BOOKS
615
cians, since the point has no decisive bearing on his main argument. And
of course he is right in assuming, on quite nontheoretical common sense
grounds, that wants, and hence production, do become less urgent (in
some sense) the more amply the individual is supplied with goods.
Unfortunately, in his anxiety to cripple his imaginary opponent,
Galbraith at this point greatly overstates his own case. He argues that
a high proportion of production today is satisfying not "genuine'" or
spontaneous wants, such as the need for food or clothing or shelter, but
purely artificial wants-that is, wants which would not exist were they
not created, contrived, or stimulated by advertising and sales promotion.
Since they need to
be
thus contrived, it follows that they cannot be
at all urgent.
Now this seems to me a dangerous argument.
If
we were speaking
merely of longer tail fins on longer cars, or titivating fripperies and
novelties, then well and good. But there is surely more to it than that.
Almost all wants above the basic minimum of essential food, clothing
and shelter are in some way artificially stimulated-are they therefore
to
be
considered as of no significance?
Let us take some examples. The demand for a greater variety and
higher standards of food, clothing and housing is induced, not by innate
need-the savage does not have it-but by the conventional expectations
of the society: is it therefore to
be
considered as not worth satisfying?
In
most countries, a large proportion of the population feels little want
for education, and the want has to be not merely stimulated but actually
enforced by compulsory state education: are we then to say that the
provision of education is not urgent? The spontaneous demand for ty–
phoid or diphtheria immunization is manifestly weak, and must be forti·
fied by government publicity campaigns: is it therefore to be brushed
aside as inessential? I was not conscious, at the age of 18, of an in–
nate want to enjoy opera or painting; then the want was stimulated
in me by outside influences, much to my subsequent contentment: is
the want less real because I once was not aware of it? Even in the field
of commercial want-creation, it is of course true that the demand for
(say) domestic cookers, refrigerators, washing machines, and the like
was artificially contrived by advertising: but has it not been beneficial
thus to reduce drudgery and increase domestic leisure? Clearly, the
whole distinction between innate and created wants in terms of urgency
or welfare is a most uncertain one.
However, although the distinction plays a prominent part in Gal–
braith's argument, it is not in fact essential to it. All we need to do is
make the perfectly convincing common sense judgment that marginal
