I have been reading Henry Hazlitt, and I can see why both Ron Paul and

[Antiderivative]

Lew Rockwell love this guy. In his book, Economics in One Lesson, Hazlitt succinctly and clearly points out the logical fallacies which is embedded in the science of economics.

The amazing part is that he wrote this book in 1946 and many (if not all) of his criticisms are still ringing true today. It is truly amazing.

 

[Toro]

Lew Rockwell love this guy. In his book, Economics in One Lesson, Hazlitt succinctly and clearly points out the logical fallacies which is embedded in the science of economics.

The amazing part is that he wrote this book in 1946 and many (if not all) of his criticisms are still ringing true today. It is truly amazing.

First book I ever read on economics. Read it in high school. It's what got me interested in economics. Still have it. Then I majored in economics and realized the subject is much more complex than it is in that book. Still a good book to read though.

 

[Foxfyre]

Lew Rockwell love this guy. In his book, Economics in One Lesson, Hazlitt succinctly and clearly points out the logical fallacies which is embedded in the science of economics.

The amazing part is that he wrote this book in 1946 and many (if not all) of his criticisms are still ringing true today. It is truly amazing.

I agree, Hazlitt was brilliant. And probably only economics 'wonks' have ever heard of him. Awhile back I started a thread with this illustration that went something like this:

(paraphrased)

Business is bad all over town when a stranger comes into the local motel wanting to rent a room. $100 says the motel manager. The stranger lays a $100 bill on the counter and asks for a key to examine the room. The manager gives him a key to the furthermost room and when the stranger leaves, on the theory the room will be satisfactory, the motel manager grabs the $100 and runs down the street to pay his fuel bill before his heat is turned off.

The propane manager takes the hundred and runs across the street to pay his plumber before a lien is put on his building.

The plumber waves in the local prostitute and pays her for services rendered lest she cut him off.

The prostitute goes immediately to the motel and pays $100 on her bill there lest she have no place to conduct business.

The manager puts the $100 back on the counter.

The stranger comes down and says he won't take the room, picks up his $100 and leaves.

Not one dime has been added to the economy and things are as bad as before, but four people feel that they are better off than they were.

 

[Antiderivative]

Bump again for these crazy RW kooks who think that I am this radical liberal.

I am radical, but why?

 

[bripat9643]

Lew Rockwell love this guy. In his book, Economics in One Lesson, Hazlitt succinctly and clearly points out the logical fallacies which is embedded in the science of economics.

The amazing part is that he wrote this book in 1946 and many (if not all) of his criticisms are still ringing true today. It is truly amazing.

Hazlitt doesn't point out any logical fallacies embedded in economics. What he points out is that economic fallacies in the economic arguments a lot of scumbag politicians use.

You keep claiming to believe in the free market, but so far I have seen little evidence of it.

 

[Antiderivative]

Lew Rockwell love this guy. In his book, Economics in One Lesson, Hazlitt succinctly and clearly points out the logical fallacies which is embedded in the science of economics.

The amazing part is that he wrote this book in 1946 and many (if not all) of his criticisms are still ringing true today. It is truly amazing.

Hazlitt doesn't point out any logical fallacies embedded in economics. What he points out is that economic fallacies in the economic arguments a lot of scumbag politicians use.

You keep claiming to believe in the free market, but so far I have seen little evidence of it.

lmfao....I am always arguing for more government interventionism. Perhaps in fact, I should do this.

You hard reich kooks think already that I am displeasant to free market ideas, despite how many time I tell you otherwise.

I am done with free market ideas even though I agree with them. Instead, I am going to pillage the taxpayer. If someone doesn't do it, then I might as well.

Bye.

 

[Antiderivative]

Instead I am going to teach my students why government interventionism is good, instead of teaching them why Q2 is bad.

Thanks for the suggestion. There is no need to elaborate on reality. I should just teach my students the fundamentalism of false economics.

 

[The Rabbi]

Lew Rockwell love this guy. In his book, Economics in One Lesson, Hazlitt succinctly and clearly points out the logical fallacies which is embedded in the science of economics.

The amazing part is that he wrote this book in 1946 and many (if not all) of his criticisms are still ringing true today. It is truly amazing.

Hazlitt doesn't point out any logical fallacies embedded in economics. What he points out is that economic fallacies in the economic arguments a lot of scumbag politicians use.

You keep claiming to believe in the free market, but so far I have seen little evidence of it.

It isnt scumbag politicians. It is scumbags right here on this site.
How many posts have had "we are a consumer driven society so if gov't gives consumers money we will benefit"? It is a fallacy right out of Hazlitt.

 

[bripat9643]

It isnt scumbag politicians. It is scumbags right here on this site.
How many posts have had "we are a consumer driven society so if gov't gives consumers money we will benefit"? It is a fallacy right out of Hazlitt.

Agreed, but I didn't want to point fingers at anyone here. I've seen so many fallacies and out right lies in this forum that they are impossible to list.

 

[Foxfyre]

Lew Rockwell love this guy. In his book, Economics in One Lesson, Hazlitt succinctly and clearly points out the logical fallacies which is embedded in the science of economics.

The amazing part is that he wrote this book in 1946 and many (if not all) of his criticisms are still ringing true today. It is truly amazing.

Hazlitt doesn't point out any logical fallacies embedded in economics. What he points out is that economic fallacies in the economic arguments a lot of scumbag politicians use.

You keep claiming to believe in the free market, but so far I have seen little evidence of it.

It isnt scumbag politicians. It is scumbags right here on this site.
How many posts have had "we are a consumer driven society so if gov't gives consumers money we will benefit"? It is a fallacy right out of Hazlitt.

You and I are usually more on the same page as not, but this time I respectfully disagree. I don't recall anything like that in anything Hazlitt ever wrote. Is it possible you are thinking of somebody else?

Hazlitt's philosophy in a nutshell:

"For every dollar that is spent on the (boondoggle) bridge a dollar will be taken away from taxpayers. If the bridge costs $1,000,000 the taxpayers will lose $1,000, 000. They will have that much taken away from them which they would otherwise have spent on the things they needed most."
— Henry Hazlitt (Economics in One Lesson: The Shortest and Surest Way to Understand Basic Economics)

"the larger the percentage of the national income taken by taxes the greater the deterrent to private production and employment. When the total tax burden grows beyond a bearable size, the problem of devising taxes that will not discourage and disrupt production becomes insoluble."
— Henry Hazlitt (Economics in One Lesson: The Shortest and Surest Way to Understand Basic Economics)

"What is put into the hands of B cannot be put into the hands of A."
— Henry Hazlitt (Economics in One Lesson: The Shortest and Surest Way to Understand Basic Economics)

"private loans will utilize existing resources and capital far better than government loans. Government loans will waste far more capital and resources than private loans. Government loans, in short, as compared with private loans, will reduce production, not increase it."
— Henry Hazlitt (Economics in One Lesson: The Shortest and Surest Way to Understand Basic Economics)

"When the government makes loans or subsidies to business, what it does is to tax successful private business in order to support unsuccessful private business."
— Henry Hazlitt

 

[Antiderivative]

Next lesson. Why Quantitative Easing is good and why Fanny and Freddy didn't create a moral harzard.

Thanks kooks for showing me the light.

 

[The Rabbi]

Hazlitt doesn't point out any logical fallacies embedded in economics. What he points out is that economic fallacies in the economic arguments a lot of scumbag politicians use.

You keep claiming to believe in the free market, but so far I have seen little evidence of it.

It isnt scumbag politicians. It is scumbags right here on this site.
How many posts have had "we are a consumer driven society so if gov't gives consumers money we will benefit"? It is a fallacy right out of Hazlitt.

You and I are usually more on the same page as not, but this time I respectfully disagree. I don't recall anything like that in anything Hazlitt ever wrote. Is it possible you are thinking of somebody else?

Hazlitt's philosophy in a nutshell:

"private loans will utilize existing resources and capital far better than government loans. Government loans will waste far more capital and resources than private loans. Government loans, in short, as compared with private loans, will reduce production, not increase it."
— Henry Hazlitt (Economics in One Lesson: The Shortest and Surest Way to Understand Basic Economics)

"When the government makes loans or subsidies to business, what it does is to tax successful private business in order to support unsuccessful private business."
— Henry Hazlitt

You've supported my assertion. Hazlett was opposed to the idea that you could take a dollar from a successful person and give it to someone else and create wealth. That is the broken window fallacy from the beginning of the book.
Yet we see the same thinking here: If we cut taxes on the poor they will spend the money and create jobs. It isnt true. And Obamanomics has once again proved that with its enormous failure.
Everyone entering Congress ought to be required to read Hazlett (who was not an economist btw) before voting on any piece of economic legislation.

 

[The Rabbi]

Next lesson. Why Quantitative Easing is good and why Fanny and Freddy didn't create a moral harzard.

Thanks kooks for showing me the light.

IOW you recognize that everything we've been saying is correct but darn you won't let facts get in the way.
Thanks for demonstrating the Leftist mind.

 

[Antiderivative]

This is why Reaganomics and Bushomonics works so well.

I fucking hate those liberals who disagree with me. Why won't they listen to me?

 

[Antiderivative]

Next lesson. Why Quantitative Easing is good and why Fanny and Freddy didn't create a moral harzard.

Thanks kooks for showing me the light.

IOW you recognize that everything we've been saying is correct but darn you won't let facts get in the way.
Thanks for demonstrating the Leftist mind.

I actually agree with you, but you can't accept the fact that a free market liberal agrees with you. Instead, you need to distort reality and create logical fallacies.

IOW, you are just a dishonest POS who needs to validate himself via distortions and logical fallacies.

 

[bripat9643]

I actually agree with you, but you can't accept the fact that a free market liberal agrees with you. Instead, you need to distort reality and create logical fallacies.

IOW, you are just a dishonest POS who needs to validate himself via distortions and logical fallacies.

You have just been nominated for the "Oxymoron of the Month Award" for your entry "free market liberal."

Congratulations!

 

[Antiderivative]

I actually agree with you, but you can't accept the fact that a free market liberal agrees with you. Instead, you need to distort reality and create logical fallacies.

IOW, you are just a dishonest POS who needs to validate himself via distortions and logical fallacies.

You have just been nominated for the "Oxymoron of the Month Award" for your entry "free market liberal."

Congratulations!

lmfao....and Bastiat sat on the right side of the French Parliament.

You people are so fucked up that it is disturbing. You fucktards really believe that liberalism originated with Marx and Keynes.

Unfortunately, you do not have a fucking clue. Liberalism is the promotion of free markets and small government. However, history disturbs you.

 

[Foxfyre]

It isnt scumbag politicians. It is scumbags right here on this site.
How many posts have had "we are a consumer driven society so if gov't gives consumers money we will benefit"? It is a fallacy right out of Hazlitt.

You and I are usually more on the same page as not, but this time I respectfully disagree. I don't recall anything like that in anything Hazlitt ever wrote. Is it possible you are thinking of somebody else?

Hazlitt's philosophy in a nutshell:

"When the government makes loans or subsidies to business, what it does is to tax successful private business in order to support unsuccessful private business."
— Henry Hazlitt

You've supported my assertion. Hazlett was opposed to the idea that you could take a dollar from a successful person and give it to someone else and create wealth. That is the broken window fallacy from the beginning of the book.
Yet we see the same thinking here: If we cut taxes on the poor they will spend the money and create jobs. It isnt true. And Obamanomics has once again proved that with its enormous failure.
Everyone entering Congress ought to be required to read Hazlett (who was not an economist btw) before voting on any piece of economic legislation.

Okay I misunderstood your original post. I took you to be saying that the flawed economics of bigger, more intrusive, more 'benevolent' government and/or redistribution of wealth from rich to poor, whether it be GOP or Democrats doing it, was out of the Hazlitt playbook.

I accept that such was not your intent.

 

[Epsilon Delta]

Sounds very interesting, I'll take a look.

 

[rdean]

Lew Rockwell love this guy. In his book, Economics in One Lesson, Hazlitt succinctly and clearly points out the logical fallacies which is embedded in the science of economics.

The amazing part is that he wrote this book in 1946 and many (if not all) of his criticisms are still ringing true today. It is truly amazing.

Science?

Ron Paul doesn't believe in science. Don't put Ron Paul and Science in the same paragraph.