JOHN KENNETH GALBRAITH 97 



successful conservative reaction to the social intervention of the New 

 Deal. In part, it was the resurgence of a notably over-simplified view 

 of economic life which seized on this moment to ascribe a magical 

 automatism to the price system (including the rate of interest) which, 

 as we are again gradually learning, it does not have. Euphemisms 

 have played a prominent part in this revolt. Many have found it more 

 agreeable to be in favor of liberty than against social responsibility. 

 But the result has been to rule out of discussion, or at least to dis- 

 criminate heavily against, measures which by their nature could be 

 accomplished only by according increased responsibilities to the state. 



Since consumption could not be discussed without raising the ques- 

 tion of an increased role for the state, it was not discussed. 



However, tradition also abetted this exclusion of consumption levels 

 from consideration. Economics is a subject in which old questions are 

 lovingly debated but new ones are regarded with misgiving. On the 

 whole it is a mark of stability and sound scholarship to concern one- 

 self with questions that were relevant in the world of Ricardo. In the 

 Ricardian world, to be literal about it, goods were indeed scarce. One 

 might talk, although without courting great popularity, about redis- 

 tributing wealth and income and thus curbing the luxurious consump- 

 tion of the classes. But the notion that people as a whole might have 

 more than a minimum — that there might be a restraint on the con- 

 sumption of the community as a whole — was unthinkable. In modern 

 times this has, of course, become thinkable. Goods are plentiful. De- 

 mand for them must be elaborately contrived. Those who create wants 

 rank among our most talented and highly paid citizens. Want creation 

 — advertising — is a ten billion dollar industry. But tradition remains 

 strongly against questioning or even thinking about wants. 



Finally, we are committed to a high level of consumption because, 

 whether we need the goods or not, we very much need the employ- 

 ment their production provides. I need not dwell on this. The point is 

 decidedly obvious at this writing in early 1958, We are not missing 

 the cars that Detroit is currently not producing. Nor are we missing 

 the steel that Pittsburgh and Gary are currently not making. The ab- 

 sence of these products is not causing any detectable suffering. But 

 there is much suffering and discomfort as the result of the failure of 

 these industries to employ as many men as in the recent past. We are 



