PUBLICATIONS
The Independent Review(Quarterly Journal)
Policy Reports
The Lighthouse(Email Newsletter)
Commentary Articles
News Releases
Audio and Visual
The Independent(Quarterly Newsletter)
Research Articles
Working Papers
Course Adoption
Your participation will advance liberty. Join us as an Independent
HowMuchIsEnough?MoneyandtheGoodLifeByRobert
Institute member.
The Independent Institute
Oakland, CA 94621-1428
510-632- Phone
510-568-6040 Fax
Interested in working with us? for more information.
SkidelskyandEdwardSkidelskyNewYork:OtherPress,20
12.$9.99(Kindle),$16.47(Hardcover)Pp.x,243.Step
henA.SchukerUniversityofVirginiaThis book reviewappeared in theSpring 2013 issue of The
IndependentReview
RobertSkidelskyis therenowned authorof an admiring multivolume biographyof John Maynard Keynes; hissonEdwardis a moral philos
opher.Together in HowMuch Is Enough? they seek to definetheprerequisites of “the good life” andto explain whythecapitalist systemof advanc
ed industrial statesmilitatesagainst itsachievement.Drawing heavily on Aristotlebutprovidingalso alearned surveyof twomillenniaof ethical
thought, they propose alist of indispensable basic goods that every rational individual requires.Those goods include healthandvitality,tho
ughnotnecessarily longevity; respect from one’s fellows, which mayimply personal achievement;ties of affectionandfriendship; harmony with
nature; security from major economic or socialupheaval;autonomy to designa life of one’s choosing;andsufficient leisure to undertakeactivi
ty foritsownsake ratherthan because it generatesincome. Abeneficent state cancreatethematerial conditions in which thebasic goods areproduc
ed,butthegoods themselves arenotprimarilyeconomic.Although peoplein middleincomecountriestend to have more life satisfactionthan those in
poor countries, wealthabove a certain level does notcorrelatein anystraightforwardwaywith happiness, however onedefines that elusive
concept. In fact, theSkidelskys argue,thequest foreconomic growthunder capitalism creates an insatiable demandforsuperfluous material goods
that advertising induces peopleto want in place of those they need. This systemis morally repugnant: it promotes greed,envy, andavarice;
it offends oursense of justice; andit leads us away from thegood life.
TheSkidelskys take as their starting point John Maynard Keynes
’s famous1930 essay “EconomicPossibilities forOurGrandchildren.”Keynespointed outthat livingstandardsin developedcountrieshadincreasedfourfo
ld since 1700. At theprojectedgrowthrate, they would multiply another eight times over thenext century. At that point,thedistributiveconfli
ctsbetween classes andnations will end. No longerfeeling thepressure of economic necessityexceptto arrange thejust distributionof resour
cesandavoid technological unemployment, hiscompatriots will be able to reducetheworking dayto three hours anddevotethemselves to thecreati
ve useof leisure andthedeeperproblems of life.
This jeu d’espritreveals agreat deal about Keynes’s fundamental attitude towardcapitalism. He
hadlittlefaith in Adam Smith’s visionthat thecommongood emerges through theworkings of individual self-interest in a competitive market
place.True, thefree marketfosters economic growth, butgrowthin Keynes’s view does notalwaysequatewith progress.Meanwhile, capitalism enc
ourages mankind’sworst instincts: acquisition without limits, striving without apoint.Keynesconsidered avarice avice, theexaction of usury
a particular offense of theJews, andthelove of money a semi-criminal andsemi-pathologicalmorbidity. No wonderhe later proposed in The Gen
eral Theory that thestate shouldguide thepropensity to consume through taxation andthesocialization of investment—noteliminating theprivate
sector, butreducing it to itsjust proportions.This approach reflects thedeeplyheld preferences of thesegment of theliberal leisure class
andliterati to which Keynesbelonged—preferences that theSkidelskys appearto share.In theeraof bliss a century hence,such distortions of mor
al valueswill seem counterproductive.Keynesbelieved that peoplewhorenouncedinsatiable consumption shouldbe able to getalong on $66,000 ann
ually in current terms (a GordonSquaretownhouse, acountry home, andEton schoolfees presumably notincluded).
Eighty-oddyears after Key
neswrote,average incomein developedcountrieshasgrown preciselyas he predicted. Yearlyworking hours have fallensomewhat,butfarless than he
anticipated.Americansstill labor almost1,800 hours,andtheRussians,with lesserefficiency, around2,000.Only thewelfare statesof “Old” Europehav
e reduced average hours at work to less than 1,400 perannum.Moreover,therefined leisure class of Keynes’s day, which drew incomefrom
land andConsolbonds,haslargely disappeared.Today,peopleat thetopof theincomepyramid tend to be harried professionals selling their hard-
earnedexpertise, andthey putin a longerwork week than those at thebottom. Whyhasthethree-hour dayof Keynes’s utopiafailedto arrive?
A numberof economists beforetheSkidelskys have tackled this problem, andthey give variedexplanations. (See Lorenzo PecchiandGustavo
Piga, eds., Revisiting Keynes: Economic Possibilities for Our Grandchildren [Cambridge, Mass.:MITPress,2008]). Keynes, they say, underestimated thepleasu
re andsense of achievement involved in skilled work, particularlybecause technologicallyadvanced societiesprovide more opportunity forcreati
ve andstimulating tasks than traditional ones. He also underrated theimportance of innovation andtheproduct cycle in creating nonpathologi
calnewconsumption demands. Advanced medical care, labor-savingdevices, andqualitative improvementsin communication andtransportation do notsim
plyallow peopleto engagein thepurposeless Veblenitedisplay that Keynesdeprecated; they do (orat least can) improve thequality of life for
all. Moreover,livingthrough England’sdepressedeconomy in the1920s,where operatives in theoldstapleindustries often faced technological une
mployment, Keynescould readily imagine somethinglike John StuartMill’sstationary state,in which economic advance in theprivate sectorwou
nd down andthecitizenryobtained gratification through moral improvement andharmony with nature. No wonderKeynesthought it a distortion
of judgment to postpone current pleasuresforthesake of futuresatisfaction. Peoplelivingin a dynamic, high-growthsociety might rationally
elect differenttrade-offs.
TheSkidelskys, at anyrate, push Keynes’s argument to itslogical conclusion. Western civilization, they conten
d, made aFaustian bargain with thedemonsof avarice andusury.They agree with Keynesthat, lacking an opportunity formoney making, themost
dangeroushuman proclivitiesmight have found an outletin cruelty andthepursuit of personal power.Havingliftedmanoutof poverty, however, thedem
onswere supposed to depart. Alas, they have notdone so.In Goethe’s renditionof theFaust legend, he wholives to strivecanearn redemption.
In theSkidelskys’ more sinister version, we have achieved abundancethrough economic growth, butthehabitsbred into us by capitalism make
enjoymentof ourgood fortune impossible.
Most labor,they claim,remains “stupefying.” Peoplework outof fear or insecurity, andconsumeri
sm offers“a sopto workers deprived of theleisure they crave.” By monetizing theeconomy, capitalism broadens statuscompetition andrenders
money themeasure of allthings. Moral constraints vanish. No matterhowmany “useless andmind-numbing” thingspeopleacquire, they alwayswant
more (ifnotmaterial baubles, then positional goods in limited supply, such as seaside cottages andadmissionto certain clubs). Advertisi
ng,theorganizedcreation of dissatisfaction, keeps this pernicious systemgoing.TheSkidelskys also attachmuch blame to thediscipline of eco
nomics. Economicsprivileges theoptimum useof resourcesor maximizationof theutility function,butit fails to instruct us on theuses of abunda
nce. Thedevelopment of national incomestatistics focuses ourthinking on efficiency andmaximum outputat theexpense of highervalues.
In
short,themarketeconomy crowdsoutbasic goods.This conclusion would have astonished Adam Smith,whoas a follower of thePhysiocrats deplored
thelack of productivityby therich as much as theindisciplineof thepoor. TheSkidelskys seethemselves also as moral reformers, although in
theopposite directionfrom Smith.They remainproperly agnostic on thequestion whether theenvironment is deteriorating andmankind will eventu
ally deplete theplanet’s finiteresources. However thescientific evidence turns out, they insist, thefurther pursuit of wealthis “madne
ss”and“inherently undesirable.”
In theSkidelskys’ cosmology, thestate standsas theembodiment of thecommongood. Keynes’s demandthat thesta
te maintain enoughaggregatedemandto make full useof resourcesconstituted at bottoman “ethical project.”TheNewLiberals andsocialdemocratscombin
ed in thethirty-five years after World WarII to provide full employment, redistribution of wealth, women’s rights, advances in health,
andallmannerof other socialservices.Keynesianeconomicscreated theageof abundance. Unfortunately, themoral reformersgraduallylost outto critic
s who, ignoring theprecepts of thegood life, claimed that lesseningtheincentives to work andsave created inefficiencies.When Margaret
Thatcher andRonaldReagancame to power,capitalism entered its“degenerative phase.” Keynes’s notionof satiety lost itsappeal, andthedistri
butionof incomebecameever more skewedin favor of the“predatory plutocracy.”
In order to counter those trends, theSkidelskys offer a com
prehensive program of what they describe as “non-coercive paternalism.” Theprovidentialstate canemployeconomic persuasion through taxinc
entives andpenaltiesto encouragecitizens to lead thegood life. Thestate must first define“reasonable standardsof comfort” andredistributeres
ourcesto achieve it.It then must make an “ethical judgment”about what sort of goods theprivate marketshouldbe allowed to supply. No one
, forexample, “needs” tobacco or a secondcar. Progressive consumption taxes canreduceconspicuous consumption to thelevel that the“communit
y” finds desirable. Rentiers will have no choicebutto save andinvesttheir remainingincome. Thestate canemploytheresourcesthus released for
“inconspicuous consumption”—betterairquality andparkland,enforced vacation andleisure time, even freedom from traffic congestion. Capita
l taxation,meanwhile, will reducesocialdiscontent. Thestate candiscourage advertising by endingbusiness write-offs forit,andit candelicatel
y reshape theeconomy through targeted imposts on specific business sectors. Because much financialinnovation is “sociallyuseless,”theban
king sectorseems a good place to start.Under theSkidelskys’ model,international trade finance becomes in anyevent superfluous.Holding tha
t inefficient domestic manufacturing remains preferable to factory closings,they propose to bancompetitive imports from low-wage cou
ntriesandto substitute unilateral grants-in-aidon Christianprinciples instead.
On thepositive side, theSkidelskys suggest that thesta
te provide acapital endowmentor basic incomeso that each citizen canfreelydecidewhether to work or not. Such aschemeopens thedoor to fur
ther socialengineering.Theauthors approve of expenditure on education, butthey want thestate to educate broadly forcultivated leisure
ratherthan to transmit marketable skills.
Thenineteenth-century romantic poets took acomparably dimview of industrialism anditssocial
consequences. “Getting andspending,” wrote Wordsworth, “welaywaste ourpowers.” YettheSkidelskys addan inventivesocialdemocratic twist to the
ir ownversion of dystopia.If theobjectis to fashion an iron cage of disincentives foreconomic growth, their program certainlywill do the
job. Lady Thatcher apparently does notattendtheHouse of Lords anymore. Nevertheless, onecannothelp wonderingwhether Baron Skidelsky, as
he bestridesthePalaceof Westminster,ever recalls what shesaid about thetrouble with socialism: eventually yourunoutof other people’s mon
ey.
BuyHowMuch Is Enough? Money and the Good Lifeat Amazon.com for$9.99 (Kindle)
BuyHowMuch Is Enough? Money and the Good Lifeat Amazon.co
m for$16.47(Hardcover)
Volume 17 Number 4Spring 2013
Articles in This Issue
Independent Review Issues
Articles by Subject
Independent Review Articles on Related Subjects
