Goodreads helps you keep track of books you want to read.

Start by marking “The Good Society: The Humane Agenda” as Want to Read:

Other editions

Enlarge cover

Rate this book

Clear rating

1 of 5 stars 2 of 5 stars 3 of 5 stars 4 of 5 stars 5 of 5 stars

Open Preview

The Good Society: The Humane Agenda

John Kenneth Galbraith

3.73 · Rating details · 201 ratings · 23 reviews

Galbraith also recognizes human weakness, differences in ability and motivation, and the formidable obstacles facing those who challenge the status quo. No one else explains the interplay of economic and political forces with Galbraith's exquisite clarity.

Get A Copy

Or buy for

Paperback, 160 pages

Published April 30th 1997 by Mariner Books (first published January 1st 1996)

More Details... edit details

Friend Reviews

To see what your friends thought of this book, please sign up.

Reader Q&A

To ask other readers questions about The Good Society, please sign up.

Be the first to ask a question about The Good Society

Lists with This Book

Corruption, Plutocracy, Oligarchy, Kleptocracy, Corporatocracy — Solutions: Reasoning & Alternatives

358 books — 22 voters

More lists with this book...

Community Reviews

Showing 1-30

3.73 ·

Rating details

· 201 ratings · 23 reviews

Filter

Sort order

Mar 23, 2009 Will Byrnes rated it liked it

Shelves: nonfiction

Galbraith attempts to lay out what a good, humane society might look like, what values it might espouse, how it would treat people within and outside of its borders. He lists general principles and it is cheering that so many of them seem to have found their way into the Obama Administration’s plans. He holds as good things like stable currency, full employment, no discrimination based on race, gender or age, intelligent caretaking of planetary resources, availability of a safety net for all, in ...more

flag 3 likes · Like · see review

Feb 22, 2011 John rated it it was amazing

Shelves: favorites

Finally, an economics book that doesn't confuse is with ought. This book contends that it is possible for people and democracies to make a difference in the economy that governs our lives, to offset greed with justice, and that we should. Why not? It's so good to read an economist who doesn't kneel before the golden calf of the Market. I believe in math like the next guy, but screw you Chicago school...

flag 2 likes · Like · see review

Mar 04, 2018 Glen Stott rated it it was ok

Shelves: economics, politics, social-justice

This was only 130 pages, but a real slog for me. Galbraith writes in Professor-ese. This is writing where you pull in words nobody ever uses. For example; instead of “nickname,” use “sobriquet” (mildly ok) or “cognomen” (I definitely had to stop and look up that one). Or construct sentences so they sound impressive but are so maladroitly formed you have to read them over to figure out what the point is. Example: “… it is the responsibility of the state so to do few doubt.” When one innocently cr This was only 130 pages, but a real slog for me. Galbraith writes in Professor-ese. This is writing where you pull in words nobody ever uses. For example; instead of “nickname,” use “sobriquet” (mildly ok) or “cognomen” (I definitely had to stop and look up that one). Or construct sentences so they sound impressive but are so maladroitly formed you have to read them over to figure out what the point is. Example: “… it is the responsibility of the state so to do few doubt.” When one innocently cruses through the paragraph to this, a short, disruptive stop is required to sort out if a comma is missing. Or more egregious, “In the good and intelligent society policy in action are not subordinate to ideology, to doctrine.” Maybe the problem here is an editor should have looked at it. Let’s see, I’ll move a coma and change a couple of words: “In the good and intelligent society, policy and action are not subordinate to ideology and doctrine.” Yeah, that works. But figuring that out took me out of the flow – I had to go back and reread the paragraph and make sure my correction fits. In many cases, I was stumped and simply worte “the rhetoric here is not decipherable” in my notes. I had seven years of University education and had reached a point where I could decipher Professor-ese, but that was in the 1960’s and 70’s; I’m a bit out of practice.

Galbraith’s basic premise is that “socially desirable change is regularly denied out of well-recognized self-interest.” He maintains that ideology should not be considered when a problem is confronted. Each problem should be examined separately, and the most appropriate solution should be selected without considering ideology. I can easily agree with that concept. However, as Galbraith drags us through examples of his separate examination and his non-ideological solution, he veers strongly to the left.

An example: “In the most important current case, the comfortably affluent resist public action for the poor because of the threat of increased taxes or the failure of a promise of tax reduction. The problem to be addressed therefore is his self-interest.” This is not looking at the problem individually to come up with a non-ideological solution. The problem is defined through the lens of his progressive ideology. The simple solution also springs from his ideology. He ignores the fact that the “comfortably affluent” have provided more than twenty trillion dollars (with a “t”) to the War on Poverty. The funds have been administered primarily by progressives using progressive ideology with the result that poverty has worsened. Galbraith, using progressive ideology, has improperly defined the problem and focused upon a solution that is way out in left field. (pun intended).

He makes a detailed explanation for why more federal government involvement is needed in today’s world compared to when the Constitution was written. My life’s experience causes me to agree with him. The Constitution provides the amendment process to make needed changes. This is an arduous process. Instead of following the Constitution, government has simply passed laws that grow it. The problem is how to control that method. I worked with the EPA extensively in the 1980s to battle water pollution in small towns. The EPA was essential in funding and overseeing the process. The problem is that EPA has grown into a bureaucratic, out of control behemoth. As government takes upon itself more responsibility it begins to run amuck, corruption infiltrates everything.

Galbraith says he believes in capitalism but wants it controlled with Keynesian economics. He says he believes in equal opportunity but doesn’t think government should force equal outcome, however, government should provide a minimum outcome – minimum wage. This should be provided even to people who simply do not want to work but want government to provide a pleasant lifestyle. He believes the American work force has moved up the economic chain and open immigration should be allowed to fill the jobs Americans have left behind. War and rumors of war on Earth will cease once the rich nations have banned together to lift all the poor on the planet out of poverty. Galbraith’s non-ideological conclusion is that only the Democratic Party is situated to look out for the needs of the poor. In order to create a good society and a true democracy, actions must be taken to get the poor to vote, and they should vote for the Democratic Party. For the most part, Galbraith’s reasoning was pretty shallow and despite his early claims, the book was an ideological exposition.

“The Good Society” is technically difficult to read. It has some good ideas, but, generally, the applications proposed run exactly opposite of the basic premise. It’s not worth a star except the arguments for bigger government make some sense. It fails to address how that could be done constitutionally, but I’m giving him a couple of stars anyway. Started 2018.02.16 - Finished 2018.02.21
...more

flag 1 like · Like · see review

Aug 05, 2009 Cooper Cooper rated it really liked it

At the age of 86, John Kenneth Galbraith set out his vision of the “Good Society.” In it there is nothing new; he enunciates the conventional wisdom of the practical (as opposed to the doctrinaire) liberal. According to Galbraith, the objectives of the good society are 1) world peace, and 2) the well-being and “the opportunity for a rewarding life” for all individuals. These goals he considers achievable within a captialist system, but only with strong government participation to compensate for At the age of 86, John Kenneth Galbraith set out his vision of the “Good Society.” In it there is nothing new; he enunciates the conventional wisdom of the practical (as opposed to the doctrinaire) liberal. According to Galbraith, the objectives of the good society are 1) world peace, and 2) the well-being and “the opportunity for a rewarding life” for all individuals. These goals he considers achievable within a captialist system, but only with strong government participation to compensate for defects in capitalism itself, and to ensure that the well-off do not (by sins of commission or omission) oppress the poor.
What are the inherent defects of capitalism that must be compensated for? A couple of examples:

*Employment. Ideally the good society would offer full employment, but in the market system full employment increases demand for labor, which in turn leads to wage increases, which in turn increases prices—and this is spelled i-n-f-l-a-t-i-o-n. So there is always a tradeoff: level of employment versus price stability/inflation. Galbraith: “It must be understood that there cannot be full employment and stable prices at the same time.” In a healthy U.S. economy, unemployment apparently can’t drop much below 4% without endangering price stability. This means that even in good times a lot of folks are unemployed and hurting. (Not to mention the unemployables.) In the good society the government steps in to minimize suffering by guaranteeing financial support. The current problem: much of the well-off middle class conveniently pretends that unemployment and poverty are the fault of its victims (“Get them off welfare!”)—except, of course, the middle classers who have themselves been "downsized." These sing a different song. Galbraith: “Unemployment is suffered by those afflicted and their families; their pain can be readily tolerated by those who do not experience it.”

*Boom and Bust. If left to its own devices, capitalism rollercoasters from boom to bust to boom to bust… Why? Because the whole scheme depends on adequate “aggregate demand” (consumer spending + business spending+ government spending), and aggregate demand in turn depends on business judgment in investment, availability of money and consumer and business confidence in the economy. If businesses overproduce and build up huge inventories, then have to cut back production and investment and lay people off, they shake confidence and also reduce the consuming power of their employees—and the economy contracts. As for availability of money, lack of it at reasonable rates reduces borrowing for both investment and consumption, and thus triggers contraction. And that great intangible, consumer and business confidence, can be shaken in many ways: large-scale layoffs, natural disasters, political uncertainty, threats of war, fears of rising interest rates (higher cost of money), sudden drops in the stock market (e.g., corrections from “irrational exuberance”), reports of major scandal in the financial community, etc. Galbraith makes the point that the only really effective way to support flagging aggregate demand is through government spending—if necessary, deficit spending. The call for a balanced budget in a falling economy is utterly absurd, because it would prevent government action precisely when such action is most needed (the proposed balanced budget amendment to the U.S. Constitution that almost passed awhile back would have been a disaster perpetrated by politicians with no understanding of basic economics).

Some Galbraith observations on the good society:

*One Rule. In the good society there is…one dominant rule: decision must be made on the social and economic merits of the particular case. This is not the age of doctrine; it is the age of practical judgment.

*Importance of Education. Nothing will so improve future income and output—the yield of the economy in general—as the educational qualifications of the people…. Education not only makes democracy possible; it also makes it essential…. It is known that a certain percentage of the population [the uneducated:] is available to support virtually any form of political and social disaster…. There is no test of the good society so clear, so decisive, as its willingness to tax in order to develop and sustain a strong educational system for all its citizens…. In this world there is no literate population that is poor, and no illiterate population that is not.

*Unequal Distribution of Income. The good society does not seek equality in economic return; that is neither a realizable nor a socially desirable goal…. It is the essence of liberty that differences in motivation and reward be accepted. [But:] the modern market economy accords wealth and distributes income in a highly unequal, socially adverse and also functionally damaging fashion…. There is the protection that the peculiar class structure of the United States accords the affluent and the rich. All reputable reference concerning class structure emphasizes the middle class. There is an upper and a lower class, but these are back in the shadows. Although it is rarely so designated, for practical purposes we have a three-class system consisting of only one class, an arithmetic novelty…. Money, voice and political activism are now extensively controlled by the affluent and the business interests, and to them the political talent is inevitably drawn. The expression of their goals is then accepted as public opinion and, a significant point, is so designated by the media every day.

*Government Regulation. From few matters has modern society more suffered than from the excesses and errors of what is now called the financial community…. In the financial world the good society must assume less than perfect performance, especially as each generation returns with enthusiasm to the derelictions and frequent insanities of the one before…. If there is a rule, it is only that when a specific regulation is being considered, there should be a search to see if self-serving pecuniary interest is the motivating factor in the argument.

*The Bureaucratic Syndrome. Established bureaucracies tend to substitute discipline for thought, and also tend to suffer from Parkinson’s Law—relentless proliferation of personnel. A comfortable and disciplined culture resting often on past success takes the place of innovation and change…. Bureaucratic stasis is…an omnipresent fact in the great private, as in the great public, organization.

*Transnational Future. The economic and social responsibilities of the nation-state are in a transitional phase. The ultimate goal is a transnational authority with the subsidiary powers, not excluding the raising and spending of revenue, that go with it.

Galbraith strongly makes the point that substantially assisting both the domestic unemployed and disadvantaged and the struggling Third World countries constitutes not charity but enlightened self-interest. Poverty domestic and foreign breeds unrest, demagogery, violence and terrorism—strongly in our interest to eliminate, especially in an age of cheap chemical and biological weapons that can quickly (and painfully) decimate entire cities.
This book is a good reminder of obvious common sense notions—and equally a reminder of how rarely common sense is put into practice without the stimulus of crisis or catastrophe.

...more

flag 1 like · Like · see review

Oct 31, 2017 May Ling rated it liked it

Shelves: political-science, philosophy

A part of me rejected this book a bit as too pie in the sky until I realized the book was written in 1994, when Western political philosophy was still Cold War driven. The book attempts to define good in terms of a highly specific way of thinking about how a country should treat its citizens and those outside it borders. It talks of things we ought to have. Nice. Very fluffy. Painful if you've actually worked a day in your life outside of academia and have to produce.

That said, it's not terrible A part of me rejected this book a bit as too pie in the sky until I realized the book was written in 1994, when Western political philosophy was still Cold War driven. The book attempts to define good in terms of a highly specific way of thinking about how a country should treat its citizens and those outside it borders. It talks of things we ought to have. Nice. Very fluffy. Painful if you've actually worked a day in your life outside of academia and have to produce.

That said, it's not terrible. One does in fact need to/should start with a concept of where you're trying to get to and in that regard I was able to swallow it and give the man a very deserved 3 stars. In 1994, the idea of whether foreign and domestic policy should care about people was at risk. Even more so, the idea of Capitalism had taken odd form in the light of rampant abuse of markets coming from the shortages of the 70's, market manipulations of the 80s, and emerging market crisis that were contemporary to his publishing.

My main issue is the forgone conclusion that Capitalism is the solution to creating this type of society. Not that it's wrong so much as what the heck does that mean? What definition are you exactly using for Capitalism? Do you mean the old Capitalism laissez faire opportunism of the 1800s? We know that just leads to graft and exploitation of the masses by a few. Are we talking the further developed, highly criticized libertarian Capitalism of the 1900s, which results in big governments and a need for innovation to fund them? Are we discussing the the oddly expanded market-based Capitalism of the mid-1960s, or the convolutedly mixed with governmental forms concept that we have at the end of the 1990's, i.e. Capitalism and democracy are necessarily the same thing aka a definition that only makes sense in a Cold War bi-polar world.

The thoughts are fine, even potentially genius for 1994-1999, but it become dated quickly as we enter the information age. As a result, Capitalism as a solution rings of a poorly formed solution that is attempting to rally the masses without any real substance... sadly like much of our politics today. Catch phrases with no instructions or real plan.

For those reading it as anything other than the way thinking has transformed, particularly those with experience outside of Western culture, historical bias and flawed definitions will make one struggle to finish. The world has transformed as we enter 2018. Possibly - despite my own reaction - because of enlightened writers like Galbraith attempting to add a moral compass concept. Indeed, if he'd just said that I could have gotten on much better. I can't give less than 3, but I can't really say it's relevant any longer either. ...more

flag 1 like · Like · see review

Jul 26, 2016 Papa Mbaye rated it really liked it

A good read. I thought that the general premise of the book is sound, the ideas proposed however would have to be revised to take into account recent debates and facts about climate change, an even higher level of inequality, proposals about a better governance of aid, a rising world population and the pressure it puts on natural resources, etc....

A case should also be made for an alternative way of procuring the goods and services needed by society.

The role of non-state actors (such as Al-Qaid ...more

flag 1 like · Like · see review

Oct 22, 2010 Joanne rated it it was ok

Shelves: non-fiction

"The Good Society.The Humane Agenda", published in 1996, is an essey in which John Kenneth Galbraith presents some of his economical and social ideas and proposes a perfect society. On one hand he makes a comparison with Mark's and Engels' "perfect society" described in the book called "Manifesto of the Communist Party" and on the other hand, he links with the current society of 1996 from United States of America, Canada, Japan and other economical developed countries and brings some modificatio ...more

flag 1 like · Like · see review

Nov 05, 2015 D.L. Morrese rated it liked it

Although this was written 20 years ago, the topics it touches on remain disturbingly current. America has made little if any progress toward becoming what Galbraith calls a 'good society'. That's not to say that America doesn't have a lot to be said for it, but we could have done better. We just didn't. In some ways, wealth disparity being perhaps the most notable, we've actually gotten worse.

This is a work of philosophy written in an academic style. It's short, but not a light or easy read. Nei ...more

flag Like · see review

May 01, 2009 Walter rated it really liked it

Galbraith is in rare form in this well-reasoned, constructive and insightful exposition of The Good Society. He is so logical and humane in his reasoning that it is hard to disagree with his views, except for the reality that, even though he claims to be focusing on the pragmatic and possible, by the end of the book, he has too often shared observations without suggestions, theory without implementation, strategy without tactics.

I wanted to rate this book a full five stars (because it is beautif ...more

flag Like · see review

Feb 13, 2009 Dusty rated it liked it · review of another edition

Shelves: read-in-2009

Given the downward trajectory of the current United States economy, this book, which treats heavily the responsibility of the "nation-state" for the care of its poor and employed, may well be more relevant in 2009 than it was when it was first published in 1996. The book is a short one -- just under 150 pages -- but it is a nevertheless complete description of what Galbraith, an economics professor, considers the obligations of a "good" society. In that, the book is something of an economist's m ...more

flag Like · see review

Sep 11, 2013 Annii rated it really liked it · review of another edition

Shelves: politics-current-events, economics

This was a very interesting book. Basically Galbraith argues that for a truly good society to take over in America, a truer expression of democracy is needed - a democracy in which the poor, lifted up by a social safety net and educated well enough to encourage democratic participation, are impossibke to silence.

This is definitely a liberal vision but not an extreme or far left one. It urges the reader to cast aside political dogma and actually LOOK at the issues in question. it would be truly n ...more

flag Like · see review

May 24, 2007 kate rated it liked it

I would have never imagined myself reading a book on economics for entertainment, let alone liking one as much as I did this one. I will be rereading it in the future to absorb more.

for instance, did you know that "balanced budget initiatives" are a terrible idea? if you read this book, you will be a better voter and a better citizen. aside from how onerous that sounds, it's an enjoyable read.

I admit, when I first picked it up, I was unaware that economists could be considered liberals. Those r ...more

flag Like · see review

Jul 10, 2016 Barry rated it really liked it · review of another edition

A great reminder of the ideals of Liberal Democracy but also very thought provoking in terms of global and social issues that remain relevant today. The book is written at a populist level and meant to be accessible to the majority. It is a great primer for further study on topics like the Military Industrial Complex, mass migration, the environment, and economic equality.

flag Like · see review

Jan 12, 2012 Kelly rated it liked it

Shelves: personal

Written after the Republican takeover of Congress in the mid 1990s, Galbraith discusses what a "good society" should be.

Most of his political, economic, and sociological arguments stand up well against today's current events. The only major exception to that is a section on wars and reasons for wars in the late 20th century.

flag Like · see review

Apr 17, 2008 Scott rated it it was amazing

Shelves: political, non-fiction, economics

More of the same from Galbraith. It's so bad it's good.

flag Like · see review

Jan 26, 2009 Nina rated it really liked it

Finding a lot to think about, particularly in light of the current economic mess. Makes it interesting but slow reading.

flag Like · see review

Nov 28, 2010 Matthew Wilson rated it really liked it

Education & the importance of voting are stressed.

flag Like · see review

Sep 16, 2015 B. rated it it was ok

Shelves: stopped-reading

Had to stop. Incredibly boring compared to some of his other works. Too little of Galbraith's characteristic subtle humor and just-right brevity to make an economics book like this bearable.

flag Like · see review

Dec 08, 2007 Daniel rated it it was amazing

Another one that I loved reading at the time but many of the ideals were found to be wrong.

flag Like · see review

Jul 27, 2014 Tracy Gwendolyn rated it it was amazing

Shelves: favorites

So good, so relevant, so concise.

flag Like · see review

Jul 07, 2015 Mckinley rated it really liked it

Shelves: non-fiction, economy

A good book is one that engages the reader, challenging perspectives and presenting ideas to think on. This short book does that.

See: Small Is Beautiful: Economics as if People Mattered by Schmaker

flag Like · see review

Katherine rated it it was amazing
Mar 18, 2008

Tj Phillips rated it really liked it
Jun 28, 2013

Christopher Duva rated it it was amazing
Dec 02, 2016

Nicholas rated it liked it
Jan 13, 2011

Ryan rated it liked it
Jul 16, 2018

Peter Mcloughlin rated it really liked it
Jan 16, 2013

Milan Urošević rated it it was ok
Aug 30, 2013

Scott Campbell rated it really liked it
Nov 16, 2014

Charles Rosentel rated it liked it
Jun 18, 2012

« previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 next »

new topic
Discuss This Book

There are no discussion topics on this book yet. Be the first to start one »

Recommend It | Stats | Recent Status Updates

Readers Also Enjoyed

Genres

Economics

24 users

Nonfiction

10 users

Politics

6 users

Philosophy

4 users

Writing > Essays

3 users

Sociology

3 users

See top shelves…

About John Kenneth Galbraith

John Kenneth Galbraith

216 followers

John Kenneth Galbraith was a Canadian-American economist. He was a Keynesian and an institutionalist, a leading proponent of 20th-century American liberalism and democratic socialism. His books on economic topics were bestsellers in the 1950s and 1960s. A prolific author, he produced four dozen books & over a 1000 articles on many subjects. Among his most famous works was his economics trilogy ...more