Enhanced descriptions from Syndetics:

A provocative and timely call for a moral approach to economics, drawing on philosophers, political theorists, writers, and economists from Aristotle to Marx to Keynes.

What constitutes the good life? What is the true value of money? Why do we work such long hours merely to acquire greater wealth? These are some of the questions that many asked themselves when the financial system crashed in 2008. This book tackles such questions head-on.
The authors begin with the great economist John Maynard Keynes. In 1930 Keynes predicted that, within a century, per capita income would steadily rise, people's basic needs would be met, and no one would have to work more than fifteen hours a week. Clearly, he was wrong: though income has increased as he envisioned, our wants have seemingly gone unsatisfied, and we continue to work long hours.
The Skidelskys explain why Keynes was mistaken. Then, arguing from the premise that economics is a moral science, they trace the concept of the good life from Aristotle to the present and show how our lives over the last half century have strayed from that ideal. Finally, they issue a call to think anew about what really matters in our lives and how to attain it.
How Much Is Enough? is that rarity, a work of deep intelligence and ethical commitment accessible to all readers. It will be lauded, debated, cited, and criticized. It will not be ignored.

Table of contents provided by Syndetics

• Preface (p. ix)
• List of Charts (p. xi)
• Introduction (p. 3)
• 1 Keynes's Mistake (p. 15)
• 2 The Faustian Bargain (p. 43)
• 3 The Uses of Wealth (p. 71)
• 4 The Mirage of Happiness (p. 96)
• 5 Limits to Growth: Natural or Moral? (p. 124)
• 6 Elements of the Good Life (p. 145)
• 7 Exits from the Rat Race (p. 180)
• Notes (p. 219)
• Index (p. 241)

Excerpt provided by Syndetics

Keynes was deeply ambivalent about capitalist civilization. It was a civilization that unleashed bad motives for the sake of good results. Morality had to be put in cold storage till abundance was achieved, for abundance would make possible a good life for all.    Keynes understood that capitalist civilization had, at some level of consciousness, undertaken to license motives previously condemned as "foul" for the sake of future reward. It had struck a bargain with the forces of darkness, in return for which it would secure what earlier ages could only dream of--a world beyond the toil and trouble, violence and injustice of life as it actually is. We have called this bargain "Faustian," in honor of the famous doctor who sold his soul to the devil in return for knowledge, pleasure, and power.    The story starts with the ancient dream of Utopia and then mutates into the historical project of creating a paradise on earth, which has gripped the western imagination for the last three hundred years, and in which the human race is still fitfully engaged. On the way, the idea of moral limits to human ambition, which underpinned all premodern conceptions of the good life, was lost, and dormant energies of creativity and destructiveness were set free in the hope that they would carry mankind to a pinnacle of achievement and mastery of the natural world. At various stages on this journey, the greatest thinkers of the age tried to envisage an end state, a point at which mankind could say "enough is enough," only to find that the machine it had created to carry them to this point was out of control, a Frankenstein's monster, which now programmed the game of progress according to its own insane logic. This is the story of how it happened--how we came to be ensnared by the dream of progress without purpose, riches without end.   Excerpted from How Much Is Enough: The Economics of the Good Life by Robert Skidelsky, Edward Skidelsky All rights reserved by the original copyright owners. Excerpts are provided for display purposes only and may not be reproduced, reprinted or distributed without the written permission of the publisher.

Reviews provided by Syndetics

Publishers Weekly Review

In the wake of the financial crisis of 2008 and a continued period of global economic unrest, the Skidelskys, a father-son team composed of University of Warwick emeritus professor of political economy Robert (Keynes: The Return of the Master) and Exeter University lecturer Edward (Ernst Cassirer: The Last Philosopher of Culture), tackle age-old questions regarding the relationship between wealth, happiness, and satisfaction in this enlightening read. While the book's scholarly tone and laborious construction may not appeal to the casual reader, the questions posed and the research and conclusions presented are timely, relevant, and thought provoking. The authors begin by disputing economist John Maynard Keynes's 1930 prediction that as per capita income rose and basic needs were met, leisure and free time would increase. In fact, they point out, in modern times, though our income has risen, we work harder than ever, have less leisure than in previous eras, and have less happiness and satisfaction in our lives. The authors turn to historical fiction, philosophy, and political theory, drawing on Faust, Marx's critique of capitalism, and Aristotle's uses of wealth. Their conclusion that concepts like respect, friendship, and community are more likely to contribute to satisfaction and overall happiness than wealth makes for a fascinating, if cerebral, read. Agent: Peter Matson, Sterling Lord Literistic. (June) (c) Copyright PWxyz, LLC. All rights reserved.

CHOICE Review

Robert Skidelsky (Univ. of Warwick, UK), biographer of Keynes (John Maynard Keynes, CH, May'02, 39-5300), and his son Edward Skidelsky (Exeter Univ., UK) pick up on Keynes's belief that, as economic growth reduced scarcity, people would work less, stabilize their consumption while improving its quality, and increase both the time and quality of their leisure. While the authors realize that people have not behaved as Keynes thought they would, they believe it is possible for people to do so. They set out not only to convince the reader that it is possible, but to make the case for doing so. In the process, they survey and criticize a variety of economic literature relevant to their quest, including the happiness literature, John Rawls, Amartya Sen's capabilities approach, environmentalism, Alasdair MacIntyre, and Catholic social thought. In the end, what they want, however, appears a lot like the arguments of mid-20th-century economists across the political spectrum: basic income, expenditure rather than income taxes, and reduction of advertising. The argument is concise without being pedantic, and is quite accessible to undergraduate students, which is perhaps its best audience. Summing Up: Recommended. Students, upper-division undergraduate and up, as well as general readers. R. B. Emmett James Madison College, Michigan State University

Kirkus Book Review

A provocative and articulate discourse on the dismal science and moral philosophy. Eminent economic historian Robert Skidelsky (Political Economy Emeritus/Univ. of Warwick; Keynes: The Return of the Master, 2009, etc.) and his philosopher son Edward (Moral and Political Philosophy/Exeter Univ.) recall when John Maynard Keynes predicted that, in his grandchildren's days, no one would need to work much more than a few hours a week to satisfy our shared human needs. As the great economist expected, production soared, but work increased as well. What happened to the dream of Keynes? Though he thought needs were finite, the sought-after good life expanded. Needs may be satisfied, but not wants or the insatiable desire for more. In seeking to find suitable goods for the blissful life, the authors conflate economic theory with philosophy. They cite Marx and Marcuse, Aristotle and Adam Smith, happiness economists and ecological economists, the dharma sutra and story of Faust. In sum, they posit certain requirements: health, security, respect, individuality, harmony with nature, friendship and leisure. Individually and as a society, we should value these, not perpetual growth. With a statement likely to attract notice, the Skidelskys write, "the capitalist system in our part of the world is entering its degenerative phase." As an alternative to avarice and excess, the authors propose "non-coercive paternalism," including basic income payments to all (as in Alaska), reduction of advertising (how else would we choose our presidents?), a graduated use tax and, possibly, some sumptuary laws. Not for libertarians or the Fox News crowd, but the authors deliver powerful, timely material for Wall Street occupiers, public intellectuals, policy wonks and op-ed columnists.]] Copyright Kirkus Reviews, used with permission.