Enjoy fast, free delivery, exclusive deals, and award-winning movies & TV shows with Prime
Try Prime
and start saving today with fast, free delivery
Amazon Prime includes:
Fast, FREE Delivery is available to Prime members. To join, select "Try Amazon Prime and start saving today with Fast, FREE Delivery" below the Add to Cart button.
Amazon Prime members enjoy:- Cardmembers earn 5% Back at Amazon.com with a Prime Credit Card.
- Unlimited Free Two-Day Delivery
- Streaming of thousands of movies and TV shows with limited ads on Prime Video.
- A Kindle book to borrow for free each month - with no due dates
- Listen to over 2 million songs and hundreds of playlists
- Unlimited photo storage with anywhere access
Important: Your credit card will NOT be charged when you start your free trial or if you cancel during the trial period. If you're happy with Amazon Prime, do nothing. At the end of the free trial, your membership will automatically upgrade to a monthly membership.
Buy new:
$10.99$10.99
FREE delivery: Wednesday, March 13 on orders over $35.00 shipped by Amazon.
Ships from: Amazon.com Sold by: Amazon.com
Buy used: $6.69
Download the free Kindle app and start reading Kindle books instantly on your smartphone, tablet, or computer - no Kindle device required.
Read instantly on your browser with Kindle for Web.
Using your mobile phone camera - scan the code below and download the Kindle app.
Image Unavailable
Color:
-
-
-
- To view this video download Flash Player
Economics in One Lesson: The Shortest and Surest Way to Understand Basic Economics Paperback – December 14, 1988
Explore your book, then jump right back to where you left off with Page Flip.
View high quality images that let you zoom in to take a closer look.
Enjoy features only possible in digital – start reading right away, carry your library with you, adjust the font, create shareable notes and highlights, and more.
Discover additional details about the events, people, and places in your book, with Wikipedia integration.
Purchase options and add-ons
“A magnificent job of theoretical exposition.”—Ayn Rand
Considered among the leading economic thinkers of the “Austrian School,” which includes Carl Menger, Ludwig von Mises, Friedrich (F.A.) Hayek, and others, Henry Hazlitt wrote Economics in One Lesson in 1946. Concise and instructive, it is also deceptively prescient and far-reaching in its efforts to dissemble economic fallacies that are so prevalent they have almost become a new orthodoxy.
Economic commentators across the political spectrum have credited Hazlitt with foreseeing the collapse of the global economy which occurred more than fifty years after the initial publication of Economics in One Lesson. Hazlitt’s focus on non-governmental solutions, strong—and strongly reasoned—anti-deficit position, and general emphasis on free markets, economic liberty of individuals, and the dangers of government intervention make Economics in One Lesson every bit as relevant and valuable today as it has been since publication.
- Print length218 pages
- LanguageEnglish
- PublisherCrown Currency
- Publication dateDecember 14, 1988
- Dimensions5.15 x 0.6 x 8 inches
- ISBN-100517548232
- ISBN-13978-0517548233
The Amazon Book Review
Book recommendations, author interviews, editors' picks, and more. Read it now
Frequently bought together

Similar items that may deliver to you quickly
But need is not demand. Effective economic demand requires not merely need but corresponding purchasing power.Highlighted by 4,361 Kindle readers
Therefore, for every public job created by the bridge project a private job has been destroyed somewhere else.Highlighted by 3,294 Kindle readers
Everything we get, outside of the free gifts of nature, must in some way be paid for.Highlighted by 2,968 Kindle readers
Editorial Reviews
Review
—Ayn Rand
“I strongly recommend that every American acquire some basic knowledge of economics, monetary policy, and the intersection of politics with the economy. No formal classroom is required; a desire to read and learn will suffice. There are countless important books to consider, but the following are an excellent starting point: The Law by Frédéric Bastiat; Economics in One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt; What has Government Done to our Money? by Murray Rothbard; The Road to Serfdom by Friedrich Hayek; and Economics for Real People by Gene Callahan.
If you simply read and comprehend these relatively short texts, you will know far more than most educated people about economics and government. You certainly will develop a far greater understanding of how supposedly benevolent government policies destroy prosperity. If you care about the future of this country, arm yourself with knowledge and fight back against economic ignorance. We disregard economics and history at our own peril.”
—Ron Paul, Representative from Texas
From the Inside Flap
About the Author
Excerpt. © Reprinted by permission. All rights reserved.
THE LESSON
Economics is haunted by more fallacies than any other study known to man. This is no accident. The inherent difficulties of the subject would be great enough in any case, but they are multiplied a thousandfold by a factor that is insignificant in, say, physics, mathematics or medicine—the special pleading of selfish interests. While every group has certain economic interests identical with those of all groups, every group has also, as we shall see, interests antagonistic to those of all other groups. While certain public policies would in the long run benefit everybody, other policies would benefit one group only at the expense of all other groups. The group that would benefit by such policies, having such a direct interest in them, will argue for them plausibly and persistently. It will hire the best buyable minds to devote their whole time to presenting its case. And it will finally either convince the general public that its case is sound, or so befuddle it that clear thinking on the subject becomes next to impossible.
In addition to these endless pleadings of self-interest, there is a second main factor that spawns new economic fallacies every day. This is the persistent tendency of men to see only the immediate effects of a given policy, or its effects only on a special group, and to neglect to inquire what the long-run effects of that policy will be not only on that special group but on all groups. It is the fallacy of overlooking secondary consequences.
In this lies the whole difference between good economics and bad. The bad economist sees only what immediately strikes the eye; the good economist also looks beyond. The bad economist sees only the direct consequences of a proposed course; the good economist looks also at the longer and indirect consequences. The bad economist sees only what the effect of a given policy has been or will be on one particular group; the good economist inquires also what the effect of the policy will be on all groups.
The distinction may seem obvious. The precaution of looking for all the consequences of a given policy to everyone may seem elementary. Doesn’t everybody know, in his personal life, that there are all sorts of indulgences delightful at the moment but disastrous in the end? Doesn’t every little boy know that if he eats enough candy he will get sick? Doesn’t the fellow who gets drunk know that he will wake up next morning with a ghastly stomach and a horrible head? Doesn’t the dipsomaniac know that he is ruining his liver and shortening his life? Doesn’t the Don Juan know that he is letting himself in for every sort of risk, from blackmail to disease? Finally, to bring it to the economic though still personal realm, do not the idler and the spendthrift know, even in the midst of their glorious fling, that they are heading for a future of debt and poverty?
Yet when we enter the field of public economics, these elementary truths are ignored. There are men regarded today as brilliant economists, who deprecate saving and recommend squandering on a national scale as the way of economic salvation; and when anyone points to what the consequences of these policies will be in the long run, they reply flippantly, as might the prodigal son of a warning father: “In the long run we are all dead.” And such shallow wisecracks pass as devastating epigrams and the ripest wisdom.
But the tragedy is that, on the contrary, we are already suffering the long-run consequences of the policies of the remote or recent past. Today is already the tomorrow which the bad economist yesterday urged us to ignore. The long-run consequences of some economic policies may become evident in a few months. Others may not become evident for several years. Still others may not become evident for decades. But in every case those long-run consequences are contained in the policy as surely as the hen was in the egg, the flower in the seed.
From this aspect, therefore, the whole of economics can be reduced to a single lesson, and that lesson can be reduced to a single sentence. 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.
Product details
- Publisher : Crown Currency; paperback edition (December 14, 1988)
- Language : English
- Paperback : 218 pages
- ISBN-10 : 0517548232
- ISBN-13 : 978-0517548233
- Item Weight : 6.6 ounces
- Dimensions : 5.15 x 0.6 x 8 inches
- Best Sellers Rank: #4,587 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)
- Customer Reviews:
Important information
To report an issue with this product or seller, click here.
About the author

Henry Stuart Hazlitt (November 28, 1894 – July 9, 1993) 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. He is widely cited in both libertarian and conservative circles.
Bio from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Photo by Mises Institute (Released by the Mises Institute) [CC BY 3.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0)], via Wikimedia Commons.
Customer reviews
Customer Reviews, including Product Star Ratings help customers to learn more about the product and decide whether it is the right product for them.
To calculate the overall star rating and percentage breakdown by star, we don’t use a simple average. Instead, our system considers things like how recent a review is and if the reviewer bought the item on Amazon. It also analyzed reviews to verify trustworthiness.
Learn more how customers reviews work on AmazonReviews with images
-
Top reviews
Top reviews from the United States
There was a problem filtering reviews right now. Please try again later.
Economics is haunted by more fallacies than any other study known to man. This is no accident. The inherent difficulties of the subject would be great enough in any case, but they are multiplied a thousandfold by a factor that is insignificant in, say, physics, mathematics or medicine -- the special pleading of selfish interests. While every group has certain economic interests identical with those of all groups, every group has also, as we shall see, interests antagonistic to those of all other groups. While certain public policies would in the long run benefit everybody, other policies would benefit one group only at the expense of all other groups. The group that would benefit by such policies, having such a direct interest in them, will argue for then plausibly and persistently. It will hire the best buyable minds to devote their whole time to presenting its case. And it will finally either convince the general public that its case is sound, or so befuddle it that clear thinking on the subject becomes next to impossible.
In addition to these endless pleadings of self-interest, there is a second main factor that spawns new economic fallacies every day. This is the persistent tendency of men to see only the immediate effects of a given policy, or its effects only on a special group, and to neglect to inquire what the long-run effects of that policy will be not only on that special group but on all groups. It is the fallacy of overlooking secondary consequences.
At first it seems as though not much has changed since the end of World War II. What has changed, though, is the scope of the dangers Mr. Hazlitt identifies. That's because government is much expanded and more assertive today than when this book was written. In 1946 the New Deal was not very old, and the tremendous expansion of government social programs was still in the future. We should take these lessons as even more important today.
It is the overlooked consequences that cause harm. They are overlooked sometimes because they are difficult to see, as in the broken window fallacy explained by Frederic Bastiat and also in this book. They are also "overlooked" because, as Mr. Hazlitt tells us, one group wants special favors from the government, and although there is no way to grant these favors without harming some other group, the favor-seeking group will seek to hide, obfuscate, muddle, or minimize the bad effects. At the same time they promote the policy as good for everyone. This is largely the job that lobbyists perform, and billions are spent on it each year. That's because a powerful government has the ability to bestow valuable favors, those favors being paid for by someone else, someone often not easily seen.
An example of overlooked secondary consequences is government spending. When government spends, it means it must tax or borrow. What government spends is not available for individuals to spend. When we see magnificent public works (say a new downtown arena in Wichita), we don't see all the things that would have been bought had the government not taxed to build the public work. We see the jobs created by the public work -- all the construction workers that will be building the new arena -- but we don't see the jobs destroyed because people had to reduce their spending elsewhere.
Foreign trade is a case where people often fail to grasp the complete picture. We often see exports as something good for our economy, while imports are seen as bad. Imported things are things that American workers can't compete with, and so American jobs are lost, it is often said. But as Mr. Hazlitt says: "It is exports that pay for imports. The greater exports we have, the greater imports we must have, if we ever expect to get paid. The smaller imports we have, the smaller exports we can have. Without imports we can have no exports, for foreigners will have to funds with which to buy our goods." So those wanting restrictions on imports are also -- although they do not say this, either because they do not recognize it or it doesn't matter to them -- calling for fewer exports.
In recent years we have been told that our is a "consumer-driven" economy, fueled by people tapping their home equity that accumulated from increased home values, or spending by going into debt. It is as though if consumers started saving rather then spending on immediate consumption, the American economy would collapse. But Mr. Hazlitt tells us that "saving is only another form of spending." After all, what is done with money that is saved? Today, few put their savings under the mattress. Instead, it is loaned to a bank or invested. Then it is spent on capital goods, which businesses use to increase their productive capability. The key fact is that businesses spend it. And, they spend it on capital goods that either expand their capacity to produce, or decease their present costs of production. Either way, that is good for everyone. It means more jobs, and better jobs. But this saving is derided as not being "productive."
As a conclusion Mr. Hazlitt tells us:
And this is our lesson in its most generalized form. For many things that seem to be true when we concentrate on a single economic group are seen to be illusions when the interests of everyone, as consumer no less than producer, are considered.
To see the problem as a whole, and not in fragments: that is the goal of economic science.
This is a very valuable book, which while dated a bit, cuts through the fog and haze of economics and public policy and lets us understand the effects of our government's policies.
The author discusses the enormous faith many people have in government spending. He writes: "There is no more persistent and influential faith in the world today than the faith in government spending." But he quickly points out the fallacy of assuming that things can be fixed if the government just spends more money on a given problem or weakness. A current example of this fallacy in action is the public education system in the United States. In the book by Myths, Lies, and Downright Stupidity, the author, John Stossel, discusses the public education system in the United States. Many policy-makers and citizens alike have the notion that the best way to improve the public education system in our country is with more money. But time after time, studies and statistics have shown that children aren't getting a better education when more tax dollars are given to the school system. It's been proven that no direct correlation exists between the amount of money allocated to the public school system, and the quality of education a child receives. Yet the mantra is frequently repeated by many: "Give more money to our school system in order to improve it" as if this will automatically fix the problems. There are a host of problems with the public education system, one of which is not a lack of funds.
The author states that "The economic goal of any nation, as of any individual, is to get the greatest results with the least efforts. The whole economic progress of mankind has consisted in getting more production with the same labor." He goes on to write: "Each of us is trying to save his own labor, to economize the means required to achieve his ends. Every employer, small as well as large, seeks constantly to gain his results more economically and efficiently - that is, by saving labor." America is a highly technological, highly productive society. America has the highest standard of living in the history of humanity. Technology and innovation is abundant. Unfortunately, a common economic delusion is that machines and technology destroy jobs. If this were true, it could be said then that civilization contributed to unemployment with the first efforts to improve efficiency through labor-saving inventions like the wheel. In a recent speech given by a politician, he suggested that "we go back to the days of living without ATM machines, because they have destroyed the jobs of many bank tellers." This illustrates the fallacy of concentrating on the short-run effects of something (implementing ATM machines) on a small group of people (bank tellers) and ignoring the long run positive effects on the community (business and consumers) as a whole. The short-run effect is that fewer bank tellers are needed now that ATM machines are widely implemented and used. However the long-run effects are advantageous to the economy. Who manufactures the ATM machines? Who creates and programs the software used in these machines? Who services them when they need calibration, software upgrades, or repair? ATM machines have created jobs, increased production, and raised the standard of living. They have lowered costs for banks by reducing the amount of wages paid out to bank tellers. In turn, banks have passed these savings onto the consumer. ATM's have also increased our quality of life by making the task of depositing and withdrawing money quicker, easier, and more efficient (fewer lines, no dependence on bank hours, and so forth). The ATM market has increased production and efficiency, and contributed to the expansion of the U.S. economy.
In conclusion, I would highly recommend this book. It was very informative and clearly written. The author has a tremendous way of articulating tried and proven economic principles in a straightforward, understandable style. I'm thoroughly convinced that if more politicians and legislators would have followed the common sense economic fundamentals and lessons found in this book, the present state of the U.S. economy would be much healthier and robust.
Top reviews from other countries
however, why not using the financial sector as an example? right, that’s the point I’m making here.
it still remains a good read for any economics student. I still recommend it




















