One lesson, my fabulous behind! I can barely get through a 10th grade reading level fiction in a month, let alone 198 pages over my spring break!
But in all seriousness, Hazlitt's "Economics in One Lesson" provided some (personally) much needed reasoning on a slew of economic topics. There were many fallacies that I, as a long-time public layman, had whole-heartedly believed to be true at some point in my life (some of which I only recently - since reading - have changed my mind on), which gave me a great appreciation for Hazlitt's methodic and clear debunks. If only the rest of the population at large was like us - reading economics in their spare time to distance themselves from ignorance - all these fallacies would be gone (and quickly, judging by how quickly I changed my mind)! Plus, considering that I consider myself a logical thinker, I would say that Hazlitt's lessons actually filled in a few holes in my *layman* economic logic that I had, up until now, not been able to reconcile.
But my blog isn't to discuss how much I would agree with him at every point (or even the insignificant points that I don't) and why. I know that's what economists are supposed to do, but it's feeling so beaten to death for me! Rather, I'd like to ask a few questions, and I'd love if a Hazlitt incarnate could answer:
What "fallacies" are we currently presented with? What's on the chopping block? Who are the opposing sides of the argument, and who's evidence is suggesting truth?
And most importantly, why can't we come to agreement on such modern contentions? That wasn't meant to be rhetorical, I am actually curious as to what specifically prevents consensus. Are we at a standstill until evidence presents itself?
I apologize for the lack of a proper critique, but hopefully this will spark some friendly discussion upon our next meeting.