You hear the comment all the time: the U.S. economy looks good by figures, but it doesn't feel good. Why doesn't ever-greater wealth promote ever-greater happiness? It is a question that dates at least to the appearance in 1958 ofThe Wealthy Society by John Kenneth Galbraith, who died recently at 97. The Wealthy Societyis a modern classic because it helped describe a new moment in the human condition. For most of history, "hunger, sickness, and cold" threatened nearly everyone, Galbraith wrote. "Poverty   was found everywhere in that world. Obviously it is not of ours." After World War II, the fear of another Great Depression gave way to an economic growth. In the 1930s unemployment had averaged 18.2 percent; in the 1950s it was 4.5 percent. To Galbraith, materialism   had gone mad and would cause discontent. Through advertising, companies conditioned consumers to buy things they didn't really want or need. Because so much spending was artificial, it would be unsatisfying. Meanwhile, government spending that would make everyone better off was being cut down because people wrongly considered government only as "a necessary bad." It's often said that only the rich are getting ahead; everyone else is standing still or falling behind. Well, there are many undeserving rich -- overpaid chief managers, for instance. But over any meaningful period, most people's incomes are increasing. From 1995 to 2004, people feel "squeezed" because their rising incomes often don't satisfy their rising wants -- for bigger homes, more health care, more education, and faster Internet connections. The other great disappointment is that it has not got rid of insecurity. People regard job stability as part of their standard of living. As company unemployment increased, that part has gradually become weaker. More workers fear they've become " _ ," as Louis Uchitelle puts it in his book by the same name. Because so much previous suffering and social conflict resulted from poverty, the arrival of widespread wealth suggestedutopian  possibilities. Up to a point, wealth succeeds. There is much less physical suffering than before. People are better off. Unfortunately, wealth also creates new complaints. Advanced societies need economic growth to satisfy the multiplying wants of their citizens. But the search for growth cause new anxieties and economic conflicts that disturb the social order. Wealth sets free the individual, promising that everyone can choose a unique way to self-accomplishment. But the promise is so unreasonable that it leads to many disappointments and sometimes inspires choices that have anti-social consequences, including family breakdown. Figures indicate that happiness has not risen with incomes. Should we be surprised? Not really. We've simply confirmed an old truth: the seeking of wealth does not always end with happiness. The Wealthy Society is a book   _  .
about poverty in the past written by Louis Uchitelle indicating that people are becoming worse off about why happiness does not rise with wealth
Question: You hear the comment all the time: the U.S. economy looks good by figures, but it doesn't feel good. Why doesn't ever-greater wealth promote ever-greater happiness? It is a question that dates at least to the appearance in 1958 ofThe Wealthy Society by John Kenneth Galbraith, who died recently at 97. The Wealthy Societyis a modern classic because it helped describe a new moment in the human condition. For most of history, "hunger, sickness, and cold" threatened nearly everyone, Galbraith wrote. "Poverty   was found everywhere in that world. Obviously it is not of ours." After World War II, the fear of another Great Depression gave way to an economic growth. In the 1930s unemployment had averaged 18.2 percent; in the 1950s it was 4.5 percent. To Galbraith, materialism   had gone mad and would cause discontent. Through advertising, companies conditioned consumers to buy things they didn't really want or need. Because so much spending was artificial, it would be unsatisfying. Meanwhile, government spending that would make everyone better off was being cut down because people wrongly considered government only as "a necessary bad." It's often said that only the rich are getting ahead; everyone else is standing still or falling behind. Well, there are many undeserving rich -- overpaid chief managers, for instance. But over any meaningful period, most people's incomes are increasing. From 1995 to 2004, people feel "squeezed" because their rising incomes often don't satisfy their rising wants -- for bigger homes, more health care, more education, and faster Internet connections. The other great disappointment is that it has not got rid of insecurity. People regard job stability as part of their standard of living. As company unemployment increased, that part has gradually become weaker. More workers fear they've become " _ ," as Louis Uchitelle puts it in his book by the same name. Because so much previous suffering and social conflict resulted from poverty, the arrival of widespread wealth suggestedutopian  possibilities. Up to a point, wealth succeeds. There is much less physical suffering than before. People are better off. Unfortunately, wealth also creates new complaints. Advanced societies need economic growth to satisfy the multiplying wants of their citizens. But the search for growth cause new anxieties and economic conflicts that disturb the social order. Wealth sets free the individual, promising that everyone can choose a unique way to self-accomplishment. But the promise is so unreasonable that it leads to many disappointments and sometimes inspires choices that have anti-social consequences, including family breakdown. Figures indicate that happiness has not risen with incomes. Should we be surprised? Not really. We've simply confirmed an old truth: the seeking of wealth does not always end with happiness. The Wealthy Society is a book   _  .
A. about poverty in the past
B. written by Louis Uchitelle
C. indicating that people are becoming worse off
D. about why happiness does not rise with wealth
Answer: