He argues that government spending is not a panacea and must be viewed in the larger context of secondary consequences, including jobs destroyed by taking money from taxpayers.

Hazlitt concludes that the faith in government lending policies springs from two acts of shortsightedness: looking at the matter only from the standpoint of the borrowers and thinking only of the first half of the transaction.

Hazlitt notes that the belief that machines cause unemployment leads to preposterous conclusions, and cites Adam Smith's "Wealth of Nations," which shows how machinery revolutionized pin-making and increased productivity.

[3] After the machine has produced economies sufficient to offset its cost, the manufacturer has more profits than before, which can be used to expand operations, invest in other industries, or increase personal consumption.

[3] Hazlitt also criticizes the idea that a thirty-hour workweek or make-work practices are preferable for creating jobs, as they do not necessarily increase productivity or output.

Additionally, the purchase of English sweaters with the money saved would generate dollars for Americans to buy other goods, thus boosting employment in other industries.

The author argues that foreign exchange is a clearing transaction that cancels out debts and credits, similar to domestic trade, and that discrepancies in balances of imports and exports are often settled by shipments of gold or any other commodity.

[3] The author also cautions against the belief that huge loans should be made to foreign countries for the sake of increasing exports, as it would lead to misunderstandings and bad relations later, and a nation cannot grow rich by giving goods away.

[3] Additionally, the policy of increasing prices often involves a forced cut in the production of farm commodities, which leads to a destruction of wealth and less food to be consumed.

Hazlitt highlights the fact that the principle of "parity" prices is not a public-spirited economic plan but a device for subsidizing a special interest, as it benefits farmers at the expense of city workers and taxpayers.

[3] The author argues that while the argument may be justified in some cases, it ignores the negative consequences of such actions, such as reduced efficiency, decreased innovation, and the opportunity cost of diverting resources from more productive industries.

He warns that these attempts to save dying industries could lead to decreased competition, higher prices, and a lack of innovation, which ultimately harms the economy as a whole.

[3] Chapter 15, "How the Price System Works", argues that economic proposals must be analyzed for their long-term and widespread effects, not just their immediate and limited consequences.

Their arguments usually state that the commodities are selling below their natural levels and that producers cannot make a living from it, so the government must intervene to prevent scarcity and exorbitant prices in the future.

[3] Additionally, attempts to control international commodity prices and trade through government planning are likely to result in decreased individual freedoms and living standards for ordinary citizens.

Relief programs for unemployment caused by minimum wage laws would create a situation where a man is deprived of self-respect and independence, society of his services, and lowered earnings.

Hazlitt suggests unionization as a better alternative to correct low wages in special circumstances or localities where competitive forces do not operate freely.

However, unions can go beyond their legitimate functions and embrace short-sighted and anti-social policies when they seek to fix the wages of their members above their real market worth, as such an attempt always leads to unemployment.

[3] Hazlitt argues that inflation is not a solution to economic problems, as it only creates a mirage of benefits for favored groups, while the costs are borne by the rest of the society.

He concludes that when studying the effects of various proposals on all groups in the long run, the conclusions that unsophisticated common sense arrives at usually correspond to the correct ones.

[3] The author also explains how the division of labor creates a situation where people are incentivized to promote scarcity in the goods and services they supply to increase their income.

Additionally, he recommends reading economic classics in reverse historical order and mentions recent works that discuss current ideologies and developments.

[14] Friedrich Hayek praised the work, referring to it as "a brilliant performance...I know of no other modern book from which the intelligent layman can learn so much about the basic truths of economics in so short a time.

"[15] German-American economist Ferdinand A. Hermens wrote: "presidents and cabinet members...could learn a great deal if they would read Hazlitt's book and ponder its implications.

"[18] Nobel Prize laureate Milton Friedman stated: "Hazlitt's explanation of how a price system works is a true classic: timeless, correct, painlessly instructive.

"[20] Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Edwin A. Roberts Jr. wrote: "Fifty years have passed since the book was first published...and it continues to stand as the clearest introduction to what to me is the most engagingly complicated of all academic disciplines.

The beauty and strength of Henry Hazlitt's "Economics in One Lesson," of course, is that he uncomplicates the essentials of his subject, and he could do that because he knew vastly more than he put into his book, and he was so facile in his use of language that the writing as well as the content gives pleasure.

"[25] A review in the Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science agreed with Hazlitt's arguments on the need for greater productive efficiency and the effects of deficit spending but believed monopolies were overlooked in the book.

[29] Ralph S. Brown, a law professor, also stated that Hazlitt effectively articulates the principles of classical economics on matters such as tariffs, one-way foreign trade, parity prices, and purchasing-power theory.

[30] Post-Keynesian economist Abba Lerner calls it "one of the finest attacks on topsy-turvy economics" but says Hazlitt should more seriously "consider the possibility of an economy suffering from unemployment".