part of the Galbraith’s picture (even though they definitely didn’t have Photoshop back then).
To those of you appalled by Galbraith’s espousal of government spending: Not all government spending is bad. Galbraith asserts that government spending has (as of 1954) been stigmatized as a necessary evil. For him it’s all about more government spending and less private production. Friedman’s argument for private production instead of public sphere intervention is certainly more compelling here.
Not all advertising is bad. Sure, sometimes that latest Louis Vuitton ad makes me crave another unnecessary expenditure but we’re not robots. Companies can’t condition consumers to buy things they don’t want or need. Do you really feel like all spending is artificial, unfulfilling? (Nathan, don’t answer that.) Our unlimited material desires can’t be driven by advertising alone. Omnicom would be so lucky. Although our environment can shape our thinking, ultimately our ideas and the economic behavior that results is a product of more than just our environment.
What it comes down to is the distribution of income: who gets what, and why? Desert is a consideration but by and large incomes just don’t seem to rise as quickly as our desires. The rich keep getting richer and it’s hard to see where Joe Next Door fits into the picture. In Galbraith’s affluent society giant corporations provide safe jobs and benevolently control the market while the government regulates the business cycle. Globalization and the growth of technology aren’t part of the Galbraith’s picture (even though they definitely didn’t have Photoshop back then).
Risky Business
In the eighth chapter of John Kenneth Galbraith's The Affluent Society he begins to discuss the issue of economic security and risk management. In the wake of the past couple weeks I found it interesting that the discussion in the book is markedly different from the trends in business nowadays, perhaps having to do with a significant change in the conventional wisdom from 1958 until now?
Risk minimization as well as companies not being tied to the success or failure of any individual was more prominant when he initially wrote this. In the middle of page 84 he claims, "no individual is powerful enough to do much damage...the organization is independent of any individual." This I would tend to disagree with. Part of the rationalization of giving these executives these massive salaries and the power to make all the major decisions in the companies is the belief that they can make a difference. Their presence is proof that the company and the market value their talents and that differing talents produce different results. If it didn't depend on their talent then there would be no reason to pay them exorbitant amounts in order to keep them from leaving the company and gaining a more lucrative position in another big company.
After his outdated discussion on individuals he begins to talk more about the risk aversion that companies have been moving towards. He talks about how the companies don't need to seem as though they are minimizing risk because they want to portray the image of security as inherent. This behavior is ironic because of the recent failures in the banking industry of potentially harmful decisions that the big wigs have made to be less risk averse. These decisions have lead to the problem of whether or not it is appropriate for the government to offer them a helping hand since they wanted to seem secure without overt government aid like the companies Galbraith is discussing. The myth of the large business corporations "living dangerously" has come true. When Galbraith's was writing "almost no large industrial corporation in the United States, which is also large in its industry, has failed or been seriously in danger of insolvency in many years. Where there has been danger, the government has come to the rescue (85)." Now we see that this is a collapse where the government has to make a decision whether or not to be that aid that he speaks of. His claim is that since everyone has become more risk averse that the companies have followed suit and did so because it was setting a good example.
My question is would he still support a bailout of this magnitude? In talking about the changing of the conventional wisdom he claims that the changes only occur when there is a significant course of events that forces us to reconsider the conventional wisdom because it is becoming more and more divorced from the reality of events in our society (11). Is this "march of actions", meaning the failing banks and faltering financial industry, a significant enough divorce from the conventional wisdom that we should alter our beliefs and possibly look to other sources instead of the government for our solution or have we reverted back to this belief now that our conventional wisdom is more mature? Sometimes you just gotta say, What the Heck, make your move. It's your move, Congress.
Risk minimization as well as companies not being tied to the success or failure of any individual was more prominant when he initially wrote this. In the middle of page 84 he claims, "no individual is powerful enough to do much damage...the organization is independent of any individual." This I would tend to disagree with. Part of the rationalization of giving these executives these massive salaries and the power to make all the major decisions in the companies is the belief that they can make a difference. Their presence is proof that the company and the market value their talents and that differing talents produce different results. If it didn't depend on their talent then there would be no reason to pay them exorbitant amounts in order to keep them from leaving the company and gaining a more lucrative position in another big company.
After his outdated discussion on individuals he begins to talk more about the risk aversion that companies have been moving towards. He talks about how the companies don't need to seem as though they are minimizing risk because they want to portray the image of security as inherent. This behavior is ironic because of the recent failures in the banking industry of potentially harmful decisions that the big wigs have made to be less risk averse. These decisions have lead to the problem of whether or not it is appropriate for the government to offer them a helping hand since they wanted to seem secure without overt government aid like the companies Galbraith is discussing. The myth of the large business corporations "living dangerously" has come true. When Galbraith's was writing "almost no large industrial corporation in the United States, which is also large in its industry, has failed or been seriously in danger of insolvency in many years. Where there has been danger, the government has come to the rescue (85)." Now we see that this is a collapse where the government has to make a decision whether or not to be that aid that he speaks of. His claim is that since everyone has become more risk averse that the companies have followed suit and did so because it was setting a good example.
My question is would he still support a bailout of this magnitude? In talking about the changing of the conventional wisdom he claims that the changes only occur when there is a significant course of events that forces us to reconsider the conventional wisdom because it is becoming more and more divorced from the reality of events in our society (11). Is this "march of actions", meaning the failing banks and faltering financial industry, a significant enough divorce from the conventional wisdom that we should alter our beliefs and possibly look to other sources instead of the government for our solution or have we reverted back to this belief now that our conventional wisdom is more mature? Sometimes you just gotta say, What the Heck, make your move. It's your move, Congress.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)