Neu:
-38 % 11,69$11,69$
Lieferung Freitag, 12. Juli
Versand durch: Amazon.com Verkauft von: Amazon.com
Mit „Gebraucht – Akzeptabel“ sparen
7,02$7,02$
Lieferung Montag, 15. Juli
Versand durch: Amazon Verkauft von: -OnTimeBooks-
Lade die kostenlose Kindle-App herunter und lese deine Kindle-Bücher sofort auf deinem Smartphone, Tablet oder Computer – kein Kindle-Gerät erforderlich.
Mit Kindle für Web kannst du sofort in deinem Browser lesen.
Scanne den folgenden Code mit deiner Mobiltelefonkamera und lade die Kindle-App herunter.
Bild nicht verfügbar
Farbe:
-
-
-
- Herunterladen, um dieses Videos wiederzugeben Flash Player
Dem Autor folgen
OK
Economics in One Lesson: The Shortest and Surest Way to Understand Basic Economics Taschenbuch – 14. Dezember 1988
Kaufoptionen und Plus-Produkte
“A magnificent job of theoretical exposition.”—Ayn Rand
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 wrote Economics in One Lesson 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 fifty 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.
- Seitenzahl der Print-Ausgabe218 Seiten
- SpracheEnglisch
- HerausgeberCrown Currency
- Erscheinungstermin14. Dezember 1988
- Abmessungen13.08 x 1.52 x 20.32 cm
- ISBN-100517548232
- ISBN-13978-0517548233
Blättere durch das Buch und springe mit PageFlip immer wieder dorthin zurück, wo du aufgehört hast.
Vergrößere Bilder mit hoher Qualität, um sie genauer zu betrachten.
Profitiere von weiteren Funktionen, die nur in digitaler Form möglich sind: Nimm deine Bibliothek überallhin mit, lies mit der Kindle App auf all deinen Geräten, passe die Schriftart an, erstelle gemeinsam nutzbare Notizen und Markierungen, und vieles mehr.
Entdecke dank der Wikipedia-Integration zusätzliche Details zu den Ereignissen, Personen und Orten in deinem Buch.
Wird oft zusammen gekauft

Ähnliche Artikel, die dir möglicherweise schnell zugestellt werden
What Every Real Estate Investor Needs to Know About Cash Flow... And 36 Other Key Financial Measures, Updated EditionTaschenbuch10,90 $ VersandErhalte es bis Freitag, 12. Juli

But need is not demand. Effective economic demand requires not merely need but corresponding purchasing power.Von4,361 Kindle-Lesern markiert
Therefore, for every public job created by the bridge project a private job has been destroyed somewhere else.Von3,294 Kindle-Lesern markiert
Everything we get, outside of the free gifts of nature, must in some way be paid for.Von2,968 Kindle-Lesern markiert
Rezensionen der Redaktion
Pressestimmen
—Ayn Rand
“I strongly recommend that every American acquire some basic knowledge of economics, monetary policy, and the intersection of politics with the economy. No formal classroom is required; a desire to read and learn will suffice. There are countless important books to consider, but the following are an excellent starting point: The Law by Frédéric Bastiat; Economics in One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt; What has Government Done to our Money? by Murray Rothbard; The Road to Serfdom by Friedrich Hayek; and Economics for Real People by Gene Callahan.
If you simply read and comprehend these relatively short texts, you will know far more than most educated people about economics and government. You certainly will develop a far greater understanding of how supposedly benevolent government policies destroy prosperity. If you care about the future of this country, arm yourself with knowledge and fight back against economic ignorance. We disregard economics and history at our own peril.”
—Ron Paul, Representative from Texas
Klappentext
Über die Autorenschaft und weitere Mitwirkende
Leseprobe. Abdruck erfolgt mit freundlicher Genehmigung der Rechteinhaber. Alle Rechte vorbehalten.
THE LESSON
Economics is haunted by more fallacies than any other study known to man. This is no accident. The inherent difficulties of the subject would be great enough in any case, but they are multiplied a thousandfold by a factor that is insignificant in, say, physics, mathematics or medicine—the special pleading of selfish interests. While every group has certain economic interests identical with those of all groups, every group has also, as we shall see, interests antagonistic to those of all other groups. While certain public policies would in the long run benefit everybody, other policies would benefit one group only at the expense of all other groups. The group that would benefit by such policies, having such a direct interest in them, will argue for them plausibly and persistently. It will hire the best buyable minds to devote their whole time to presenting its case. And it will finally either convince the general public that its case is sound, or so befuddle it that clear thinking on the subject becomes next to impossible.
In addition to these endless pleadings of self-interest, there is a second main factor that spawns new economic fallacies every day. This is the persistent tendency of men to see only the immediate effects of a given policy, or its effects only on a special group, and to neglect to inquire what the long-run effects of that policy will be not only on that special group but on all groups. It is the fallacy of overlooking secondary consequences.
In this lies the whole difference between good economics and bad. The bad economist sees only what immediately strikes the eye; the good economist also looks beyond. The bad economist sees only the direct consequences of a proposed course; the good economist looks also at the longer and indirect consequences. The bad economist sees only what the effect of a given policy has been or will be on one particular group; the good economist inquires also what the effect of the policy will be on all groups.
The distinction may seem obvious. The precaution of looking for all the consequences of a given policy to everyone may seem elementary. Doesn’t everybody know, in his personal life, that there are all sorts of indulgences delightful at the moment but disastrous in the end? Doesn’t every little boy know that if he eats enough candy he will get sick? Doesn’t the fellow who gets drunk know that he will wake up next morning with a ghastly stomach and a horrible head? Doesn’t the dipsomaniac know that he is ruining his liver and shortening his life? Doesn’t the Don Juan know that he is letting himself in for every sort of risk, from blackmail to disease? Finally, to bring it to the economic though still personal realm, do not the idler and the spendthrift know, even in the midst of their glorious fling, that they are heading for a future of debt and poverty?
Yet when we enter the field of public economics, these elementary truths are ignored. There are men regarded today as brilliant economists, who deprecate saving and recommend squandering on a national scale as the way of economic salvation; and when anyone points to what the consequences of these policies will be in the long run, they reply flippantly, as might the prodigal son of a warning father: “In the long run we are all dead.” And such shallow wisecracks pass as devastating epigrams and the ripest wisdom.
But the tragedy is that, on the contrary, we are already suffering the long-run consequences of the policies of the remote or recent past. Today is already the tomorrow which the bad economist yesterday urged us to ignore. The long-run consequences of some economic policies may become evident in a few months. Others may not become evident for several years. Still others may not become evident for decades. But in every case those long-run consequences are contained in the policy as surely as the hen was in the egg, the flower in the seed.
From this aspect, therefore, the whole of economics can be reduced to a single lesson, and that lesson can be reduced to a single sentence. The art of economics consists in looking not merely at the immediate but at the longer effects of any act or policy; it consists in tracing the consequences of that policy not merely for one group but for all groups.
Produktinformation
- Herausgeber : Crown Currency; paperback Edition (14. Dezember 1988)
- Sprache : Englisch
- Taschenbuch : 218 Seiten
- ISBN-10 : 0517548232
- ISBN-13 : 978-0517548233
- Artikelgewicht : 1,05 Kilograms
- Abmessungen : 13.08 x 1.52 x 20.32 cm
- Amazon Bestseller-Rang: Nr. 10.340 in Bücher (Siehe Top 100 in Bücher)
- Nr. 6 in Wirtschaftskapital
- Nr. 12 in Wirtschaft international
- Nr. 17 in Business Wirtschaftsgeschichte (Bücher)
- Kundenrezensionen:
Videos
Videos für dieses Produkt

1:13
Hier klicken, um Video abzuspielen

Powerful Book To Simplify A Complex Subject
Jay

Videos für dieses Produkt

1:02
Hier klicken, um Video abzuspielen

The best book on Economics
LENGDUNG TUNGCHAMMA

Informationen zum Autor

Henry Stuart Hazlitt (November 28, 1894 – July 9, 1993) was an American journalist who wrote about business and economics for such publications as The Wall Street Journal, The Nation, The American Mercury, Newsweek, and The New York Times. He is widely cited in both libertarian and conservative circles.
Bio from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Photo by Mises Institute (Released by the Mises Institute) [CC BY 3.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0)], via Wikimedia Commons.
Kundenrezensionen
Kundenbewertungen, einschließlich Produkt-Sternebewertungen, helfen Kunden, mehr über das Produkt zu erfahren und zu entscheiden, ob es das richtige Produkt für sie ist.
Um die Gesamtbewertung der Sterne und die prozentuale Aufschlüsselung nach Sternen zu berechnen, verwenden wir keinen einfachen Durchschnitt. Stattdessen berücksichtigt unser System beispielsweise, wie aktuell eine Bewertung ist und ob der Prüfer den Artikel bei Amazon gekauft hat. Es wurden auch Bewertungen analysiert, um die Vertrauenswürdigkeit zu überprüfen.
Erfahren Sie mehr darüber, wie Kundenbewertungen bei Amazon funktionieren.Rezensionen mit Bildern
-
Spitzenrezensionen
Spitzenrezensionen aus USA
Derzeit tritt ein Problem beim Filtern der Rezensionen auf. Bitte versuche es später erneut.
The author discusses the enormous faith many people have in government spending. He writes: "There is no more persistent and influential faith in the world today than the faith in government spending." But he quickly points out the fallacy of assuming that things can be fixed if the government just spends more money on a given problem or weakness. A current example of this fallacy in action is the public education system in the United States. In the book by Myths, Lies, and Downright Stupidity, the author, John Stossel, discusses the public education system in the United States. Many policy-makers and citizens alike have the notion that the best way to improve the public education system in our country is with more money. But time after time, studies and statistics have shown that children aren't getting a better education when more tax dollars are given to the school system. It's been proven that no direct correlation exists between the amount of money allocated to the public school system, and the quality of education a child receives. Yet the mantra is frequently repeated by many: "Give more money to our school system in order to improve it" as if this will automatically fix the problems. There are a host of problems with the public education system, one of which is not a lack of funds.
The author states that "The economic goal of any nation, as of any individual, is to get the greatest results with the least efforts. The whole economic progress of mankind has consisted in getting more production with the same labor." He goes on to write: "Each of us is trying to save his own labor, to economize the means required to achieve his ends. Every employer, small as well as large, seeks constantly to gain his results more economically and efficiently - that is, by saving labor." America is a highly technological, highly productive society. America has the highest standard of living in the history of humanity. Technology and innovation is abundant. Unfortunately, a common economic delusion is that machines and technology destroy jobs. If this were true, it could be said then that civilization contributed to unemployment with the first efforts to improve efficiency through labor-saving inventions like the wheel. In a recent speech given by a politician, he suggested that "we go back to the days of living without ATM machines, because they have destroyed the jobs of many bank tellers." This illustrates the fallacy of concentrating on the short-run effects of something (implementing ATM machines) on a small group of people (bank tellers) and ignoring the long run positive effects on the community (business and consumers) as a whole. The short-run effect is that fewer bank tellers are needed now that ATM machines are widely implemented and used. However the long-run effects are advantageous to the economy. Who manufactures the ATM machines? Who creates and programs the software used in these machines? Who services them when they need calibration, software upgrades, or repair? ATM machines have created jobs, increased production, and raised the standard of living. They have lowered costs for banks by reducing the amount of wages paid out to bank tellers. In turn, banks have passed these savings onto the consumer. ATM's have also increased our quality of life by making the task of depositing and withdrawing money quicker, easier, and more efficient (fewer lines, no dependence on bank hours, and so forth). The ATM market has increased production and efficiency, and contributed to the expansion of the U.S. economy.
In conclusion, I would highly recommend this book. It was very informative and clearly written. The author has a tremendous way of articulating tried and proven economic principles in a straightforward, understandable style. I'm thoroughly convinced that if more politicians and legislators would have followed the common sense economic fundamentals and lessons found in this book, the present state of the U.S. economy would be much healthier and robust.
Hazlitt argues that bad economic policies result from a common mistake: looking only at the immediate initial effect of a law or policy—its isolated benefit to one politically targeted group—while failing to consider its effect on other groups or society in general. He credits 19th century French economist Frederic Bastiat for this insight. In an 1850 essay entitled “What Is Seen and What Is Not Seen” Bastiat wrote: “In the sphere of economics an action . . . or a law engenders not just one effect but a series of effects. Of these effects only the first is . . . seen; The others . . . are not seen; we are lucky if we foresee them. [A bad] Economist . . . relies on the visible effect, while the good one takes account both of the effect one can see and of those one must foresee. [F]or it almost always happens that when the immediate consequence is favorable, the later consequences are disastrous and vice versa. From which it follows that a bad Economist will pursue a small current benefit that is followed by a large disadvantage in the future, while a true Economist will pursue a large benefit in the future at the risk of suffering a small disadvantage immediately.”
Doesn't this describe many shortsighted policies and laws that have been adopted over many years, by both political parties in the U.S., in efforts to help one group or segment of society and then another, without considering the effects on society at large? Trade protectionism and tariffs that benefit a few politically influential industries or groups but drive up prices for all consumers. Farm subsidies that drive up food costs and keep inefficient farmers in business, preventing more productive farmers from acquiring land. Minimum wage laws that increase unemployment by forcing employers to terminate (or not hire) workers whose costs would exceed revenues that would be earned by hiring them. Rent controls that help current renters but create blighted slums when owners can’t afford to repair buildings, and housing shortages when unprofitable investment in new housing plunges. Democratic governments constantly adopt laws and policies intended to help one particular group without considering the long-term consequences or effects on other groups or society at large. These laws and policies are not only often self-defeating, failing to accomplish their intended purpose, but injure living standards by suppressing economic efficiency and productivity.
Hazlitt notes that such improvidence is not new; in fact, it is built into the so-called “division of labor” noted by Adam Smith. As soon as humans begin to specialize and exchange the products of their labor, each person has a vested interest in obtaining maximum value for the goods or services he produces, while minimizing the value others get for their products and services (for which he must pay out of the value of his own work). Thus, the temptation always exists for groups, through political influence, to strive to obtain special benefits or concessions from government, regardless of the cost to others. “What is not seen,” Hazlitt says, are the indirect and cumulative effects of such political favors; as more and more interest groups obtain benefits from government, and the effects connect into a vicious circle, all consumers (including workers in favored industries) are harmed by higher prices, inflation that devalues salaries and savings, and suppressed living standards.
Spitzenrezensionen aus anderen Ländern
however, why not using the financial sector as an example? right, that’s the point I’m making here.
it still remains a good read for any economics student. I still recommend it















