NEWS TALK RADIO Our Hosts
Powered by: Townhall.com
Sign Up
Thursday, June 05, 2008
Bill Steigerwald :: Townhall.com Columnist
In Defense of Affluence
by Bill Steigerwald
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
How did you find out about WGKA?





In 1958 liberal John Kenneth Galbraith wrote his classic “The Affluent Society,” an enormously popular book on the “economics of abundance” that complained that while America’s private sector was becoming ever-more wealthy it was doing so at the expense of a squalid and underfunded public sector.

The Harvard economics professor, famous for his accessible writing style, criticized America’s consumer-mad economy and the virtually unchallenged notion by policymakers that higher and higher economic growth was a measure of economic prosperity.

Galbraith, who coined the eternal term “conventional wisdom” to describe the 1950s economic thinking he did not agree with, also expressed his dislike for advertising, fretted about the growing gap between rich and poor and the damage the economy was doing to the environment, and called for lots more government spending on things like education and health care.

Conservatives and libertarians hated “The Affluent Society,” of course. Liberals and socialists loved it madly -- and still do. It sold more than 1 million copies, sat on The New York Times bestseller list for almost the entire year and was a fixture on high school and college reading lists through the ‘60s.

Galbraith's critiques of growth, opulence and advertising have since become part of the liberal mainstream, but it's not John Chamberlain's fault. In 1958 the libertarian-leaning conservative writer and editor reviewed “The Affluent Society” unfavorably for The Freeman, the magazine of the libertarian Foundation for Economic Education.

Chamberlain pointed out the unflattering truth that Galbraith was an elitist who didn’t like individual human beings very much.

He let “his skills spin off into social essays that betray an essential disrespect for individual human beings as such,” Chamberlain wrote. “Professing to care for humane goals, he sees people only in the mass. Continued...

1 2
| Full Article & Comments | Next >
Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
Bill Steigerwald, born and raised in Pittsburgh, is a former L.A. Times copy editor and free-lancer who also worked as a docudrama researcher for CBS-TV in Hollywood before becoming an associate editor and columnist for the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review.
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
Subject: Every Man for Himself
Go ahead and stand by the label, because I am -not- arguing semantics. Please note that I did not reject that label, I merely asked what was so bad about it compared to the 'Pay a tithe to let government worry about it for you (or not)' system you seem to expound.

Your WHO data is NOT an endorsement of 'universal health care' until you can demonstrate that 'overall health' (whatever that means) is directly attributable to the quality of government health care. Do otherwise healthy people suddenly get sick when government policies change? Are less-affluent countries that have lower rates of heart disease (due to more labor-intensive lifestyles and skimpier diets) 'healthier' in that respect because of their governments' healthcare system, or because of lifestyle?

You can't simply point to statistics and say they 'prove' your point without offering any type of correlation, and without any control group. European nations have traditionally enjoyed lower levels of mortality from many causes than the United States due to a variety of societal factors, long BEFORE any of these beloved government-controlled-health-care programs were instituted, so to say that now that these programs exist, the reason the disparities STILL exist is because of these programs is spurious.

As for government control vs. the free market regarding quality of life, I'll take a page from your book and argue without correlation: Isn't it interesting that the MOST impoverished areas of the United States (Inner Cities and Indian Reservations) are the ones where the government is the MOST intrusive in regard to providing services for its citizens? And that once the Indians started injecting a bit of 'Every Man for Himselfism' in the form of Casinos into the way they did business, they finally started to break the poverty cycle?

bob
"to say that other nations provide better quality care is patently false"

Based on what? The WHO ranks the US's overall health in the mid-30s. Do you know of better data?

"why is it not their responsibility to provide a home and basic food requirements for everyone"

Communist states have proven that this is a bad idea. But the rest of the industrialized world has shown (with their per capita health care spending and health data) that universal health care is a good idea. On the other hand, free market systems are obviously the best for commercial goods.

John - The term "central planning" is typically associated with industries like steel and agriculture. No one on the left is proposing that. But yes, the test scores of countries with strong public school systems show that it's a good idea.

I stand by the every-man-for-himself label. It pops up in HSA's, ESA's, campaign financing, and Social Security.
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation: