Some thoughts...

The Affluent Society by John Kenneth Galbraith is highly provacative, forcing us to re-examine the basic tenets of traditional economic theory.

Some thoughts:

1. On how our real wage has not increased with our rise in productivity, I suppose it could be due to the fact that there are now (usually) two working members in a family. When there's only one working member, the sole breadwinner will have to fight harder for wage increase because there is more at stake. Without his salary, his entire family will starve.

Now, however, with two working members in the family, the burden is more evenly spread out. The husband can accept a decline in real wages more meekly simply because the wife supplements some of the household income. If he doesn't accept the wage stagnation, he may well be fired as there are other workers out there willing to work for less amount(again, because of the burden spread)

2. Malthusian catastrophe--in the past, the Malthusian catastrophe did not come to pass because of the discovery of the New World, where there is new land for cultivation of crops. Hence, the surplus food removes the spectre of Malthusian horror.

Now, however, it seems that Malthusian horror is pressing down on us again. Population is pressing on the earth's resources, and yet, because it is largely invisible and does not concern our immediate needs(food, shelter, clothing), we do not care. This time, there won't be another New World for us to exploit new resources. If we do not act now, the Malthusian horror can indeed come to pass.

3.Perhaps the most widely-quoted of Joseph Schumpeter's works--"In all cases...recovery came of itself...But this is not all: our analysis leads us to believe that recovery is soundo nly if it does come of itself. For any revival which is merely due to artificial stimulus leaves part of the work of depression undone and adds, to an undigested remnant of maladjustment, new maladjustments of its own."

Reminds me of the current crisis. Inefficient banks and businesses are bailed out by the government in an attempt to alleviate the crisis, and it rankles that failed businesses are allowed to survive, with no new businesses to take over their place. Sometimes, I wonder if it is the collapse of Lehman Brothers that precipitated the sharp downfall in the markets, or is it simply the indecisiveness of the authority. If the authority has simply made a decision not to bail out anymore companies and stick to what it says, all companies will have to face up to reality and stop hoping for bailouts. Speculation may even decrease and while this medicine is bitter and hard to swallow, I wonder if it will be better in the long run.

3. This quote is a gem--"Apart from the universities where its practice has the standing of a scholarly right, the art of genteel and elaborately concealed idleness may well reach its highest development in the upper executive reaches of the modern corporation."

4. Sometimes, I feel that people go into arguments with closed minds, and that makes the whole argument pointless. The whole point of the argument is to convince your opponent, but if both participants have already obstinately closed their minds off to any ideas besides their own, then what's the purpose of argumentation? On the other hand, if you go into an argument and end up being convinced by the other party, you may be accused of being weak-minded. Thus, the result is that you argue not to prove a point. There is more at stake. You argue not to lose face.

5.Even though wants are contrived for things of least urgency(ie. wants are manufactured for goods produced through advertisements), some things may actually have a greater purpose. Energy efficiency is an example. People may not want an energy-efficient product until much influence from advertisements, but using energy-efficient products are actually beneficial to the society.

6.The sales tax is suggested as a way to increase government revenue, which will help reduce poverty through investment in better education facilities. Hence, more poor children will be able to break out of the poverty cycle when they grow up.

There is something fundamentally wrong with this logic. It focuses on the future, but not on the present. If the poor are already struggling to make ends meet, how can we place additional burdens on them when the rest of the society is relatively affluent? Because we are affluent, we are now supposed to be able to afford basic human rights and amenities for all in the society. It cannot be that we ignore the poverty problem simply because the poverty class is now a minority.