Here is the synopsis of our sample research paper on Henry Hazlitt's Arguments. Have the paper e-mailed to you 24/7/365.
Essay / Research Paper Abstract
This 5 page paper discusses three of the concepts Hazlitt puts forth in his classic Economics in One Lesson: the Broken Window fallacy; Blessings of Destruction and Public Works Promotes Taxes. The Blessings of Destruction is an extension of the Broken Windows fallacy. Hazlitt's general theme is that people fail to look beyond the immediate effects of any economic policy. People tend to see only what is clearly visible to their own eyes; they need to extend their thinking. Each of these concepts are explained with examples. Bibliography lists 1 source.
Page Count:
5 pages (~225 words per page)
File: MM12_PGhazlt.rtf
Buy This Term Paper »
Unformatted sample text from the term paper:
for these prevailing fallacies is that man tends to see only the short-term effects of a policy or how that policy will affect only one group and they fail to
see the long-term effects or how the policy will affect the entire population (Hazlitt, 1981). Hazlitt offers a number of examples of the short-term thinking that is involved in
economic policies. Three of the concepts Hazlitt discusses are: the Broken Window fallacy; Blessings of Destruction and Public Works Promotes Taxes. These three will be explained in this essay.
The Broken Window Fallacy. Hazlitt tells the story of a young hoodlum who throws a brick through the window of a bakery. The crowd looking at the hole in
the window eventually spout some philosophical comments. Even though the baker will have to spend money to replace the window, there is a bright side to this event. If windows
were never broken, glaziers would go out of business. The $250 the baker will have to spend will give work to some glazier and the glazier will then have more
money to spend with other merchants and then, these merchants will have that $250 to spend with others and so on and so on until that $250 is keeping everyone
in business. The hoodlum who broke the window becomes an instrument of spreading business. Hazlitt points out that the first conclusion of providing more business to the glazier is certainly
valid but the baker had intended to use that money to purchase a new suit. Now, he must spend the money on glass instead of a suit. If the youngster
had not broken the window, the baker would have both his window and a new suit but now he has only a new window that he did not need in
...