Prof. Haozhe Chen
Yves Andress
ECON 2020 001
Economics in One Lesson
Economics in One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt (1946) serves as a short introduction to economics
for the ordinary scholar. Originally published in 1946 and later revised in 1978, the book is based
on French economist Frédéric Bastiat’s essay Ce qu’on voit et ce qu’on ne voit pas (English:
“What is Seen and What is Not Seen”). The book is split into three parts : Part One consists of
Chapter One, Part Two of Chapters Two through Twenty-Three, and Part Three of Chapter
Twenty-Four. Hazlitt defines the “One Lesson” in Chapter One and echoes it throughout the
book: “The art of economics consists in looking not merely at the immediate but at the longer
effects of any act or policy; it consists in tracing the consequences of that policy not merely for
one group but for all groups.”
Other ideas central to Chapter One include the distinction between “good” and “bad”
economists; good economists, Hazlitt states, will consider the long-run and indirect effects or
consequences of an action or policy. He describes this line of thought as “broad or holistic
consideration.” Bad economists, however, only take into account the short-term effects, or have
what Hazlitt calls “narrow consideration.” One might think that the distinction is obvious, but
like Hazlitt states, it is no different from the drunkard who fails to realize that he is “ruining his
liver and shortening his life.” Hazlitt also says in Chapter One that economic fallacies spawn
from two circumstances: policies that favor individual groups at the expense of other groups, and
only considering the immediate effects of a policy while neglecting to consider the long-run
consequences.
Chapters Two and Three expand on the parable of the broken window, a concept first
introduced in Ce qu’on voit et ce qu’on ne voit pas which states why destruction and the money
put towards repairing such destruction actually does not benefit society. Hazlitt uses the
following scenario to illustrate this: a young hoodlum throws a brick through the window of a
baker’s shop, breaking it. Observers will only observe the silver lining: it will create a job for a
glazier, therefore providing employment and income in close circles. They fail to realize the
invisible consequences, that the money the baker would have used elsewhere must now be
redirected (to hiring the new glazier). For example, if the baker was planning to purchase a new
suit prior to the broken window, a tailor is now losing out on such income. Therefore, no net
