Talk:Economics in One Lesson

Miscellany
Just read a few chapters of that book online. It sounds reasonably sound - is there a critique somewhere that disproves Hazlitts ideas or are they universally seen as "correct" as they sound by reading the book? Peter S. 13:44, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Of course they're absolutely correct (and not Hazlitt's ideas). The unassailable proof is given by Ludwig von Mises in his masterwork Human Action. But, equally "of course", they're not universally seen as correct -- Socialists and similar types who don't like economics will always "disagree" with anything that demonstrates the invalidity of their beliefs. Tacitus Prime 03:57, 8 December 2005 (UTC)


 * The extreme POV of the above comment is quite evident ... and isn't unlike Hazlitt's own view of his ideas. -- 98.171.173.90 (talk) 22:30, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

I would also like to see a rebuff of this book linked to. What do the socialists and others have to say about it? matturn 05:00, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Paul Samuelson, who isn't a socialist, laughs at this book: http://robertvienneau.blogspot.com/2007/01/samuelson-i-side-with-sraffians.html 151.190.254.108 14:21, 6 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, Robert, the definition of “socialism” is a system under which the means of production are owned by and administered for the benefit of the community. That makes Samuelson a socialist, albeït not a particularly thorough-going socialist. (Many socialists are not thorough-going.  As Heilbroner noted in Marxism: For and Against, the means of production include labor.)
 * Now, the immediate problem with Samuelson's sneer is that he presumes that Hazlitt simply embraces Böhm-Bawerk's theory. But Hazlitt was a fan of v. Mises, who rejected the very presumption to which Samuelson objects — that time is necessarily productive.  Indeed, at least according to v. Mises, so did Menger.  You see, the assumption that the Austrian School is monolithic about capital theory is very much the same sort of bad scholarship as treating the Austrian School as part of a neoclassical monolith, or treating classical economics as monolithic about supply-and-demand.
 * One scans Economics in One Lesson in vain for a mention of Böhm-Bawerk or of his theory of interest. The claim that Hazlitt makes about interest is that the rate of consumption is affected by it, contrary to the crude Keynesian notion that the rate of interest merely determines the extent to which people place money that would otherwise be stuffed in the mattress instead with in investments or with financial intermediaries.
 * I don't know whether I would embrace the conceptual content of Hazlitt's book myself. I found what I read of it too tedious to continue, and he certainly made what I regard as errors elsewhere.  But, whether Böhm-Bawerk's theory is a glorious pendant or an albatross, it does not belong around Hazlitt's neck. —SlamDiego&#8592;T 10:26, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Just was reading Abba Lerner's Economics of Employment - Lerner calls it a "very good book" - amusing as functional finance / neoChartalism / modern monetary theory is the opposite fringe school to the Austrians - but since they both focus on conceptual rigor, and have some common conclusions, and are opposed to mainstream economics (imho usually incoherent pretend -mathematical ravings, which would be comical if so many did not drink the Kool-Aid), perhaps not so surprising. Will incorporate what he said.John Z (talk) 14:19, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Opportunity Cost
Isn't this book typically based on the concept of opportunity cost as economists see it?

If that is so we need to state that.Kendirangu 08:52, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Indeed, it does the concept of opportunity cost nigh unto death. However, I have a bit of unease about your phrase “as economists see it”.  Most (alleged?) economists aren't particularly good with this concept (though they're much better than most other folk). —SlamDiego&#8592;T 06:01, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

The assumption of rational economizing man and the paradox of scarcity and wealth
I have read both [Carl Menger]'s "Principles of Economics" and Hazlitt's "Economics in one lesson". Perhaps this is not the place to start discussing it, but I cannot find a better place right now. The former book is definitely more scientific in that it defines the concepts under discussion. Hazlitt assumes all will commonly accept the basic economic terms as he understands them, although he makes some attempts at dissociating wealth from money, though even he falls prey to discussing key concepts in terms of money.

Both however leave the scientific trail early on to vehemently discuss governmental policies. I would accept that denouncing those would follow from a scientific treatise, but particularly Hazlitt moves into the battlefield immediately. He has all the right to do so, but it doesn't help to read the book as a scientific work. In particular, both Menger and Hazlitt are making an assumption which they do not further investigate: that men will always act in a rational way to the best economizing effect. Macro-economic tendencies should not just assume such behaviour. People are not always or even primarily driven by pure self interest. People behave in naïve ways, are genuinely altruïstic or stupid. Perhaps these behaviours are cancelled out on a larger scale and economics can further be studied under the assumption that it is aggregated self-interest, but it remains a strong assumption.

The most essential critique I have is the contradiction between the definition of wealth and the broken window fallacy. In Menger's defintion of wealth, abundant (non-scarce) goods that fulfill needs (such as air to breathe), are not calculated, since man attaches no value to those. This means that when they become scarce, as when air is so polluted that it becomes costly to purify it for consumption, the economy resulting from it will be counted as growth. This is a major form of the broken window fallacy. From this it results that scarcity should not affect wealth: all goods that fulfill needs, must be taken into account when counting one's wealth, and the wealth of mankind.

Apart from that, both books are tedious and repetitive, making their case in a way that reminds of the Bible or Koran. A modernized and genuinely scientific work is due to absorb these classics, clean them from redundancy, while keeping the valuable central lessons, which in Hazlitt's book is looking at all consequences of a measure or an event. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knotwilg (talk • contribs) 11:05, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Reception POV
Hi &. I tried my best to flesh out the reception section with better quality sources and more mainstream (non-Austrian) economists, but the overall reception of the book is more-or-less positive. I also tried to cut out or replace refs to the Mises Institute/FEE. Do you believe the POV template is still warranted? Thanks, Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 21:29, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your hard work. I agree that it's got a lot of praise from conservative/right wing people (some of whom aren't economists}, but that just means its supporters publicized it. It doesn't seem to have received much attention from  mainstream professional economists, does it? Which suggests we need to be careful about describing its reception - maybe not judge it. Note that the source for Ayn Rand and Ron Paul is a sales site, which we should treat just as we would reviews on an Amazon site, ie not use them. Ron Paul is a politician and a medical doctor, why should we care about his comments anyway? As for Ayn Rand, she isn't an economist and is a bit of a joke among main stream philosophers. I recall sitting in a lecture of hers with my tutor at Yale, him smiling at me when I turned the program into a paper airplane and flew it - a bit juvenile of me I guess, but satisfying. In any case she isn't an expert either. I'm  not sure about the lawyer. I don't think we need a better source for Brad DeLong, he's an expert and attributed so we can use his website. What do you think about my comments?  Doug Weller  talk 15:00, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi . I partially agree with your comments. Like you mentioned at RSN, the book is pretty much a "walled garden." Right-wingers rave about it; left-wingers are mostly mum about it. But if there's a deficient of sources from left-wingers, then there's not a lot we can do about it (trust me; I looked far and wide for left-wing reviews of the book). We're supposed to give an accurate summary of all available reliable sources. So, as long we attribute the positive reception from right-wingers (like we do in the beginning: "...and is considered a classic by several American conservative, free-market, and libertarian circles") then we are compliant with WP:NPOV. I completely agree that the Ayn Rand/Ron Paul reception is poorly sourced and they are not experts at all. I would be comfortable removing them. Who do you consider to be a mainstream professional economist? Would Hayek, Friedman, Hermens, Rist, McTeer qualify as mainstream professional economists? Or how about the reviews from the American Economic Review or the Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science (which I'm assuming were written by economists)? As for the better source for DeLong, I just can't stand when we use random WP:BLOGS in articles--even if the author is a subject matter expert. I'm hoping someone would be able to find his opinion on the book published in a more professional outlet (but I won't fight you tooth and nail over it; if you wish to remove the tag, be my guest). Apologies for the long comment. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 02:03, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't look for left-wingers, supporters of Keynesian Economics would suffice, but they seem to have more or less ignored it. So far as I understand it, this is mainly the right wing of economists criticizing the middle. Ferdinand A. Hermens seems fine. I'm not sure which Rist you mean and know nothing about any of them. Robert D. McTeer, difficult - he sounds good until you see that he was a fellow at the National Center for Policy Analysis which was part of the climate change denial Cooler Heads Coalition which has actively tried to stop the US government from tackling the issue of climate change. And it is funded by the Libertarian Competitive Enterprise Institute which among other things gives out a yearly Julian Simon award. So in the end, I'd link him with Hayek and Friedman, who are definitely not mainstream economists. I had to read [{The Road to Serfdom]] at Yale. At the time I was pretty conservative, but the book convinced me I needed to change my views! Ironically Keynes Loved it.  Doug Weller  talk 15:23, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
 * , By Rist I mean Charles Rist. His corresponding French article seems much more developed. I'll try to look for some Keynesian critiques but that may be a challenge. Oh, come now, Doug. Hayek & Friedman are some of the two most influential, mainstream economists of the 20th century. I have some qualms about their writings too, but I doubt the Nobel prize in economics is handed out to individuals on the fringe. I don't particular enjoy Paul Krugman's columns, but he is obviously a mainstream economist. I would say people more like Walter Block or Robert P. Murphy fall into the non-mainstream category. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 16:14, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
 * , got to fix dinner, just a quick bit about Hayek and the Nobel Prize. . Doug Weller  talk
 * , Eh, I'm not really surprised. Whenever the candidate is even slightly political, there is always controversy. Like when Robert Aumann won the prize or Krugman . Joan Robinson never won the prize because the committee thought she was too socialist . The Nobel prize committee has been accused of having both a left-wing and right-wing bias  . Interestingly, Hayek hated the Nobel prize and basically used most of his speech time to roast them. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 18:01, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
 * , I managed to find this critique from the Post-Keynesian/socialist Abba Lerner. Do you believe the article is more balanced now? Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 00:21, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
 * thanks, you've transformed this article. I've removed the pov tag but also the statement by Lew Rockwell, which I'd somehow missed and I think doesn't belong. Doug Weller  talk 11:29, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
 * , Thanks for being reasonable about this. I agree with the Rockwell removal (he's a bit of a fringe character). Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 14:33, 15 August 2021 (UTC)