Economics in One Lesson: The Shortest and Surest Way to Understand Basic Economics
Below are the top discussions from Reddit that mention this Amazon book.
Books Business & Money Economics
With over a million copies sold, Economics in One Lesson is an essential guide to the basics of economic theory. A fundamental influence on modern libertarianism, Hazlitt defends capitalism and the free market from economic myths that persist to this day. Considered among the leading economic thinkers of the “Austrian School,” which includes Carl Menger, Ludwig von Mises, Friedrich (F.A.) Hayek, and others, Henry Hazlitt (1894-1993), was a libertarian philosopher, an economist, and a journalist. He was the founding vice-president of the Foundation for Economic Education and an early editor of The Freeman magazine, an influential libertarian publication. Hazlitt wrote Economics in One Lesson, his seminal work, in 1946. Concise and instructive, it is also deceptively prescient and far-reaching in its efforts to dissemble economic fallacies that are so prevalent they have almost become a new orthodoxy. Economic commentators across the political spectrum have credited Hazlitt with foreseeing the collapse of the global economy which occurred more than 50 years after the initial publication of Economics in One Lesson. Hazlitt’s focus on non-governmental solutions, strong — and strongly reasoned — anti-deficit position, and general emphasis on free markets, economic liberty of individuals, and the dangers of government intervention make Economics in One Lesson every bit as relevant and valuable today as it has been since publication.
Reddazon may receive an affiliate commission if you make purchases on Amazon.com through this site. Thank you for using these links to support Reddazon.
Henry Hazlitt
Reddit Posts and Comments
0 posts • 38 mentions • top 29 shown below
3 points • Yellow_Blue-Austrian
I would argue that the opposite actually is Economics in One Lesson by
Henry Hazlitt.
Economics in One Lesson: The Shortest and Surest Way to Understand Basic Economics https://www.amazon.com/dp/0517548232/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_i_o1JNEb63ZD74A
Basics economics by Thomas sowell is good but it is based on Chicago economics which is slightly less pro capitalist when compared to Austrian economics
2 points • MemoryDealers
Economics in One Lesson is a fantastic first econ book.
2 points • CYA_Always
I didn’t catch the book he recommended but a good primer imho is this. It is the easiest way to “get it” quickly:
https://www.amazon.com/Economics-One-Lesson-Shortest-Understand/dp/0517548232/ref=nodl_
1 points • AzertyKeys
J'avais commencé à écrire tout un pavé pour t'expliquer pourquoi tu partais dans le mauvais raisonnement mais en fait je me suis rendu compte que je n'ai pas la capacité ou la pédagogie pour t'expliquer ça clairement.
Je te recommande ce livre :
https://www.amazon.com/Economics-One-Lesson-Shortest-Understand/dp/0517548232
qui permet de vraiment bien comprendre les principes de base de l'économie.
1 points • ChillPenguinX
Economics in One Lesson: The Shortest and Surest Way to Understand Basic Economics https://www.amazon.com/dp/0517548232/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_i_gZApEb45WE7MX
1 points • Dr__Douchebag
Regan was a crook and a horrible president.
Masks have not been the cause of this virus shutting down the economy. The government did that.
FDR was one of the worst presidents of all time. Jesus man, open up an economics book. If you think I'm spouting reganomics and FDR's economics policies are good then you have no clue on economics and are just regurgitating talking points like I'm some kind of republican or Trump fan
If you want my idea of a good president you should look at Calvin Coolidge or Thomas Jefferson.
1 points • PMmeYOURrareCONTENT
I posted some Youtube channels I like in another comment but maybe they're not the best foundational material. One of my first exposures to more conservative ideas was this book:
https://www.amazon.com/Economics-One-Lesson-Shortest-Understand/dp/0517548232
And then Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged. It's a novel, but it gives a good idea of the mindset of what conservatives perceive as unjust about leftism. It's kind of a neat story too if you're in for it, but it might be asking too much.
I came from a pretty liberal perspective, just a single mother household and all my political opinions kinda came from the mainstream and school, and those two books were kind of my "first exposure" to another perspective. I found them quite convincing at the time. Not sure if they would still hold up but they really changed how I view the world in many ways.
>All I can see from the outside is a bunch of people wanting the rich to become richer and waiting for the trickle down that's never coming
I'd say one aspect in which conservatives are different from leftists is that we often base our decisions more on principle than on outcome. I'm not sure if that's a fair generalization but at least in this case it's a good explanation I think. It's not that conservatives think that inequality is great; rather, they think that it's unjust to punish someone for being successful. They don't see successful businessmen as exploiters, but as people who have accomplished something and the leftists are simply jealous and too far up their own ass to realize that they actually don't have it all that bad (compared to poor countries) and are obsessed with someone having more than they do.
The truth is probably somewhere in the middle, but I can identify with the conservative angle more.
To abstract it ... if someone has 2 apples and someone else has none, a conservative would probably argue that it would be nice of the person to share one apple, but that it would be unjust to force them to do that.
1 points • SteelHurtin56
> Nobody needs any politician to bless a decision to go work. People can do that already.
...Actually, they can’t. There are 30 million unemployed people in this country. That’s not due to organic economics downturn, that’s specifically because politicians told them they are not allowed to work.
People will lose their businesses forever because of this. It’s an indisputable fact.
> America could give every 18 year old a Lamborghini (most worthless example ever) if Americans got on the same page to advocate that.
Welp, this is some AOC level math if I’ve ever seen it. I guess we’re beyond having a reasonable discussion. It’s hard to begin even having a reasonable conversation with someone who is so unaware and ignorant of basic economics.
> Again, I recommend The Laundromat on Netflix.
How about a book? Try Economics in One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt. It’s a really short read that’ll clear up most of your misconceptions.
1 points • ManOfTheInBetween
No in response to your question.
> As for why I think a person shouldn't necesserily have their intelligence that's easy, I think there's amounts of money people simply don't need and that I'm skeptical any one person could earn without someone else being screwed over.
That's because you have the incorrect view that wealth limited (one pie and everyone is competing for a slice). Truth is that wealth created (make your own pie).
1 points • Hokochan
My friend who is a former Stanford economics prof. recommended me Economics in one lesson by Henry Hazlitt. This was very clear and easy to follow!
1 points • challllen
Economics in One Lesson by Hazlitt Critical lessons of basic economic concepts. https://www.amazon.com/Economics-One-Lesson-Shortest-Understand/dp/0517548232
2 points • arch_pessimist
Basic Economics by Thomas Sowell
Economics in One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt
2 points • RolAcosta
Economics in One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt will give you the gist of conservative/libertarian economics. It is written for the lay person but since it is a little slanted, understand there are counter-arguments to a lot of the points in the book.
1 points • insanemetal187
Then you really need to work on your phrasing and looking at the situation someone is in before you come at them like you did me. Your previous message is an obvious bait that I've received many times. I answer honestly and then I get a combination of strawman and ad hominem attacks in return.
Our system is totally fucked but not for the reasons that people like Bernie talks about. He's just going to increase the problem, figuring that if everyone can just take why can't we just take more? That's why when asked how to pay for his plans the retort isn't what Warren says, a bunch of new taxes and trying to make it sound pretty "for just 2 pennies!" He and his people ask how are we paying for the wars or the bailouts or whatever else we obviously can't afford but are? Well, just do the same thing for these programs which are morally better.
For this specific situation, of taxing billionaires. They are calling for a wealth tax. Rich people don't really pay an income tax. Bezos makes like $150k/yr, an income tax is an ant of his total wealth. If you tax someone's wealth though, that's a whole different ballgame. That's taking into consideration any investments, property, collectible, anything of value someone has.
In the case of Bezos that means to pay it, let's use Warren's 2% rather than the outrageous 70% mentioned in the OP. That would mean he's paying over $2 billion in taxes for just one year. No one has that type of money laying around. The banks only insure up to $100k so you aren't keeping $2B in a checking or savings account. You aren't keeping it in cash because it would be a large room filled. So it's in investments as otherwise it would be losing value due to inflation. Most of his money would be in Amazon stocks.
So most likely for him to pay his tax bill he would have to sell off a large amount of stocks to do so. That volume usually needs a bunch of approvals as it's ripe for insider trading. It also usually gets taken out bit by bit so there isn't a huge swing in the stock price. Selling that many stocks is going to cut into his control of Amazon, which he's proven he's a great CEO going from where they were to where they are now. Also it's going to lower Amazon's stock. You also have to factor that other billionaires might be invested in Amazon. Even if they aren't, they are all going to have to be divesting to pay their tax bill. All stocks are going to drop which is going to tighten up capital that businesses have to use.
Most businesses are running on tight margins because prices are on a natural race to the bottom. Everyone is competing on the world stage. So when money gets tight because investments are drying up the first thing that gets cut is personnel. Dump the old timers who are paid well, pick up younger people for less, cut benefits, cut pay, cut hours, cut everything you can to keep the profits enough to not lose more investments.
So we have stocks going down because people have to divest to pay their taxes which leaves businesses with less money to work with. Employees have less job options as companies don't have the capital to grow or liquid cash to cover larger than necessary overhead. Also, everyone who is investing their 401k or other retirement options are also losing money as these people take money off the table. Everyone gets poorer because while that money is "their's" it's held in investments and for all you know that's the money that was loaned to you to start your small business or your mortgage.
Because most people live paycheck to paycheck they just assume rich people have $100B sitting in their savings account doing nothing, just a large rainy day fund. Anyone with money has it working as inflation is going to eat large chunks of it. I mean if Bezos just threw that all into a savings account at 1% interest when we are at 2-4% inflation, he would be losing over 1-3B a year. If he just gets a really modest return he can live like a king forever. He's choosing to leave it on Amazon to help the company grow which provides more jobs and more cheap consumer goods making it so we don't need to make as much money to have what he's selling.
We are connected. If he wins it's because he's providing more value for us, his money comes from us wanting to give it to him. If he suffers we all do, with a lack of employment and a lack of cheap stuff. This goes for any of them. It's not looking at one person as evil and the other as a victim. The economy doesn't function without both parts and both are equally important. The difference is labor assumes no risk while Bezos could lose all of his wealth tomorrow.
The only enemy to be had is the government as they provide no value they just move resources from one area to another and usually they misallocate those resources which causes a bubble. Like we saw in 08. The government wanted more home owners so it forced banks to give out bad loans. People needed to make money off those bad loans so rolled them up with good ones and sold them as a package. Housing prices were the most consistent thing to invest in until the bubble burst so everyone trusted the agencies telling them they were good. Then the interest rate went up and no one could afford their home. Investments all run dry. Everyone loses their money. Government, after taking tax payer money to get poor people into homes then takes more tax payer money to bail out banks.
This was a real quick overview but if you want an easy, quick read on it check out Economics in One Lesson. To be honest I haven't read that but everyone I've learned from suggests it, so I trust it's good. If you want something more intense, which is where I got most of my knowledge of principles I'd suggest Basic Economics. I love Sowell's work, I haven't read anything from him that wasn't amazing.
1 points • Helmuth-Von-Moltke
What was the rate of productivity or inflation have to do with wages? Honestly I think a lot of you have every bit of economics knowledge you have from social media. If social media is not a good place to get all your news because if it filled with fake news what makes you think it is a good place to get all you economic knowledge. Ask yourself honestly, why do I believe the thing I believe? Have you ever actually studied the subject or do you feel slighted because you are not paid enough? Or that it is wrong that people do not have what they need to survive? If you are honest enough to answer truthfully, in 99% of cases you have not really looked into it, I am going to recommend a book, Economics in one simple lesson. Super simple book. Older than you are but has stood the test of time. Informative and entertaining to read. It is well reviewed. give it a try.
​
https://www.amazon.com/Economics-One-Lesson-Shortest-Understand/dp/0517548232
1 points • oO0oo0o0Oo0ooO0O0oO0
It's quite logical actually. If there is a limit to what you can pay someone you will have a disproportionate amount of people at that level. Everyone close to it will end up there for obvious reasons. Those well below it will be unemployed.
https://www.amazon.com/Economics-One-Lesson-Shortest-Understand/dp/0517548232
1 points • PenIslandTours
>community and state benefits such as, but not limited to, revenue from tax.
Are you sure that the government plundering our community via taxation is helpful?
https://www.amazon.com/Economics-One-Lesson-Shortest-Understand/dp/0517548232
1 points • Brother_tempus
https://mises.org/library/man-economy-and-state-power-and-market
https://www.amazon.com/Economics-One-Lesson-Shortest-Understand/dp/0517548232
https://mises.org/library/human-action-0
1 points • NeverTread
Alright you have demonstrated clearly that you don't understand what a free market is.
Here are some resources to help you out: https://www.amazon.com/Economics-One-Lesson-Shortest-Understand/dp/0517548232 https://www.amazon.com/Basic-Economics-Citizens-Guide-Economy/dp/0465081452 https://www.amazon.com/Capitalism-Freedom-Anniversary-Milton-Friedman/dp/0226264211
1 points • norulers
Traditional western values like: honesty, prudence, diligence, industriousness, humility, charity, kindness, justice, temperance, integrity, respect for traditional marriage and family, respect and primacy of the individual over the state, rule of law. Some of these are found in Christianity. Colonialism is not among them. Nor is slavery. Nor is corruption. Nor is corporatism (which you confuse with capitalism). Nor are any of a thousand other sins of man that have plagued every culture from the beginning of time.
Socialism has never worked and was fully discredited on a theoretical level in 1922 by Mises in his seminal work, "Die Gemeinwirtschaft" (the most recent English translation is Socialism).
Booms and busts are not caused by capitalism. The are caused by central bank monetary policy (central banks have nothing to do with Capitalism). More on that here. Much more on that all over the internet.
Capitalism is actually a term coined by Karl Marx to create an seemingly co-equal opposite for his theory of Socialism. A punching bag, so to speak - that he disingenuously used to promote Socialism. In actual fact, the real contrasting philosophies are Socialism and true free trade as described by Mises and others. I highly suggest you read Hazlitt's Economics in One Lesson as the best introduction to economics and free trade.
Once you understand the true nature of Socialism and Capitalism (a term we're stuck with - but will have to do), you may see things a bit differently.
1 points • SomeAncap2020
For plain economics-oriented books, literally anything by Friedman, Basic Economics by Sowell, and Economics in One Lesson by Henry Hazlit are good for starting out.
For a story, Ayn Rand is great.
For a very brief introduction to Friedman's ideas, this video is amazing.
Be careful out there. Some self-proclaimed 'capitalists' are Corporatists who put out a horrific image for the rest of us. The vast majority of us see Capitalism as a way of making the world a much better place for everyone, not just as a vessel to improve our own lives at the expense of others. There seems to be a big misinterpretation that we don't care about the world and other people, which just isn't true.
Also, it's great that you've decided to try to understand the other side. That's far too rare in today's world, so seriously, good job.
1 points • taipalag
> Nor do I think that being able to run a business is really relevant to realizing that unregulated markets create monopolies.
You were and are moving goalposts with the monopoly question, which you brought here stating:
> A completely unregulated market (which, according to your statement of "regulations = favor big businesses" would be the best for small businesses) always ends up in a monopolized market.
And I showed you this isn't true, as one of the biggest and most unregulated markets in today's world, cryptos, is unregulated, and instead of having a monopoly, we have thousands of competing currencies. In other words, your statement is demonstrably wrong.
In fact, regulation through governement is the biggest driver of monopolies
> I was expecting a meta-study, not "look at my examples!!!"
Is the following meta enough for you?
> Quote: "Economic freedom, however, is not a single system. In many respects, it is the absence of a single dominating system. Over the past 25 years, the Index has demonstrated that economic freedom is not a dogmatic ideology. It represents instead a philosophy that rejects dogma and embraces diverse and even competing strategies for economic advancement. Each year, the Index provides compelling evidence that it is not the policies we fail to implement that hold back economic growth. Rather, it is the dreadful policies that our governments all too often put in place."
You are all talk and no walk, and it looks like all you know about economics is the BS you hear about in news and politics.
I suggest you start to educate yourself about economics, for example, Henry Hazlitt's excellent Economics in One Lesson. There's also Mises, Rothbard, which you would be inspired to read.
1 points • 3-10
I don't care if feared or respected, but the deception that the US is bad is grossly deceptive. Show me a country that has as mixed of a population with as few problems.
If you want your kids to have a better life, have the government get out of lending to universities, so tuition will go back to normal rates. Cut spending, so less is needed in tax revenue so what you earn you keep. Demand a privatization of Social Security for those under 40 and block creditors from getting it after death so something can be passed onto their children. Limit regulation so the free market can keep improving quality of life.
You don't need to stay out of it, you just need to learn about human nature and the law of scarity and what type of society functions best within the limits of human nature.
https://discusseconomics.com/behavioral-economics/foundations-economics-law-scarcity/
Here ar esome books I recommend for building an idea of politics:
https://www.amazon.com/Economics-One-Lesson-Shortest-Understand/dp/0517548232
https://www.amazon.com/Liberty-Tyranny-Conservative-Mark-Levin/dp/1416562877/ref=sr_1_4?crid=I3DGW0KM9ABU&dchild=1&keywords=mark+levin+books&qid=1598372921&s=books&sprefix=mark+levin%2Cstripbooks%2C258&sr=1-4
https://www.amazon.com/Rediscovering-Americanism-Progressivism-Mark-Levin/dp/1476773459/ref=sr_1_6?crid=I3DGW0KM9ABU&dchild=1&keywords=mark+levin+books&qid=1598372921&s=books&sprefix=mark+levin%2Cstripbooks%2C258&sr=1-6
https://www.amazon.com/Ameritopia-Unmaking-Mark-R-Levin/dp/1439173249/ref=sr_1_10?crid=I3DGW0KM9ABU&dchild=1&keywords=mark+levin+books&qid=1598372921&s=books&sprefix=mark+levin%2Cstripbooks%2C258&sr=1-10
https://www.amazon.com/Plunder-Deceit-Governments-Exploitation-People/dp/1451606303/ref=sr_1_9?crid=I3DGW0KM9ABU&dchild=1&keywords=mark+levin+books&qid=1598372921&s=books&sprefix=mark+levin%2Cstripbooks%2C258&sr=1-9
1 points • lil-sparky
From a previous encounter:
What I said:
>Here is the definition of hypothetical. It would greatly benefit you to read it.
>
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypotheticals
What you said:
>If you take a look at that definition you so kindly shared, a hypothetical question asks about something imaginary rather than something real. Can you identify what is imaginary in following exchange?
What I said:
>Yes, that definition is correct. And what do we say about the situation where Trump was not recommended to fire Comey? Did that situation happen, or was it imaginary?
So now when we take a look at this, in addition to what I previously said here:
>Well it would be nice if all that quoted was the whole story, but it’s not, so to act like it is would be disingenuous. So let’s try again.
>
>Did Trump get the recommendation? Yes or no? If no, then is the situation of if it was no, hypothetical or not?
You already know that we both know what hypothetical means. So your remark about me not knowing, is now undeniably false. What else are you missing? Now you either didn't read, are willfully blind, or don't remember enough of our exchange enough at a time to see the hypothetical as I laid it out. This is really not that complicated.
If you can't get this simple 1 thing right that we have been in what you would categorize as a 10 fold repetition. Why should anyone trust your judgment on the U.S. economy? I'm going to give you some great books to recommendations. I encourage you to read them. I first encourage you to improve reading comprehension, or at least make notes. Either way, the good thing about these books is that they keep things simple.
You can find most of these free at https://libgen.is/
plus there are audio versions on youtube.
Most of the reason why socialism has never worked is because it doesn't take into account the human element. Such as incentives. In order for any state to give the illusion of it being successful socialist, there must be a fundamental capitalist economy that the socialist aspects leech off of. You can find out more in the books listed above.
1 points • bigian52
Couple of suggestions to help you get a basic idea of economics:
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Keynes-Hayek-Defined-Modern-Economics/dp/0393077489
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Economics-Ideas-Really-Need-Know/dp/1848660103
https://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Armchair-Economist-Economics-Everyday/dp/1471101312