Review: Economics in One Lesson

By Theo Vancraeynest

         Henry Hazlitt’s Economics in One Lesson is based off of a simple principle that could be applied to all fields of life as well as economics. The principle, stated in part 1, is as follows: “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” (17). 

After opening with his principle, Hazlitt then goes on use it to criticize the shortsightedness of many economic policies most people vehemently support. Public works, bailouts, inflation, and tariffs, among other things, are logically explained to be far less beneficial than they seem to be on the surface. In each explanation he provides, Hazlitt seems to point out that more often than not, government economic policy does not better everyone. It better some, and because others do not see how they will eventually be impacted by it, they think it has no effect on them. In reality, it is quite harmful to some, but beneficial to others. Hazlitt himself writes in Chapter 25 that economics is naturally beneficial to some, but harmful to others. “If progress were completely even around the circle, this antagonism between the interests of the whole community and of the specialized group would not, if it were noticed at all present any serious problem” (198) However, not every sector of the circle of the economy benefits equally from certain events. The meat industry will benefit more from better refrigeration techniques than the sports industry, and the medical industry will benefit more from a new drug than the oil industry. Because people of one group see people of another group prospering, they think “how are they doing well and I’m not. I should have some form of protection, I work hard.” And so the government steps in to appease those who do not prosper. However, as Hazlitt said, prosperity is rarely distributed equally among everyone all the time. Some years will be good for one industry, some years will be good for another. But due to the exchange of wealth brought about by a capitalist economy, when one industry prospers by producing more wealth, all of society is made better off because of the increased wealth.

Another praiseworthy component of the book was how easy it was to understand. It gave hypothetical and real life examples that were well explained and easy to follow, and so it gets its message across with economic efficiency (lame pun).

However, there is one aspect of the book that I find myself critical of, and others should too for the sake of skepticism. In Chapter 20 “Do Unions Really Understand Wages?” Hazlitt writes about how the workweek was reduced from 70 hours to 60 hours, then from 60 hours to 48 hours, 48 to 44, and most recently, 44 to our current 40-hour workweek. He mentions that concerns such as health and leisure as the driving forces behind these workweek reductions, but he does not cite any information as to why the 70-to-60 reduction was about health and welfare, but the 60-to-48 reduction was about health and leisure. I would like to know what studies were conducted to determine the point at which reducing labor becomes for leisure rather than for health. I do not doubt that such studies exist, or that they are legitimate and well-conducted, I just wish I knew where to find them.

Now, Hazlitt uses very few citations in his book, but that’s because most of the information is conceptual based, and the real life examples he uses are either cited, or use enough descriptive terms that the reader can easily google them to verify them. His comment about workweek hours, however, is the exception.

Still, all things considered, Economics in One Lesson is a great book, and I highly recommend it to anyone with an interest in either economics or politics. I rate this book four stars out of five.

Page numbers for the quotations taken from the New Edition of the book, published by Three Rivers Press.