Economics in One Lesson: The Shortest and Surest Way to Understand Basic… (original 1946; edition 1988)

Everyone should read this. Best exposition you will find on some fundamental economic truths, especially relating to the role of the government. A must read for anyone even vaguely interested in politics. (A classic, first published in 1946) ( )

Clearly written, concise, critical thinking ( )

Again, this is a much higher quality book for a non-economics person than for one. If you are new to anarcho-capitalist economics, this book is very helpful for understanding its proponents. However, to understand the infuriating smugness, Defending the Undefendable is far more useful. ( )

Excellent primer on econ, put in simple and useful terms. ( )

This is a simple, but amazingly profound, mind blowing introduction to some basic economic principles. The principles outlined here are quite simple, and yet it seems so many people today can not grasp these basic truths.

Granted this book is a bit dated, but most of it is still useful and much of it seems as if it were written today.

I sincerely wish more politicians and voters today would read this book, it would go a long way toward restoring some knowledge of basic economics and some common sense to the decisions that get made on the political sphere.

There are many economics books that are so dense that I would take no delight in reading nor would I feel comfortable recommending to someone who is not already an economics wonk. However, with this title, I have no such reservations. I can wholeheartedly recommend this to anyone. I guarantee it will be enlightening in at least one or two areas! ( )

In the current economic crisis our country is facing I felt a need to self-educate in the realm of economics, having been tragically failed by the sorry excuse for an education in economics that I received at my public high school in 12th grade. I didn’t want a book that pitted me for or against any certain current politician but rather weighed economic philosophies against each other on a rational level in an easy to read format so I figured a book written over 50 years ago would be safe from mentioning current politicians. As I have read through it, it has been remarkable to see how closely the situations we are seeing played out today were delineated and discussed in the book, almost as if it was written for today... I suppose it was written for today as much as it was written for 1946 because the principles of free market economics are just as true as they were a few thousand years ago and as true as they will remain into the future. Likewise the fallacies that so many politicians have historically embraced and continue to embrace are just as false and doomed to failure as they have ever been. This book fulfilled my non-partisan (non-name-mentioning) mandate quite well. This book is wonderful and easily digestible, not boring at all. I’m only half-way through it but it is so easy to read and makes such good sense that I want to pass it on. ( )

Excellent introduction to ("Austrian") economics. Based on Bastiat's "What Is Seen And What Is Not Seen" but has it's own tone and an American perspective. Just as relevant today as it was in 1946, and 1978 when the new edition was written. The present Obama administration is repeating all the falliacies - some passages in this book is so current it is scary! ( )

One of the most cogent explanations of why conservative economics makes sense. ( )

The one lesson is, "things have unanticipated consequences". It's a perfectly fine book, but now I've saved you some time :). ( )

The subtext is right. Hazlitt writes clearly without being patronizing, and walks you through every step of his logic. All conceivable objections to the Austrian position are addressed without malice. I found it to be a very refreshing change from much of the modern writing on economics. While my experience is limited to the more polarized forms of writing such as newspapers, much of the modern economic writing that most people encounter is based off of either accusing all dissidents of having no morals, or of not caring about little babies in Africa. Hazlitt focuses on substance without flinging ad hominems in any direction.

The book is not without its flaws. In my opinion, the chapter about the price system should have come much earlier than it did, since the price system is crucial to a true understanding of many of the issues he mentions in the preceding chapters. Also, a small glossary would have been helpful. Nothing major is required, but slightly in-depth definitions of capital, inflation, credit, and liquid funds -among others- would have been helpful. I had to reread chapters unnecessarily to try and deduce the meanings of several terms.

Still, it's nothing that a quick Wikipedia search can't remedy. In my copy, the binding is durable, the type is a pleasure to read, and the paper is very nicely textured. I don't usually mark up my books and when I do, I usually can't stand the way the paper feels; however, this paper is very easy on the fingers and pencil.

I was an ambivalent socialist before I read this; now, I'm a rabid Austrian. Get this book, and prepare to have your mind blown. ( )

This is _the_ best primer on free market, Austrian economics. Hazlitt's prose flows nicely while conveying sophisticated, elegant economic principles. Hazlitt's Economics In One Lesson is to English what Bastiat's The Law is to French--the language's pre-eminent defense of the market economy and individual liberty. ( )

Where has this book been for the last 50 years? Certainly not in the hands of anyone remotely connected to the Unites States government! Economics in One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt was originally written just after World War II, after Franklin Roosevelt’s socialist ‘New Deal’ had been in place for several years. He was one of the voices raising objections to these policies at the time. This recent re-release could not be more needed or more timely. Fifty years after the first release we have an economic policy that makes the Roosevelt era look down right laissez faire.

The book comes in at 198 pages but ‘The Lesson’ is literally only the first five pages. The lesson summarized is this:

“The art of economics consists in looking not merely at the immediate but at the longer effects of any act or policy; it consists in tracing the consequences of that policy not merely for one group but for all groups” (p. 5)

Ignoring this principle creates 90% of the economic fallacies in the world today according to Hazlitt. He calls this primary fallacy the fallacy of ignoring secondary consequences and it is more rampant today than it was at the time of the book’s first writing.

The remainder of the book is a series of examples of economic fallacies, all of which can be traced to ignoring ‘the lesson’ and all of which are more or less considered orthodoxy by the economic establishment today.

The first of these is: “War stimulates an economy and is good for business.” Hazlitt calls this the “fallacy of the broken window” the idea that because something has been destroyed (by war or whatever) it must needs be replaced, thereby stimulating the economy. He illustrates this with a parable where someone throws a brick through a shopkeeper’s front widow. Of course this ‘stimulates’ the business of the man who will be hired to replace the window. Unfortunately, this is as far as most economic analysis goes: the glass repair shop gets new business, may need to hire more people because of the extra work, ipso facto the economy benefits. However, this is a bit like looking at only one side of an algebraic equation. We’re forgetting ‘the lesson’ that we cannot overlook the effects on more than just this one group of people. True, Hazlitt would say, the glass repair shop gets more business. However, the shopkeeper must pay for a new window that he would not otherwise have had to pay for. This reduces his disposable income so that he spends less with other merchants than he would have had the window not been broken. The result is, though the glass repair shop may hire an extra man as a result of the broken window, the tailor the shopkeeper uses may have to lay a man off because the shopkeeper cannot now afford to purchase the new suit he was planning to buy. Net effect to the economy – zero. Though this is a very simplistic example (even Hazlitt would admit as much) the underlying principle is true and is violated by virtually every economic policy in place today.
Some of the other examples highlighted in the book which violate ‘the lesson’ are:

C Government secured loans
C Government price supports for farm products (or other things)
C Rent control
C Minimum wage laws
C Tariffs

In each of these cases, one or both of the principles from ‘the lesson’ is violated. Either future consequences of the action is ignored or consequences to other groups is ignored or both. In fact, Hazlitt points out several times that failure to consider other than the immediate consequences of these actions often negatively impacts the very people the action was intended to help!

Take for example rent control. The stated goal of this kind of policy is always to help lower income people afford housing. As a result, rent control often does not apply to so-called luxury housing or apartments, since after all, those people can ‘afford it’. The result is that people who might otherwise invest in more affordable housing do not for fear of having their investment regulated by the government to the extent that they cannot profit from it. Instead they build ‘luxury’ housing, if they build anything at all, that will be exempt from government control, thereby reducing the number of housing units available to the very people the government was trying to help. Another long term consequence of rent control is that at some point the controlled rents will not be enough for the property owner to continue to afford to keep up the property the way he might otherwise be able to, again, negatively impacting the people who live in the rent controlled properties, the very people the policy was intended to benefit.

I could go on with example after example.

This is by far the best book on economics I’ve ever read. It is nothing like a dry economics textbook and is very readable and clear. It is, in fact the readability of Hazlitt and the clarity of the principles he discusses that leads me to believe that most economic policies are driven, not by economics per se but by the political motives of the theorists and those who implement their schemes. This is a fact alluded to by Hazlitt as well.

In my opinion, this book should be required reading from the High School level on up as well as for anyone even remotely involved in state or federal government. I would suggest that it be required reading for every member of congress as well but they normally don’t like to be confused with the facts so that may be a pointless exercise. However, for those who view economics as a method of maximizing the quality of life for the average citizen rather than as a way to buy votes for themselves, this book will be a breath of fresh air. ( )