How Much is Enough?: Money and the Good Life [Versión Kindle]

John Maynard Keynes believed that there would come a time when capitalism would be able to provide for all our needs. When that time was reached, there would be no further reason for growth. Capitalism was a necessary but temporary evil - 'a transitional stage, a means to an end, the end being the good life' (P17). Unfortunately, as we have seen, this 'end' has actually been the triumph of an aggressive and consumerist capitalism that has swept all before it, capturing us in a seemingly endless spiral, not of 'needs' but 'wants'. We are caught in an 'insatiability trap' and 'the good life' appears to be receding into dreams and sitcoms.

This book tries to explain just how this all came about. And, after exploring the roots of what more and more people are recognizing as our global dilemma, attempts to put forward some solutions and new ways to define and move towards this 'good life'.

The book starts with Keynes. Keynes believed that the average number of hours that people worked would slowly diminish as technology became more and more efficient. In reality what we have seen is instead of four people being employed for ten hours a week, one person works for forty hours a week, leaving three people unemployed. At the same time, capitalism has increasingly 'monetized' and commodified everything it can, as Michael Sandel, amongst many others, has shown. Monetizing things changes how they are valued - not only do they become comparable in money terms, but their very nature is altered. For example: '[e]ducation...is increasingly seen not as a preparation for the good life but as a mean to increase the value of 'human capital''.

The result of this depressing utilitarianism is all around us. Not just a growing number of people unemployed, but also a growing number of people forced down into what Guy Standing refers to as 'The Precariat', semi- and temporarily employed, while the gulf between the poorest and richest is now wider than it was in the so-called 'gilded age'.

What is it in the nature of capitalism that makes it at the same time so productive and yet so destructive? The authors believe that capitalism was 'founded on a Faustian pact'. (P68) Whereas previously usury and avarice were considered evils (Croesus, Midas), it was agreed that these sins were acceptable for the time being in order to release the productive powers of capitalism, on the understanding that once having 'lifted humanity out of poverty', the evils would be banished. But:

'Experience has taught us that material wants know no natural bounds, that they will expand without end unless we consciously restrain them. Capitalism rests precisely on this endless expansion of wants. That is why, for all its success, it remains so unloved. It has given us wealth beyond measure, but has taken away the chief benefit of wealth: the consciousness of having enough.' (P69) Capitalism has overturned the meaning of greed - it is now 'good'.

It turns out that capitalism has overturned the meaning of the word 'happiness' too. The authors in 'A Very Brief History of Happiness' (P97) show how the old idea of a 'happy life' or a 'happy people' has gradually changed from an external, social concept to a highly individual and internal state. To make people happy then does not necessarily require changes to society but to the individuals. Along with this individualisation comes a sense of paternalist liberalism - not yet perhaps handing out the 'soma' but not very far off.

So what are the limits (if any) to growth? The authors consider both natural and moral aspects of this question, in particular considering the various 'green' approaches. In 'The Ethical Roots of Environmentalism' (P132) they trace a fascinating path from romanticism through Heidegger and then to Adorno and Horkheimer, Marcuse and the modern day green movements. They suggest that:

'...mainstream environmentalism has continued to frame its case in the utilitarian language of sustainability, though its profounder influences remain ethical, aesthetic or even religious. This has led to a tension in the movement between so-called 'deep' and 'shallow' ecologists, the former valuing nature as an end in itself, the latter valuing it as an instrument of human purposes.' (P134)

The point the authors wish to make is that we really cannot base a critique of capitalism on either 'deep' or 'shallow' environmentalism. 'Nature is neither raw material to use as we please nor a strange god demanding sacrifice...[but]...the mute bearer of the same life that has come to consciousness in us.' (P 144) In that sense, the 'good life' must by definition be bound up with a harmonious relationship with nature as with ourselves.

So what is the 'good life'? The authors try to define it by identifying 'The Basic Goods' (P150), the indispensables. By goods, of course, is not meant necessarily material goods but the aspects of life that go to make a happy state, a state of happiness and a life well lived.

And finally they look to 'Exits from the Rat Race' (P180). It is clear that there really is no existent political party that has 'the good life' (in the sense the authors mean) as their goal. Their proposals are both varied and specific. One is the provision of a 'basic income' (this is a central demand of Guy Standing's too). Another is 'Reducing the Pressure to Consume' (P202), including reducing the impact and all-pervasiveness of advertising. Yes another is a temporary halt to globalisation. They bluntly point out that '[n]o country has become rich under a free-trade regime.' (P214) Underlying all this is a belief that we need to re-examine just what wealth is for. And here they look for inspiration to Catholicism and to the 'religious impulse' more generally. Materialist philosophies have failed, they believe. Politics has failed. And economics has failed. One way or another we need to re-imagine the 'collective good life'.

The authors' views clearly coincide with those of Jeffrey Sachs - searching for an Aristotelian 'middle way' - and of Michael Sandel - there really are things that money shouldn't buy. And maybe that's a weakness - money (commoditisation) really does change everything and it is very difficult to change things back. Neoliberalism is still alive and well, as Colin Crouch has pointed out, and a well entrenched oligarchy continues to dominate the global agenda.

Nice ideas though.

I have devoted a considerable amount of time and thought to this book over the past weeks. I am intrigued by it, and admire it, but I also find I am not satisfied with it. In pondering why this is so, I have come to the conclusion that, like many books of its type, it describes the problem it identifies very well, but falls short when proposing a solution to it. And I have a hunch that the authors realize this, otherwise we wouldn't see so many references for the need for faith and the need for optimism.

First, though, a secondary point. The authors assert that rich countries now have sufficient wealth that everyone living in them could afford to stop the ceaseless quest for more, if this wealth was properly distributed. I would like to see this assertion expanded upon with more facts, and with a hypothetical model to demonstrate it. While no reasonable person expects, say, a neurosurgeon to receive the same wage as someone collecting money in a parking booth, what would the base level of income available be at some reasonable range of compensation, as compared to the vilely unfair pattern we have today?

If indeed this calculation is convincing, the implementation of a guaranteed annual income via the income tax system would be simplicity itself, and in fact the cost savings from elimination of a massive system of benefits administration might go a good distance towards paying for it. Certainly that well known pinko Richard Millhouse Nixon thought so, when he came close to implementing such a scheme, as is described by the late Senator Daniel Moynihan: The Politics of a Guaranteed Income: The Nixon Administration and the Family Assistance Plan (1973) ISBN 0-394-46354-4.

But to get back to my dissatisfaction. I believe this much is well proven in the book: The everlasting and insatiable pursuit of more and more is pointless and senseless, as well as damaging to the world and to human society. The authors also demonstrate conclusively that worshiping this pursuit is peculiar to modern capitalist society: It wasn't that long ago that avarice was universally considered a sin.

They also explain how the modern theological class, also known as economists, have hugely aided and abetted this development. By making self interest the sole rational motive for human behavior, they have licensed the psychopaths among us to behave just as they wish, and these creatures have taken full advantage of this. For those unfamiliar with psychopathy, I recommend Without Conscience and Snakes in Suits, both by Robert Hare. A psychopath is someone who is utterly selfish, has a strong sense of entitlement, is highly manipulative, has no conscience, lies for fun, and leaves a broad trail of misery behind him wherever he goes. Sounds like a Wall Street banker, doesn't it?

My problem is that their solution, which in essence is to attempt to substitute the greed ethic with a better one, doesn't seem likely to me to work. While wider acceptance of a compassionate moral system would probably help, calls for compassion are not likely to affect your average psychopath. And make no mistake that it is the psychopaths, the evil people, that we have to deal with. They tend to rise to the top of power structures (much easier when you don't have a conscience) and are clearly in control now, as they have been for most of human history. As someone once said, great men are almost always bad men.

The way that this was done in the recent past was to withdraw labour, which the powerful needed the rest of us to provide. This is less and less true as time goes by, diminished by automation and by offshoring.

What we still provide that they need is consumption. If a way could be found to withdraw consumption from psychopathic individuals, companies, and industries, this could be an effective check. And there is a possible way to do this. Already there is an Iphone and Web application called the Good Guide ([...]) which rates products based on their impact on health, the environment, and society. This could be suitably expanded and refined by crowdsourcing. The major problem with it would be to stop it from being "gamed", as so many of the Internet rating services now are by the burgeoning Web Presence industry.

I really liked this book. It does an outstanding job of laying out the problem and it is a thesis that I thoroughly agree with. In our endless pursuit of money we have lost sight of what that money should be for; it should be to allow us to live the good life. It should not be an end in itself. The vast majority of the book is centered around this project. The weakness comes at the end where the authors lay out their idea for a solution.

Let me quote a paragraph in the introduction that I think describes the book very well:

"The premise of what follows is that the material conditions of the good life already exist, at least in the affluent parts of the world, but that the blind pursuit of growth puts it continually out of reach. Under such circumstances, the aim of policy and other forms of collective actions should be to secure an economic organizations that places the good things of life - health, respect, friendship, leisure and so on - within reach of all. Economic growth should be accepted as a residual, not something to be aimed at."

This is a thoughtful book about an important topic. It is well written and even if you don't agree with the perspective of the authors, you should consider what they have to say. These are the kinds of important long-term ideas our leaders should be focused on rather than telling the public to go out and spend more money they don't have to "stimulate the economy".

The only problem I have with this book is over reliance on government policy the authors serve up as a solution. The history of unintended consequences of "good intentions" should be enough to disabuse anyone of that idea. However, the solution is something that needs to be worked out. The first step is to get people to really accept that a problem exists. This book is a good step in that direction.

Highly recommended.