If you are interested in learning more about economics, this isthe book to get you started. Forget the statist Samuelson and Nordhaustext they forced on us in Econ 101, "Economics in OneLesson" is the real stuff! Each essay is clear and easy to read with no hard math for us remedial liberal arts majors. More organized and consistent than Friedman, Hazlitt shows that economics only becomes complicated when it is twisted and contorted so as to fit an intellectually dishonest view of the world.

If you're taking an introductory high school or college economics course that doesn't use this book, buy it and read it as a supplement to your coursework. It's very easy to read an essay a day and you'll be intellectually armed, no matter what tripe they try to force down you in class.

As a follow-up book, may I suggest Ayn Rand's "Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal," which lays a moral foundation for a free market, an essential step and one lacking in most economists' view of life. After all, capitalism is not some system devised by experts, it is what naturally occurs when free men are able to trade goods and services...

And if you really want to be versed in the subject, get "Capitalism" by George Reisman, who should win a Nobel prize for this brilliant text. Just having this 1046-page volume on your bookshelf will keep the statists at bay.

If you have already read and learned from "Economics in One Lesson", consider buying a copy for a friend. Spread capitalism and spread the wealth!

This book is usually listed by free-market advocates as one of the five books to read first. Henry Hazlitt writes with unequaled clarity. He outlines that basics of many fundamental ideas--the price system, inflation, government subsidies, minimum wage, and others. He uses pure logic and reasoning almost exclusively, only providing statistics as sidenotes to the main point. However, the book's strength is also its weakness. While he makes a tremendous intellectual defense of free market economics, it by no means complete. I would recommend this to any beginning libertarian or free market advocate; it will provide many strong points for further contemplation and research. However, a Keynesian advocate will still be able to question certain ideas. Yet, any intellectually honest statist should read it, because Hazlitt does present his arguments cogently, clearly, and with power. One note: a more seasoned free market economist may wish to consider this book a medium priority, because it may be somewhat basic to someone familiar with classic arguments.

"Economics in One Lesson" by Henry Hazlitt succeeds very well at what it was meant to do. The book makes it extremely easy for the reader to learn about economics. The book is simple and easy to understand. And it's also quite enjoyable to read. And it's only about 200 pages long, so it can be read in a relatively short period of time.

Most high schools do not teach economics. And most colleges do not require any economics courses to be taken. However, with this book, you can learn all the major basics.

The most important thing that this book does is that it rebukes and counters all of the majorly popular misconceptions about economics. According to the book, the two main reasons that most people don't understand economics when they look at a certain policy are, #1 they only look at how the policy affects its targeted group of people, and avoid considering how it affects the population as a whole and #2 they only look at the short term consequences of the policy, and ignore the long term effects.

For example, let's say that foreign companies are selling cheap steel to the U.S. So in order to protect jobs in the U.S. steel industry, the U.S. government creates import restrictions on steel that gets imported into the U.S. (These import restrictions could be either tariffs, quotas, or a combination of the two. The net result will be the same either way.)

So because of these trade barriers, the U.S. steel industry is saved. The jobs of thousands of steel workers are saved. We see reports on the TV news and in the newspapers that these jobs have been saved. Supposedly, the country is better off. Supposedly, these trade barriers were a good idea.

But most people will ignore the other affects of these trade barriers. Because the price of steel is higher, this will harm the U.S. industries that make things out of steel. The automobile industry, the washing machine industry, the refrigerator industry, the construction industry, and many other industries, will all have to pay higher prices for steel. So these industries will not be able to afford to employ as many people as they otherwise would, and so some jobs in these industries will be lost. Consumers will have to pay higher prices for things made of steel, so these consumers will have less money to spend on other things, such as food, clothing, entertainment, furniture, and other things, so some jobs in these industries will be lost. Since the U.S. is importing less steel from other countries, then these other countries will have fewer American dollars to buy goods from the U.S., so U.S. exports will go down, so U.S. jobs in these industries will be lost. The overall result of this trade barrier policy is that the net number of U.S. jobs remains the same, but that the average purchasing power of the average citizen is reduced. So overall, the average citizen has a lower standard of living. But most people will ignore the negative effects of the trade barriers.

This idea can be applied to other economic polices, too. Yes, farm subsidies do indeed benefit specific farmers. Yes, various labor laws do indeed benefit specific workers. Yes, laws that restrict competition in certain areas do indeed benefit certain people. The problem is that most people only look at the benefits of these kinds of policies. What most people ignore is that all of these policies have negative effects on other people, and that the total negative effects outweigh the total positive effects. So the overall result is that these kinds of policies make the average person worse off.

So why do most people only see the benefits of these policies, and ignore the negative effects? Because the direct benefits for the intended beneficiaries are usually very concentrated among a relatively small group of people, and so the benefits are very visible. But the negative effects of such polices are usually spread out over a much larger group of people, and so this harm is not always very easy to see. For example, if trade barriers against imported steel raise the prices of things made of steel (automobiles, refrigerators, washing machines, etc.), so that people have less money to spend on other things, such as, say, going to the movies, and, as a result, a movie theater has to close down, then it is very hard to trace the closing of the movie theater to the fact that the government had placed trade barriers against imported steel.

Hazlitt also explains that in the long run, many economic policies end up hurting the very people that the policies were intended to help. In the long run, price controls on beef lead to a shortage of beef, minimum wage laws cause unemployment among low-skilled workers, and rent control leads to a shortage of low-cost housing.

This book very strongly supports the idea that actions have consequences. And these consequences affect a much larger number of people than most people would expect to be affected. If everybody read this book, the population of the U.S. would be much better educated in the area of economic policies, and then, hopefully, they would act more logically when it came to choosing our elected representatives in government.

Bastiat does some gentle and not so gentle poking fun at the Trade Luddites of his era. His defense of free trade is no less relevant today. In fact, with the nonsense we are hearing about trade from political and activist quarters - it is probably even more important today.

This is a book that I first read about fifteen years ago, and the wonderful stories provide vivid examples for evaluating, or countering, "new" economic ideas with common sense historical, or allegorical, counterparts.

Protectionists, beware - this book will change you forever.

I've only read this book once so far. I must read it again, more intensely to be certain I am on the right track.
I am a poor man determined to find the path to true, long-run happiness and I think this man has found it. He did the rags-to-riches thing himself and I'm sure that only such a man can lead the way for the rest of us. It rings true to me because it doesn't require the aid of un-named others. The key is to examine his path for yourself. You won't regret it.

Philosophers often debate the merits of utilitarianism versus rights-based theories. Hazlitt brilliantly shows that, in fact, utilitarianism is compatible with rights-based theorizing. Hazlitt's conclusion is that ethical actions are those that promote social cooperation -- and that human beings are naturally predisposed to cooperate with each other. The most potent force working against such cooperation is the state. Hazlitt's prose is smooth, clear, and compelling. I think that no better book on ethics has ever been written.

Henry Hazlitt, author of the classic 'Economics in One Lesson,' here makes the argument for replacing America's presidential system of government with a parliamentary one resembling Great Britain's. His argument is strong and well-reasoned. Even people unwilling to consider wholesale changes to the constitutional system that has lasted this long will find much to ponder in this brief book.

Hazlitt argues that the tremendous expansion of government size and power has made our original constitutional design unworkable. The more government tries to do, he says, the less it is able to do well. Additionally, as he writes in the preface to the second edition, 'No man today can possess the knowledge, the wisdom, the judgment, the humility, the restraint to know how to exercise such powers and to make such a multitude of crucial decisions. In brief, so long as a President has such awesome responsibilities and powers, no man, no human being, is fit to be President.'

Hazlitt also argues that the Nixon impeachment crisis proves that the constitutional system is too unwieldy: a parliamentary system could have removed Nixon without provoking a 'constitutional crisis.' The same argument can be made again, of course, citing the Clinton example.

In all, this book by a respected economist and political writer deserves much wider attention than it has ever received. For people who believe government is ultimately reformable, Hazlitt's suggestions are an important contribution to a long-overdue debate.

A New Constitution Now is a brilliant critique of American government. Hazlitt draws on the opinions of many scholars, as well as his own great insight, to explain why the presidential system of government is fundamentally flawed. He advocates adopting a parliamentary government much like that of Great Britain--minus the impotent monarch. Hazlitt scorns the traditional American fetishistic adoration of our Constitution and exposes the numerous problems (including the Civil War) that have arisen as a direct or indirect result of our "midguided" systems of separation of powers and checks and balances. Hazlitt offers both criticism and solutions, and the book is both compelling and convicing.

Bidinotto has put together one of the best one-stop resources on the criminal justice system. The book offers detailed criticism of our criminal justice system and sound fix-it proposals, endorsing the view that the criminal is *responsible* for his actions, and should be dealt with accordingly. Bidinotto, an essayist and journalist who has written for Reader's Digest and is currently on the staff of the Poughkeepsie-based Institute for Objectivst Studies, writes with particular incisiveness and clarity about these issues in essays providing the connective framework for the anthology. He proposes his own "retributive" theory of justice to displace the rehabilitation theories that discount the criminal's responsibility and have swamped the justice system since the 1960s. Other standout contributions include those by criminologist Stanton Samenow, and philosopher David Kelley. Although the name of Ayn Rand is never mentioned in the book, both Kelley and Bidinotto are clearly influenced by her conceptions of justice and individual responsibility. A must-read volume for anyone interested in what the problem is with our courts and prisons. ****

This book is still in print and can be purchased at the Mises Instituted web site (mises.org). One of the best, and least read books on economics. Most economics PhD's have probably never heard of this book, which refutes much of what they learned in graduate school. The book is essentially a companion volume to Keynes' "General Theory", and as such, deliberately follows the same organization, which Hazlitt explicitly apologizes for in the introduction. Hazlitt addresses "General Theory" paragraph by paragraph (and sometimes sentence by sentence) and demolishes almost everything Keynes wrote. By following Keynes'discussion in this manner, Hazlitt is able to clearly show how Keynes constantly contradicts himself and changes the meaning of his words, often within the same paragraph. At the end of the book, Hazlitt calls "General Theory" for what it is: Das Capital in (thin) disguise. And as always, Hazlitt's writing style makes even the most obscure issues easy to understand.

Don't read this if you're expecting it to be "just a novel." Hazlitt gives the reader a thorough grounding in free-market economics. Because of this, the book requires a lot of study and thought. Instead of using dry abstract examples as college econ texts do, Hazlitt shows what happens in real life in the fight between the free market and socialism. It's very realistic; it shows why capitalism brings prosperity and socialism always brings death and destuction.

Henry Hazlitt was the author of 17 books. He is best known in libertarian and conservative circles for his outstanding, ECONOMICS IN ONE LESSON. He also wrote a fascinating book on ethics entitles, THE FOUNDATIONS OF MORALITY.

This is a comprehensive work on the foundations of ethics. According to Hazlitt, the foundation of morality is social cooperation and from this principle he develops a variation of rule utilitarianism. Drawing upon the free enterprise tradition in general and the economic theory of von Mises in particular, Hazlitt argues that actions are good that promote social happiness, and the best way to achieve this is through the free enterprise system. Hazlit therefore rejects other approaches to ethics, such as natural law or religious based morality.

The best portion of this work is how Hazlitt relates utilitarianism and self-interest. One argument against utilitarianism is that by making the social good the basis of morality, all self-interest and initiative is destroyed. But as Hazlitt shows, those acts that are in our own self-interest tend to increase the overall happiness of society. If all my acts had to motivated by a desire to save starving people in the four corners of the world, neither they nor I would be likely be any better off as a result.

After he describes the foundations of ethics, he takes up some practical issues. For example, there are two outstanding chapters which discuss the relative morality of capitalism and socialism.

This book contains a brief introduction by Prof. Leland Yeager, who has written a book on ethics from a similar perspective entitled, ETHICS AS A SOCIAL SCIENCE: THE MORAL PHILOSOPHY OF SOCIAL COOPERATION. For a different view on ethics from a libertarian perspective, check out Murray Rothbard's, THE ETHICS OF LIBERTY.

Hazlitt's tremendously good "Economics in One Lesson" (the audio version is swell!) is better known, and indeed, has become a true classic of political literature. The 50th anniversary edition even advertises an introduction by Steve Forbes. But this book is equally good, and unjustly neglected.

Henry Hazlitt was the two things Charles Dickens hated: a utilitarian and a classical (laissez-faire capitalist) liberal.

This book makes a great introduction to utilitarianism, very well-written and quite suitable for college freshmen. For the jaded expert, it offers a refreshingly different political perspective, and also includes material crucial to the intellectual history of liberal thought, but neglected elsewhere.

It is also one of only very few philosophy books which combine utilitarianism with a "libertarian" or classical (laissez-faire) liberal political philosophy. Such a view is usually to be found only in books which are perceived as being about economics rather than political, social, or moral philosophy. (The thing is, for any utilitarian, political philosophy quickly defers to the empirical sciences, especially economics.)

Like his friend, the great classical liberal economist Ludwig von Mises, Hazlitt argued for the free market not on the basis of rights, but on the basis of consequences. For these utilitarians, capitalism is good (the best available political system) precisely because it works better than any alternative to maximize human well-being. Every other political system, as Mises showed (in "Human Action" etc.) must tend to lead to impoverishment, whether relative or absolute.

It bears remembering that utilitarianism was once considered to be of a piece with laissez-faire liberalism. And so it truly is, as Hazlitt and Mises have shown. Socialism, on the other hand, was rightly understood----before Marx----to be more in line with the sentiments of romantic religious reactionaries like Dickens, Ruskin, Carlyle, Doestoyevsky, and Tolstoy. These men did not refute the arguments of economics, but instead denounced it as "the dismal science." Before Marx, socialism in its early days was called "Practical Christianity" in the New World, and "Nouveau Christianisme" in France. (See George Watson's sensational "Lost Literature of Socialism.")

Now that socialism has killed nearly 100 million innocent men, women, and children worldwide, and subjected a third of mankind to a completely unnecessary grinding poverty and deprivation for the better part of a century, it's high time its pretentions to being morally superior are unmasked.

The non-utilitarian rival to this book would be Rothbard's "Ethics of Liberty," which, contrary to Mises and Hazlitt, bases the case for private property on natural rights. The problem with that Lockean-Randian approach is twofold. First, that it says we have a right to own property because we NEED it. (So, do we have a absolute natural right to anything and everything we need?) And second, because, it is nearly impossible to make anyone believe that any system based on natural rights, or anything else, could really be good if it had awful consequences. If it were true that a political system based on deontological rights would lead to terrible poverty and suffering, then that system would not be good. It would be bad.

Want to know more about economics -- and economic policy -- but don't want deal with math and complicated graphs? Then this is the book for you.

Almost all of the most important things you need to know about economics can be explained in plain language, in just a few pages, and that's exactly what Hazlitt does here.

The fact that the book is over 50 years old shouldn't scare anyone away. The issues addressed by Hazlitt are the same ones in the news today. Were the September 11 attacks actually good for the economy because they created new jobs for cleanup crews and builders? Will President Bush's decision to protect American steelmakers from cheap foreign steel be good for the economy? Should Congress raise the minimum wage to help poor people? Should Alan Greenspan lower interest rates to get us out of the recession? _Economics In One Lesson_ will give you the tools to analyze all of these questions and much more.

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.

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.

It is the opinion of other authors that the Gold Clause is still illegal (and thus unenforceable), and thus one should proceed with caution before following the advice in this book. Perhaps that is why this is the "only" book on this topic? File with the "how to beat the I.R.S." books which offer similarly dubious advice.