This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Economics in One Lesson article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Added external links and put it in the category of "economics books." 149.68.105.112 14:47, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
The pdf from mises.org no longer exists (verified by J. Tucker), so I removed the link. Someone else had just done that but it was reverted, probably because the original remover didn't say why they removed it!. Rjljr2 ( talk) 21:55, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
The Bot reverted external links to 1946 and 1978 PDF editions. (Current links are to 1952 edition.) Is there copyright problem or should they be added back? See History at http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Economics_in_One_Lesson&oldid=334071437 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.101.136.78 ( talk) 09:59, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Hi Davide King & Doug Weller. 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)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Economics in One Lesson article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Added external links and put it in the category of "economics books." 149.68.105.112 14:47, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
The pdf from mises.org no longer exists (verified by J. Tucker), so I removed the link. Someone else had just done that but it was reverted, probably because the original remover didn't say why they removed it!. Rjljr2 ( talk) 21:55, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
The Bot reverted external links to 1946 and 1978 PDF editions. (Current links are to 1952 edition.) Is there copyright problem or should they be added back? See History at http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Economics_in_One_Lesson&oldid=334071437 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.101.136.78 ( talk) 09:59, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Hi Davide King & Doug Weller. 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)