Thomas Sowell is a god. I'm a big fan of his writing style because it's clear and concise. Basic Economics is highly informative and easily accessible. This book should be required reading, not just for econ majors or business majors, but everyone.

Big ideas:
1. Economics is about trade-offs, not solutions.
2. Every policy or law has consequences, many of which are negative and unforeseen.
3. Capitalism is the least oppressive or racist system for allocating resources; very few people will refuse to prosper because of their dislike of an ethnic group.
4. Economic efficiency is critically important to increasing standards of living and general happiness.
5. Government interference in free markets is almost always bad because it overrides millions of people's decisions and creates unintended negative consequences.
6. Transactions among willing, informed participants are mutually beneficial.
7. The price system conveys information more quickly and efficiently than any alternative.
8. Economics is about the allocation of scarce resources that have alternative uses.
9. Economics is not about money; it's about the underlying resources that money and prices represent.
10. There are only noneconomic values because economics is not a value in itself; rather, it is a system that supplies information by which decisions can be made.

First I should clarify that I’m a novice to the field of economics (which is why I read this), and so am not really qualified to give an economist’s view of this book, though I do have my own thoughts on the arguments nevertheless. This review should be read accordingly.

Basic Economics is Thomas Sowell’s effort to present the essential facts and principles of economics in layman’s terms for a general audience, without the use of jargon, graphs, or equations. In this sense the book’s approach to economics is rather ‘orthodox’, given that this was the approach Adam Smith and co. used to discuss economic phenomena that could be easily observed at the time.

However, this book is very politicised — and not always objective! It’s clear that Sowell’s agenda is not purely to educate his reader on the basics of economics, but also to persuade them to his way of thinking, which is arguably rather insidious since it’s marketed as a book for total beginners, i.e. new customers entering the marketplace of ideas. To his credit, he does cover the very most basic economic concepts — scarcity, supply and demand, price allocation, return on investment/sales — in a clear and impartial way, but covers more controversial issues — minimum wage, anti-trust laws, government interventions etc. — from a clearly right-wing position, often accompanied by mischaracterisations of the left. The failures of the Soviet Union cannot discredit every possible use of socialised programmes, especially when successful implementations of such policies in e.g. Scandinavian countries are ignored. Beyond the fact that these misrepresentations mean the book cannot be taken as a sincere attempt to resolve these differences of view, tackling these debates from such a one-sided perspective is (in my view) inappropriate for an introduction to the subject, and is the main fault of this otherwise-useful book. He explains the right-wing position well enough, but without including both sides of the argument fairly it can’t really be considered a freestanding, “everything you need to know about economics” sort of book.

Some parts I have mixed feelings about because of the more controversial points not really being appropriate for a beginner. For instance, I thought the discussion of rent controls were particularly interesting as something that seems like a good idea on the surface but actually causes a lot of problems (this is central to Sowell’s message, which basically amounts to “facts over feelings”). Sowell makes the case that rent controls lead to shortages in housing, and therefore to higher rents elsewhere. Without rent controls, rents still rise when there is a shortage of housing, but this creates an incentive to build more housing, which then reduces the shortage and allows rents to drop again — basic supply and demand. I wonder if it is really this simple? However, I reject his conclusion that a planned economy inevitably fails because those doing the planning can’t possibly anticipate the issues facing every group within the economy: if the principles of economics are as clear-cut as Sowell likes to portray, then the lack of tailoring to individualised experience shouldn’t be such an issue. His argument elsewhere in the book that the Soviet Union failed fundamentally because of the lack of incentive to produce seems a better (and more conventionally cited) explanation.

Another caveat I would include is that my edition was slightly out of date in places (Germany has a minimum wage now, since 2015), but seemed to be updated in others (I was caught off-guard by a reference to the 2008 crash). The defence of globalisation is interesting in this context as well, given that these days this is hardly the consensus on the right, and many otherwise-‘free market’ economists seem to avoid the subject. I think this reinforces my view that the discussions of the basic principles are fine, but that some of the more controversial material should be taken with a pinch of salt.

As I’ve said, I’m no expert, but I remain convinced that the principles of a totally free market without a guiding authority are not enough: I still believe a regulated market, correcting against the sources of market failure, produces better results. Government interventions, such as those seen in the American stimulus bill after the 2008 financial crash, are necessary in such situations. Sowell’s intellectual arguments within the field of economics may be coloured by his own biases and ideological stances more generally, but the cause and effect could also be the reverse (i.e. that his right-wing economic views led him to all-round right-wing politics), so I don’t feel the book can be judged purely on this, nor is it directly relevant to the material. I still think the book is a decent portrayal of a right-wing economic perspective, so I don’t wish to mark it down too harshly on this basis. In the conclusion, Sowell stresses that we should always put the facts of what actually works over what we wish to be the case or what sounds nice from the mouths of politicians — this is clearly his principle message. However, I can’t see a partisan effort such as this as the result of an earnest pursuit of truth.

Buckle up as Sowell takes you on a roller coaster ride of emotions as you encounter rent control, minimum wage laws, and a plethora of other economic facts, fallacies, and fun. Perfect for that budding economist who loves to read long, school textbook-like books. I feel I've learned a lot and it was interesting to hear from a different perspective. It took a longer than usual time to read, but quality over quantity definitely applies here.

A decent summary of free market economics. But it fails to achieve the status of a true classic. One problem is that Sowell's attempt at free market basic economics find itself in tough company, compared to whom it looks slightly awkward. For one, it is not as concise and pocket-sized as, say, Hazlitt's comparable book, Economics in One Lesson: The Shortest & Surest Way to Understand Basic Economics. Nor is it as immediately relevant to everyday political concerns as, say, Friedman's Free to Choose: A Personal Statement. Nor does it have the philosophical and historical depth of, say, Hayek's The Constitution of Liberty.

Another major problem is the title pick. Calling the book "Basic Economics" is a case of misleading if not outright false advertising. I would caution beginner students to be careful. The problem with the promise is that the book cannot function as an overall introduction to basic economic concepts, since many schools of economics, and many fundamental theories of neoclassical economics, are not properly explained, or, when they are, the author's opinions are contrasted with those "false" opinions. Theories are painted in good/bad colours and often not given due and full consideration.

Aside from the aforementioned problems of niche and ideological slant, further two problems are the length of the book, which is immodest in a bad way, and the writing style, which is dry and tedious. The book, for me, was surprisingly painful to slog through, unlike many of the author's other, more polemical books. I may not be the target audience of this book, since I am well-versed in both basic economic concepts (neutrally understood), and in free market economics of the Chicago school (slanted to the right), and this book didn't give me much that I did not already know in either of the two fronts. Perhaps someone else will find this book a perfect match. I found myself bored. The dry language of economics can take its toll even on its most ardent advocates.

The book plays almost too well the charade of masquerading as an Econ 101: it deals, very briefly, with everything under the sun, including a (very) brief history of economics, an overview of international trade, a criticism of labour regulation, etc. But none of these chapters go deep, and so the book cannot really play the role that it wants to play. It has a major identity crisis. If one wants the full picture, one still needs to read economists of different economic persuasion, as well. And if one wants a free-market overview of economics, there are better and shorter books out there.

That said, I appreciate Thomas Sowell tremendously as an economist and writer. And even though I disagree with the way this book is put together, it is by no means a worthless or never-useful tome. If you are happy reading an over-long selection of ideologically slanted, well-researched small snippets of commentary on various aspects of the economy, you could certainly do worse.

Has its biases but definitely offers a valid way of thinking about economics. I think the Chicago School of economics offers a good framework to work off of and this book is a good introduction to the intricacies of various economic frameworks (with an obvious bias towards the Chicago School).

I found the last 5 or so chapters really insightful (especially the chapter on the international disparity of wealth) so try to make it through the book and you might learn something new irrespective of which economic framework you prefer.

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!

One book to rule them all!

Basic Economics fits it's title very well, it really is a citizen's guide to the economy. Each chapter is filled with carefully selected essays on economic topics. It started off simple then goes on to more complicated issues. Essentially, Basic Economics succeeded Economics in one Lesson by Hazlitt with more modern examples of how economics works. A must read for everyone.

This book is a fantastic summary of almost every major economic question. It’s full of logical arguments, abundant research, and vivid examples to present economic realities as they are. Sowell masterfully tears down myths floating in the public discourse around rent control, “price gouging,” monopolies, labor exploitation, trade, Wall Street, the 1%, and many other hot-button issues. For me, it’s most enduring (and harrowing) idea is: “There are no solutions, only trade offs.” A must-read.

Essential reading for everyone.

This book is pretty blatantly biased in the free market direction, and it colors everything in the book, but I'm going to go with 4 stars, and here's why:

About every other summer, I think something like, "You know, there's no excuse for a mathematician to be so woefully ignorant of economics; I should do something about it." I then pick up an economics book, make a valiant attempt to read it, get wildly pissed off at the overuse of jargon, muddled thinking, confusion of causation and correlation, and general methodologies, and then I throw the book out the window.

Now part of this is entirely cultural. Mathematicians are primarily logicians, which means we start with a set of assumptions then follow them to a logical conclusion. If our conclusions fit with the world, then we're very happy, and if not, then we're not as happy, but we're still pretty happy. If we really want to model the world, we will change our assumptions. But regardless, we learned something: this set of assumptions yields this conclusion. In many ways, this is the opposite of science, which is primarily concerned with the world-as-it-is, and hence you want any assumptions to be the right ones to model the world. I think this (limiting) aspect of science annoys some mathematicians, and this (unreal) aspect of mathematics annoys some scientists.

Regardless, the methodology of economics has always seemed something like this, to me: start with some assumption about how you think something works (for example, it could be something fairly innocuous, like "higher prices decrease demand," or it could be something much more dangerous, like "the government does a really good job at running things"), then you interpret all the real-world data under the assumption that your original hypothesis was true. It's pretty clear why this is dangerous: if your original assumption is wrong, then all your following conclusions are at best tainted, and at worst totally false. And this methodology doesn't give you very good opportunities to re-assess your hypotheses. (Again, in math, you don't have to model any specific physical system, like you're supposed to in economics, and in science, the goal is to proceed with some limited--and revisable--set of assumptions.)

Anyway, I don't think this is necessary a valid opinion of what economics "is." (In fact, it might not even be a valid opinion of what science is. Or even what math is.) But it's certainly the impression I've always gotten, and I haven't particularly changed it yet.

But this book finally explained some things to me! Sowell starts with an excellent definition of his subject (something I don't think I've read before): Economics is the study of how people deal with scarce resources. And that makes sense to me: it's not about money, or financial institutions, or politics: it's just about corn. There's only x amount of corn, and people want y amount of corn, so how do we apportion it? See, that wasn't so hard.

So, when it boils right down to it, I learned an incredible amount from this book. I learned that economics is about scarcity. I learned about unintended consequences (a common talking point for many academics, and something pretty ignored by politicians.) And, while I have never considered myself a capitalist, I have to say that Sowell makes some excellent points and has left me wavering somewhat. (Of course, my real problem isn't with capitalism, it's with consumerism ; but how do we separate these?) Anyway, it had a huge impact both on my positions and opinions, but also on my outlook and how I think about things.

Let me reiterate, before I complain, that I'm now standing WAAAAY closer to Sowell's position that I was before reading the book. In the list of "Books That Strongly Affected My Opinions," this one is in the top 10 easy. But...

I do find his brutal insistence in the amorality of all of this to be disturbing. I completely understand his points, but I just don't necessarily want to live in his world. He seems to conclude, "The free market will do the best for the most people." (How utilitarian!) But I'm forced to say, "Can't we do better?" It could be my religious convictions, or my natural kindness (yeah, right), but I still feel compelled to help the helpless. And his insistence that I shouldn't seems pretty terrible.

And it all seems so rife for abuse. Many of his arguments revolve around the implicit assumption that the consumers are well-informed, but this isn't necessarily true. There are still an awfully lot of products being sold in stores in America made by, at best, "essentially slavery," and at worst "blatant slavery." But we don't necessarily know that, so our dollars don't necessarily reflect what we actually think. But who has time to research every product and study all that? The economy is just too big! (Yes, I know I'm idealistic: I'm still laboring under the possibly-mistaken assumption that people really wouldn't buy something that was a little cheaper if they knew it was made by actual human slaves.) In general, Sowell's blatant faith in the free market system seems as Utopian as the communism he *repeatedly* denigrates. (And by "repeatedly," I mean "r.e.p.e.a.t.e.d.l.y.")

And there's the real problem with many of his opinions in this book. Despite his faith (I don't know what else to call it) that the free market will fix everything, it's just not clear how the free market prevents the kind of slavery common in America 200 years ago, or children working in factories 300 years ago, or the general income inequality that's becoming so rampant in this country right now. And his insistence that "greed" just isn't really a thing that affects anything is patently ridiculous--I certainly must have misunderstood his point. You might as well say that lying or f@#%ing wasn't a real thing.

There are some other problems of varying levels: I did find some numbers in the book that weren't valid, but not many, and they didn't seem to affect his argument. He (seems to) repeatedly confuse causation and correlation, but with something as complicated as an economy, is there any way to measure causation? (Is this a question for Economics as a whole?) Also, he seems to think that America has the highest standard of living in the world, and I'm pretty sure this is false on most scales, but he never says what scale he's using, so maybe that's OK. (But it did seem a little bit like the silly sort of nationalism you see on TV. "Of course America has the highest standard of living: it's America, after all.")

But, having complained about his blatant bias, I do applaud how BLATANT it is. He doesn't hide it, or try to sneak it in: he's up front about it, it colors everything, so you know exactly where he stands. He's proselytizing, but he's doing it honestly. (Like the door-to-door evangelists who open up with, "Hey, I'm from The Church...") And I appreciate that.

So, in summary: learned a lot. Enjoyed the read. Very biased, but very up-front about it. Morally problematic.

Recommended for people who want to learn some economics.

As a novice in economics, I believe this book can truly be described as a page-turner. In clear language, providing vivid examples of real-life scenarios, Sowell demonstrates his command of fundamental economics and masterfully transfers that knowledge to his readers. Without trespassing into areas that economics cannot and is not meant to explain (morality, political expediency, the problem of evil), Sowell provides his readers with an additional, helpful layer to the way they can evaluate decisions and look past simple straw and boogeymen.

The greatest danger this book presents to its readers is that it will trick them into believing they are experts because of how clearly they will understand and believe its claims.

I could not believe how much I enjoyed reading this book. Picking it up because it was recommended to me, I wasn’t exactly excited to dive in. That changed in the very first chapter, and I will be reading more Sowell as well as more significant economic works.

This was the most difficult audiobook listening experience I have ever had. Not because it was technical, but for reasons outlined below. I had notes for a point by point review, but then realised we only have so much time on this planet. So, a condensed version follows.

In any serious book review, one should try to find positive things to say, and start off with these. So here goes:

First, in the audiobook reading, Tom Weiner does a great job in conveying Sowell’s utterly arrogant and deeply misanthropic ideas. It’s like when you watch a horror film and there’s a creepy scene and you’re so frightened the only thing you can do is smile.

Second, although this book is a terrible testament to the failure of humanity, I do think everyone should read it. Better than any ‘bleeding heart liberal’ columnist, this book explains why we are in such dire straits economically, socially, and environmentally in the 2020s. Take it from the architect himself: humans or the planet are not factors in the functioning of Sowell’s ideal economy. As long as markets are free, everything’s fine. Never mind the massive evidence to the contrary (unprecedented global inequality, climate change, you name it). Freedom is freedom for the corporations to make a profit. The human consequences of that ideology simply don’t matter.

Third, the presentation is impressive. With a combination of misdirection, half-truths and lies, Sowell paints a neat picture where one theory passes for ‘economics’. For example, the outcomes of government interventions are always treated monocausally, but of course otherwise economics is complex (ie. better leave it to the people who know better). Rhetorically, Sowell uses a familiar trope: His neoliberal theory is ‘reality’ and ‘facts’, whereas anything else is ‘ideology’. The utter condescension is repeatedly presented as alternative ideas bringing ‘emotional fulfilment’ for politicians and journalists (the two main culprits in Sowell’s laissez-faire utopia), but unfortunately flying in the face of Sowell’s selective ‘facts’. You don’t have to be an economist to see through the charade, but I do worry that this works for many readers. Ideology disguised as ‘realism’ and blaming everyone else for being ideological is the oldest trick in the book.

Now, the downside (I’ll stick to just one):

Unfortunately, this not an introduction to economics at all. It is a very thick political pamphlet on the ideology of neoliberalism, and an economic theory that legitimates that ideology. If you take a word count of the text, there are probably more mentions of ‘government’ than the economy. The whole book is built on presenting different propositions of neoliberal theory and then spending page after page whining about why government actions ruin the beautiful theory. There are plenty of popular books on economics out there, if you’re interested. This is not one of them.

I should have googled Sowell before buying the audiobook. Now that I did, turns out he has become a meme star among the most rank far right trolls on social media. In fact, you can see it in these reviews as well and how they have become a cultural war battleground. There’s not a little bit of sad irony in that. Then again, I guess it’s fitting for an author who would be outraged by government intervention in the lucrative business of slavery.