Why is "Economics in Lesson" still readable after 80 years? Muhammad Tahari / Editor In the summer of 1946, when the world was busy calculating the devastation of World War II and planning reconstruction plans, Henry Hazlitt published a book to show a common flaw in many economic policies. He believed that the narrow field of vision of policy makers and the focus of decisions on the short-term interests of interest groups lead to ignoring the excessive costs of most policies to the general society. Inspired by Frédéric Bastiat, Hazlitt drew readers' attention from the visible to the invisible. Therefore, the main lesson of his book was that in order to evaluate any policy, one must consider its consequences in the short and long term for all groups in society. The author of the book "Economics in Lesson" was not an academic economist. He began his career as a newspaper in-law and expanded his financial knowledge by working in the Wall Street Journal system and by constant reading. His long life spanned from the years before World War I to the post-Soviet era. During this period, the Great Depression, the expansion of the welfare state, World War II, peak inflation, and the fall of communism each added new dimensions to the conflict between government and the market. Hazlitt took the side of economic freedom in these disputes and tried to show that there is a gap between the intention of the policy maker and the result of the policy, which cannot be assessed without knowing the economic mechanisms. He asked the readers of his book to see the future consequences after the formulation of any economic policy and to consider those who are not present in the arena. The famous example of the book is the broken glass of the bakery. A boy breaks the glass and the glass cutter comes to install new glass. The audience concludes that the boy's playfulness boosted business. But Hazlitt introduces the tailor into the story that the baker intended to buy clothes from them before he broke the glass. Now, because of the cost of the broken glass, the dress order has been cancelled. Hazlitt points out that most people see the glass cutter's income, but the tailor's lost income is not. Instead of healthy glass and new clothes, the baker only has healthy glass and repairing the damage didn't make him any richer.

Why is "Economics in Lesson" still readable after 80 years? Muhammad Tahari / Editor In the summer of 1946, when the world was busy calculating the devastation of World War II and planning reconstruction plans, Henry Hazlitt published a book to show a common flaw in many economic policies. He believed that the narrow field of vision of policy makers and the focus of decisions on the short-term interests of interest groups lead to ignoring the excessive costs of most policies to the general society. Inspired by Frédéric Bastiat, Hazlitt drew readers' attention from the visible to the invisible. Therefore, the main lesson of his book was that in order to evaluate any policy, one must consider its consequences in the short and long term for all groups in society. The author of the book "Economics in Lesson" was not an academic economist. He began his career as a newspaper in-law and expanded his financial knowledge by working in the Wall Street Journal system and by constant reading. His long life spanned from the years before World War I to the post-Soviet era. During this period, the Great Depression, the expansion of the welfare state, World War II, peak inflation, and the fall of communism each added new dimensions to the conflict between government and the market. Hazlitt took the side of economic freedom in these disputes and tried to show that there is a gap between the intention of the policy maker and the result of the policy, which cannot be assessed without knowing the economic mechanisms. He asked the readers of his book to see the future consequences after the formulation of any economic policy and to consider those who are not present in the arena. The famous example of the book is the broken glass of the bakery. A boy breaks the glass and the glass cutter comes to install new glass. The audience concludes that the boy's playfulness boosted business. But Hazlitt introduces the tailor into the story that the baker intended to buy clothes from them before he broke the glass. Now, because of the cost of the broken glass, the dress order has been cancelled. Hazlitt points out that most people see the glass cutter's income, but the tailor's lost income is not. Instead of healthy glass and new clothes, the baker only has healthy glass and repairing the damage didn't make him any richer.