Thought provoking

Economics in One Lesson The Shortest and Surest Way to Understand Basic Economics

Henry Hazlitt — 2010

With over a million copies sold, Economics in One Lesson is an essential guide to the basics of economic theory. A fundamental influence on modern libertarianism, Hazlitt defends capitalism and the free market from economic myths that persist to this day. Considered among the leading economic thinkers of the “Austrian School,” which includes Carl Menger, Ludwig von Mises, Friedrich (F.A.) Hayek, and others, Henry Hazlitt (1894-1993), was a libertarian philosopher, an economist, and a journalist. He was the founding vice-president of the Foundation for Economic Education and an early editor of The Freeman magazine, an influential libertarian publication. Hazlitt wrote Economics in One Lesson, his seminal work, in 1946. Concise and instructive, it is also deceptively prescient and far-reaching in its efforts to dissemble economic fallacies that are so prevalent they have almost become a new orthodoxy. Economic commentators across the political spectrum have credited Hazlitt with foreseeing the collapse of the global economy which occurred more than 50 years after the initial publication of Economics in One Lesson. Hazlitt’s focus on non-governmental solutions, strong — and strongly reasoned — anti-deficit position, and general emphasis on free markets, economic liberty of individuals, and the dangers of government intervention make Economics in One Lesson every bit as relevant and valuable today as it has been since publication.

Reviews

Barry Hess@bjhess

Jan 17, 2022

Actually, I've only read half of the book. Had to return it to the library before completing. Very useful, simplified views on economics. The author has an obvious viewpoint, but a very useful book regardless.

Fonzi D@mustachefonzi

Nov 4, 2021

It’s a simple lesson but an important one. It’s probably been 10 years since I’ve read this book and it’s proved to be relevant countless times since. The importance of the unseen consequences cannot be overstated but most don’t even stop for a second to consider it. Great place for anyone who’s new to economic thought (Marx and Engels don’t count) to start.

Hugo Ahlberg@hugo

Aug 17, 2021

Some context: I picked up this book because I wanted to learn basic economics in a form which would challenge my ingrained views (being raised in Sweden, they are very left..). While some of my views indeed were challenged, many of the “free market” arguments in this book fell rather flat. Granted the book was written in 1946 and we know a lot more about these things now, but the author seems to jump to logical conclusions which just doesn’t add up. He spends a lot of time talking about how bad economists fail to consider secondary consequences, not just for one group, but for everyone. But I found some of his arguments to fall in to that very trap, for example the chapter on unemployment and public housing. (See more in my notes on below). However, at least now I better understand the ideas and thinking of Austrian economics. But I probably should read something more modern and updated take on them. my notes on Economics in One Lesson: — I assume this book was written before “irrational behaviours” became a thing in economics. Same with Macro and Micro economics, whereas the author seems to treat them as the same but we now data and research showing a lot of “if this than that” logic is flawed to say the least. — Speaking of data, there is huge lack of data in here to back up these claims which are way too theoretical. There are a few examples but nowhere near as much as one would demand these days. — The chapter on machines and automation was interesting. The car and textile industry is used as an example where people of those days feared it would cause immense unemployment but as we know the opposite happened. Made me think about how the same claims are being said about AI and machine learning. How is it different? *note to self, look into this!* — If I didn’t know any better, one would think there was no women at all in 1946.. It’s all “man”, “he”… Gross. — Author falls into the same trap as the economists he is criticising, in the sense of lack of unintended consequences and “only seeing the effects which are immediately seen and ignore the effect which are not” (paraphrased), specifically when it comes to public housing (while he might be right in that it only moves capital around and puts the burden on others, he ignores the question of “what are the consequences of not supplying public housing / state help— the cost of homelessness is missing here. Odd to say the least. — Similar to above. What is the cost of unemployment. Is it not better to spread the burden rather to have increased inequailty which costs even more in the long run??