Kinetic theory of engineering structures dealing with stresses, deformations and work for th... Book

I first read this one in my last year in college. I studied economics and this was probably the first serious blow against the insipid theoretical edifice that mainstream professors had built for me (and which until then I did not really care to question). I believe I discovered and read Friedman's "Capitalism and Freedom" before this one, but Friedman's book is more politically focused. In contrast, this one is a full theoretical treatise, structured as a critique to the book (Keynes's General Theory) that many people at the time thought we should be reading (this must have been in the second semester of 2014, with labor strikes everywhere and the famous "austerity" program still raging on here in Portugal).

My undergrad education was very little focused in the history of thought, so in a sense this book was a revelation to me. It went and showed what Keynes actually said in the General Theory, and then sliced it apart! At the time, I think this really shook my faith in what my teachers were demonstrating.

If Friedman's book offered me a political agenda and a sort of political attitude, Hazlitt's book made an economist out of me. From this moment on, I really knew my vocation: to dig into the past and show everybody how things went wrong in economics! My interest in Austrian economics grew exponentially, as I realized I had to learn the fun things by myself, while trying to keep my mouth shut in classes (lucky me, I had already finished the relevant courses in economics - but still some unilateral discussions and protests ensued...).

Somehow, however, the memory of this book became a bit blurred, and as I delved into the Austrian universe (the theory of capital, Garrison's models, etc.), I remember having thought Hazlitt's book was in the end too simplistic. Although Keynes was still wrong, he really had a more subtle point that Hazlitt must have missed.

Now that I have finally read Keynes's General Theory alongside this book by Hazlitt, I realize I was the one who got confused: Hazlitt really touched the main points. It was me who was still too novice to understand it all.

The book still reads a bit too repetitive on some of the criticisms, and sometimes one gets the impression that Hazlitt does not always make his best effort to interpret Keynes in the most generous way. But well... No one is perfect. I certainly would not have had the patience and ability to produce this amazing critical feat. Hazlitt's talent as a journalist certainly helped him.

Re-reading this was a true pleasure. It was like going back to those naive student days and discovering Austrian economics once again. Feeling amazed by how many brilliant insights contained herein have since then been held so close to my economist's heart. I was also sometimes left wondering what my reaction must have been when reading some of these bits at that time. The critique of the multiplier, the critique of econometrics, his focus on methodology, the limitations of demand curves and the meaning of savings and investment. Wow. All these things were completely passed over by my teachers, although I must admit none of them were really that openly-Keynesian in their lectures. Some were even Chicago-oriented. But the thing was just bland and soulless, at least compared to the secret hints provided by Hazlitt in so simple terms. Yes: the book reads super fast, just like those books you just can't stop reading.

One of the things I loved noticing in this second reading was that Mises seems to have provided really close assistance in the writing of this book. He was also claimed as an important help to Benjamin Anderson's penetrating critique of the same work. I mention this because Mises's own treatments of Keynes always seem a bit superficial to me (I bet he really did not have patience for the Englishman), so it was good to see the old master really knew his game in detail.

Anyways, if you are studying economics and want to know the best way to get into the alternative Austrian tradition, this is one of the best choices available, specially if your teachers did not actually make you read Keynes, as mine did not. This way, you will be able to make a nice acquaintance with the important bits from Keynes's General Theory, while at the same time witnessing and being guided by Hazlitt's sharp criticisms. From now on, this will be my first recommendation to every economics student who would likely find Hazlitt's Economics in One Lesson too easy to chew and even too pedantic a suggestion.

Appendix:

Finally, I was marveled when I re-encountered this hilarious epistemological joke that really stuck in my mind the first time I read it, and which during all these years I had forgotten where to find:

Keynes might have done better to remember the remark by a character in Bernard Shaw's Saint Joan when told of the theory of Pythagoras that the earth is round and revolves around the sun: “What an utter fool! Couldn't he use his eyes?” (p. 348)

Am I the only one who's amazed by this silly joke? Every time I tried to make an impression out of it on someone else, the answer was a disappointing "so what?" :(