Rating: 
Summary: I've missed my life's calling.
Review: I should have studied economics. Hazlitt's book is remarkably readable, coherent, and logical. It just confirms that truth is usually understandable, whereas complicated obfuscation is usually the major alarm bell that tips you off when people are trying to shaft you. This guy really knows his stuff.The one lesson is so simple that it takes about five minutes to read the chapter about it. The rest of the book lists various scenarios in which that lesson applies. The general principle of the lesson applies so naturally to various specific cases that it simplifies economics immensely. Hazlitt must have studied logic as well as economics. The one lesson is simply this: economic planning should take into account the effects of economic policies on all groups, not just some groups, and what those effects will be in the long run, not just the short run. That's it. That's the lesson. Fallacious economic policies almost invariably seek to benefit one group at the expense of all others, or to bring about short-term benefits at the expense of long-term benefits. With this as his thesis, Hazlitt examines the numerous manifestations of such fallacies in different situations. His chapters are short, his prose is easy to follow, and his logic is compelling. I've never taken an economics class in my life, yet I had no trouble following the reasoning in this book. This is a must read for anyone who wants to understand basic economics and the keys to widespread prosperity in the long run.
Rating: 
Summary: Somewhat Simplified but Very Pertinent!!
Review: It's been about six months since I last read Hazlitt's forcelfully argued little monster. The ideas in it, though, are never far from my mind. More accurately, every time I think about the current state of the political economy, I get the strong urge to buy it and ship it to a senator. Maybe they'll learn something! Although it's title is misleading (not an economics intro, but a manifesto), Hazlitt's book explains in simple language the flaw in todays macro-economic thinking. Money can not be created when taking from source A only to give to source B. Source B only gains by source A's corresponding loss. Sounds simple, right. Then why are we convinced that tariffs, minimum wage, and the federal reserve (GASP!) are doing anything positive by operating on that theory. When we force the minimum wage up, all we are doing is shifting the burden to the consumer by upping what the employers products cost to make. As soon as the wages go up, so do prices. Once the prices are raised, that whole industrys prices go up (because they can) and everyone pays more INCLUDING the employees you thought you were helping. Hazlitt doesn't stop there, he gracefully applies the theory to a plethora of situations. Although somewaht oversimplified (200+ pages) and certainly biased (free market) This book offers us a good theory, good argument and- suprisingly rare in econ texts- an overall enjoyable read. The only two real problems I see are: 1) As Hazlitts arguments all stem from this anti-distribution theory, the book gets repititious and you'll probably get the drift by page 120, and 2)At certain points, Hazlitt fails to distinguish between 'pecuniary wealth' and 'value wealth.' Wealth in dollars and wealth in utility are two different things. If we shift some money from source A (a dormant bank account) to source B (a compnay building a bridge to allow new commerce) Hazlitt argues that all we've really done is shift a static dollar amount. Of course the bridge when built will bring an escalation in commerce that will likely maximize it's use. While in the end, I think that Hazlitts argument, that money should not be forced into source B's hands by artificial distribution, Hazlitt doesn't pay enough attention to pecuniary v. real value. Still, this book is a great polemic, showing us why distribution tends to have the reverse effect. BUY I...if only so you can puke next time you watch the senate activities on C-SPAN.
Rating:
Summary: A great Introduction to Economics
Review: "Economics in One Lesson", Henry Hazlet's, book makes a powerful and persuasive argument in favor of a free market economy. Written in a very lucid style "Economics in One Lesson" makes the usually dry subject of economics easily understandable and a pleasure to read. Hazlitt doesn't obfuscate the truths of matters with cumbersome graphs and math. For non-economists like my self it makes a great introductory book to the subject. Even though the book was published in 1946, the topics covered by Hazlitt are still pertinent and examine issues that still confound us more than 50 years later. Chapters include inflation, tariffs, taxation, price fixing, labor unions, savings, and the importance of profits, rent control, and more. As a retired Army officer and student of political philosophy, I found "Economics in One Lesson" a great book for anyone who wants to understand basic economic theory.
Rating:
Summary: Students Love Hazlitt!
Review: I teach Principles of Microeconomics, and I always use this book for extra credit. Students who hate reading long, boring, stuffy text books always like Hazlitt, and give him high reviews every single semester. The very readable chapters are short (about 3-6 pages in most cases), and told in story form to make Hazlitt's point. This makes it possible for even freshmen with notoriously short attention spans to read the day's chapter. Hazlitt's "one lesson" is simple, and told in Chapter 1. The rest of the chapters are all stories in which the lesson plays a prominent role. In short, Hazlitt doesn't merely tell us the lesson, he actually shows us the lesson -- over and over and over, until we've got it. With stories on tariffs, minimum wage, rent controls, taxes. unions, wages, profits, savings, credit, unemployment, and so much more, Hazlitt takes some of the most difficult economic concepts and makes these easily accessible to the lay person who has no economic training, background, or even inclination. It's one thing for me to recommend this book. It's quite another for my students to recommend it semester after semester. I can imagine no higher praise.
Rating:
Summary: This may be the best short introduction to economic thought
Review: ECONOMICS IN ONE LESSON may be the best short introduction to economic thought. Henry Hazlitt begins with an example discussed by Frederic Bastiat - the 'broken window fallacy' - from Bastiat's essay 'On What Is Seen And What Is Not Seen'. Bastiat's point, and Hazlitt's, is that much common thinking focuses on visible, short-term results and ignores invisible, longer-term consequences - because the latter often consist of things that did *not* happen. Hazlitt explains this insight and applies it brilliantly to many specific economic issues (inflation, unemployment, price controls, international trade, and others). By the time the reader has completed this book, he or she will be 'thinking like an economist'. Despite the remarks of a previous reviewer, I do not think Hazlitt is 'sarcastic' in this book or has very much in common with novelist Ayn Rand. Miss Rand owed quite a lot to Hazlitt's work, and especially to this volume (which she highly recommended despite some disagreements on particular 'philosophical' points). However, there was no debt whatsoever in the opposite direction.
Rating:
Summary: Economics in One Lesson by Hazlitt
Review: This work is a solid value for the price charged. It integrates some common sense Economics principles with classics by Adam Smith and others. The author starts by explaining how public works projects benefit the local economy in the short term while paying for themselves over the long term in terms of toll revenues and additional taxes . He believes that high taxes tend to discourage badly needed investment. Machinery does displace workers in the short term; however, the incremental productivity
has a permanent benefit. What would we do today without cars?
or planes? Tariffs tend to benefit producers at the expense of consumers.
Prices are determined by the dynamics of demand and supply.
Rent control has benefits but the downside tends to discourage new building. Unions tend to provide for local employment while at the same time providing pay equity and benefits for the
membership. This book is a solid value for economists, households, students of economics , journalists and a whole host of constituencies.
Rating:
Summary: Economics in One Lesson
Review: For the person who thinks economics is a dismal science, this is one of the best short introductions available.
Rating: 
Summary: Very old book - Thatcher and Reagan revisited
Review: This is a very old book.
The author is talking from a 50 year away point of view... so it's like reading something very thought-provoking that was written 50 years ago (the ideas are still valid, but it seems that you are reading something that you discovered on your grand-father's book-shelf).
The way the book is written seems like if you were living in a socialist country, and the author is tryig to slap you in the face and trying to convince you that the open and free-market capitalism is the right choice. He tries very hard to force you to see that it's very, very wrong to think otherwise. In the end, the book still has some valid ideas, and presents the Economy as Thatcher and Reagan viewed it.
I think this is a very basic book, with no graphics, no analisys, just plain talk. Talks about the things modern Economics live on as if it was the greatest discovery on the modern world, even if nowadays we take it for granted. Just good if you want to know a bit about Economics and you don't like to see graphics or analise any kind of data.
Try to read "Principles of Macroeconomics" if you want an up-to-date approach to the same subjects in a thicker and more in-depth book (although written for begginners).
Rating:
Summary: Short and Sweet.
Review: For as important as Economics is to the Past, Present and Future of Humanity, its met with a collective yawn and almost completely missunderstood! For just 20 bucks and 8 hours of your time you can have a mental grasp on the engine that drives...everything. Unless you are completely vacant this book can change your mind. Very important ideas. Give this one to everyone you know. If one person reads it, you have helped humanity.
Rating:
Summary: Choose some alternatives and map them to the real world
Review: Of the positive reveiews, they seem to be amazed that someone can define economics. It's not really rocket science, and, in an age of plenty, it's not really about scarcity. It's about individuals making choices to maximize value. They may be bad choices, uniformed choices or perverse choices, but they have, in the final analysis, impact limited to the individual. And in most cases result in some level of increased individual satisfaction.
The real danger, according to Hazlitt, is when the choices of a few people, with same kinds of fallacies noted above, are coercive, enforced by government or monopolies. Which leads us to to the negative reviews.
The negatives, if we can be allowed to throw out the obvious loser rants, seem to be concerned mainly with rapacious corporations, free trade among inequal countries and natural monopolies. While these are certainly provide distortions of individual choice and informed consent, they do in the long run tend to be self correcting -- see government-sanctioned coal and oil monopolies. The real interest is in how to minimize the effects of these diseconomies.
Hazlitt would argue that they are self-correcting via the collective effect of individual choices. The Marxists would argue that action based upon the sceeding of individual choice to a collective power is the solution. Surely, if we can assume there is no absolute, theoretical winner in this debate, we can look to the real world, based upon the actions of multiple forms of government and millions of individuals to provide some guidance on which path leads to the most for the most.
To that end, I would challenge you to read Hazlitt's book and a Marxist equivalent like Ivan Ilich's "Tools for Conviviality" and then, accepting both as plausibly complete and material, match them against your experience of recent history and your hopes for your personal future.
|
