Scan barcode
A review by classical_learner
Economics in One Lesson: The Shortest and Surest Way to Understand Basic Economics by Henry Hazlitt
challenging
informative
reflective
fast-paced
4.75
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).