Scan barcode
Reviews
Economics in One Lesson: The Shortest & Surest Way to Understand Basic Economics by Henry Hazlitt
lauraborkpower's review against another edition
3.0
Hazlitt wrote this book in the late '40s and updated it around 1978-'79, so it's obviously out of date.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.
classical_learner's review against another edition
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).
tomstbr's review against another edition
5.0
Mandatory reading! The book teaches a few basic lessons: there is no such thing as a free lunch, there are two sides to every coin, and always consider long term consequences. It then uses fiscal policies to demonstrate why these lessons are important. Mostly this is by showing that things like inflation, minimum wages and tariffs are, on the whole, bad, especially when used excessively. I don't think politicians have learned to much since the book was published. Sad!
cinnamonspy's review against another edition
informative
medium-paced
5.0
This is a very helpful basis for understanding economics.
f18's review
Was taking notes along with this and misplaced them so not sure how far I got. May pick it up again when I find them.
mwspencer75's review
slow-paced
2.5
The entire thesis is to look at the whole picture when making economic policy instead of just those who benefit. I was hoping the author would be intelligent enough to give me some unexpected insights. Instead he peals back the first layer of policy, gets stuck on the second layer that assumes we are all robots with equal opportunities and backgrounds, and fails to go any deeper. The author is no more intelligent than than Regannomics grandfather spewing unfounded ideas at the dinner table.
wooknight's review against another edition
5.0
An extraordinary book . Though it will take multiple readings to grasp . One wonders how could you add more wealth to a country if you could avoid inflation especially when new industries are constantly being created ( how does one account for innovation )
Similarly I don’t quite agree with the premise of public work , if anything some of our greatest technological innovations happen precisely because of public infrastructure ( the internet / phone networks / road networks / utility networks ) so need to re read
Similarly I don’t quite agree with the premise of public work , if anything some of our greatest technological innovations happen precisely because of public infrastructure ( the internet / phone networks / road networks / utility networks ) so need to re read