This is a very readable book on economics. It’s an important topic, because unlike every other complex field, “from botany to brain surgery”, we cannot avoid taking part: while we can, and usually should, refuse to perform brain surgery, we should not refuse to vote for politicians (and, in some states, initiatives) that have wide-ranging economic effects.

The basic definition of economics that Sowell uses is that “economics is the study of the use of scarce resources which have alternative uses.”

The hardest lesson is that there are no free choices. “Because an economy deals with scarce resources that have alternative uses, every benefit has a cost in the alternative uses that could have been made of the same resources that created a particular benefit.”

What a “free market” does in an economy is spread the cost-benefit analysis out to the people who produce and consume those resources. The alternative, an economy in which everything is run by an elite, “has thrown away much of the knowledge, insights, and talents of most of its people.”

But that is not what this book is about; this book is about being able to analyze the costs and benefits of particular economic decisions, so that results are more likely to approach goals. Too often, goals aren’t stated, or are abandoned in favor of policies that don’t reach now-abandoned goals.

I come out of this book with a new perspective on a lot of things, especially trade balance and barriers, the benefits of some government-run businesses, and the value that some middlemen can add.

I highly recommend it.

I heard it said that you don't know a subject until you can explain in the simplest of terms. This book provides a down-to-earth view of economics that is easy to understand without using unexplained jargon. I recommend this book to anyone just getting into economic theory and trying to understand how our economy works in the free market.

I wanted a clearer version of the Econ 101 I muddled through in college, and I admired Sowell's work, so I started reading this book. Then I found out it's not about M1 and M2 and how the Fed works. Rather, it's about really meaningful economics -- the kind every adult should understand.

To a large extent, Sowell was preaching to the choir with me. I already understood why rent control is bad and how the minimum wage contributes to unemployment. I knew that cuts in the tax rate tend to increase -- not decrease -- tax receipts. And I've never let my envy of the rich get in the way of my appreciation of them as the ultimate source of my livelihood.

But Sowell still taught me plenty: Like how statistics really CAN be made to say anything. What does the growth of the poor class mean? Quite possibly that the poor are simply living longer and having more children, thanks to better living conditions for poor people. Is "the poor" a static category of people with zero upward mobility? Some are, but most are simply the young, who haven't yet had time to gain the work experience they need to make more money.

Sowell's main thrust is that an informed voting public who understand basic economic principles is vital to curb the excesses of politicians whose economic decisions tend to look no farther ahead than the next election, leaving their successors to deal with the fallout from their counterproductive actions.

Basic Economics should be required reading for any American seeking to register to vote.

Economics is at the same time a fascinating and rather complex subject. It is fascinating since it touches on so many aspects of our lives, and it is complex due to the highly technical analysis that is oftentimes required to be mastered in order for Economics to be fully appreciated. This technical complexity oftentimes obscures rather simple principles that underlie most economic phenomena. The well known relationship between a supply and demand is one of those, and a good example of a simple concept that is oftentimes misunderstood, ignored, or downright overlooked in everyday circumstances, especially when political considerations are at play.

Thomas Sowell begins the book with one of the most insightful definition of what is economics. In this view, economics is nothing but a study of limited resources for which there are alternative uses. In heaven, there would be unlimited resources; in hell no alternative uses. In the real world we need to take into account the limitations that are imposed on us by the facts. Each use of a product or a resource prevents other viable uses. Economics is ultimately the science of tradeoffs, and it helps us with making the most rational decisions about those tradeoffs.

This book is primarily aimed at general public and its aim is to make this public literate in terms of thinking and understanding economic processes. It is a very readable account, and it contains neither technical jargon nor sophisticated mathematics. All of the examples are taken from everyday experience or the major stories that have been making the news in the recent decades. Hopefully, the book will raise the level of basic literacy and inculcate us from the demagoguery that often accompanies political talk on economic issues.

Wow. This book is bad and its ideas are bad.

I picked Basic Economics up thinking that it would be somewhat similar to Naked Economics, by Charles Wheelan: a guide to a wide range of economic topics that gives both sides of an issue when both sides exist. Thomas Sowell gives a guide to a wide range of economic topics, but unapologetically ignores or misrepresents leftist views in any shape or form. This is detrimental to readers and the general discourse in our country (especially as he touts this book as a cover-all for those interested in the impact of economics on their lives, as seen through the political system).

As a student of Economics, as well as a modern American Progressive (who has flirted with the idea of socialism in the past), I am aware of the limitations of my chosen economic philosophies, and I'll acknowledge their weak points (I can't advocate moving away from a price-allocation system to a politically-allocated system of distributing goods, for instance).

One thing for me that was extremely important- not just for my studies as an economist, but for me as a person, was the focus on trade offs. Everything's a trade off. This is paramount to remember, and it pervades every aspect of what I liked and found useful in Sowell's book (the trade-off concept was conspicuously absent in places where it could've shown merit in leftist ideas). He does point out that economics is not a study of values, but a direct study of cause and effect. Unfortunately for everyone, this kind of disclaimer is vastly irresponsible, since he fails to count social benefit (which is well documented) as a benefit, but points out the costs of social programs and anti-free market ideas as costs on the system. This is dishonest.

Things I liked
- Did make note that econ is the study of allocation of scarce resources and described that concept well
- Conclusively showed that price-allocation was the best system for satisfying people's needs and desires
- Clearly depicted the traditional views on supply and demand
- Used examples to show the many facets of a business that help it succeed or doom it to failure
- Talked about business concepts: return on investment, return on sales
- Showed that using political power to save jobs which could be done more efficiently elsewhere is detrimental to the whole economy
- Shows flaws in calculating inflation
- Describes why international trade is good through comparative and absolute advantages
- Describes concept of economies (and diseconomies) of scale, and why and when that's important
- *** Describes why national debt isn't an issue at all *** LOVED THIS SECTION. WHOLE NEW WAY OF THINKING
- Describes why commodity trading and franchising are good


Things I DIDN'T Like
- Didn't even think to seriously address the big flaw with price-allocation: that it only works if people are paid responsibly (somewhat equally; massive inequality destroys the feasibility of the price-allocation system)
- Examples of businesses in the last 100 years extremely limited (focuses on 4-6 companies)
- Preaches against minimum and fair wages without any historical context or examples as to their necessity
- Harps against anti-trust laws in what might almost be construed as a dangerously pro-business stance, not worrying very much at all about monopolies
- Ignores why commodity trading and franchising are bad
- Makes the common mistake of liberal (traditional sense) economists, and acts as if every nation is on the same footing when it comes to their ability to manage their economy
- Says government is bad at picking winners and losers; so too is the free market from time to time ("Capitalism means male baldness research gets more funding than malaria research." - Bill Gates)
- Skirts around productivity and workers' pay without providing helpful or conclusive arguments
- Tries to argue in favor of private insurance; been proven time and again to be a bad idea
- Ignores government's and unions' involvement in creating post-WWII prosperity
- Only example for when socialized programs are bad: housing crisis; USSR. Ignores successful Western Europe.
- Says outsourcing isn't hurtful; ignores the fact that it IS. Also doesn't discuss possible ways of addressing this.

And all of his "popular economic fallacies" are actually not fallacies. To address his false arguments:
- Predatory pricing DOES in fact happen
- Economics DOES in fact need to take value systems into account (utility, the end that economics seeks to maximize, has been proven to not rest on the number in your bank account, but largely on your values)
- He's a supply-side economist, which means he's wrong about the general economy. Savings do not recycle into the economy the way supply-siders suggest, as has been proven time and again through executive bonuses, falling real worker wages, increasing disparities in income and wealth, and the system of worker protections falling apart over the last 40 years in America.
- Ignores that corporations are literally psychopathic, and instead praises them as a savior-ideal

Overall, I say read it, but don't you dare stop here. Taken out of context, this book is dangerous for our country and the world.

Entertainment: 0
Education: 0 Star
Thesis: 0
Readability: 1
Inspiration: 0

This is an amazing book and absolutely a must-read if you want to understand the basic causes and effects of a free market economy.

Here's a warning. If you have any passion at all about politics, or concern about government intruding into your life, or if you're the least bit cynical about politicians, be prepared to pull your hair right out of your head. I wanted to throw this book across the room several times, but finally promised myself I would write a letter to Dr. Sowell when I finished it. And he wrote me back the next day! And sent me a printed out copy of his then-unpublished newest edition of Applied Economics! And he signed the front page! I promptly framed the page and hung it in my living room.

I absolutely love that man. Love him!

A clearly and concisely written analysis of how incentives impact the economic decisions people make. Most notable is the idea that communism fails not only because of people's propensity to cheat in an environment free of incentives, but because of the fact that even in a world full of non-cheaters, a price-control system cannot allocate resources with the same efficiency that a market does automatically. Sheds some light on how a country like the USSR can sit on such expansive natural resources and still never be able to feed itself.

An easily understood, common sense guide to basic economic principles. Should be required reading at all institutions of higher learning.

If a new civilization was just starting up and deciding between Soviet style price controls and capitalism, they should definitely read this book. Or if you are interested in all the ways rent control made NYC and SF the most expensive cities, this is the book for you. Anyone else not living in a world of black and white, should read a less biased economic book. This book does explain some helpful terms and concepts. But I would hate for anyone who's read this book to think that they understand "economics." What they are getting is just a very "Basic" view of the world.

A guide to throw your misconceptions into garbage.

If everyone read this book, the Democratic Party would be out of business, and for good reason. There are certain economic laws; there is economic history; there are economic limits., Liberals ignore this and proceed on good supposedly good intentions. Reality be damned.

Както съм казвал много пъти, огромната част от хората нищо не разбират от икономика, вкл. и повечето от завършилите икономика - нямат представа от елементарни икономически принципи и взаимодействия. Може би причината за това е начинът, по който се преподава икономиката, с огромно наблягане на формули, графики и термини и абсолютно пренебрегване на фундаменталните човешки взаимодействия и мотивация, които стоят зад тях.

Резултатът е виден навсякъде - и политици и електорат, че и мнозинството от щатните по сутрешните блокове експерти и икономисти, обсъждат неща като минимална заплата, закони за лихвите и т.н. или на изключително повърхностно, популистично ниво, или на академично-теоретично - и двете еднакво далече от разбирането на реалните проблеми и решения.

Никой от тях няма да ви каже, че като се повиши минималната заплата, се покачва безработицата, примерно. Нито ще ви обясни защо. А Томас Соуел не само ще ви каже, но и ще ви обясни, в това незаменимо ръководство по основи на икономиката и как обикновения човек да разбира икономическите въпроси.

Всъщност, препоръчвам я като основно и първо четиво и на всички студенти по икономика, че и на завършилите я. И на професорите няма да им е излишна, като съм ги слушал какви ги плещят някой път от висотата на академичните си банки :)