What do you think?
Rate this book
What's the Economy For, Anyway?: Why It's Time to Stop Chasing Growth and Start Pursuing Happiness
In this funny, readable, and thought-provoking book based on the popular film of the same name, activists John de Graaf (coauthor of the bestselling Affluenza) and David Batker tackle thirteen economic issues, challenging the reader to consider the point of our economy. Emphasizing powerful American ideals, including teamwork, pragmatism, and equality, de Graaf and Batker set forth a simple goal for any economic system: The greatest good for the greatest number over the longest run. Drawing from history and current enterprises, we see how the good life is achieved when people and markets work together with an active government to create a more perfect economy-one that works for everyone.
Beginning by shattering our fetish for GDP, What's the Economy For, Anyway? offers a fresh perspective on quality of life, health, security, work-life balance, leisure, social justice, and perhaps most important, sustainability. This sparkling, message-driven book is exactly what those lost in the doldrums of partisan sniping and a sluggish economy need: a guide to what really matters, and a map to using America's resources to make the world a better place.
Beginning by shattering our fetish for GDP, What's the Economy For, Anyway? offers a fresh perspective on quality of life, health, security, work-life balance, leisure, social justice, and perhaps most important, sustainability. This sparkling, message-driven book is exactly what those lost in the doldrums of partisan sniping and a sluggish economy need: a guide to what really matters, and a map to using America's resources to make the world a better place.
304 pages, Hardcover
First published October 11, 2011
20 people are currently reading
368 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 25 of 25 reviews
March 29, 2012
Holy crap. This book isn't just a throw down about how crummy our live's are in America when considering economics, it also a verifiable lesson in politics and how federal legislation and legal decisions have impacted our lives since 1900. I'm stunned, angered, and ashamed at what the last 30ish year have wrought. It nearly makes me want to move out of the country. But before you blather or make a sign, read and be educated. You might be surprised at what you discover and how you feel about what's going on in the country or the world. My eyes have been opened, some of my opinions changed, and now I feel like I have a better understanding. My only gripe with the book is that on a personal level, I'm not sure how to make changes in order to address achieving more "happiness." I wish they would have dealt with some ideas that aren't so grand in scope. LIttle flames can turn into a bonfire, but they kinda fail to even give individuals a match in this book.
September 29, 2017
What's the Economy For, Anyway?: Why It's Time to Stop Chasing Growth and Start Pursuing Happiness by John de Graaf and David K. Batker
“What's the Economy For, Anyway?” considers the path to a more livable, just and sustainable society. Coauthors de Graaf and Batker stimulate the minds of readers on a different way to look at the economy and how it can contribute to a happier and more sustainable life. This thought-provoking 302-page book includes the following thirteen chapters: 1. The Grossest Domestic Product, 2. The Pursuit of Happiness, 3. Provisioning the Good Life, 4. Unhealthy at Any Cost, 5. Risky Business, 6. The Time Squeeze, 7. The Greatest Number, 8. The Capacity Question, 9. The Longest Run: Sustainability, 10. Ancient History, 11. When (or How) Good Went Bad, 12. The Housing, Banking, Finance, Debt, Bankruptcy, Foreclosure, Unemployment, Currency … Hell-of-a-Mess Crisis, and 13. Building a Twenty-first-Century Economy of Life, Liberty, and Happiness.
Positives:
1. A well-written, well-researched and stimulating book.
2. These coauthors were able to blend their ideas seamlessly.
3. Interesting topic and perspective, what do we want to get out of our economy? What are the goals?
4. Good use of charts and diagrams to complement the narrative.
5. An interesting look at primary economic measurements, Gross Domestic Product and its implications. “the GDP is the total market value of all final goods and services produced in a country in a given year.”
6. The role of a mixed economy. “The other vision is of a mixed economy in which government is an active player, providing services, overseeing and regulating markets, preventing monopolies, and managing economic policy.”
7. Suggests a different measure of progress. “But in practice, what do these terms—the greatest good, the greatest number, and the longest run—mean? We think they are synonymous with (1) a high quality of life, (2) social justice or fairness, and (3) sustainability.”
8. The nine domains for assessing happiness discussed. “So what can we do with our economy to improve well-being? We need to pay more attention to time balance, security, and social connection.”
9. Effectively examines how to deliver the basic needs of food, shelter and clothing. “A practical alternative economic theory should begin with a theory of human needs and an explanation of how an economy can best provide for them.”
10. Sounds recommendations. “Foods filled with fats and corn sweeteners are made cheap through multibillion-dollar state and federal agricultural subsidies, while healthier foods are unsubsidized and cost more.”
11. Examines our health system. “Strengthen the wall of stress relief by reinstituting tax policies that narrow the gap between rich and poor, rebuilding our social safety net, and adopting policies like paid vacation time to give Americans periodic relief from the stress of hypercompetitive and long-hour workplaces.”
12. Looks at solutions from Europe that can be applied to America. “In general, the social safety net for working people is tighter in the capitalist democracies of western Europe than in the United States, where a tuna might easily slip through. Rates of poverty are lower by about half; the rich-poor gap is far smaller; all Europeans in every country are covered by national health insurance; retirement pensions are more available, more secure, and more generous; and unemployment and welfare benefits usually extend for longer periods. Europeans call their more generous welfare approach the social contract.”
13. Time-starved Americans, a look at the key of having time to seek happiness. “Less work, more life. It’s a trade-off that many American workers might appreciate.” “Working fewer hours also produces tangible environmental benefits.”
14. A look at equality. “Well, first of all, we can look at the gap between rich and poor in any society. Let’s put this one in simple terms: the gap between rich and poor in America is the widest in any industrial country; wider even than in poor Latin American nations like Guyana and Nicaragua.”
15. A look at social mobility. “We’re sure this comes as a shock, so let us say it again: In Germany, half the boards of directors of large companies must be elected by the workers.” “Germany is the most “socialist” country in the world when it comes to the power of workers to shape policy, but it is also the most successful big capitalist country.”
16. Does a good job of explaining ecological sustainability. “The waters of the Gulf of Mexico are heating up. That warmer water powers hurricanes, which have become larger and more frequent since 1970. The sea level is rising. Atmospheric temperatures are rising. The delta is sinking. If the landscape falls apart, so do the economies it contains.”
17. Describes the history behind the best economical decades of America. A look at the New Deal. “The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, which established the foundation for what was for a long time the most stable banking system in the world.”
18. Explores how laissez-fare economics led to a weakened economy and a more polarized America. “In 1978, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously to exempt national banks from state-based usury laws.”
19. The impact of the most recent financial crisis and what should we do. “Raising reserve requirements, reducing leverage, limiting derivatives.”
20. A look at how to build a 21st century economy based on life, liberty, and happiness. “We need a twenty-first-century economy that provides the greatest good for the greatest number over the longest run.”
21. Notes included and linked.
Negatives:
1. The book is quite ambitious and at times covers topics superficially. As you would expect the heath care system is a topic covered in much more detail in other books.
2. I would have added a glossary of terms.
3. It could be repetitive.
In summary, I enjoyed this book quite a bit. It takes the premise that we are looking at the economy all wrong and gets at the heart of what the economy is really for and provides compelling suggestions on how to get there. I recommend it.
Further suggestions: “A Colony In A Nation” by Chris Hayes, “Saving Capitalism” by Robert B. Reich, “Building the New American Economy” by Jeffrey D. Sachs, “No Is Not Enough” by Naomi Klein, “The Price of Inequality” and “The Great Divide” by Joseph E. Stiglitz, “The Economics of Inequality” by Thomas Piketty, “Plutocrats” by Chrystia Freeland, and “The Divide” by Matt Taibbi.
“What's the Economy For, Anyway?” considers the path to a more livable, just and sustainable society. Coauthors de Graaf and Batker stimulate the minds of readers on a different way to look at the economy and how it can contribute to a happier and more sustainable life. This thought-provoking 302-page book includes the following thirteen chapters: 1. The Grossest Domestic Product, 2. The Pursuit of Happiness, 3. Provisioning the Good Life, 4. Unhealthy at Any Cost, 5. Risky Business, 6. The Time Squeeze, 7. The Greatest Number, 8. The Capacity Question, 9. The Longest Run: Sustainability, 10. Ancient History, 11. When (or How) Good Went Bad, 12. The Housing, Banking, Finance, Debt, Bankruptcy, Foreclosure, Unemployment, Currency … Hell-of-a-Mess Crisis, and 13. Building a Twenty-first-Century Economy of Life, Liberty, and Happiness.
Positives:
1. A well-written, well-researched and stimulating book.
2. These coauthors were able to blend their ideas seamlessly.
3. Interesting topic and perspective, what do we want to get out of our economy? What are the goals?
4. Good use of charts and diagrams to complement the narrative.
5. An interesting look at primary economic measurements, Gross Domestic Product and its implications. “the GDP is the total market value of all final goods and services produced in a country in a given year.”
6. The role of a mixed economy. “The other vision is of a mixed economy in which government is an active player, providing services, overseeing and regulating markets, preventing monopolies, and managing economic policy.”
7. Suggests a different measure of progress. “But in practice, what do these terms—the greatest good, the greatest number, and the longest run—mean? We think they are synonymous with (1) a high quality of life, (2) social justice or fairness, and (3) sustainability.”
8. The nine domains for assessing happiness discussed. “So what can we do with our economy to improve well-being? We need to pay more attention to time balance, security, and social connection.”
9. Effectively examines how to deliver the basic needs of food, shelter and clothing. “A practical alternative economic theory should begin with a theory of human needs and an explanation of how an economy can best provide for them.”
10. Sounds recommendations. “Foods filled with fats and corn sweeteners are made cheap through multibillion-dollar state and federal agricultural subsidies, while healthier foods are unsubsidized and cost more.”
11. Examines our health system. “Strengthen the wall of stress relief by reinstituting tax policies that narrow the gap between rich and poor, rebuilding our social safety net, and adopting policies like paid vacation time to give Americans periodic relief from the stress of hypercompetitive and long-hour workplaces.”
12. Looks at solutions from Europe that can be applied to America. “In general, the social safety net for working people is tighter in the capitalist democracies of western Europe than in the United States, where a tuna might easily slip through. Rates of poverty are lower by about half; the rich-poor gap is far smaller; all Europeans in every country are covered by national health insurance; retirement pensions are more available, more secure, and more generous; and unemployment and welfare benefits usually extend for longer periods. Europeans call their more generous welfare approach the social contract.”
13. Time-starved Americans, a look at the key of having time to seek happiness. “Less work, more life. It’s a trade-off that many American workers might appreciate.” “Working fewer hours also produces tangible environmental benefits.”
14. A look at equality. “Well, first of all, we can look at the gap between rich and poor in any society. Let’s put this one in simple terms: the gap between rich and poor in America is the widest in any industrial country; wider even than in poor Latin American nations like Guyana and Nicaragua.”
15. A look at social mobility. “We’re sure this comes as a shock, so let us say it again: In Germany, half the boards of directors of large companies must be elected by the workers.” “Germany is the most “socialist” country in the world when it comes to the power of workers to shape policy, but it is also the most successful big capitalist country.”
16. Does a good job of explaining ecological sustainability. “The waters of the Gulf of Mexico are heating up. That warmer water powers hurricanes, which have become larger and more frequent since 1970. The sea level is rising. Atmospheric temperatures are rising. The delta is sinking. If the landscape falls apart, so do the economies it contains.”
17. Describes the history behind the best economical decades of America. A look at the New Deal. “The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, which established the foundation for what was for a long time the most stable banking system in the world.”
18. Explores how laissez-fare economics led to a weakened economy and a more polarized America. “In 1978, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously to exempt national banks from state-based usury laws.”
19. The impact of the most recent financial crisis and what should we do. “Raising reserve requirements, reducing leverage, limiting derivatives.”
20. A look at how to build a 21st century economy based on life, liberty, and happiness. “We need a twenty-first-century economy that provides the greatest good for the greatest number over the longest run.”
21. Notes included and linked.
Negatives:
1. The book is quite ambitious and at times covers topics superficially. As you would expect the heath care system is a topic covered in much more detail in other books.
2. I would have added a glossary of terms.
3. It could be repetitive.
In summary, I enjoyed this book quite a bit. It takes the premise that we are looking at the economy all wrong and gets at the heart of what the economy is really for and provides compelling suggestions on how to get there. I recommend it.
Further suggestions: “A Colony In A Nation” by Chris Hayes, “Saving Capitalism” by Robert B. Reich, “Building the New American Economy” by Jeffrey D. Sachs, “No Is Not Enough” by Naomi Klein, “The Price of Inequality” and “The Great Divide” by Joseph E. Stiglitz, “The Economics of Inequality” by Thomas Piketty, “Plutocrats” by Chrystia Freeland, and “The Divide” by Matt Taibbi.
April 15, 2013
This was a great follow-up to Freeland's Plutocrats. It's just nice to know that there are some humans who don't feel that unfettered capitalism is the only way to run a civilized society.
The authors are experienced in the subject both in the classroom and out, so there is a good blend of theory and "real world" examples.
Not comprehensive, but not meant to be. This is for an audience not already well-educated in the dismal science.
The authors are experienced in the subject both in the classroom and out, so there is a good blend of theory and "real world" examples.
Not comprehensive, but not meant to be. This is for an audience not already well-educated in the dismal science.
March 11, 2012
This is an informative book about the U.S. economy that compares it to economies in Europe, including a review of the history of our economy since the 1920s. In fact, I recommend starting the book at ch. 10, "Ancient History," through ch. 12, then go back to the beginning of the book, reading ch. 13 last (it summarizes all the solutions that should be implemented to help America's declining quality of life).
Yes, the authors are "liberals" but their review is very even-handed, addressing many of the arguments used by conservatives and refuting them with facts and historical evidence. The one instance where this was not the case was in their review of FDRs "New Deal" policies, which some economists now think prolonged the depression, instead of ending it. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001...
My research into both viewpoints on this matter reveals that the price-fixing allowed by ending antitrust laws and wage-fixing for labor of the New Deal had a negative impact on shortening the depression. However, the creation of the FDIC and institution of government regulations on the finance sector (but not the private business sector) of the economy were helpful. I agree with many of the author's solutions, particularly taxing and regulating the "speculative" investment sector, which contributes nothing to the economy except raising the risk for ballooning and collapse. I agree that capital gains and inheritance taxes should be raised, since that just keeps butloads of money in the pockets of the wealthiest 1% of our population. Instead, tax breaks should be given for investment in brick-and-mortar institutions that benefit the general population, environmental protection initiatives, and sustainable energy and production. This will discourage wealthy investors from gambling with derivatives and currency exchange rates, which do nothing to improve quality of life for Americans, and encourage them to invest in building actual new businesses with actual new jobs that don't destroy the ecosystem. Yes, we will have to pay more taxes, and yes the majority of those will come from the wealthiest Americans. We followed the "greed is good" philosophy of the 1980s, and this is where it left us - exhausted by more work hours with less pay and benefits, insecure about our jobs and retirement funds, and leading rushed, unhealthy lives of long car commutes and little social interaction. Many of us have just opted out of the whole rat-race, because working under those conditions destroys happiness. The authors prove that a more humane economy IS affordable, because it works for the nordic countries, which are better off than we are on so many quality-of-life scales. They also point out how economic factors with a negative impact, such as oil spills, bolster the GDP, making it an inaccurate measure of economic health and progress. I highly recommend this book for anyone interested in what went wrong with our economy under recent Republican regimes, and how to fix it.
Yes, the authors are "liberals" but their review is very even-handed, addressing many of the arguments used by conservatives and refuting them with facts and historical evidence. The one instance where this was not the case was in their review of FDRs "New Deal" policies, which some economists now think prolonged the depression, instead of ending it. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001...
My research into both viewpoints on this matter reveals that the price-fixing allowed by ending antitrust laws and wage-fixing for labor of the New Deal had a negative impact on shortening the depression. However, the creation of the FDIC and institution of government regulations on the finance sector (but not the private business sector) of the economy were helpful. I agree with many of the author's solutions, particularly taxing and regulating the "speculative" investment sector, which contributes nothing to the economy except raising the risk for ballooning and collapse. I agree that capital gains and inheritance taxes should be raised, since that just keeps butloads of money in the pockets of the wealthiest 1% of our population. Instead, tax breaks should be given for investment in brick-and-mortar institutions that benefit the general population, environmental protection initiatives, and sustainable energy and production. This will discourage wealthy investors from gambling with derivatives and currency exchange rates, which do nothing to improve quality of life for Americans, and encourage them to invest in building actual new businesses with actual new jobs that don't destroy the ecosystem. Yes, we will have to pay more taxes, and yes the majority of those will come from the wealthiest Americans. We followed the "greed is good" philosophy of the 1980s, and this is where it left us - exhausted by more work hours with less pay and benefits, insecure about our jobs and retirement funds, and leading rushed, unhealthy lives of long car commutes and little social interaction. Many of us have just opted out of the whole rat-race, because working under those conditions destroys happiness. The authors prove that a more humane economy IS affordable, because it works for the nordic countries, which are better off than we are on so many quality-of-life scales. They also point out how economic factors with a negative impact, such as oil spills, bolster the GDP, making it an inaccurate measure of economic health and progress. I highly recommend this book for anyone interested in what went wrong with our economy under recent Republican regimes, and how to fix it.
May 30, 2016
An important book.
Mix and match from the following terms: GDP, rising tide, deficit reduction, productivity gains, efficiency, division of labour. Great! You have just explained what the economy is and what it does!
This is at least what certain people might say about the economy. But what is the economy "for"? And what purpose should it serve? Regardless of our own opinions about economics, sometimes it is important to hear out alternative perspectives by giving them some brain space. Ideally, it could lead a greater understand why you hold the opinions that you do, hopefully leading to YourWorldView2.0.
This book is a great read for someone interested in thinking about what the economy is actually for.
And if you didn't have questions before reading it, after you finish it, you certainly will.
Mix and match from the following terms: GDP, rising tide, deficit reduction, productivity gains, efficiency, division of labour. Great! You have just explained what the economy is and what it does!
This is at least what certain people might say about the economy. But what is the economy "for"? And what purpose should it serve? Regardless of our own opinions about economics, sometimes it is important to hear out alternative perspectives by giving them some brain space. Ideally, it could lead a greater understand why you hold the opinions that you do, hopefully leading to YourWorldView2.0.
This book is a great read for someone interested in thinking about what the economy is actually for.
And if you didn't have questions before reading it, after you finish it, you certainly will.
January 18, 2012
I've been reading a lot about the economy lately. This book raises some interesting, valid points but the authors are both very liberal. I don't disagree with most of their thoughts but couldn't help thinking, as I was reading, that what I really would like to read is a book written by a non-partisan journalist, who is able to address conservative and liberal concerns and let me form my own conclusions about which "side" is right.
May 28, 2018
Great read, particularly for:
- comprehensive overview of comparative economic strategies used across Europe, compared with the US
- breezy overview of Roosevelt's New Deal changes in the 1930s as well as Johnson's Great Society changes, which were then undone by Reagan and his successors, both R and D.
Change for the better is always a possibility. The potential for the community to strike a better deal is embedded in community. Although I wonder what the authors think of Trump's rise!
- comprehensive overview of comparative economic strategies used across Europe, compared with the US
- breezy overview of Roosevelt's New Deal changes in the 1930s as well as Johnson's Great Society changes, which were then undone by Reagan and his successors, both R and D.
Change for the better is always a possibility. The potential for the community to strike a better deal is embedded in community. Although I wonder what the authors think of Trump's rise!
November 16, 2011
A surprisingly interesting book. Yes, it has more than its fair share of statistics, but the book is chockful of good ideas for getting the world out of its economic mess, and provides many interesting revelations, real eye-openers on how crazy we Americans are to try to grow the GDP at the expense of so many other more important things in life.
September 2, 2019
7 pages in I had a grimace on my face. I didn't want to read the religious, conservative rants on how wanting equality and creating a fairer society with help from the government is socialism or communism.
It was as if conversing with a white, right-wing conservative as he throws reason after reason why certain social progress is wrong and backwards because the bIBlE. As an african american and a woman, I hear an echo of the past in his arguments of just why people like me shouldn't receive help and support to contribute and become part of a community from that book itself.
The hypocrisy drips from the page, he says a child can understand the rights of life, liberty and property yet in the past it seemed very difficult to understand if it didn't apply solely to white men not that long ago.
Almost trash but I'd categorize it as gasoline fueling the flames of discrimination and market thinking on one side - and a harder push against this way of thinking on the other.
If anything, I'll feel like I'll know how to rebuttal most future conservative political arguments since this is what the arsenal contains.
The moment he mentioned lgbt rights and "demonization" of the rich he lost me. It's astounding how he claims we've foresaken our forefathers but equality was a main pillar. Yet they managed to interpret that in their favor until they were ready, it now serves to persecute their newest targets since women and race is off the table. Lgbt.
There is no justification for one man to have a 7 story yacht when another is starving, unable to make progress despite effort.
We have the resources, no one should be hungry. It isn't an either/ or, you can reap benefits on your hard work but not at the expense of another person's wellbeing or happiness.
Resources should be distributed more equally and harder, better, more productive work will add more marginal increases in wealth to said person.
That is my position and it will not change.
It was as if conversing with a white, right-wing conservative as he throws reason after reason why certain social progress is wrong and backwards because the bIBlE. As an african american and a woman, I hear an echo of the past in his arguments of just why people like me shouldn't receive help and support to contribute and become part of a community from that book itself.
The hypocrisy drips from the page, he says a child can understand the rights of life, liberty and property yet in the past it seemed very difficult to understand if it didn't apply solely to white men not that long ago.
Almost trash but I'd categorize it as gasoline fueling the flames of discrimination and market thinking on one side - and a harder push against this way of thinking on the other.
If anything, I'll feel like I'll know how to rebuttal most future conservative political arguments since this is what the arsenal contains.
The moment he mentioned lgbt rights and "demonization" of the rich he lost me. It's astounding how he claims we've foresaken our forefathers but equality was a main pillar. Yet they managed to interpret that in their favor until they were ready, it now serves to persecute their newest targets since women and race is off the table. Lgbt.
There is no justification for one man to have a 7 story yacht when another is starving, unable to make progress despite effort.
We have the resources, no one should be hungry. It isn't an either/ or, you can reap benefits on your hard work but not at the expense of another person's wellbeing or happiness.
Resources should be distributed more equally and harder, better, more productive work will add more marginal increases in wealth to said person.
That is my position and it will not change.
January 11, 2023
I thought it was an interactive & engaging way to rethink our economy in order to reflect society’s 21st century needs. I have never taken an Econ class but the author shares this information in a way that you won’t want to fall asleep or roll over in bed. This book provided a comprehensive overview of how we developed macroeconomics out of necessity during the depression, why that doesn’t work for us anymore and how we can utilize natural capital despite living in a capitalist society. It describes an economy that can promote longevity in our lives and environment. I recommend!
December 14, 2021
American exceptionalism strikes again.
This book was published just a hair over a decade ago. The country was in the midst of the Great Recession and the authors spelled out what's wrong with American hypercapitalism, what can be fixed, and how. Ten years later, the country is in the midst of the coronavirus pandemic, with all associated economic fallout. Nothing changed, nothing got better. It's five stars, but an angry five stars.
This book was published just a hair over a decade ago. The country was in the midst of the Great Recession and the authors spelled out what's wrong with American hypercapitalism, what can be fixed, and how. Ten years later, the country is in the midst of the coronavirus pandemic, with all associated economic fallout. Nothing changed, nothing got better. It's five stars, but an angry five stars.
April 15, 2013
TL;DR: Good book. Would recommend. Take things with a grain of salt. I personally think it's a better read for ideas about your personal life, preferences, and paradigms than to its recommended changes in the political sphere.
It's a very interesting book. As an economist, I was initially very skeptical of the premise, however the authors' arguments are interesting and to some extent persuasive. In particular, they argue against "King GDP" and the societal expectation of growth, which I personally find fascinating. Certainly, this isn't the first book that argues against GDP and/or Growth, or even the first popular one ("Limits to Growth") jumps to mind, however the central argument in this book seems to be that not only is sustained high growth impractical in the sense that it's not sustainable (ie, *can't* happen), the externalities of growth means it's not even ideal or something we ought to aim for (ie, *shouldn't* happen), which is a subtler normative argument.
Instead, the authors argue for "chasing happiness" through individual and societal policies that encourage greater healthiness, more income equality, more meaningful social and environmental (network) connections, and greater leisure time. Americans, after all, are overbusy and constantly rushed through meaningless materialism. Materialism, furthermore, that doesn't quite pay off. The median real wage has almost consistently been on the decline since the stagflation era of the '70s, and certainly since the beginning of the Reagan years. We should all take a step back, breathe a little, pay attention more to what truly makes us happy, and (here's where the book gets a little bit tricky) adopt the European-style welfare state to ensue greater vacation time, more equitable wages, and a more sustainable future.
Intuitively, this book has a lot of appeal to me. But then again, I'm much less materialistic than most people I know, certainly much less than my major and academic interests would indicate. The authors attempt to handwave away materialism by arguing that most people rather desire "financial security," "stability," "leisure time," etc, rather than work so much to simply to buy more *stuff* and they provide empirical evidence that societies collectively need only about USD $10k per capita before a marginal increase in income has little to no correlation with increased happiness. However, it is still a fairly true aphorism that no matter how philosophical you are with not getting access to small luxuries, such small luxuries, once acquired, will be devilishly difficult to get rid of. Humans are my nature highly loss averse, and my personal non-rigorous intuition is that Joe Average wouldn't give up his iPad, and certainly not his car, just to spend more time with his family or stargazing with his neighbors.
On Pg.168, to argue for more governmental intervention and a planned change in the economy, the authors claim: "In the largest sense economies are easy to change. Transformation is what economies do. Every thirty years we rip up the roads, gut the buildings...Between 1934 and 1944, the US economy is transformed...Much of global manufacturing moved to China in a single decade[etc]." To me, however, this seems like a small logical fallacy between what's stated and what's implied. The authors confuse the idea of the economy being *dynamic* with it being easily *changeable* through an outside force. I feel like the authors substantially understate just how *blipping* complex the economy actually is, and how trying to affect macro-level change will be difficult both in terms of trying the defeat the immense momentum and inertia opposing, as well as the huge number of unpredictable tipping points that will almost certainly occur due to seemingly small macro-"tweaks" to the economy.
Further, the authors argue through an appeal to Americanism, and what they consider to be the "true" memes and values of America. So they explicitly acknowledge that they don't deal with globalization. However, much of the book implicitly argues against globalization, especially when they talk about depressed wages from competing with countries where workers work for <$1/hour. This makes a lot of economic sense; the Heckscher–Ohlin theorem will imply that the gains from globalization will certainly not be distributed evenly. The poor in poorer countries will be made better off, and the capitalists in rich countries will as well, but the capital-holders in developing countries and the laborers in developed countries will presumably do not as well (if you hold as constant the somewhat dubious assumptions of the H-O theorem). However, while it may make individual *economic* sense that the middle class in America ought to go against globalization, to me, it is extraordinarily *immoral* to deny the genuinely poor a chance to lift themselves out of poverty, simply because the middle class in America (which, let's face it, already have it more than good enough) wants to be lazy and see their kids more. Much better to just re-adjust your preferences and simply be content with less materialism, rather than wait for government policies that absolutely demand it.
So read the book, take it with a grain of salt, and decide for yourself what you find worthwhile.
It's a very interesting book. As an economist, I was initially very skeptical of the premise, however the authors' arguments are interesting and to some extent persuasive. In particular, they argue against "King GDP" and the societal expectation of growth, which I personally find fascinating. Certainly, this isn't the first book that argues against GDP and/or Growth, or even the first popular one ("Limits to Growth") jumps to mind, however the central argument in this book seems to be that not only is sustained high growth impractical in the sense that it's not sustainable (ie, *can't* happen), the externalities of growth means it's not even ideal or something we ought to aim for (ie, *shouldn't* happen), which is a subtler normative argument.
Instead, the authors argue for "chasing happiness" through individual and societal policies that encourage greater healthiness, more income equality, more meaningful social and environmental (network) connections, and greater leisure time. Americans, after all, are overbusy and constantly rushed through meaningless materialism. Materialism, furthermore, that doesn't quite pay off. The median real wage has almost consistently been on the decline since the stagflation era of the '70s, and certainly since the beginning of the Reagan years. We should all take a step back, breathe a little, pay attention more to what truly makes us happy, and (here's where the book gets a little bit tricky) adopt the European-style welfare state to ensue greater vacation time, more equitable wages, and a more sustainable future.
Intuitively, this book has a lot of appeal to me. But then again, I'm much less materialistic than most people I know, certainly much less than my major and academic interests would indicate. The authors attempt to handwave away materialism by arguing that most people rather desire "financial security," "stability," "leisure time," etc, rather than work so much to simply to buy more *stuff* and they provide empirical evidence that societies collectively need only about USD $10k per capita before a marginal increase in income has little to no correlation with increased happiness. However, it is still a fairly true aphorism that no matter how philosophical you are with not getting access to small luxuries, such small luxuries, once acquired, will be devilishly difficult to get rid of. Humans are my nature highly loss averse, and my personal non-rigorous intuition is that Joe Average wouldn't give up his iPad, and certainly not his car, just to spend more time with his family or stargazing with his neighbors.
On Pg.168, to argue for more governmental intervention and a planned change in the economy, the authors claim: "In the largest sense economies are easy to change. Transformation is what economies do. Every thirty years we rip up the roads, gut the buildings...Between 1934 and 1944, the US economy is transformed...Much of global manufacturing moved to China in a single decade[etc]." To me, however, this seems like a small logical fallacy between what's stated and what's implied. The authors confuse the idea of the economy being *dynamic* with it being easily *changeable* through an outside force. I feel like the authors substantially understate just how *blipping* complex the economy actually is, and how trying to affect macro-level change will be difficult both in terms of trying the defeat the immense momentum and inertia opposing, as well as the huge number of unpredictable tipping points that will almost certainly occur due to seemingly small macro-"tweaks" to the economy.
Further, the authors argue through an appeal to Americanism, and what they consider to be the "true" memes and values of America. So they explicitly acknowledge that they don't deal with globalization. However, much of the book implicitly argues against globalization, especially when they talk about depressed wages from competing with countries where workers work for <$1/hour. This makes a lot of economic sense; the Heckscher–Ohlin theorem will imply that the gains from globalization will certainly not be distributed evenly. The poor in poorer countries will be made better off, and the capitalists in rich countries will as well, but the capital-holders in developing countries and the laborers in developed countries will presumably do not as well (if you hold as constant the somewhat dubious assumptions of the H-O theorem). However, while it may make individual *economic* sense that the middle class in America ought to go against globalization, to me, it is extraordinarily *immoral* to deny the genuinely poor a chance to lift themselves out of poverty, simply because the middle class in America (which, let's face it, already have it more than good enough) wants to be lazy and see their kids more. Much better to just re-adjust your preferences and simply be content with less materialism, rather than wait for government policies that absolutely demand it.
So read the book, take it with a grain of salt, and decide for yourself what you find worthwhile.
April 4, 2019
"(More on this in Chapter x)" ...boy, did I get sick of this phrase.
U.S.-centric, but with sound ideas and insights into what works in economies around the world. An interesting read at an accessible, non-technical level.
U.S.-centric, but with sound ideas and insights into what works in economies around the world. An interesting read at an accessible, non-technical level.
Read
February 20, 2019Very insightful, highly recommend it!
June 13, 2019
It's like many other books I've read. It says basically the same thing as the others. If you want happiness, the best government to have is a democratic socialist one.
December 29, 2016
Overview covering many topics that need to be evaluated with more depth, but raises a number of serious questions that are worth thinking about.
March 25, 2013
Batker & De Graaf make the case that we should not put our efforts to expanding the GDP, but instead, make happiness our goal in life. Happiness, here, being the greatest good for the greatest number, for the longest time.
I agree with their argument, for the most part, but I'd substitute GDP with the current buzzwords "progress" and "growth". Ask local politicians and businessmen what they mean by "progress" and "growth" (alt, "growing the economy", "development", etc.) and they respond with vague, empty words and platitudes that loop back on themselves. There is no goal, just more progress for the sake of progress.
But happiness is a hard goal, if relative to the person. (Sounds great, if you're in the greatest number group. But as someone who prefers to see living things and trees outside my window, not concrete, steel, and my neighbor's bathroom, I don't qualify.) It's a far cry more appealing than "progress" or "growth". All I've seen growth and development bring is more traffic, higher taxes, more pollution, more noise, and less wildlife.
I agree with their argument, for the most part, but I'd substitute GDP with the current buzzwords "progress" and "growth". Ask local politicians and businessmen what they mean by "progress" and "growth" (alt, "growing the economy", "development", etc.) and they respond with vague, empty words and platitudes that loop back on themselves. There is no goal, just more progress for the sake of progress.
But happiness is a hard goal, if relative to the person. (Sounds great, if you're in the greatest number group. But as someone who prefers to see living things and trees outside my window, not concrete, steel, and my neighbor's bathroom, I don't qualify.) It's a far cry more appealing than "progress" or "growth". All I've seen growth and development bring is more traffic, higher taxes, more pollution, more noise, and less wildlife.
June 12, 2012
A boiled-down, nuts and bolts interpretation of our political economy. Rather depressing considering the times, albeit informative. Yet don't be fooled into thinking this is simply a declension narrative. Both authors offer tangible reforms that could transform the American economy, and, in the end, the average American's happiness. I did leave the book wondering what they'd have to say about the present Euro-zone crisis, considering their tendency to idolize many aspects of Nordic and European economic policies.
April 25, 2021
The greatest good of the greatest number for the longest time - sustainable well-being as the purpose of economies. This should have been an encouraging book, but it isn't, because we in the U.S. lack the vision and will to make our country - and the world - a better place for everyone. The sad thing is that we don't lack the know-how. Some wealthy person or right-thinking organization should buy 535 copies of this book and send one to every member of Congress.
Oh, and if I were twenty-something, I'd be figuring out how to emigrate to Scandinavia, the Netherlands, Canada, or Bhutan.
Oh, and if I were twenty-something, I'd be figuring out how to emigrate to Scandinavia, the Netherlands, Canada, or Bhutan.
August 4, 2013
Health as a preventive measure is a lot cheaper, and more effective, than healthcare as a corrective measure.
Health (four walls of a house) VS healthcare (roof)
lifestyle
stress
connection
safety
A sense of security is the foundation for freedom and risk taking.
Government provided healthcare/insurance is the equivalent of buying in bulk.
Free to choose, free to lose. (Privatised loss)
Tax as an investment instead of a burden (Taxes are the price of civilisation)
Solving the sustainability issue requires commitment. The economy is within the environment, not the other way round.
Health (four walls of a house) VS healthcare (roof)
lifestyle
stress
connection
safety
A sense of security is the foundation for freedom and risk taking.
Government provided healthcare/insurance is the equivalent of buying in bulk.
Free to choose, free to lose. (Privatised loss)
Tax as an investment instead of a burden (Taxes are the price of civilisation)
Solving the sustainability issue requires commitment. The economy is within the environment, not the other way round.
August 22, 2013
This book is so worth reading! Thank you, to the authors, for actually trying to promote the idea that the economy is "for" anything! Imagine if we sought to harness "the economy" to produce more of what we value in life, and less harm? This book makes you think about what that would look like and how it differs from the economy we seem to have now.
November 23, 2016
The first 80 pages are interesting. The middle 80 pages are boringly idealistic at times. The last 75 pages of this book are fantastic. I agree with much of the actual policy prescriptions in this book, and find their reasoning behind them to be solid. Loses a couple of stars based on the amount of fluff and anecdotes, though some of them are well done.
November 23, 2012
This is a refreshing splash of cold water in the face. Wake up and stop chasing the illusion of economic growth. The revelation you will experience in this book will render both mainstream political parties in the U.S. irrelevant.
November 1, 2015
Good reading for those of us who are not economists and feel that the pie should be shared more fairly.
August 26, 2014
"The greatest good for the greatest number over the longest run"
Displaying 1 - 25 of 25 reviews