We are the financial industry's creative partners
Wickware CommunicationsReturn on CreativeTMClientsWickware TeamWickware CapabilitiesWickware QuarterlyContact Wickware

Welcome to our quarterly journal of financial trends, cultural perspectives, and marketing insights.

Summer 2010

> Trends: Will ETFs
mean the end of
mutual funds?
> Creative: How to make
sales and marketing
work together
> Perspective: Economics
in one lesson
> Digest: Quick hits on
money and marketing
> Update: Industry and
agency news

Spring 2010

Winter 2010

Fall 2009

Summer 2009

Spring 2009

Winter 2009

Fall 2008

Summer 2008


Subscribe to
Wickware Quarterly




Is your website
a dusty old brochure?


Download our
groundbreaking study of
900+ financial services
websites today and find out!



Poll: Will ETFs mean the
end of mutual funds?



Wickware Quarterly > Summer 2010 > Perspective: Economics in one lesson

 
PERSPECTIVE
Economics in one lesson


The Great Depression and WWII drove government spending to unprecedented levels. But in 1946, a small book arrived to warn of the dangers of putting government in charge of economic life, and its lesson has never been more relevant.

 

Henry Hazlitt was an American journalist, critic, economist and philosopher whose best-known contribution to public knowledge is the book Economics in One Lesson. Indeed, it is one of the most popular books on the subject ever written. In less than 200 pages, Hazlitt presents a single lesson that is as simple as it is profound:

“The art of economics consists of 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.”
Hazlitt believes that almost all of the economic fallacies of his day were attributable to either looking only at the immediate consequences of a given act or proposal, or looking only at the impact on one group while failing to account for the impact on other groups.

The broken window fallacy
To illustrate the lesson in action, Hazlitt adapts a tale known as “the broken window fallacy,” which was originally told by Frédéric Bastiat in an 1850 essay:

“A young hoodlum, say, heaves a brick through the window of a baker’s shop. The shopkeeper runs out furious, but the boy is gone. A crowd gathers, and begins to stare with quiet satisfaction at the gaping hole in the window and the shattered glass over the bread and pies. After a while the crowd feels the need for philosophic reflection. And several of its members are almost certain to remind each other or the baker that, after all, the misfortune has its bright side. It will make business for some glazier. As they begin to think of this they elaborate upon it. How much does a new plate glass window cost? Two hundred and fifty dollars? That will be quite a sum. After all, if windows were never broken, what would happen to the glass business? Then, of course, the thing is endless. The glazier will have $250 more to spend with other merchants, and these in turn will have $250 more to spend with still other merchants, and so ad infinitum. The smashed window will go on providing money and employment in ever-widening circles. The logical conclusion from all this would be, if the crowd drew it, that the little hoodlum who threw the brick, far from being a public menace, was a public benefactor.”
But, Hazlitt, points out, what the crowd doesn’t know is that the shopkeeper had planned to use that $250 to buy a new suit that very afternoon, making the glazier’s gain of business the tailor’s loss of business. Far from creating new wealth or employment, the broken window has succeeded only in transferring wealth from one person to another. However, the assembled crowd saw only the immediate consequences, failing even to imagine the potential third party involved—the tailor.

In an era when so many economic debates focus on immediate outcomes for individual groups, Hazlitt’s lesson is all the more profound. And, given the extreme complexity and interconnectivity of today’s society, it’s not hard to imagine there being thousands or millions of "unseen tailors" affected by any given economic transaction.

Saving the X industry
Perhaps most relevant to our times is the chapter entitled, “Saving the X industry.” In it, Hazlitt describes the U.S. government’s effort to save the coal industry under the Guffey Act of 1935, which was intended to fix the price of coal at a profitable level for miners. However, because of the thousands of different mines in the U.S. shipping to thousands of different destinations by rail, truck, ship and barge, the government soon found itself having to set and regulate 350,000 separate prices for coal.

The result? Far from protecting the coal industry, the artificial inflation of coal prices ended up driving consumers to adopt other sources of power and heat, such as oil, natural gas and electricity.

Our view
Market intervention can provide an invaluable safety net—particularly during times of crisis. However, because it is so difficult to predict the long-term consequences for all parties, tremendous care must be taken to avoid creating a medicine that’s worse than the original illness.

 



PDF Print Version
 
     
LinkedIntwitter
youtube
Toronto
26 Soho Street
Suite 350
Toronto, ON M5T 1Z7
Canada
Los Angeles
1801 Century Park East
Suite 2400
Los Angeles, CA 90067
USA
1-888-838-2726
 
   

Home l Media & Press l Contact Us l Sitemap l Privacy Policy

© 2003-2010 Wickware Communications Inc.
Return on Creative is a trademark of Wickware Communications Inc. All rights reserved.