# Think Tank > Austrian Economics / Economic Theory >  Visualizing The Broken Window Fallacy

## Lucille

Pictures, simple examples, and short videos help boobus better understand things.  If this is too much of a challenge for them, there's always the Tuttle Twins.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-0...window-fallacy




> In our busy days, it is all too easy to fall into the trap of hearing (and believing) the latest headline and its associated spin. For some reason, three minute videos can quickly and easily remove these 'spins' without the need for a PhD. And so we decided to dust off today's 3:06 un-spin clip, addressing the broken-window-fallacy  as the seen versus unseen impact of the idiocy of a broken-window's (or war, or destroying homes, or...) positive impact on an economy is explained in cartoon style. The sad fact is that this fallacy remains at the core of mainstream policy-making and as the video notes, the government's 'creation' of jobs via public works programs (or any number of stimulus-driven enterprises) it does so at the expense of the tax-payer via higher taxes or inflation and that 'spending' which would have otherwise gone to new fridges or iPads is removed and this does nothing to significantly improve aggregate demand (should there be such an amorphous thing) and in fact (as we recently noted here and here) leaves us more and more dependent on the state for corporate profit margins leaving any organic growth a dim and distant memory.


Vid at the link.

----------


## Deborah K

WoW!!!

Will be using this often.

----------


## PRB

broken window fallacy isn't just about destructions and wars, the whole idea of employment is a broken window fallacy in itself.

Why do you need a job? Because you need money? Why do you need money? Because I need to buy things....

Let's start over, why do you need a job? Because you need money? So why don't you just say you need money? Or why don't you just say what you REALLY need?

People use "jobs" as a code word for money because unlike shameless liberals, they're afraid to admit that if people were paid to not work, they would, or they'd do other things which don't require them to follow orders and meet deadlines. Political talkers use "jobs" as an inefficient, but politically correct way or distributing wealth, when really all everybody wants is equality (lest you're pro-rich and don't mind being the 1%).

----------


## BucksforPaul

> broken window fallacy isn't just about destructions and wars, the whole idea of employment is a broken window fallacy in itself.

----------


## PRB

> 


correct me with facts, thanks

----------


## Deborah K

> correct me with facts, thanks


I've suggested that you read this before, but I guess you didn't:  http://mises.org/books/economics_in_...on_hazlitt.pdf

This will help.  It's an easy read.

Edit:  Btw, 'The Broken Window' is found on page 11 of Part Two.  And as it pertains to War, check out Part Two, Chapter Nine, page 51

----------


## BucksforPaul

> I've suggested that you read this before, but I guess you didn't:  http://mises.org/books/economics_in_...on_hazlitt.pdf
> 
> This will help.  It's an easy read.
> 
> Edit:  Btw, 'The Broken Window' is found on page 11 of Chapter Two.


Thanks Deborah!




> correct me with facts, thanks


Please see Deborah's post and read that little book.  After you are done, then come back and apologize to us about your original post.  I will be waiting but won't hold my breath.

----------


## Deborah K

PRB, please read Walter Block's introduction before you read anything else.  It sets the groundwork.

----------


## idiom

> broken window fallacy isn't just about destructions and wars, the whole idea of employment is a broken window fallacy in itself.
> 
> Why do you need a job? Because you need money? Why do you need money? Because I need to buy things....
> 
> Let's start over, why do you need a job? Because you need money? So why don't you just say you need money? Or why don't you just say what you REALLY need?
> 
> People use "jobs" as a code word for money because unlike shameless liberals, they're afraid to admit that if people were paid to not work, they would, or they'd do other things which don't require them to follow orders and meet deadlines. Political talkers use "jobs" as an inefficient, but politically correct way or distributing wealth, when really all everybody wants is equality (lest you're pro-rich and don't mind being the 1%).


Despite coming from a well educated wealthy background Karl Marx never worked a day in his life. He mooched off of friends, and when they couldn't donate to his bum ass he watched his children die of malnutrition.

Some people will work incredibly hard on productive causes when independently wealthy. The same people will work hard in their spare time otherwise.

Everyone else just does what they don't when they don't have to work to eat, they watch tv.

----------


## PRB

> PRB, please read Walter Block's introduction before you read anything else.  It sets the groundwork.


Two arguments are put forward for the bridge, one of which is
mainly heard before it is built, the other of which is mainly heard after
it has been completed. The first argument is that it will provide
employment. It will provide, say, 500 jobs for a year. The implication
is that these are jobs that would not otherwise have come into existence.
This is what is immediately seen. But if we have trained ourselves
to look beyond immediate to secondary consequences, and beyond
those who are directly benefited by a government project to others
who are indirectly affected, a different picture presents itself. It is true
that a particular group of bridgeworkers may receive more employment
than otherwise. But the bridge has to be paid for out of taxes.
For every dollar that is spent on the bridge a dollar will be taken away
from taxpayers. If the bridge costs $1,000,000 the taxpayers will lose
$1,000,000. They will have that much taken away from them which
they would otherwise have spent on the things they needed most.
Therefore for every public job created by the bridge project a private
job has been destroyed somewhere else. We can see the men
employed on the bridge. We can watch them at work. The employment
argument of the government spenders becomes vivid, and
probably for most people convincing. But there are other things that
we do not see, because, alas, they have never been permitted to come
into existence. They are the jobs destroyed by the $1,000,000 taken
from the taxpayers. All that has happened, at best, is that there has
been a diversion of jobs because of the project. More bridge builders;
fewer automobile workers, radio technicians, clothing workers, farmers.

page 19 of the book.

How is what he said disagreeing with me?

----------


## Tod

Oh, come on.  One needn't read ANYTHING to understand the broken window fallacy, if one stops for just a few moments to think about it.  It is not THAT hard.  smh

edit:  The hard part is getting someone to actually stop. and. think. for. a. moment.

----------


## PRB

> Oh, come on.  One needn't read ANYTHING to understand the broken window fallacy, if one stops for just a few moments to think about it.  It is not THAT hard.  smh
> 
> edit:  The hard part is getting someone to actually stop. and. think. for. a. moment.


I ask the same be done when discussing "jobs".

----------


## angelatc

> ..... when really *all everybody wants is equality* (lest you're pro-rich and don't mind being the 1%).


Uhm, no.

----------


## angelatc

> Oh, come on.  One needn't read ANYTHING to understand the broken window fallacy, if one stops for just a few moments to think about it.  It is not THAT hard.  smh
> 
> edit:  The hard part is getting someone to actually stop. and. think. for. a. moment.


The point that most people miss is that if the window had remained unbroken, the business owner would have been wealthier by means of having acquired more assets.  Adding a new pair of shoes to the list that includes a window.

They focus only on the fact that someone got a days work out of it no matter what happened and it makes no difference if it was the glazier or the cobbler.

----------


## PRB

> Uhm, no.


you don't want equality, then what other reason would you want jobs? unless you don't, which is great.

----------


## angelatc

> you don't want equality, then what other reason would you want jobs? unless you don't, which is great.


Because I want to trade my labor for stuff.  For me.

I don't care if you have more (or less) stuff than I so.

----------


## PRB

> Because I want to trade my labor for stuff.  For me.
> 
> I don't care if you have more (or less) stuff than I so.


Fair enough, but do you only want to trade labor if you can't get it for free? (things like air, water, radio signals as long as it comes with sponsor messages)

Is jobs not ultimately only a means to an end, which if you had your end, you'd not need or want?

----------


## angelatc

> Fair enough, but do you only want to trade labor if you can't get it for free??


This is stupid.  Nothing is free.  





> (things like air, water, radio signals as long as it comes with sponsor messages)


Lots of people pay for air purifiers, water filters and satellite radio, so the answer to all of the above is no.  The early days of the internet included several models of offering "free" access in exchange for being subjected to an endless barrage of ads.  Apparently catering to the market of people who want free stuff isn't very lucrative. 





> Is jobs not ultimately only a means to an end, which if you had your end, you'd not need or want


I have worked with lots of people who engaged in a "job" for reasons other than money.

Nothing worth having is free.  Capitalism defined simply as the trade of skills for resources is the most equitable means of distribution.  have no interest in making sure things are distributed "equally."

----------


## GunnyFreedom

Wish it had the next 40 seconds or so too....

----------


## PRB

> This is stupid.  Nothing is free.


So cavemen didn't exist.




> Lots of people pay for air purifiers, water filters and satellite radio, so the answer to all of the above is no.


What did people use before they were invented?




> The early days of the internet included several models of offering "free" access in exchange for being subjected to an endless barrage of ads.  Apparently catering to the market of people who want free stuff isn't very lucrative.


Not very lucrative, but doesn't mean consumers necessary rejected it.




> I have worked with lots of people who engaged in a "job" for reasons other than money.


Not enough that they'd work for free.




> Nothing worth having is free.  Capitalism defined simply as the trade of skills for resources is the most equitable means of distribution.  have no interest in making sure things are distributed "equally."


your idea of equally may be everybody having exactly the same, I was simply referring to redistribution, which you've admitted here, at any time somebody with more ends up with less while the opposite happens to another person, it's redistribution, for better or worse, people become more equal than they were.

----------


## PRB

> Wish it had the next 40 seconds or so too....


Good clip, what movie is this from?

I take the point that broken window fallacy is teaching us that creating destruction for the sole means of creating jobs is a net loss, but why then, do we not extend this to say that failing to reduce destruction, is also the same thing. Should we not work towards the goal of reducing problems and putting people out of employment, making jobs unnecessary, and embrace job loss?

----------


## kcchiefs6465

nm

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Good clip, what movie is this from?
> 
> I take the point that broken window fallacy is teaching us that creating destruction for the sole means of creating jobs is a net loss, but why then, do we not extend this to say that failing to reduce destruction, is also the same thing. Should we not work towards the goal of reducing problems and putting people out of employment, making jobs unnecessary, and embrace job loss?


The Fifth Element.

And Frédéric Bastiat's Broken Window Fallacy (1850) is an economic staple.  I'm actually exceedingly shocked to see a regular poster on here unfamiliar with it.

----------


## angelatc

> So cavemen didn't exist.


 I am not saying they did not exist.  I am saying that because their hunting and farming skills were so inefficient, that their entire day included little more than looking for food, and fighting off other cave people who would rather take over their cave than try to find their own.

I am not an anthropologist, so i have no idea how or what kind of economies existed in prehistoric times, but the mere fact that it's prehistoric would lend credibility to the notion that most of what we know is probably speculation anyway.





> What did people use before they were invented?





> Not very lucrative, but doesn't mean consumers necessary rejected it.



You just made my point.  People only settled for the free version until better versions became available and affordable.  If there is still a version of internet access that requires no monthly payment as long as you watch ads the entire time you're on, I would be surprised.  The fact that they do not exist indeed means that consumers rejected it,





> Not enough that they'd work for free.


Again not true.  I worked with a woman who donated 100% of her salary to the United Way.  I have worked for free on several political campaigns and in various non-profit groups.  






> your idea of equally may be everybody having exactly the same,


Then you're simply making up your own definition of equal, because that is exactly what it means. 
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/equal



> the same in number, amount, degree, rank, or quality
> 
> : having the same mathematical value
> 
> 
> : not changing : the same for each person


So you're interchanging the words "equality" and "wealth,"  which is quite alarming.

----------


## angelatc

> I take the point that broken window fallacy is teaching us that creating destruction for the sole means of creating jobs is a net loss, but why then, do we not extend this to say that failing to reduce destruction, is also the same thing. Should* we* not work towards the goal of reducing problems and putting people out of employment, making jobs unnecessary, and embrace job loss?


I propose a new forum rule, hereafter named the TodEvans Rule.  

All in favor say"aye."


And the answer to your question is that it is simply a ridiculous premise.   Things do not farm themselves, fix themselves, create themselves, test themselves, treat themselves, fuel themselves, or invent themselves.

I have a question for you.  Are you high?

----------


## PRB

> The Fifth Element.
> 
> And Frédéric Bastiat's Broken Window Fallacy (1850) is an economic staple.  I'm actually exceedingly shocked to see a regular poster on here unfamiliar with it.


How am i unfamiliar with it? Have i disagreed with it one bit?

----------


## PRB

> I propose a new forum rule, hereafter named the TodEvans Rule.  
> 
> All in favor say"aye."
> 
> 
> And the answer to your question is that it is simply a ridiculous premise.   Things do not farm themselves, fix themselves, create themselves, test themselves, treat themselves, fuel themselves, or invent themselves.
> 
> I have a question for you.  Are you high?


I favor your rule.

I shall rephrase, i want to work towards less jobs, more unemployment, lower wages, because the broken window fallacy, from my understanding, teaches me that jobs for the sake of making money or feeding oneself is unnecessary. jobs are not per se productive, and unemployment is not per se poverty.

So no, not high, maybe stupid, mistaken, or wrong, but not high

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> How am i unfamiliar with it? Have i disagreed with it one bit?


You are here in this very thread asking what it is, and characterizing the fallacy in an attempt to describe it, seeking confirmation that your characterization is correct.  Familiarity has nothing to do with agreement.  Your own words demonstrate unfamiliarity with the fallacy, and agreement or disagreement is wholly irrelevant to that point.  It is good that you agree with it -- for it is an economic axiom, and disagreement could imply derangement...or at the very least self-deception.  Agreement, however, does not imply familiarity.  It is possible that you were merely _pretending_ to be unfamiliar with the fallacy (Bastiat called it a 'parable') for the sake of some point, but here on RPFs where 99.99% of the regular posters are already familiar with it, such pretence would be ineffective.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> I favor your rule.
> 
> I shall rephrase, i want to work towards less jobs, more unemployment, lower wages, because the broken window fallacy, from my understanding, teaches me that jobs for the sake of making money or feeding oneself is unnecessary. jobs are not per se productive, and unemployment is not per se poverty.
> 
> So no, not high, maybe stupid, mistaken, or wrong, but not high


OK, disregard everything I just said. Frédéric Bastiat's Broken Window Fallacy (1850) is an economic staple. I'm actually exceedingly shocked to see a regular poster on here unfamiliar with it.

----------


## angelatc

> I favor your rule.
> 
> I shall rephrase, i want to work towards less jobs, more unemployment, lower wages, because the broken window fallacy, from my understanding, teaches me that jobs for the sake of making money or feeding oneself is unnecessary. jobs are not per se productive, and unemployment is not per se poverty.
> 
> So no, not high, maybe stupid, mistaken, or wrong, but not high


I disagree.   I have absolutely no idea how you can look at that and conclude it means we should all work towards unemployment and lower wages.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> I disagree.   I have absolutely no idea how you can look at that and conclude it means we should all work towards unemployment and lower wages.


Nor I.  What he said there makes less than no sense.  The broken window parable does not advocate for increasing unemployment.  That's absurd.

----------


## MelissaWV

I work for security, for the opportunity to assist others, and for the chance to apply my skills/knowledge.  I can and have worked for free before.  If there is a particularly appealing project, I will technically pay to be a part of it, volunteering my services and making an additional monetary donation.  

Security is what the cavemen were working for, as angelatc pointed out.  They worked for a very small return in many cases, particularly before agriculture became a more regimented activity.  There needs to be a certain level of security and stability before you can move on to anything else.  You are not going to have time to sit around watching the pretty sunset if you're not at least a little bit assured that some giant creature is not going to attack you (so you bring a weapon, or build a fire, or someone else keeps watch).  As an extension of that, you want at least some security in where you will sleep, what you might eat, and so on.  Fast forward a bit and people use currency to keep track of the energy they've expended and goods they've promised one another.  So yeah I currently work for currency, but others will work via other agreements.  All of that is the employment you talked about earlier.  The alternative would be for everyone to be assured that security through the work of others, but to not pay those workers.  It would only work with a level of cooperation that is utterly unsustainable, not to mention that even if you try to make everything equal, someone will have one more kernel of corn, and be the envy of the neighborhood.  

We are not all the same person.  Our needs and reactions are different.  I do not strive for equality because it is paradoxically the surest way to make everyone unequal.  Right now we're supposed to have "equal" health plans, for instance, so mine must include maternity care.  I'm not going to use it, but in order for it to be the same, I am mandated to have it.  What this means is the people who DO use maternity care are getting more out of this same plan than I am, so it does not actually lead to equality.  True equality would be meeting the individual needs of every human being, not buying a pair of shoes for everyone --- including those with no feet.

When I can extend the incentives to others, they do the work I do not want to do.  I might pay someone to mow the lawn, for instance, or to wash my car.  Is it that I don't know how to mow a lawn?  Or is it that, to me, parting with a small amount of currency is better than having to deal with the heat and humidity for hours?  




> People use "jobs" as a code word for money because unlike shameless liberals, they're afraid to admit that if people were paid to not work, they would, or they'd do other things which don't require them to follow orders and meet deadlines. Political talkers use "jobs" as an inefficient, but politically correct way or distributing wealth, when really all everybody wants is equality (lest you're pro-rich and don't mind being the 1%).


I would still rather work than not work.  If you paid me not to work, and a moment of temporary insanity caused me to say yes, I would be out of your employ within a day or two because I would not be able to stand it.  Life requires you to meet deadlines.  If you don't believe me, get a pet or a child or a spouse.  Your idea of paradise is a horror to me, a land where I don't work, am forced to have precisely what others have, and where no one takes any deadlines seriously.  As for those hobbies you talk about, if they are productive hobbies I am sure the produced items will be destroyed.  If I make a unique painting, and I keep it, I have increased my own wealth.  I cannot sell it to anyone, lest that be considered work on my part, and it will increase my wealth as well.  If I give it away, the other person's wealth increases.  Your entire proposed happy society is based on the idea of only producing things that are needed and can be distributed equally to each and every person.

Again, nightmare.

----------


## PRB

> You are here in this very thread asking what it is, and characterizing the fallacy in an attempt to describe it, seeking confirmation that your characterization is correct.  Familiarity has nothing to do with agreement.  Your own words demonstrate unfamiliarity with the fallacy, and agreement or disagreement is wholly irrelevant to that point.  It is good that you agree with it -- for it is an economic axiom, and disagreement could imply derangement...or at the very least self-deception.  Agreement, however, does not imply familiarity.  It is possible that you were merely _pretending_ to be unfamiliar with the fallacy (Bastiat called it a 'parable') for the sake of some point, but here on RPFs where 99.99% of the regular posters are already familiar with it, such pretence would be ineffective.


I didn't ask what it is, I just asked, if we (as in you and myself) accepted the parable and understood the fallacy, what's wrong with decreasing employment and increasing unemployment?

----------


## PRB

> I disagree.   I have absolutely no idea how you can look at that and conclude it means we should all work towards unemployment and lower wages.


Because as the story goes, people having jobs is merely a means to an end and people only see what affects them, as are almost all discussions about jobs. Your examples of people working for free, or people paying to work, are exceptions, rather than norms. 

The fact people constantly complain about being unemployed, under employed, under paid, says that most people work for money, and do things for primary benefit of themselves. 

Back to the story, while living in a city where there are window repair services is better than not having them, just as living in a city where there are police is better than...oh wait, bad example, there's one job I named there I think many people here would agree are better if gone. Do you agree or not that some jobs are unnecessary and artificially created/propped simply because some people are unwilling to accept that they're unnecessary, can't find better things to do, can't find better things of value to other people to do...and without them, society would function fine?

if we didn't have window repair people because windows were too rarely broken to warrant anybody learning it, is that a per se bad society because window repair people are unemployed? Or is it a better society because people who relied on fixing windows found something better to do? If you answer the latter, how is that NOT an embracement of unemployment?

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> I didn't ask what it is, I just asked, if we (as in you and myself) accepted the parable and understood the fallacy, what's wrong with decreasing employment and increasing unemployment?


If you believe that the parable of the broken window argues for increasing unemployment, then you in fact do not understand it.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Because as the story goes, people having jobs is merely a means to an end and people only see what affects them, as are almost all discussions about jobs. Your examples of people working for free, or people paying to work, are exceptions, rather than norms. 
> 
> The fact people constantly complain about being unemployed, under employed, under paid, says that most people work for money, and do things for primary benefit of themselves. 
> 
> Back to the story, while living in a city where there are window repair services is better than not having them, just as living in a city where there are police is better than...oh wait, bad example, there's one job I named there I think many people here would agree are better if gone. Do you agree or not that some jobs are unnecessary and artificially created/propped simply because some people are unwilling to accept that they're unnecessary, can't find better things to do, can't find better things of value to other people to do...and without them, society would function fine?
> 
> if we didn't have window repair people because windows were too rarely broken to warrant anybody learning it, is that a per se bad society because window repair people are unemployed? Or is it a better society because people who relied on fixing windows found something better to do? If you answer the latter, how is that NOT an embracement of unemployment?


Um, the parable is not about jobs at all.  If anything it is about monetary velocity.  I cannot possibly conceive how you have arrived at the conclusion that it has anything to do with employment.

----------


## PRB

> Your entire proposed happy society is based on the idea of only producing things that are needed


Because other than that, people would destroy windows to create jobs, wouldn't they? Not that I or you can always predict what's needed, but I think it's reasonable to know what kinds of things are NOT needed without artificially being created (typewriters, cassette tapes, newspapers...) once they've been obsolete.




> and can be distributed equally to each and every person.
> 
> Again, nightmare.


I don't care about equality, but I don't see the value in jobs other than seeking wealth and equality, that's on a personal level.

----------


## PRB

> Um, the parable is not about jobs at all.  If anything it is about monetary velocity.  I cannot possibly conceive how you have arrived at the conclusion that it has anything to do with employment.


because obviously money travels without jobs, right? If so, you can't disagree with me that money can be exchanged without jobs, thus jobs are just a means of exchanging money, that which, if exchanging money were the goal, jobs are not necessary.. which one is it?

----------


## PRB

> If you believe that the parable of the broken window argues for increasing unemployment, then you in fact do not understand it.


I didn't say that it did, I just said that if you accept the idea that jobs created from destruction are unnecessary and create net loss, how is the logical conclusion not also that many jobs today are also unnecessary if not creating net loss? How do you not accept that a society can be better off if some jobs were flat out gone, some people flat out lost opportunities to make money?

I am willing to admit I don't understand it the way you do. But I can say I am "familiar" with it as in I've heard it a million times. What DOES it advocate for? if anything at all.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Because other than that, people would destroy windows to create jobs, wouldn't they?


um.  What?

This really makes no sense.  I have nothing to do so I'll go around breaking stuff so maybe they will hire someone other than myself to go fix it?  Enlightened self interest alone would prevent someone from destroying other people's property and placing themselves at legal, litigious, and monetary risk for the _possible_ benefit of some unknown third party.




> Not that I or you can always predict what's needed, but I think it's reasonable to know what kinds of things are NOT needed without artificially being created (typewriters, cassette tapes, newspapers...) once they've been obsolete.
> 
> I don't care about equality, but I don't see the value in jobs other than seeking wealth and equality, that's on a personal level.


There are plenty of 'starving artists' who could make more money flipping burgers, but continue to do art because money is simply not the end-all be-all.  You may have to accept that not everyone shares your perspective here.

----------


## PRB

> um.  What?
> 
> This really makes no sense.  I have nothing to do so I'll go around breaking stuff so maybe they will hire someone other than myself to go fix it?


Why would you not? Because the law says not to? Because you have more incentive to not to than to?




> Enlightened self interest alone would prevent someone from destroying other people's property and placing themselves at legal, litigious, and monetary risk for the _possible_ benefit of some unknown third party.


Enlightened self interest is exactly what would incentivize a person who benefits from broken windows or creating unnecessary jobs to do it. So YOU may not do it, but if you knew how to benefit from it, you'd likely weigh the benefits vs costs and decide which route works for you.




> There are plenty of 'starving artists' who could make more money flipping burgers, but continue to do art because money is simply not the end-all be-all.  You may have to accept that not everyone shares your perspective here.


I accept not everybody wants money, which is just the same as not everybody wants a job. But what about people who do? Do they not all do so as a means to an end, either pleasure or profit?

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> I didn't say that it did, I just said that if you accept the idea that jobs created from destruction are unnecessary and create net loss,


That is not what the parable argues.  The parable argues that intentional destruction does not create an increase in general prosperity.  It in no way shape or form argues that the glazier is useless and should be abolished.




> how is the logical conclusion not also that many jobs today are also unnecessary if not creating net loss?


You are adding conclusions to the parable that the parable does not make, and then operating from what you have added rather than from what the parable itself argues.  Windows break.  Glaziers are necessary.  Running round breaking windows on purpose to give more business to the glazier does not help the economy.  Nothing i that statement implies that glaziers are useless and should be abolished.  You are adding that to the parable out of thin air.




> How do you not accept that a society can be better off if some jobs were flat out gone, some people flat out lost opportunities to make money?


I do not accept your premise.  Capitalism is not concerned with the betterment of society.




> I am willing to admit I don't understand it the way you do. But I can say I am "familiar" with it as in I've heard it a million times. What DOES it advocate for? if anything at all.


It argues against the notion that destruction creates economic prosperity.  That notion remains a popular one, as exemplified by the argument that WW2 is why the Great Depression ended.

----------


## PRB

> That is not what the parable argues.  The parable argues that intentional destruction does not create an increase in general prosperity.  It in no way shape or form argues that the glazier is useless and should be abolished.


Agreed, that intentional destruction does not increase general prosperity, or general production. However, how is intentional or negligent failure to avoid and reduce destruction and waste not also the same thing? The glazier is not per se useless, but it wouldn't be the end of the world if he became useless through better care of windows, better windows that don't get broken, cheaper replacements which are DIY...etc, all things which are good for consumers but BAD for his business.





> You are adding conclusions to the parable that the parable does not make, and then operating from what you have added rather than from what the parable itself argues.  Windows break.  Glaziers are necessary.


But only when windows break, and windows can break less and less with better care, with exception of war, earthquakes and disasters.




> Running round breaking windows on purpose to give more business to the glazier does not help the economy.


The person who is the glazier doesn't want to help the economy, why should he care about the economy? He's not some socialist who wants people to be equal, he's only thinking about himself. Just like people here who argue against unemployment don't think about the economy, rather, insist that unemployment is never a good thing (am I wrong there?)




> Nothing i that statement implies that glaziers are useless and should be abolished.  You are adding that to the parable out of thin air.
> 
> I do not accept your premise.  Capitalism is not concerned with the betterment of society.


Agreed, capitalism is not about betterment of society, so why should glaziers be concerned for betterment of economy?




> It argues against the notion that destruction creates economic prosperity.  That notion remains a popular one, as exemplified by the argument that WW2 is why the Great Depression ended.


are there other things other than intentional destruction which are also creating illusional jobs and illusional economic production, which we can do without? are there jobs which society doesn't need and can lose? are there jobs you'd not mind people losing? or do you believe all jobs are necessary?

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Why would you not? Because the law says not to? Because you have more incentive to not to than to?


First of all, my moral compass tells me that messing with someone elses property is evil.  But even if I were a sociopath, then I would still hesitate because of the potential legal, litigious, and financial risks involved.




> Enlightened self interest is exactly what would incentivize a person who benefits from broken windows or creating unnecessary jobs to do it.


No, one may argue that a glazier would break someone else's window out of corrupted self interest, but it certainly would not be _enlightened_ self interest.




> So YOU may not do it, but if you knew how to benefit from it, you'd likely weigh the benefits vs costs and decide which route works for you.
> 
> I accept not everybody wants money, which is just the same as not everybody wants a job. But what about people who do? Do they not all do so as a means to an end, either pleasure or profit?


Even the starving artist would rather not starve.  Well, 'artist' there may be some exceptions to that lol

Again you are adding conditions out of thin air.  Everybody who does anything usually has some kind of reason, whether that 'thing' can be described as a 'job' or not.  Someone goes to a ski resort for a vacation.  They go there for a cause - they want to ski.  

And working for love rather than money does not equal not wanting to work.  You conclusions are just not following from the premises here.

----------


## PRB

> And working for love rather than money does not equal not wanting to work.  You conclusions are just not following from the premises here.


Then you're not disagreeing with me that unemployment is not per se a bad thing?

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Agreed, that intentional destruction does not increase general prosperity, or general production. However, how is intentional or negligent failure to avoid and reduce destruction and waste not also the same thing? The glazier is not per se useless, but it wouldn't be the end of the world if he became useless through better care of windows, better windows that don't get broken, cheaper replacements which are DIY...etc, all things which are good for consumers but BAD for his business.


So the glazier slightly retools his business model to sell the new and improved unbreakable windows at a higher margin (to cover the fewer sales) plus offering window maintenance contracts to help insure less breakage.  




> But only when windows break, and windows can break less and less with better care, with exception of war, earthquakes and disasters.


Just because I need to buy some glass does not imply that my former glass has somehow been broken.  New construction needs glass.  Purchasing a new display case needs glass.  The clock-maker will buy glass to put into new clocks.  The cabinet maker will buy glass to put into new cabinets.  Repairing breakage is only a minor part of the glaziers business already, and if that goes away he can add new services to his menu to account for the new technology.




> The person who is the glazier doesn't want to help the economy, why should he care about the economy? He's not some socialist who wants people to be equal, he's only thinking about himself. Just like people here who argue against unemployment don't think about the economy, rather, insist that unemployment is never a good thing (am I wrong there?)


To be honest I am unsure how to approach this question.  There have been enough chained non-sequiturs to arrive at this point that I cannot conceive of the relevance to the original point, therefore I am having a great deal of trouble considering an approach on answering any of this.  The broken window parable has nothing to do with employment or unemployment.




> Agreed, capitalism is not about betterment of society, so why should glaziers be concerned for betterment of economy?


I'm not the one arguing for the betterment of society.  




> are there other things other than intentional destruction which are also creating illusional jobs and illusional economic production, which we can do without? are there jobs which society doesn't need and can lose? are there jobs you'd not mind people losing? or do you believe all jobs are necessary?


I don't actually believe that this question has meaning.  What I think about the necessity of a given job is relevant to myself alone.  This opinion would have absolutely zero economic impact.  Maybe I think the job of hit-man is unnecessary.  The guy who hires one would disagree.  I don't believe it's possible to argue objective points from subjectivity.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Then you're not disagreeing with me that unemployment is not per se a bad thing?


What?  I'm totally lost now.  

Of course unemployment is bad, specifically unwilling unemployment...but unemployment may be caused as a necessary outcome by other things that are bad, making not the unemployment but the other factors the culprit.  I'm still at a complete loss as to both how and why you are trying to argue that the broken window fallacy = unemployment is good.  It simply does not follow, and nothing you have said logically connects the dots from A to B.

----------


## angelatc

> Because as the story goes, people having jobs is merely a means to an end and people only see what affects them, as are almost all discussions about jobs.


Merely?  

Anyway, you've quite lost me.  I have no idea what you're on about.

----------


## Feeding the Abscess

This thread gave me cancer.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> This thread gave me cancer.




Was she at least fun?

----------


## Deborah K

> I've suggested that you read this before, but I guess you didn't:  http://mises.org/books/economics_in_...on_hazlitt.pdf
> 
> This will help.  It's an easy read.
> 
> Edit:  Btw, 'The Broken Window' is found on page 11 of Part Two.  And as it pertains to War, check out Part Two, Chapter Nine, page 51



PRB, please just read the damned book?!  You're making yourself look like a fool.  Read the book and educate yourself, and pull yourself out your cognitive dissonance.

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> I didn't say that it did, I just said that if you accept the idea that jobs created from destruction are unnecessary and create net loss, how is the logical conclusion not also that many jobs today are also unnecessary if not creating net loss? How do you not accept that a society can be better off if some jobs were flat out gone, some people flat out lost opportunities to make money?


Many jobs today_ are_ unnecessary and create a net loss for society.

You are under the false assumption that those who lose their jobs wouldn't do something productive or find something to occupy their time. They would.

Or they wouldn't. Such is life.




> I am willing to admit I don't understand it the way you do. But I can say I am "familiar" with it as in I've heard it a million times. What DOES it advocate for? if anything at all.


It advocates or rather demonstrates that work does not necessarily equal wealth. 

You can pay someone to dig a hole to fill it back in. What prosperity or general gain is offered to society?




> "Explain to me the functioning and the effects of protectionism."
> 
> "That is not so easy. Before considering the more complicated cases, one should study the simpler ones."
> 
> "Take the simplest case you wish."
> 
> "You remember how Robinson Crusoe managed to make a board when he had no saw?"
> 
> "Yes. He cut down a tree; then, by trimming the trunk, first on one side and then on the other, with his axe, he reduced it to the thickness of a plank."
> ...


Something Else

Frederic Bastiat

http://www.fee.org/the_freeman/detail/something-else

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> *A Petition*
> 
> From the Manufacturers of Candles, Tapers, Lanterns, Candlesticks, Street Lamps, Snuffers, and Extinguishers, and from the Producers of Tallow, Oil, Resin, Alcohol, and Generally of Everything Connected with Lighting.
> 
> To the Honorable Members of the Chamber of Deputies.
> 
> Gentlemen:
> 
> You are on the right track. You reject abstract theories and have little regard for abundance and low prices. You concern yourselves mainly with the fate of the producer. You wish to free him from foreign competition, that is, to reserve the domestic market for domestic industry. 
> ...


Frederic Bastiat in Economic Sophisms Series One. All credit to him as well as the translator.

----------


## PRB

> Many jobs today_ are_ unnecessary and create a net loss for society.


Been saying that all along, is that so hard for the rest of you to admit?




> You are under the false assumption that those who lose their jobs wouldn't do something productive or find something to occupy their time. They would.


No, I'm not, or I wouldn't be saying that unemployment can be a good thing.




> Or they wouldn't. Such is life.


Indeed.




> It advocates or rather demonstrates that work does not necessarily equal wealth.


How is that not what I said? Since I said jobs are not per se good for the economy (among other things).

----------


## PRB

> I'm not the one arguing for the betterment of society.


Nor am I, glad we agree on something.

----------


## Czolgosz

> edit:  The hard part is getting someone to actually stop. and. think. for. a. moment.



THAT.  Right there.  Is the undeniable truth.

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> Been saying that all along, is that so hard for the rest of you to admit?


Someone doing nothing is not good for prosperity or the general well being of society. Especially when that someone is receiving something from someone productive at the barrel of a gun.




> No, I'm not, or I wouldn't be saying that unemployment can be a good thing.


A lack of understanding of terms, perhaps. (*ETA: Apparently not the case*)

Unemployment isn't really a good thing if one is considering unemployment to mean the person does nothing productive and furthermore if one is using the real world example of the system we have where not only do many of the unemployed do nothing particularly productive, they vote for agents and representatives to steal from those doing something productive. The strain and drain on productivity is particularly evident in the cities whose oh-so-smart politicians have elected for pension plans for their most favored agents at the rate they were paid when exacting what's needed, in the state's mind, to be done......... and the forthcoming bankruptcy.

*ETA:* The 'employed' are even greater a problem. Twenty-five million people who have jobs simply because of a majority's whim. They receive a check_ first_ or receive a check taken from someone else (but I repeat myself). They are hardly productive.





> Indeed.





> How is that not what I said? Since I said jobs are not per se good for the economy (among other things).


Well to clarify on my short response, Bastiat was arguing that labor does not equal wealth; that jobs do not equal economic gain. The protectionists of that day and of today argue that jobs creation, or policy maintaining a certain industry which was (is) unable to compete with foreign markets, nature, etc. trumps all. The common sophist argument thrown in the face of many is that well without the job (guaranteed by protectionist rackets) in the first place, they'd not be able to purchase anything. They argue that said person's purchases, or lack thereof, have a negative rippling effect throughout the economy. What is often missed is that the jobs many are performing are pointless and at the expense of all. It is not a gain.

In a truly free market, those who lost their jobs guaranteed by protectionist schemes, could do what they wish to attempt to provide for themselves. They could innovate, learn a trade, invent/create, etc. There would also be more jobs available in the scheme of things.

_ETA_: My response meant to be to you is more of a response to most.
__________________________________________________  __________________________________________________  _____

*Full disclaimer: I need to read the entirety of threads before responding. Your posts are mainly correct. I wouldn't phrase them as you do but man... I'm at a loss on the responses.*

----------


## PRB

> Someone doing nothing is not good for prosperity or the general well being of society.


The logical conclusion of that is that nobody should be allowed to retire, dontcha think?

Ok, I appreciate you taking the time to read over, and try to understand what I meant, especially when I do the same, in contrast to the rest who seem to be in knee jerk denial. So, take your time to read the rest, I'll respond as I can.




> Especially when that someone is receiving something from someone productive at the barrel of a gun.
> 
> A lack of understanding of terms, perhaps. (*ETA: Apparently not the case*)
> 
> Unemployment isn't really a good thing if one is considering unemployment to mean the person does nothing productive and furthermore if one is using the real world example of the system we have where not only do many of the unemployed do nothing particularly productive, they vote for agents and representatives to steal from those doing something productive.


Yeah, IF one considers that to be the case. I do not. Define unemployed as simply not being employed, it could mean retired and living on savings, it could mean laziness but managing to get by without stealing from others. It could mean being laid off from an obsolete job (typing with a typewriter, delivering newspaper...etc) while seeking an actual productive job.

To say that unemployment's what you said above, seems to assume there are no useless and unproductive jobs today (and I think we can all agree there are).




> The strain and drain on productivity is particularly evident in the cities whose oh-so-smart politicians have elected for pension plans for their most favored agents at the rate they were paid when exacting what's needed, in the state's mind, to be done......... and the forthcoming bankruptcy.
> 
> *ETA:* The 'employed' are even greater a problem. Twenty-five million people who have jobs simply because of a majority's whim. They receive a check_ first_ or receive a check taken from someone else (but I repeat myself). They are hardly productive.


Sounds like we agree, labor doesn't equal wealth, jobs do not equal productivity, and therefore logically, unemployment does not equal non-productivity. 





> Well to clarify on my short response, Bastiat was arguing that labor does not equal wealth; that jobs do not equal economic gain.


Which is EXACTLY what would lead a person to conclude that working to reduce jobs can be a good thing, and embracing job loss can be a goal worth pursuing. In contrast to the liberal belief that people need jobs because they need to waste time to prove to another person they have value, otherwise they'd have no means of getting fed.




> The protectionists of that day and of today argue that jobs creation, or policy maintaining a certain industry which was (is) unable to compete with foreign markets, nature, etc. trumps all.


Does it sound like people here who are disagreeing with me are modern protectionists who can't even consider the idea that unemployment can be a good thing?




> The common sophist argument thrown in the face of many is that well without the job (guaranteed by protectionist rackets) in the first place, they'd not be able to purchase anything. They argue that said person's purchases, or lack thereof, have a negative rippling effect throughout the economy. What is often missed is that the jobs many are performing are pointless and at the expense of all. It is not a gain.


Sounds like we agree, and I don't think I needed to read any Austrian economics book to know this. The only thing I'd add here, is that a pointless job is not per se at expense of all, it may just be at the expense of the sucker paying for it. Example : people who are bagging and working at grocery checkouts are not sucking everybody's wealth, just sucking the wealth of people stupid enough to keep them around while smart people replaced them with self checkout machines.




> In a truly free market, those who lost their jobs guaranteed by protectionist schemes, could do what they wish to attempt to provide for themselves. They could innovate, learn a trade, invent/create, etc. There would also be more jobs available in the scheme of things.


Even without a truly free market, as long as it's not illegal to do so, people would have such an option, whether they actually do it is totally up to them, but can be less than attactive if they're paid and protected to stay where they are.

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> The logical conclusion of that is that nobody should be allowed to retire, dontcha think?


No, I don't think. Contracts could and would be established, much as they are today (absent government interference), allowing for investment in various areas. Not simply that, one's store of wealth would be maintained on a somewhat predictable level. There wouldn't be a system of inflationary, debt based schemes at hand robbing those who would otherwise want to save for the future. And as well, the interest rates wouldn't be such as to encourage every Dick and Jane to borrow outside of their ability to repay. Now some would, sure. Simply put, the moral hazard would be far lessened, near eliminated, and those who wish to save for retirement would be free to do so, without their currency being inflated infinitely absent a hard money system. (though I don't particularly care what people trade in so long as what I wish to use is not taxed, regulated, forbade, or otherwise impeded)




> Ok, I appreciate you taking the time to read over, and try to understand what I meant, especially when I do the same, in contrast to the rest who seem to be in knee jerk denial. So, take your time to read the rest, I'll respond as I can.






> Yeah, IF one considers that to be the case. I do not. Define unemployed as simply not being employed, it could mean retired and living on savings, it could mean laziness but managing to get by without stealing from others. It could mean being laid off from an obsolete job (typing with a typewriter, delivering newspaper...etc) while seeking an actual productive job.


I agree. And most lose sight of the things people would do if put to the test. 




> To say that unemployment's what you said above, seems to assume there are no useless and unproductive jobs today (and I think we can all agree there are).


I would hope. Well above 25,000,000 of them. People argue pragmatically of what is or isn't the best source of action. To say the jobs are by and large worthless would be an understatement. Human ingenuity seemingly being boundless, I, being a general pessimist, am optimistic in the positive solution given folks will derive. Of course there will always be criminals, cheats, mooches, etc. but I do believe that voluntary interaction is superior than coercive-ly funded, toilet tissue paid, 'jobs.'




> Sounds like we agree, labor doesn't equal wealth, jobs do not equal productivity, and therefore logically, unemployment does not equal non-productivity.


We do agree. The problem lies in a failure of terms. Unemployment often equals not only unproductivity but counter-productivity.




> Which is EXACTLY what would lead a person to conclude that working to reduce jobs can be a good thing, and embracing job loss can be a goal worth pursuing. In contrast to the liberal belief that people need jobs because they need to waste time to prove to another person they have value, otherwise they'd have no means of getting fed.


I embrace that 25,000,000 plus lose their jobs. I don't doubt that many would find a means to become productive. As it stands, I wouldn't advocate that figure to anyone. Why? Because they often benefit and the fact that it is so utterly unattainable, it is more reasonable to start smaller... as in, baby steps.

Embracing 'job loss' is not a goal worth pursuing. It is, quite frankly, $#@!ing retarded.

This from the one who advocates often the unproductive find better ways to spend their time.




> Does it sound like people here who are disagreeing with me are modern protectionists who can't even consider the idea that unemployment can be a good thing?


It does, and often they are. Where people advocate all sorts of laws, most, is from the sector being lorded over. Not because they particularly like the oversight but because it ensures them a job.




> Sounds like we agree, and I don't think I needed to read any Austrian economics book to know this. The only thing I'd add here, is that a pointless job is not per se at expense of all, it may just be at the expense of the sucker paying for it. Example : people who are bagging and working at grocery checkouts are not sucking everybody's wealth, just sucking the wealth of people stupid enough to keep them around while smart people replaced them with self checkout machines.


Simply put, individual liberty creates the greatest amount of prosperity to be had. 

Honestly much should be common sense but the propaganda/indoctrination has washed many minds.




> Even without a truly free market, as long as it's not illegal to do so, people would have such an option, whether they actually do it is totally up to them, but can be less than attactive if they're paid and protected to stay where they are.


It often is illegal to do.

Try to pressure wash without an EPA permit or cut hair without a certificate. And all the absurdity out and in between.

----------


## PRB

Forget about my misunderstanding, did Mr. Tyler Durden of Zero Hedge get it right?

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/why-go...ment-rate-high

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> Forget about my misunderstanding, did Mr. Tyler Durden of Zero Hedge get it right?
> 
> http://www.zerohedge.com/news/why-go...ment-rate-high


Yes he did. Thanks for sharing.

----------

