What do you think?
Rate this book
The world economy since the wars: a personal view
A comprehensive look at the world economy since World War I. Galbraith traces economic development from the Russian Revolution, Great Depression, and Roosevelt's New Deal, through to the end of colonialism and the emergent Third World, Reagan and Thatcher, and the new Economic Global Village.
273 pages, Paperback
First published July 11, 1994
About the author
John Kenneth Galbraith
217 books519 followersJohn 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: American Capitalism (1952), The Affluent Society (1958) & The New Industrial State (1967). He taught at Harvard University for many years. He was active in politics, serving in the administrations of Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, John Kennedy, and Lyndon Johnson. He served as US Ambassador to India under John F. Kennedy.
He received the Presidential Medal of Freedom twice: one in 1946 from President Truman, and another in 2000 from President Clinton. He was also awarded the Order of Canada in 1997, and in 2001, the Padma Vibhushan, India's second highest civilian award, for strengthening ties between India and the USA.
He received the Presidential Medal of Freedom twice: one in 1946 from President Truman, and another in 2000 from President Clinton. He was also awarded the Order of Canada in 1997, and in 2001, the Padma Vibhushan, India's second highest civilian award, for strengthening ties between India and the USA.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews
September 12, 2017
Why isn't all economics this clearly written? I actually understood all of it, and was genuinely interested. I'm not sure that I'd call it "comprehensive", as the blurb states - it's more an overview, and the 260 odd pages of large type doesn't go into much fine detail but it does give a wide-view context of how economics was perceived and performed over the better part of the twentieth century, including the impact that the two world wars had on subsequent development. Extremely well-written, and absolutely accessible to laypeople.
Read
May 7, 2020I loved and hated this book. It’s written by an economist loved by the left and summarises most of his main thoughts on everything. There is stuff that I agreed with, his highlighting in equality, both within and between countries. HIs brilliant insights on how leisure is encouraged among the rich and discouraged among the poor. His analysis of the war economies of the US and UK, as he was in the heart of the US administration working on price controls, are better than anything else I’ve read. It’s also good on the new Deal, he was there at the time, he loved it, but even he thinks it was WW2 and not the New deal that got the economy out of depression.
But what is more interesting is what he misses. He mentions housing bubble and stock market bubble of the 1980s and says it will all figure itself out in time, no real problem, capitalism all ok there. But it’s still not. Also he doesn’t mention the environment, at all. His whole perspective of what are possible or feasible are entirely centred on his own judgements, and that of his hero, Keynes. Plus a few American presidents he really likes. If anything, this is my main beef with this book. I found his sweeping statements on the foundations of Capitalism so problematic, his sweeping generalisation about empire not being that important, as deeply problematic. His failure to see any other perspectives than those of some white economists in the West, that there are even no other views.
He talks about the peace in the West so much, I couldn’t figure out why he couldn’t mention some of our foreign policy that was not peaceful. Then realised after, perhaps he didn’t know? Many of the worse abuses we are only finding out about now. Perhaps that is why.
Oh, and book is very well written, almost unusually so for economics. Can't rank it, as some bit I thought were 5 others so bad, so I could give it 3 but that isn't quite right. A useful read, particularly for New Deal fans.
My fav quote:
"There is no more evident alternative to poverty than an income. Nothing, on the other hand, is so firmly accepted by most Americans as the damaging effect of money on the poor. We are at our most righteously compassionate in our concern for what unearned income will do to the unfortunate. And we perceive a practical danger as well as a moral one: the poor may prefer money from public sources to work, and that will cultivate a mood of dependence that will strike at the vital heart of the economic system.
This danger is seen as peculiar to the underprivileged; for the affluent and the Erich, idleness, called leisure, is not similarly deplored. On the contrary, the society is enhanced by having a leisure class. Those who are accomplished in the enjoyment of leisure are admired, not condemned; they have learned how to live the good life. They contribute as patrons to the artistic or literary distinction of the nation; they set examples of style and personal behaviour, which are praised, even celebrated, for novelty, variety and extravagance.No one, or not many, criticise their indulgence.
The position of the poor is very different. Here, as noted, unearned income is thought both morally and social damaging, and so especially is the idleness that it may allow. This income and idleness are not forgiven even if it is clear there is no employment available as an alternative. Wha tis praised ro the affluent is severely condemned for the poor.” P199
But what is more interesting is what he misses. He mentions housing bubble and stock market bubble of the 1980s and says it will all figure itself out in time, no real problem, capitalism all ok there. But it’s still not. Also he doesn’t mention the environment, at all. His whole perspective of what are possible or feasible are entirely centred on his own judgements, and that of his hero, Keynes. Plus a few American presidents he really likes. If anything, this is my main beef with this book. I found his sweeping statements on the foundations of Capitalism so problematic, his sweeping generalisation about empire not being that important, as deeply problematic. His failure to see any other perspectives than those of some white economists in the West, that there are even no other views.
He talks about the peace in the West so much, I couldn’t figure out why he couldn’t mention some of our foreign policy that was not peaceful. Then realised after, perhaps he didn’t know? Many of the worse abuses we are only finding out about now. Perhaps that is why.
Oh, and book is very well written, almost unusually so for economics. Can't rank it, as some bit I thought were 5 others so bad, so I could give it 3 but that isn't quite right. A useful read, particularly for New Deal fans.
My fav quote:
"There is no more evident alternative to poverty than an income. Nothing, on the other hand, is so firmly accepted by most Americans as the damaging effect of money on the poor. We are at our most righteously compassionate in our concern for what unearned income will do to the unfortunate. And we perceive a practical danger as well as a moral one: the poor may prefer money from public sources to work, and that will cultivate a mood of dependence that will strike at the vital heart of the economic system.
This danger is seen as peculiar to the underprivileged; for the affluent and the Erich, idleness, called leisure, is not similarly deplored. On the contrary, the society is enhanced by having a leisure class. Those who are accomplished in the enjoyment of leisure are admired, not condemned; they have learned how to live the good life. They contribute as patrons to the artistic or literary distinction of the nation; they set examples of style and personal behaviour, which are praised, even celebrated, for novelty, variety and extravagance.No one, or not many, criticise their indulgence.
The position of the poor is very different. Here, as noted, unearned income is thought both morally and social damaging, and so especially is the idleness that it may allow. This income and idleness are not forgiven even if it is clear there is no employment available as an alternative. Wha tis praised ro the affluent is severely condemned for the poor.” P199
January 17, 2020
The phrase 'pompous windbag' springs to mind. A fair few self-congratulatory anecdotes. Also replace 'World' in the title with 'US', as ~80% of this book is about the USA. However, he makes enough decent points between the sometimes incredibly obtuse sentences to salvage the book.
*NOT* a book for beginners to economics; there is a lot of jargon (e.g., junk bonds, commodities) with no explanation.
*NOT* a book for beginners to economics; there is a lot of jargon (e.g., junk bonds, commodities) with no explanation.
May 12, 2009
An easy and essential read at this time of world recession. The book was published in 1994 and is so topical it seems Galbraith is writing about the present world economic situation.
January 4, 2008
Essential reading. Galbraith is a genius--even though I'm fundamentally opposed to his views.
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews