Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business
Neil Postman and Andrew Postman
4.6 on Amazon
3 HN comments
When Money Dies: The Nightmare of Deficit Spending, Devaluation, and Hyperinflation in Weimar Germany
Adam Fergusson
4.3 on Amazon
3 HN comments
How to Win Friends & Influence People
Dale Carnegie
4.7 on Amazon
3 HN comments
The Grapes of Wrath
John Steinbeck, Robert DeMott, et al.
4.6 on Amazon
3 HN comments
Writing Better Lyrics
Pat Pattison
4.6 on Amazon
2 HN comments
On Writing: A Memoir of the Craft
Stephen King, Joe Hill, et al.
4.8 on Amazon
2 HN comments
History: From the Dawn of Civilization to the Present Day
Smithsonian Institution
4.8 on Amazon
2 HN comments
Salt, Fat, Acid, Heat: Mastering the Elements of Good Cooking
Samin Nosrat and Wendy MacNaughton
4.8 on Amazon
2 HN comments
Nine Nasty Words: English in the Gutter: Then, Now, and Forever
John McWhorter
4.7 on Amazon
1 HN comments
The Snail and the Whale
Julia Donaldson and Axel Scheffler
4.8 on Amazon
1 HN comments
A People's History of the United States
Howard Zinn, Jeff Zinn, et al.
4.7 on Amazon
1 HN comments
The Road
Cormac McCarthy
4.4 on Amazon
1 HN comments
Persepolis: The Story of a Childhood (Pantheon Graphic Library)
Marjane Satrapi
4.6 on Amazon
1 HN comments
The Pyramid Principle: Logic in Writing and Thinking
Barbara Minto
4.5 on Amazon
1 HN comments
Economics in One Lesson: The Shortest and Surest Way to Understand Basic Economics
Henry Hazlitt
4.6 on Amazon
1 HN comments
nerdponxonJuly 29, 2021
This is an instance of the "broken window fallacy". To understand the nature of this fallacy, I highly recommend Economics in One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt [0]. It's short and easy to read.
However, Hazlitt's lesson is not the complete story. The question that Hazlitt does not answer is, what is "the long run", and how exactly do the gains from productivity get distributed to "everyone"? This is likely where a lot of leftists would object to Hazlitt, arguing that it's better to protect current jobs than to let capitalists (or whoever) suck up all the gains for themselves and never redistribute them. You can argue about the semantics of whether it's possible to "hoard" wealth, but ultimately there is some merit to that argument. But the fallacy remains the fallacy, even if wealth redistribution is an unsolved problem.
[0]: http://leeconomics.com/Literature/Henry%20Hazlitt%20Economic...