Take a photo of a barcode or cover
151 reviews for:
Economics in One Lesson: The Shortest and Surest Way to Understand Basic Economics
Henry Hazlitt
3.75 AVERAGE
151 reviews for:
Economics in One Lesson: The Shortest and Surest Way to Understand Basic Economics
Henry Hazlitt
3.75 AVERAGE
The revisions on this book really work well for how economics holds true today.
The book is extremely readable and helps the reader develop an intuition for core economic principles, particularly principles that are commonly misunderstood in public discourse. The book’s primary lesson is important and often disregarded: We must consider an economic policy’s intended and unintended impacts over the long-run and not just its intended impacts over the short-run.
It is annoying that the book’s bias toward Austrian thought is dogmatic and unacknowledged. The arrogant treatment of dissenting economic views is especially troublesome given that the author is a journalist, not an economist. Adding to the negatives, the book occasionally indulges in over-simplifications that are utilized to arrive at unconvincing conclusions. Lastly, more than once the author was too strong in his assertions, like "if X policy is enacted then Y outcome *must* follow," even if it is merely probable that Y would follow.
It's a fine book, but why not just read Mises and Hayek?
It is annoying that the book’s bias toward Austrian thought is dogmatic and unacknowledged. The arrogant treatment of dissenting economic views is especially troublesome given that the author is a journalist, not an economist. Adding to the negatives, the book occasionally indulges in over-simplifications that are utilized to arrive at unconvincing conclusions. Lastly, more than once the author was too strong in his assertions, like "if X policy is enacted then Y outcome *must* follow," even if it is merely probable that Y would follow.
It's a fine book, but why not just read Mises and Hayek?
Don't give your money to the government except for essential public service or it's inefficient. Got it. You don't need to read the book anymore.
challenging
informative
slow-paced
Henry Hazlitt’s Economics in One Lesson is a bite-sized introduction to basic economics. The book focuses on specific fallacies present in the field, which economists, politicians, and lawmakers fail to understand themselves. The thesis of the book is that one must take into account all factors of economic policies, rather than simply focusing on a single group or section of the population. This rationale and logic dominates the discussion and Hazlitt provides examples. The book is just two-hundred pages in length, and despite beginning well, it begins to dull once the focus is on minimum wage and other banal subjects. Economics in One Lesson is worth reading for its central message, in addition to unraveling basic fallacies, but the pace slows as the book progresses.
Look, I won't pretend economics are my wheelhouse but I think everybody ought to know at least a little bit about how the country works. This book is broad on purpose, which leaves it open to nitpicking. However I greatly enjoyed and agreed with this read. I think it is timeless, clearcut, and sensible. Read it, if only to disagree with it.
informative
slow-paced
Hazlitt wrote this book in the late '40s and updated it around 1978-'79, so it's obviously out of date. He recognizes in the preface, though, that the basic principles are still valid and that a reader only find the current statistics to update.
That said, I got his thesis loud and clear: it is irresponsible to back economic policy that favors the few in favor of the many; and we must consider long term results in addition to immediate results. He covered a lot of ground and much of it was interesting, although I zoned in and out when he started talking about rent control and minimum wage. It's all still relevant, but it's hard to focus when the minimum wage examples Hazlitt's listing off top off around $2.80/hour. It just hammered down the point how old this text is.
It's certainly an overview from a particular economic point of view, and it's inspired me to learn more about current policy. But if you're looking for a barn burner of a page-turner, this isn't your book.
That said, I got his thesis loud and clear: it is irresponsible to back economic policy that favors the few in favor of the many; and we must consider long term results in addition to immediate results. He covered a lot of ground and much of it was interesting, although I zoned in and out when he started talking about rent control and minimum wage. It's all still relevant, but it's hard to focus when the minimum wage examples Hazlitt's listing off top off around $2.80/hour. It just hammered down the point how old this text is.
It's certainly an overview from a particular economic point of view, and it's inspired me to learn more about current policy. But if you're looking for a barn burner of a page-turner, this isn't your book.
challenging
informative
reflective
fast-paced
Very comprehensive contemplation on the undergirding concepts of economics. Honestly surprised that I have not encountered this in my university classes for economics!
My central critique of Hazlitt is that, when discussing ideal policies, he at some points falls short of addressing the first and second welfare theorems and how arguments from Pareto optimality are just as important as conversations about efficiency. These ideas cannot be ignored in conversations about social desirability--competitive equilibria are too broad/minimal of a necessary precondition!
Moreover, I would have preferred a bit more precision in his use of the term "capitalism"--as someone who broadly agrees with the economic views of the author, "free market economics" is not only more descriptive but more flattering to the actual position Hazlitt defends. There is a reason that Karl Marx derogatorily branded free market economics as "capital-ism," and I think that Hazlitt both in his vernacular and argumentation at times accidentally puts himself in a vulnerable position to these critiques of hyper-focus on quantity supplied and quantity demanded. Moreover, although Hazlitt comments against it, some of his thought processes still reflect methodological individualism ("What is prudence in the conduct of every private family can scarce be folly in that of a great kingdom." ~ Adam Smith).
My central critique of Hazlitt is that, when discussing ideal policies, he at some points falls short of addressing the first and second welfare theorems and how arguments from Pareto optimality are just as important as conversations about efficiency. These ideas cannot be ignored in conversations about social desirability--competitive equilibria are too broad/minimal of a necessary precondition!
Moreover, I would have preferred a bit more precision in his use of the term "capitalism"--as someone who broadly agrees with the economic views of the author, "free market economics" is not only more descriptive but more flattering to the actual position Hazlitt defends. There is a reason that Karl Marx derogatorily branded free market economics as "capital-ism," and I think that Hazlitt both in his vernacular and argumentation at times accidentally puts himself in a vulnerable position to these critiques of hyper-focus on quantity supplied and quantity demanded. Moreover, although Hazlitt comments against it, some of his thought processes still reflect methodological individualism ("What is prudence in the conduct of every private family can scarce be folly in that of a great kingdom." ~ Adam Smith).
