How much is enough book summary

Robert Skidelsky and Edward Skidelsky. Whatever we select for our library has to excel in one or the other of these two core criteria:. We rate each piece of content on a scale of 1—10 with regard to these two core criteria. Our rating helps you sort the titles on your reading list from solid 5 to brilliant Here's what the ratings mean:.

Often an instant classic and must-read for everyone. For instance, it may offer decent advice in some areas while being repetitive or unremarkable in others. We look at every kind of content that may matter to our audience: books, but also articles, reports, videos and podcasts.

What we say here about books applies to all formats we cover. While the rating tells you how good a book is according to our two core criteria, it says nothing about its particular defining features. His modern equivalent would have to walk six hours through crowded traffic. Should we abolish the modern city, then? With current population densities, such a policy would only succeed in transforming the country into a vast suburb.

But we should strive to ensure that cities are not entirely alienated from their rural surroundings. For millennia, local food markets served as the main point of contact between town and country. These are now largely gone, and with them all sense of place and season.

The modern British foodie can tickle his jaded palate with Japanese tempura, Sichuan chili, Moroccan couscous and a host of other pickings from the global storehouse, all equally detached from any context of meaning. Alienation from nature is just one of the unpriced costs of consumer choice. This is a necessarily inadequate translation of the ancient Greek philia , a term encompassing all robust, affectionate relationships.

As mentioned above, this might seem to blur a crucial distinction between family relations, which are unchosen, and friendships in the strict sense, which are elective. But examined closely, the distinction is not so clear-cut. All family relationships have an elective element—beyond a certain point, one has to work at being a mother or a sister—and all deep non-family relationships have a binding force, often expressed by the extension to them of family terms: blood-brother, mother superior and so forth.

Family and other personal relations vary in structure and importance from culture to culture, but some such relations are clearly essential to any conceivable version of the good life. Our concern has to do with reification.

My friendship with Paul is clearly a relation between me and Paul; it does not float above us, ghost-like, with interests and rights all of its own. If we could learn to think of communities in this fashion, as networks of friends, one notorious source of political oppression would be removed. Friendship was taken seriously in the ancient world. Aristotle, in his classic discussion of the subject, distinguishes friendship proper from utility-friendship based on a coincidence of interests and pleasure-friendship based on shared amusements.

It is a relationship possible only between people of virtue, who love one another for what they are, not for what they can offer. Friendship is both personal and political. It binds together members of a family and, by extension, citizens of a polis. We are used to thinking of the state as an alliance of self-interested individuals, and of friendship as a purely private relationship, of no political significance. Writing a hundred and fifty years before Aristotle, on the other side of the world, Confucius nonetheless shared his belief in the political importance of personal relationships.

And whereas Aristotle subsumes the family under the broader heading of philia , the Chinese philosopher singles it out for special commendation.

Friendship is not primarily an economic good, but it has economic prerequisites. Social trust does not flourish in times of famine. And an economy marked by continual restructuring, downsizing and outsourcing will not be hospitable to deep, long-lasting relationships. Still, they are a predictable feature of a culture that prizes autonomy and mobility above almost all else.

In contemporary parlance, leisure is synonymous with relaxation and rest. But there is another, older conception of leisure, according to which it is not just time off work but a special form of activity in its own right. Leisure in this sense is that which we do for its own sake, not as a means to something else. Leisure in our sense has no very close connection to leisure as it is generally understood.

Paid work could be leisure in our sense if undertaken not primarily as a means to money but for its own sake. Many writers would carry on writing even if they earned nothing for it, or could earn more doing something else. Watching television and getting drunk are actions only in the minimal sense that everything we do is an action. Leisure in our sense is distinguished not by lack of seriousness or strenuousness but by absence of external compulsion.

The importance of leisure has been recognized by civilizations across the world. The three great Abrahamic religions all set aside a weekly Sabbath or day of rest, though this is not quite leisure in our sense, being primarily for the purpose of worship, not free activity.

Deprived by centuries of peace of its traditional occupations, the feudal aristocracy turned instead to the arts of life, transforming everyday activities like bathing and tea drinking into exquisite ceremonies. Why is leisure a basic good? The reason is clear: a life without leisure, where everything is done for the sake of something else, is vain indeed.

It is a life spent always in preparation, never in actual living. Leisure is the wellspring of higher thought and culture, for it is only when emancipated from the pressure of need that we really look at the world, ponder it in its distinct character and outline.

The ancient Greek for leisure, schole , hints at this connection. Such a conception of leisure may seem narrowly highbrow, but that is not the intention. What are the economic conditions of leisure? First of all, a reduction of toil , a category that includes not just paid work but all necessary activity, including commuting and housework, and excludes paid work undertaken primarily for its own sake, such as that of the devoted writer or artisan. It is ironic, if unsurprising, that the old arts of life—conversation, dancing, music-making—are atrophying just when we have most need of them.

An economy geared to maximizing marketable output will tend to produce manufactured rather than spontaneous forms of leisure. If the first goal of the individual is to realize the good life for himself, the first duty of the state is to realize, insofar as lies within its power, the good life for all citizens. This principle of justice is founded on the good of mutual respect, as discussed above. Health and friendship lie largely in the lap of fate.

Personality, respect and leisure depend partly on individual agency. Still, the state has an important and legitimate role in creating the material conditions under which these and other goods can flourish. Such conditions include not just a certain overall level of national wealth but its just distribution, its wise public expenditure and much more besides. The rest lies in the hands of individuals and civil institutions.

To adapt a phrase of Keynes, the state is the trustee not of civilization but of the possibility of civilization. Close Menu Residencies. Cultivating Conscious Community Residency — Jan The Primacy of Being. The Bergerac Hub. Sympoiesis Residencies — Being at home in troubled times. The Thenac Farmhouse. Contemplative Activism. Collective Wisdom in the West: Shadows of the Enlightenment. Compassionate Mental Health.

Blind Spots. Untitled Imaginary Society Forum. Real Estate Fund. Community Projects. Ontological Politics. Bergerac Build Festival The Art of Autobiography.

Get Stuff Done! Twitter Facebook Email. TODO — not that clearly defined by them … Friendship. This is a necessarily inadequate translation of the ancient Greek philia, a term encompassing all robust, affectionate relationships. Leisure is that which we do for its own sake, not as a means to something else. This contrasts with contemporary use where leisure is synonymous with relaxation and rest.

But leisure is not just time off work but a special form of activity in its own right. Capitalism is a system that encourages people to never be satisfied with what they have. You need to buy more stuff and become wealthier so that other people will like you.

Email address:. Big Idea 2: Contemporary capitalistic societies are stricken by an undying desire to acquire more than we have. What's special about Shortform: The world's highest quality book guides - we discuss the book's main ideas, with expert analysis and commentary expanding will beyond the book Interactive exercises that teach you to apply what you've learned Discussion communities - get the best advice from other readers Sound like what you've been looking for?

Get the world's best book guides now. How Much Is Enough? Book Summary, by Richard K. Share this: Twitter Facebook. Enjoy this summary? There can always be more, maybe even more than enough. Nov 23, Nick Klagge rated it really liked it Shelves: economics. This book would seem right up my alley, and in most ways, it was.

It is written by two philosophers, so it didn't suffer from the usual problems I find with popular-consumption econ books though perhaps a philosopher reading it would find an analogous set of problems!

Skidelsky pere is the author of the preeminent biography of Keynes, and the motivation for the book is a well-known essay by Keynes in which he speculated on the economic future. Based on his projections of the growth of income, This book would seem right up my alley, and in most ways, it was.

Based on his projections of the growth of income, he figured that by around now, people in developed countries would only need to work about 10 hours per week to meet their needs. Famously, his growth projections were remarkably accurate, but his conclusion was not. Given increasing incomes, people on the whole have chosen to work the same amount or more and consume more rather than work less and consume the same. The authors' argument is an interesting one, which has much in common with Alasdair MacIntyre's argument in "After Virtue" which the authors note.

In traditional societies, including ancient Greece, there was a conception of "the good life" as a fairly objective thing to be aimed at, consisting in a finite set of reasonably well-defined things, chief among these, time for philosophical contemplation and public service.

I am not sure how much of a caricature this is. My sense is that people may have disagreed about the specific constituents of the good life, but that the existence of such a thing was not especially in question.

One problem with this concept was that, due to the structure of these traditional societies, "the good life" was off-limits to most people. Eventually, the forces of capitalism came forth to offer what the Skidelskys very elegantly characterize as a "Faustian bargain": by unleashing self-interest and acquisitive impulses from the bounds of tradition, it spurs economic development toward the point where most people will have the resources needed for a basic "good life"; yet by unleashing these forces, the capitalist economy also erodes away the mental and spiritual basis of the enjoyment of the good life.

The competitive market can produce "enough" for everyone, but as competition comes to play a dominant role, our concept of "enough" withers away. So far, so good. The authors take some interesting digressions into conceptions of the good life in various Eastern traditions, and into the modern field of happiness research. They are quite leery of this field, for interesting reasons. They put forward their own subjective list of the elements of the good life: things that are hard to argue with, such as health, respect, relationships, etc.

This list didn't seem very gripping to me, but also seemed fairly reasonable. What really bugged me, though, was their concluding essays at possible government policies to encourage people to cultivate the good life.

After an entire book of discussing these issues, they focus on a couple of specific policies: a universal basic income, where the state would provide an unconditional cash grant to each citizen, and a consumption tax similar to the European VAT's, although oddly they do not discuss these.

The economic basis of each of these policy proposals is clear: given a basic income, people will be more free to devote their time to fulfilling pursuits; a tax on consumption will incentivize people to substitute away from consumption for example, to more leisure time. And yet It was astonishing to me that they did not focus their policy proposals more on direct government provision of basic goods, as with a single-payer healthcare system. The fungibility of things like UBI would seem to make them relatively easy for competitive, capitalist values to withstand.

I am in agreement with the authors on many points, but am not sure where I stand on appropriate responses beyond an individual or household level. It may be overly pessimistic to say that nothing can be done beyond this level. For example, I think that changes to policies around parental leave, or changes to structures that create "cliff effects" between full- and part-time work could be beneficial.

But it seems somewhat wrong-headed to me to envision the state being able to "nudge" people toward the good life or even being capable of maintaining any coherent conception thereof. If changes in attitudes are going to come, I think that they are much more likely to take root based on the actions of smaller units, from families to churches to online communities to individual companies.

I think conceptions of the good life are much more likely to be driven by the availability of positive examples than by policy innovations. Over this past weekend, Elise discovered a blog that I read, called "Mr. Money Mustache," and has really been enjoying it.

I have always appreciated the anarchist line not sure of the exact attribution that a new society must be built "in the shell of the old. Sep 20, Dpdwyer rated it really liked it Shelves: non-ficton. This fine, short book asks an excellent question. The father-son authors are, respectively, professors of economics and a philosophy.

The book grew out of a discussion of a little known essay by economics heavyweight John Maynard Keynes, who predicted that if then current trends in technological progress and economic growth held steady, in years we all would have everything we need and we would be working three hours a week.

The two trends have exceeded his expectations, so what has hap This fine, short book asks an excellent question. The two trends have exceeded his expectations, so what has happened? They discuss the insatiability of our wants conditioned by modern advertising and our fierce competition for status with our neighbors. Reviewing formulations of the good life going back as far as Aristotle, they arrive at seven basic elements of the good life: health, security, respect, personality, harmony with nature, friendship, and leisure.

For me, the chapter that discusses these elements in detail is the best in the book. Looking back over my life at the times when I was less happy I can see that one or more of the elements was impoverished or lacking. To have the good things of life--health, respect, friendship, leisure--is to have reason to be happy.

To be happy without these things is to be in the grip of a delusion: the delusion that life is going well when it is not. Such items must always be expensive relative to the average level, else they cannot serve their differentiating function; thus incomes are forced up competitively in order to acquire them.

Feb 01, Rob rated it it was ok. Hint: It's around the s. Finally, the mask slips. We doubt it. How much money do you need to lead a good life? What is the good life anyway? In their book How Much Is Enough? Robert and Edward Skidelsky try to get to the bottom of these and related questions. In the great economist Keynes said that by most people would work only 15 hours a week, devoting the rest of their time to leisure. Obviously he was mistaken in his assumption, and the authors show why and how he went wrong with his idea.

There are many books dealing with economy and money, our How much money do you need to lead a good life? There are many books dealing with economy and money, our desires and needs. Some grant a rather cursory glance at our needs and wants while others present an intricate picture of the mechanisms involved. This book is most definitely one of the latter, so don't expect a light and entertaining read on how we spend too much on stuff we don't really need.

This one's deep, needs to sink in, get thoroughly digested! This concise study literally has it all - from economic history to philosophy the reader can indulge in a many-layered work which ultimately makes one rethink our own perceptions of work, time and money. Might Keynes be proven right after all one day?

Are the structural solutions offered feasible? Could society establish a basis for the good life we strive for? There are no ultimate answers to be found here, yet plenty of food for thought.

In short: A thought-provoking analysis showcasing the economic insatiability of our society! Oct 05, David Msomba rated it liked it Shelves: economics , philosophy , sociology. The beginning was a bit dull but things turned around toward the middle of book and from then,it got real interested. I real enjoyed chapters on the philosophy of good life and money,relationship between good life and GDP Happy Economic ,how to differentiate the search for happiness,pleasure and joy in life,basic elements of a good life and so many other things.

But I was also appalled by his biased view on climate change on The chapter "limit to growth",since this book came out on I'm sure w The beginning was a bit dull but things turned around toward the middle of book and from then,it got real interested. But I was also appalled by his biased view on climate change on The chapter "limit to growth",since this book came out on I'm sure we already had some solid evidence supporting climate change,so I don't know why the author made all these baseless claims "we still have very little evidence that human activities are contributing to climate change and global warming",sadly he was wrong throughout the chapter,but I still understood where he was coming from,he is not much of a climate change denier than person who is afraid of green movement and the sentiment relationship that some environmental people tend to have with nature Overall it's a great read,packed with some useful germs on how to be content on age of consumerism, flashiness and accumulation May 07, Laurent Franckx rated it liked it.

Over the last 4 decades, we have seen a long list of books questioning or even attacking the pursuit of economic growth. A few years ago, the celebrated biographer of Keynes, Robert Skidelsky, and his son Edward have joined forces to write " How Much is Enough?

The Over the last 4 decades, we have seen a long list of books questioning or even attacking the pursuit of economic growth. The central theme of the book is that pursuing economic growth has become an end in itself, and that this has led people away from what really matters, namely leading a "good life". This book stands out from the crowd of what I would call somewhat unfairly the "anti-growth" crowd for several reasons.

First of all, it certainly does not deny that a lot of countries on this planet need some decades of additional growth before their citizens will be able to lead a "good life".

In other words, the Skidelskies do explicitly acknowledge that there are material pre-conditions to the pursuit of non-material objectives. Second, the authors do not align the usual suspects in their arguments.

For instance, they clearly have little patience for the argument that economic growth does not lead to measurable changes in happiness once basic needs are satisfied. Although they do spend a lot of effort in arguing that there are fundamental measurement problems linked to the concept of happiness especially in the case of intercultural comparisons , the key of the argument is an ethical one: they think that the pursuit of happiness is just as flawed as an objective of public policy as economic growth.

We'll come back to this point later in this review. Similarly, they disagree with the environmental case against economic growth. They dismiss most of the environmentalists as fundamentalists, whose main agenda is not the improve the human condition at all.

Essentially, the argument is that 'deep' environmentalism is based on a flawed ethics that is in contradiction with everything we know about ecology. For instance, how can we pretend that we should give the same weight to the sufferings of all sentient beings, while real life in the wild is actually as close to Hobbes's original state of nature as one can get? Moreover and more controversially , they also question the anthropocentric approach to environmental policy that most economists espouse.

Here as well, the argument is two-pronged: they disagree with the argument that current generations should make large sacrifices for the future state of the enviroment; this argument is embedded in the mainstream economic argument that uncertainty regarding the preferences of future generations, and the expectation that they will be richer than we are, calls for a positive discount rate. Moreover, here as well, they disagree with the economic argument because it is embedded in a consequentialist ethics that most neoclassical economics espouses.

Third, and this point is directly related to the previous, the key argument the Skidelskies use against the pursuit of economic growth is indeed an ethical one. They contrast the philosophy of for instance Aristoteles with the 'Faustian bargain' that economics has struck since the writings of Mandeville and Smith: the idea that selfishness in economic matters may be flawed from a moralist's point of view, but that it gives strong incentives to people to put their labour and capital to the most productive uses, eventually enhancing welfare of society as a whole.

The Skidelskies argue that the general adoption of the "invisible hand" argument in favour of free-market economics has gradually undermined all ethical barriers that used to mitigate the ruthless pursuit of personal wealth in the past. This has lead to a quest for "growth for growth's sake". The directly observable consequences are especially in the US and the UK since the s growth of average incomes combined with a stagnation of median incomes and thus increasing inequality. More importantly, the Skidelskies argue that it has led to a complete neglect of the question what exactly are the components of a 'good life'.

The main symptom of this neglect is that increasing incomes have not led to increasing leisure as Keynes expected it would. This emphasis on the 'good life' as the final objective is really what distinguishes the book from most other treatises on the subject. The key to the Skidelskies's view is their disagreement with the consequentialism of modern economics, and especially of the utilitarian variant of it.

They dispute forcefully the idea that 'maximising utility' or happiness, for that matter should be the finality of policy, and, a fortiori, of our individual lives. They propose their own alternative view of the components of a "good life" mostly as the ancient Greeks would have understood it , and then give some suggestions for public policies that could promote the pursuit of such a good life.

Of course, it is not possible to give justice to a book of pages in such a short summary, but I think this captures the essential message. But what to think of the book and its central message? As is the case with most books that question mainstream economics, I am afraid that it is better in raising questions than in providing implementable solutions.

For instance, I think the book makes a relatively good case against consistent applications of consequentialist ethics in concrete cases. But this misses the whole point of why economists use consequentialist ethics in the first place. Economic policy is not about devising solutions for individual citizens. It is about creating a general framework to evaluate policies that will affect different groups of people differently.

A policy maker needs somehow a framework to analyse trade-offs. Consequentialism and utilitarianism, for all their faults, do provide such a framework. As the Skidelskies themselves acknowledge, policies can have a positive impact on some components of what constitutes a 'good life' for some people, and have a negative impact on the 'good life' of other people. But they do not really provide an indication of how one should proceed with such a trade-off. More importantly, although they forcefully argue that they are not paternalists, they mostly disregard the possibility that some people may actually disagree with their views on what constitutes a 'good life'.

In short, the book falls short of providing an implementable alternative to the existing normative framework used in economics. This is most salient in the last chapter, which proposes a framework for policies that would promote the "good live" rather than economic growth per se.

For instance, the authors argue that a tax on consumption would be an alternative to taxes on income that would not just redistribute from the rich to the poor as the rich obviously consume more than the poor , but would also stimulate other desirable behaviour, such as saving. However, very little attention is paid to the risk of evasion and tax competition between countries. This issue is just as real with consumption based taxes as with income taxation.