What do you think?
Rate this book
Time Will Run Back
Henry Hazlitt (1894–1993) was a well-known journalist who wrote on economic affairs for the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, and Newsweek, among many. He is perhaps best known as the author of the classic Economics in One Lesson (1946). But Hazlitt was well equipped to be a fiction writer. He was literary editor of The Nation for three years and H.L. Mencken's successor at the American Mercury.Time Will Run Back is an excellent introduction to the problems of economic systems, and can be a great benefit to young people who are curious about the meaning of economic analysis. It is, in fact, suitable for all ages. The Mises Institute is very pleased to sponsor this Kindle edition.The plot line of this splendid novel, first published in 1951 and revised in 1966, explores the economic theories of capitalism and socialism.It begins in a fully socialist society in which the new leader, who finds himself in that position only by accident, begins to rethink the economic basis of the system. He first begins to wonder whether the economy is doing well at all, and how one might know. This sets him on a path to thinking about prices and calculation, and about the very meaning of productivity.Commerce is introduced when the leader decides to allow the trading of rationing tickets; shortly, markets appear — and everyone seems to be better off as a result.And on it continues. Slowly, piece by piece, he dismantles central planning and replaces it with a market system. All the while, the characters are engaged in a Socratic-style discussion about the implications of money, exchange, ownership, markets, entrepreneurship, and more.
386 pages, Kindle Edition
First published January 1, 1951
36 people are currently reading
608 people want to read
About the author
Henry Hazlitt
93 books428 followersHenry Stuart Hazlitt was an American journalist who wrote about business and economics for such publications as The Wall Street Journal, The Nation, The American Mercury, Newsweek, and The New York Times.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 25 of 25 reviews
July 8, 2022
I read this over 30 years ago, (approx. date) and thought it was pretty interesting.
From what I can remember, it is a fictional story about the son of the Soviet Union's leader who takes over after his father dies.
He has funny ideas about how society could be better managed by devolving power from the central government to private enterprise. Amazing.
Wish I could remember more. Perhaps some day I will have time to read it again.
The author, Henry Hazlitt, was an economic journalist (with The New York Times and then Newsweek) and world famous for his best selling book "Economics in One Lesson." Part of the reason why the book did so well is the quality of his writing. This work was his only fiction book.
From what I can remember, it is a fictional story about the son of the Soviet Union's leader who takes over after his father dies.
He has funny ideas about how society could be better managed by devolving power from the central government to private enterprise. Amazing.
Wish I could remember more. Perhaps some day I will have time to read it again.
The author, Henry Hazlitt, was an economic journalist (with The New York Times and then Newsweek) and world famous for his best selling book "Economics in One Lesson." Part of the reason why the book did so well is the quality of his writing. This work was his only fiction book.
March 31, 2013
Anyone who recognizes the name Henry Hazlitt will not be surprised that this book is about economics, even though it is fiction. The plot is a thin veneer over dialogs between the two main characters, which, in fits and starts, take one from the beginning position of "Mankind is at its apex having lived in socialist paradise for centuries" to "Wow, capitalism (in the meaning of a society built around economic liberty) is so superior, what were we thinking?".
What I like about the book is that it doesn't just explain capitalism and say it's wonderful; rather, the conversations involve arguments, false starts, testing hypotheses, etc. It is an easy read, and can bring more or less to the reader depending on how actively or passively he follows the discussion. It's a good self-directed text for people of any age who have never gone beyond the buzzwords that they're inundated with on this subject in our society, but I think it would also make a fine selection for a reading/discussion group.
The story sets up a very artificial scenario: the world has been a single socialist state for a few hundred years, following the complete eradication of all evidence that it was anything else. Everyone knows that we are so much better off than in the old days when the common people were exploited by the capitalists, though nobody knows exactly how. The protagonist, Peter, after living a privileged life exiled on an island with his mother, at 21 is sent for by his father in Moscow, who happens to be the dictator of Wonworld. Peter, confused by the squalor and repression evident all around, tries to understand the workings of the world for a few weeks while his father advances him upward through the ranks of society, quickly grooming him to become his successor. Soon his father fades and Peter is amassing more and more power as a member of the Politburo and then the de facto head of the government. He makes one friend on the Politburo, Adams (#3 in the ranking with Peter's father being #1 and Peter himself having become #1-A) and one enemy, #2.
Peter, a natural genius as required by the story, thinks things don't have to be as they are. His dialogs with Adams begin with his just trying to get Adams to explain things that he doesn't understand, and their back-and-forth progresses down a road of incremental understanding of economics, property rights, and freedom. Adams provides a foil to Peter's speculations, and sometimes they both play Devil's Advocate. Peter starts implementing the new ideas gradually, some of which work and some of which don't, and he and Adams increase their understanding as they see not only their mistakes but also learn from unanticipated results they see as the reforms bring forth emergent behaviors in the population, such as the spontaneous formation of markets after the people are allowed to exchange state-supplied consumer goods among each other. As Peter introduces more and more reforms, he and Adams together discover the workings of production, incentives, profit and loss, the meaning of money, and the "invisible hand".
What I like about the book is that it doesn't just explain capitalism and say it's wonderful; rather, the conversations involve arguments, false starts, testing hypotheses, etc. It is an easy read, and can bring more or less to the reader depending on how actively or passively he follows the discussion. It's a good self-directed text for people of any age who have never gone beyond the buzzwords that they're inundated with on this subject in our society, but I think it would also make a fine selection for a reading/discussion group.
The story sets up a very artificial scenario: the world has been a single socialist state for a few hundred years, following the complete eradication of all evidence that it was anything else. Everyone knows that we are so much better off than in the old days when the common people were exploited by the capitalists, though nobody knows exactly how. The protagonist, Peter, after living a privileged life exiled on an island with his mother, at 21 is sent for by his father in Moscow, who happens to be the dictator of Wonworld. Peter, confused by the squalor and repression evident all around, tries to understand the workings of the world for a few weeks while his father advances him upward through the ranks of society, quickly grooming him to become his successor. Soon his father fades and Peter is amassing more and more power as a member of the Politburo and then the de facto head of the government. He makes one friend on the Politburo, Adams (#3 in the ranking with Peter's father being #1 and Peter himself having become #1-A) and one enemy, #2.
Peter, a natural genius as required by the story, thinks things don't have to be as they are. His dialogs with Adams begin with his just trying to get Adams to explain things that he doesn't understand, and their back-and-forth progresses down a road of incremental understanding of economics, property rights, and freedom. Adams provides a foil to Peter's speculations, and sometimes they both play Devil's Advocate. Peter starts implementing the new ideas gradually, some of which work and some of which don't, and he and Adams increase their understanding as they see not only their mistakes but also learn from unanticipated results they see as the reforms bring forth emergent behaviors in the population, such as the spontaneous formation of markets after the people are allowed to exchange state-supplied consumer goods among each other. As Peter introduces more and more reforms, he and Adams together discover the workings of production, incentives, profit and loss, the meaning of money, and the "invisible hand".
October 25, 2012
As a story this book fails because it is too much this telling what happened instead of showing. As a book on ecconomics it fails because it is too optimistic about how people really will behave - the thesis is probably correct, but it tried to pretend that something that needs hundreds of years will happen in just a few.
If you want to learn about ecconomics from an book that you can read for pleasure it works, but it isn't enjoyable enough to be a pleasure book, and isn't correct enough to be a text book.
If you want to learn about ecconomics from an book that you can read for pleasure it works, but it isn't enjoyable enough to be a pleasure book, and isn't correct enough to be a text book.
June 12, 2011
One of the best books I've read.
August 16, 2016
Henry Hazlitt is one of my favorite economic authors and I totaly agree and consider his positions right.
But I am totaly dissapointed by what he done here with this book !! I recomend to all that are not acustomed to this author or the austrian theory of economics to pick another of his books because they are great !!
The concept he tried to do is indead a very interesting one full of potential; the first chapters were very good and the similarities with 1984 were facinating. But Hazlitt wanted to combine here the austrian theory of economics into a suitable plot. He totaly failed the plot part !!
Peter is a character with global power whose actions affect the entire world, in order to create a plot for such a character you need much more world bilding and more character development and more characters and relations !! What Hazlitt did not realize is that his project should have been a 1000 page book to succede, like Ayn Rand's book !!
For me who know all the economical theory discussed in this book, I was more interested about the plot !! What Hazlitt produced was a book with dialogue, like Plato's dialogue on economical issues in wich the plot just offers a context for the dialogue...
But I am totaly dissapointed by what he done here with this book !! I recomend to all that are not acustomed to this author or the austrian theory of economics to pick another of his books because they are great !!
The concept he tried to do is indead a very interesting one full of potential; the first chapters were very good and the similarities with 1984 were facinating. But Hazlitt wanted to combine here the austrian theory of economics into a suitable plot. He totaly failed the plot part !!
Peter is a character with global power whose actions affect the entire world, in order to create a plot for such a character you need much more world bilding and more character development and more characters and relations !! What Hazlitt did not realize is that his project should have been a 1000 page book to succede, like Ayn Rand's book !!
For me who know all the economical theory discussed in this book, I was more interested about the plot !! What Hazlitt produced was a book with dialogue, like Plato's dialogue on economical issues in wich the plot just offers a context for the dialogue...
August 23, 2014
I have been reading a number of odd books lately, and this fits right in. I believe that Hazlitt was a brilliant and gifted economist, not so much as a writer of fiction. This has an interesting premise; in a world where communism wins the battle of world domination, a new leader is promoted who had a completely sheltered adolescence. He can not stand the hypocrisy of socialism and strives for a more free and open society. The execution falls a bit flat and it is easy to see why Orwell's "1984" became more of a classic. The worlds start out very similar; and this book actually offers solutions through a free-market approach but Orwell has a better refined execution and even a grudgingly reluctant acceptance of socialism (to make it palatable to English teachers).
The ebook I purchased from LvMI through Amazon had many typographical errors.
The ebook I purchased from LvMI through Amazon had many typographical errors.
December 11, 2021
Had all human knowledge be erased and you only can save one book for the future of mankind, choose this one
September 9, 2020
I think the book completely fails at doing what it aspires to do i.e. to be a good economics book.
For example in chapter 13 Peter make the argument that in communism there are perverse incentives. If they only get the fraction of what they work to produce then there everyone has incentives to work the least and thus everyone is worse off. However this argument by Peter is made only after he observes the famine. Without an actual famine to observe this argument would not be as strong because perhaps the propaganda and motivational speeches really worked and were able to incentivize the workers to work. Without actual world to observe we cant know if such speeches would work. We cant know this apriori. Since Hazlitt does not cite any empirical data, this argument against communism becomes very weak.
This problem get worse in chapter 18.
“Well, perhaps we could compensate them in some way, Adams
— say by letting them work shorter hours than the others.”
“We thought of that long ago, chief. It didn’t work. It unluckily
turned out that it was only the pleasant jobs, like acting or violin
playing, that could be reduced to short hours. But we simply can’t
afford to have people work only a few hours on the nasty jobs. These
are precisely the jobs that have to be done. We couldn’t afford to cut
our coal production in half by cutting the hours in half, for example;
and we just haven’t got the spare manpower to rotate. Besides, we
found that on most such jobs a considerable loss of time and
production was involved merely in changing shifts”
How much cost it takes to do the managing work of changing shift or whether or not Wonworld can afford to cut people hour on nasty jobs is not shown but just assumed by the book. Thus I doubt if anyone will change their mind about this issue by reading this book.
Chapter 25 is describing the origin of money. However origin of money is quite controversial as anthropologist and economist tend to disagree about it. Again Hazlitt fails to appreciate the nuance of this discussion. This assumption of some very important things is quite common with the entire book (see his defense of democracy in chapter 20). And thus he fails to write a good economics book.
That being said, I do appreciate 'spontaneous order' more than ever after reading this book. All the time I was screaming 'Just let people do their thing'. Lol
In terms of fiction I think it fails again. There are much better fiction books than this one if you are interested in reading fiction.
For example in chapter 13 Peter make the argument that in communism there are perverse incentives. If they only get the fraction of what they work to produce then there everyone has incentives to work the least and thus everyone is worse off. However this argument by Peter is made only after he observes the famine. Without an actual famine to observe this argument would not be as strong because perhaps the propaganda and motivational speeches really worked and were able to incentivize the workers to work. Without actual world to observe we cant know if such speeches would work. We cant know this apriori. Since Hazlitt does not cite any empirical data, this argument against communism becomes very weak.
This problem get worse in chapter 18.
“Well, perhaps we could compensate them in some way, Adams
— say by letting them work shorter hours than the others.”
“We thought of that long ago, chief. It didn’t work. It unluckily
turned out that it was only the pleasant jobs, like acting or violin
playing, that could be reduced to short hours. But we simply can’t
afford to have people work only a few hours on the nasty jobs. These
are precisely the jobs that have to be done. We couldn’t afford to cut
our coal production in half by cutting the hours in half, for example;
and we just haven’t got the spare manpower to rotate. Besides, we
found that on most such jobs a considerable loss of time and
production was involved merely in changing shifts”
How much cost it takes to do the managing work of changing shift or whether or not Wonworld can afford to cut people hour on nasty jobs is not shown but just assumed by the book. Thus I doubt if anyone will change their mind about this issue by reading this book.
Chapter 25 is describing the origin of money. However origin of money is quite controversial as anthropologist and economist tend to disagree about it. Again Hazlitt fails to appreciate the nuance of this discussion. This assumption of some very important things is quite common with the entire book (see his defense of democracy in chapter 20). And thus he fails to write a good economics book.
That being said, I do appreciate 'spontaneous order' more than ever after reading this book. All the time I was screaming 'Just let people do their thing'. Lol
In terms of fiction I think it fails again. There are much better fiction books than this one if you are interested in reading fiction.
June 2, 2020
I think this is a great book. If one was to evaluate it as a typical work of fiction, it, no doubt, would not come out too well. It’s not going to dazzle you with its story telling or captivate you. The story is contrived and unrealistic. It’s best to think of it as a fable. A fable, with such things as talking animals, isn’t realistic. The fable exists to demonstrate a point. Not to just tell you, but to show you. I have read many nonfiction books by Hazlitt, Mises, Thomas Sowell and others. I loved these books. They do an excellent job of identifying and explaining the flaws of Socialism and how Capitalism inherently solves these problems without judgmental interference from authorities. What’s different about “Time will Run Back” is that it doesn’t just tell you, it shows you. It shows why Socialism results in an extraordinary and necessary loss of freedom; how it necessitates brutal force; how totalitarianism is an inevitable consequence; and how it lacks incentives for productivity, efficiency and innovation. This is a message that a lot of people today don’t seem to get.
June 22, 2024
Great Idea!
Paraphrasing the original title of the book, this is a good novel frame to teach how free market economics is the natural and best approach to productivity and wealth for the vast majority of people.
It is particularly appealing if you haven’t already read Hazlitt’s best seller “economics in one lesson”.
From the literary point of view it could be reduced the economic discussion, in the style of Galileo’s dialogs, simplicio and sagredo, played by Peter and Adams.
The dystopian future here has also been used by Ayn Rand in Anthem story in another notable pice of work.
Paraphrasing the original title of the book, this is a good novel frame to teach how free market economics is the natural and best approach to productivity and wealth for the vast majority of people.
It is particularly appealing if you haven’t already read Hazlitt’s best seller “economics in one lesson”.
From the literary point of view it could be reduced the economic discussion, in the style of Galileo’s dialogs, simplicio and sagredo, played by Peter and Adams.
The dystopian future here has also been used by Ayn Rand in Anthem story in another notable pice of work.
September 7, 2020
This is a sort of dialogue exposition of Austrian economics. It isn't written in the most elegant manner and the story and characters are a bit two dimensional. Nevertheless, this is an important book because it is the first attempt I know of to transform economic theory into a Plato's republic style narrative.
December 18, 2021
I'm being generous and giving this two stars for the truths in the book and the effort the author went through explaining them. But as a novel, this would get one star. It was so bad. I've asked my husband, the next time he wants me to learn about economics, just get me a textbook. This author probably writes great textbooks. But a novelist he is not.
April 8, 2022
Una novela en línea con 1984 de Orwell, dónde, desde un planteo ficticio, procura desglosar los principios de socialismo y liberalismo.
El libro está muy bien, se lee bastante fácil, es claro, didáctico de algún modo y de una vigencia implacable.
Cómo puntos flojos, se notan forzadas las reflexiones o los conceptos técnicos dentro del contexto de novela.
El libro está muy bien, se lee bastante fácil, es claro, didáctico de algún modo y de una vigencia implacable.
Cómo puntos flojos, se notan forzadas las reflexiones o los conceptos técnicos dentro del contexto de novela.
April 26, 2019
An economics lecture thinly disguised as a novel. But a good economics lecture.
August 1, 2024
A lot of economics, not a lot of plot line
June 10, 2012
This book is amazing. It's written at about a 7th grade level. That's both the bad news and the good news. Hazlitt is really disguising a basic explanation of economics and political systems in a somewhat pedantic, but very understandable way. He presents the difference between capitalism and communism, both economically and politically, in a way that makes both easy to understand. Of course, it is biased towards capitalism, but that is both understandable and agreeable. I personally agree with his positions, but it doesn't matter. He provides you with the basics of the arguments and you can argue against him if you like. It's just that the arguments are posited in an easy to understand way and provides a basis for more exploration into economic theory. It's well done, if not a little primitive.
May 16, 2013
An excellent book if you are looking for an easy introduction to economics and free market systems. Although it is similar to classic books like Animal Farm, it is much different in it's purpose. This book is all about helping you to understand how the free market works and how government interference will hinder the market. Basic economic principles are discussed in a light technical fashion which is easy to grasp. The basic plot works as a frame to hold your interest as the author delves into more theoretical topics. It was a fun book to read and helped me to swallow the somewhat harder medicine of economics.
November 1, 2009
This didactic (that is, a thing to teach) novel is based on the premise that a educated but ignorant dictator would invent capitalism even if he took power over some place like Stalin's Soviet Union. The book is poorly written. It offers intriguing insight as to how socialism continues to progress even though its flaws are more and more plainly evident to scholars. This was a hard book to get ahold of. Before I had seen the dust jacket of this book, I had never seen a picture of Hazlitt. He looks like Robert Douglas who played Ellsworth Toohey in The Fountainhead.
March 14, 2011
As a novel, this is an adequate book. The plot and dialog are often contrived, and it's no surprise that this book didn't launch an economics thriller genre. But the conversations beret Peter and Adams, as unlikely as they are, do offer good lessons on economics that must people are not likely to come across. Dare I say I now better understand the issue of "economic calculation" that Mises and others have written about?
This is not a great novel, but it conveys an important message in an approachable way. Good could come from reading it.
This is not a great novel, but it conveys an important message in an approachable way. Good could come from reading it.
February 18, 2015
The book is labelled as a "1984 with a solution". Both books were written at the same time, but both are completely different types of dystopias. 1984 is very well written and a great warning, because Orwell is very good at portraying a nightmare society.
Hazlitt's Time Will Run Back is, compared to 1984 very poor written. It's not a realistic story and the characters aren't convincing. However, Hazlitt is a very good teacher of Economics, and the conversations about how to run a society are a great read.
Hazlitt's Time Will Run Back is, compared to 1984 very poor written. It's not a realistic story and the characters aren't convincing. However, Hazlitt is a very good teacher of Economics, and the conversations about how to run a society are a great read.
January 12, 2013
If you enjoy movies without a ton of action but with great dialog, then you will enjoy this book. 12 Angry Men is a good example of the type of movie I'm talking about. The dialog between the two main characters Peter and Adams are full on economic insights that you will learn more economics by the time you finish than most get in their economic courses in college.
August 27, 2017
My review is not regarding the economics of the book, much of which I agree with. I am rating this novel as a novel, and there was basically no plot in this novel. The entire book was a dialogue between two characters regarding economics. I could not finish it, because of how boring it was. If I wanted to read a treatise on economics, I would have picked up "Economics in One Lesson."
May 25, 2010
The plot is a bit contrived. It is about the world if communism had taken over and the thought process that eventually leads them back to capitalism. The principles are well taught even if the characters and dialogue aren't that great.
Read
December 11, 2010I understand this book is out of print, but it is a wonderful read. It starts in a future time when markets and capitalism do not exist, and shows how they would develop to correct the wrongs of a socialized economy.
June 5, 2014
The story feels forced but does make the economics lectures feel less dry.
Displaying 1 - 25 of 25 reviews