This book is an excellent, concise introduction to one particular kind of economic thinking: the idea that an economy works best if left to free market forces alone, and that any kind of government intervention is bad and disturbs the economy, rather than improving it.

This is what I like about the book: I have never seen such a clear exposition of this line of thinking. And this is my greatest disappointment: That these ideas are presented as the only possible way to understand economics, the only conclusion that any rational mind would naturally arrive at. Those who don't are, in the words of the author: stupid, apostles of a different faith, enemies.

In other words, this book is not a rational treatise of economics, but a political pamphlet. You realize this a few pages in, and you have to live with it for the rest of the book.

That being said, many of the ideas are thought-provoking, due to the crystal clear simplicity with which they are stated. I constantly wondered: Is this right? Who would claim the opposite? Why? Who has the better arguments?

So in all, it's not a bad book. But you have to start thinking where the author left off.

The most eloquent explanations about economics

The book is loaded with various economic sophisms from areas such as price ceiling, subsidies, rent control, minimum wage etc., where policies catered to small special economic group appear beneficial to such groups in the short term but end up bringing much unwanted ills to the whole population in the long term - there are Seen and unseen effects of all economic policies. But the author's language is a mix of strong logical arguments mixed with emotional ones, so in some places I feel he leads you astray with some of his reasoning. He also seems to have such fundamental and deep belief in free markets which only works efficiently if all actors participating in such markets have all the information readily available to them. In almost all arguments this is taken as the ground reality. Very anti-Keynesian and propounds libertarian principles. But still this book is a solid introduction to economics.

For anyone who is interested in learning economics, this book should be on your list of books to read first.

This book smacks down Keynesian economics with good ol' Austrian economics.

Highlights (these are from memory so they may not be verbatim):

"Inflation is the opiate of the masses" (LOVE the shoutout to Marx!)

"Inflation is taxation of the most regressive kind."

"The art of economics is not just seeing the immediate but the long term effects of any act or policy. You must trace the consequences of that policy not only for one group but for every group."

I love the chapters on inflation, unions, free trade, tariffs, rent control... Heck, I loved every chapter.

A shortsighted and smarmy screed for the Joe The Plumbers of the world.

This book, being almost 70 years old, is quite dated and holds a number regressive and oversimplified attitudes about economics.

Hypocritically, most of the problems this book claims to answer (that many economic policies do not take into account the full consequences of their effects) are almost immediately dispensed with inside of a single economic cycle.

What this means is that decisions made by individuals and governments are not fully explored across time. In other words, we don't get answers to questions like:

* What is the most effective and moral way for wealth to be transferred from one generation to another?
* How do we prevent compounding interest alone from creating an unjust economic and political system?
* How do we account for the role that societal values play in determining our economic system?
* How do we track the effects of economic decisions in a global economy, and how do we assign responsibility for outcomes with multiple agents in multiple polities?

In other words, this ancient, privileged d-bag never really spent all his armchair time evaluating economics as a diachronic system with self-aware agents. Rather, he considers it a game that should be purely optimized for profit. Economies don't really work that way -- and when they do work that way, it's not a treat being the low man on the totem pole. Arbitrary regulations are often placed on these markets as a means of expressing cultural values or a sense of shared morality. If you're wondering what I mean, then think about social security or why banking doesn't happen on Sunday.

There are a handful of things in this book I can agree with to a degree, but only because there are so many opinions being carelessly thrown about that a few of the, have to stick. What is it that they say about a broken clock? Anyhow, most agricultural subsidies are bad. Tariffs are tricky, as they are as much an act of economic aggression as they may be political kowtowing. The chapter on "saving" an industry would make a great homework for a high school class studying the financial crisis and bailouts that ensued in 2009, so long as you provided an alternate viewpoint to read and synthesize as well. Ironically Hazlitt touts American auto manufacturing, an industry that received a large bailout, as an example of capitalism working in top form in later chapters.

It doesn't take a genius to realize that economics is a complex human affair, but somehow this point escapes Mr. Hazlitt. It does however take a cold-hearted reactionary steeped in post-atomic hubris to think that the solution to all problems is an unfettered free market. In a society as inherently inequitable as America, loosening fmarket regulations reverses or stagnates the progress we are not finished making in a society still reeling from centuries of slavery, indentured servitude, and exploitive labor arrangements. Most of Hazlitt's attitude towards the pain the American worker endures and the government's attempts to relieve that pain are callous and brash, like a coach who tells an injured player to walk it off.

I can try to empathize with the author and realize that a global depression bookended by global wars is no fun to live through. But having experienced the Bush Tax Cuts and the legacy of Reagan, I can tell you right away that the free market is a pipe dream. The free market is Mad Max. The free market is paying the bully a dollar so he doesn't beat you up for your lunch money, and then still getting beat up for your field trip money. Say what you want about the nation state and its long-term viability in an increasingly global world,
but regulating the free market is one of the most important services such an entity can provide to its citizens. In the end, it is as important a form of protection as a standing army.

Economics is the study of cultural systems used to assign value to individuals and groups, as well as the work output of each within a given society or societies. It's not a points game. Unfortunately, no one is born into a vacuum, and assuming a free market fairly treats trust fund babies and orphans identically is a cruel lie -- one believed by a maniacal zealot at best. We create rules we agree upon as a society to prevent those of means from using the free market from exploiting those of no means, because we all share the duty of making the world a better place for the next generation. That doesn't always mean the generation of wealth. Sometimes it even means the redistribution of wealth!

The worst part about this privileged, out-of-touch, dead white charlatan is the number of people his terrible and short-sighted opinions have influenced. America is a worse place for having canonicalized thinkers like this, who can make simple, prosaic arguments that convince the reader of an idea just long enough to use it to fleece and rob them. But most of all I'm mad at the garbage Facebook post about Mike Rowe that I read on a whim that convinced me to read this book.

To hell with Henry Hazlitt, and to hell with Mike Rowe.