In this final chapter, Hazlitt summarizes the main points of his book. To make sound economic conclusions, he argues, experts must recognize not only primary but secondary consequences of policies; they must not only look at the particular but also the general; they must focus not only on the short term but understand the long term; and they must identify not only obvious and visible results but look for the implied consequences.

To illustrate this, Hazlitt uses a mathematical analogy. If x = 5 and x+y = 12, then the value of y, though not stated, is inevitably 7. Implications in economics operate similarly, in that they are not visible, but they can be directly and precisely derived from existing information.

Economic beliefs are the result of people making statements without looking for their necessary implications. Hazlitt claims that this is often caused by emotionalism, though it can also be an honest mistake. Misguided or uninformed people might believe in such things as raising wages above reasonable market prices and defend the increase of taxes to improve quality of life, without closely examining the implications in their statements. Hazlitt argues that although there are times in which raising wages and taxes may benefit the overall economy, the fault lies in making sweeping statements based on emotionalism and without considering all aspects of their implication.

Hazlitt adds that, should people stop thinking emotionally and return to the basics, they would realize that the arguments he laid out in this book against common economic beliefs are perfectly understandable just from having “common sense.” Nobody would reasonably believe having windows purposefully broken is a great economic gain; nobody would defend wasteful public projects just to create temporary jobs; and nobody would hate machines for increasing productivity.

Some of the confusion might arise from the division of labor. Previously, people worked chiefly to provide for themselves and their families, meaning that what they produced many different things essential to their livelihoods, and what they consumed was directly what they produced. This situation made it easy to measure the value and efficiency of their output. However, as labor became divided, what people produced became increasingly detached from what they consumed. They earned money for producing one item and bought the rest. They wished for what they produced to be scarce so that they could sell it for a higher price, all while wishing for other products to be abundant and sold at lower prices. Hazlitt argues that they failed to see that, by purposefully limiting their production, they might temporarily increase their profits, but everybody else would be worse off and the nation as a whole would be poorer.

Under the system of the division of labor, Hazlitt concludes it is difficult to have one specific group gain without another losing, at least in the short run. Even changes to improve public morals, such as a decrease in crime or alcohol dependency, will cause shrinkages elsewhere, such as in the police force or breweries. However, economic progress has never occurred equally everywhere in a uniform way, but he asserts that temporary inequalities that are the result of real progress will always equalize over time thanks to market forces. However, in the interim, people will focus on the negatives due to their emotions: They might not see a net exponential increase in shoe production and consumption, instead focusing on machines throwing people out of work.

Hazlitt argues that real progress that benefits the economy as a whole and increases real wealth is based on a net increase in productivity. Although artificially limiting production might seem to benefit a small group of people, it is always a net negative for everyone else. Therefore, sound economics cannot overlook the whole; it must take into account implications, and it must have a vision for the long term.