It is important to note that in the original text, Hazlitt only ever mentions “New economists,” without revealing, more specifically, which particular school of thought he was targeting. However, given the context of his time, it is clear that those “New,” “popular,” and “bad,” economists referred to the Keynesian school, which was most favored by the Roosevelt and Truman governments.

Established by English economist John Maynard Keynes, Keynesian economics critiqued the Classical economic theory that the market is self-regulating and that there is The Need to Establish Free-Market Efficiency. Instead, Keynesian theory argued that certain market fluctuations cannot be remedied by private actors, at least not in the short term, and leaving them to balloon can cause economic collapses, such as that of the Great Depression of 1929. As a result, Keynesian economic theory argued for greater government intervention in economics to stabilize these market fluctuations, especially during recessions. It advocated for policies contrary to the Classical economic school, such as deficit financing and increased government spending.

This opening part also establishes some of Hazlitt’s rhetorical techniques. In claiming that there are “good” and “bad” economists, while associating himself with the former and all of the rivals of Classical economics with the latter, Hazlitt introduces a polemical tone into his work, signaling to the reader that he hopes to argue his own case and persuade others, not provide an objective academic assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of all current economic theories. His strictly binary categorization and his insistence on The Problem of Emotionalism in Government Policies suggests that there is no validity in the policies or reasoning proposed by rival schools, which is meant to depict his own position as, by contrast, the most reasonable.

Similarly, his framing of all “bad” economists as not understanding long-term consequences suggests that those who disagree with Classical economics are incompetent, as opposed to simply motivated by other long-term economic priorities and goals. Likewise, in accusing them of advancing the selfish interests of a particular group, Hazlitt does not address the possibility that Classical economics itself could be used to advance the interests of one particular group, such as large corporations and wealthy investors at the expense of more economically vulnerable middle- and working-class populations. These rhetorical elements, and careful evasion of counterpoints, are thus designed to present his own arguments as valid without having to engage in a more objective or even-handed assessment of those rival theories.  

Part II of Economics in One Lesson aims to discredit some of the most prominent policies and theories defended by these New economists. Hazlitt explores one claim per chapter, all of which are best understood within the sociohistorical context of his time (See: Background).