Broken window fallacy?

[FSU63]

So, I was having a friendly debate with someone about our foreign policy. One of my favorite ways to debate socialists is using the broken window fallacy. it just makes so much sense and can show why certain things like war, welfare, and taxes are inherently wrong and they decrease an economy's net wealth.

However, without debating the morals of going to war with other nations, and simply focusing on the economic aspect of it, my friend had a question for me that I honestly could not, and still cannot, answer:

What do you make of conquests in which you acquire territories and/or have other nations pay reparations? Would it then not be a net increase?

Being the open-minded person I am, I conceded that I believed he was right. Again, without taking into consideration morals, is there any flaw in his logic? Would the spoils of war afterwards not make up for the net loss during the war and more?

Please help me understand.

 

[RJB]

Who benefits from our occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan? For me, I personally have gotten nothing out of it but inflation.

For my neighbors, we have a generation of young men coming back from the wars with physical and emotional injuries who are not being given care. Many are becoming psychotic cops who see the US as a new battleground.

We have made more and more enemies around the world because of the destruction we've left in our wake.

The only ones who profit are the corporations who run the offence industry, the media, the banks etc. They profit off those victims both in foreign lands and our young men recruited in their naivety, who gave their lives for what they were told was a good cause.

Morality does come to play. This is one of the reasons I reject Ayn Rand. Because we eventually reap what we sow and we've sowed a lot that we don't want to harvest.

 

[FSU63]

Who benefits from our occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan? For me, I personally have gotten nothing out of it but inflation.

For my neighbors, we have a generation of young men coming back from the wars with physical and emotional injuries who are not being given care. Many are becoming psychotic cops who see the US as a new battleground.

We have made more and more enemies around the world because of the destruction we've left in our wake.

The only ones who profit are the corporations who run the offence industry, the media, the banks etc. They profit off those victims both in foreign lands and our young men recruited in their naivety, who gave their lives for what they were told was a good cause.

Morality does come to play. This is one of the reasons I reject Ayn Rand. Because we eventually reap what we sow and we've sowed a lot that we don't want to harvest.

C'mon man, I'm talking strictly economics. It's just a hypothetical, so please just help me understand the economic aspect. We are not talking about territories we occupy, but territories we TAKE and make part of our country (like what Nazi Germany was trying to do).

Don't take me as a war-mongerer (I don't believe in war), I'm just talking about the economic benefits. We we have more land, more people, and more productivity. Would that not make up for war-time losses, ECONOMICALLY-speaking?

 

[Barrex]

So, I was having a friendly debate with someone about our foreign policy. One of my favorite ways to debate socialists is using the broken window fallacy. it just makes so much sense and can show why certain things like war, welfare, and taxes are inherently wrong and they decrease an economy's net wealth.

However, without debating the morals of going to war with other nations, and simply focusing on the economic aspect of it, my friend had a question for me that I honestly could not, and still cannot, answer:

What do you make of conquests in which you acquire territories and/or have other nations pay reparations? Would it then not be a net increase?

Being the open-minded person I am, I conceded that I believed he was right. Again, without taking into consideration morals, is there any flaw in his logic? Would the spoils of war afterwards not make up for the net loss during the war and more?

Please help me understand.

It decreases entire economys net wealth.

x country got 100 units of "wealth"(UOW)
y country got 500 UOW
x country invades y country. X country wastes her own 20 UOW and 200 UOW of y country but also takes 100 UOW. New situation:
x got 180 UOW
y got 200 UOW

Economy as whole (x+y UOW) is decreased but x has net gained.

Mongol and Ottoman empires thrived only while they expanded/waged wars. Once they stopped they collapsed.

From pure economic standpoint your friend is correct.

 

[FSU63]

It decreases entire economys net wealth.

x country got 100 units of "wealth"(UOW)
y country got 500 UOW
x country invades y country. X country wastes her own 20 UOW and 200 UOW of y country but also takes 100 UOW. New situation:
x got 180 UOW
y got 200 UOW

Economy as whole (x+y UOW) is decreased but x has net gained.

Mongol and Ottoman empires thrived only while they expanded/waged wars. Once they stopped they collapsed.

From pure economic standpoint your friend is correct.

Yes, but once reparations are made, would the increased productivity not eventually surpass the wealth that was lost? It's not like once UOW are lost, they cannot be gained back. Only, if you add territories, you'll regain back YOUR UOW AND acquire THEIR UOW.

I mean, more people and more land means more productivity, which would lead to more wealth. Obviously, in the short-term, there is a net loss, but what about when the UOW are gained back?

 

[RJB]

No you come on man. Economics is what I was talking about. How has the US benefitted from the occupation in Iraq and Afghanistan? How have you benefitted?

Would we benefit from occupying a pissed off Canada?

Hell no. Economics is why all empires fail. Roman, Napoleonic France, etc. Keeping an occupying for in a pissed off country is expensive.

C'mon man, I'm talking strictly economics. It's just a hypothetical, so please just help me understand the economic aspect. We are not talking about territories we occupy, but territories we TAKE and make part of our country (like what Nazi Germany was trying to do).

Don't take me as a war-mongerer (I don't believe in war), I'm just talking about the economic benefits. We we have more land, more people, and more productivity. Would that not make up for war-time losses, ECONOMICALLY-speaking?

 

[FSU63]

No you come on man. Economics is what I was talking about. How has the US benefitted from the occupation in Iraq and Afghanistan? How have you benefitted?

Would we benefit from occupying a pissed off Canada?

Hell no. Economics is why all empires fail. Roman, Napoleonic France, etc. Keeping an occupying for in a pissed off country is expensive.

Again, I'm not talking about occupying countries, I'm talking about taking their land. Adding them to our country. Making the people living there our citizens. Not simply having a military presence there. For example, conquering Ontario and making it the 51st state.

I'm not talking at all about Iraq and Afghanistan. I was talking about more along the lines of what the Nazis were trying to do with Poland.

 

[RJB]

Not simply having a military presence there. For example, conquering Ontario and making it the 51st state.

OK, I see what you are saying. Sort of like we took over the western territories of the United States. Usually to work, you need to remove the current citizens, have a common bond with them, or replace such an evil regime that they prefer your domination.

Personally, I see any attempt on our part will lead to an occupation rather than any of the above, because of this belief on my part, I will respectfully leave the discussion and stick to reading.

 

[FSU63]

OK, I see what you are saying. Sort of like we took over the western territories of the United States. Usually to work, you need to remove the current citizens, have a common bond with them, or replace such an evil regime that they prefer your domination.

Personally, I see any attempt on our part will lead to an occupation rather than any of the above, because of this belief on my part, I will respectfully leave the discussion and stick to reading.

Yes, exactly like how we took western territories.

Once again, I want to make it very clear that I have no intention of supporting our imperialism, I was just stumped by this question, as my friend's logic doesn't appear to be flawed to me.

And yes, I also thought about the difficulties of "winning over" the citizens. That would obviously be a HUGE obstacle to overcome.

 

[Acala]

I mean, more people and more land means more productivity, which would lead to more wealth. Obviously, in the short-term, there is a net loss, but what about when the UOW are gained back?

Not true. Increased productivity comes from the accumulation of capital in the means of production. War destroys capital. Acquiring people and territory does nothing to produce wealth. Now if you go into a country and simply steal what has already been produced - oil, grain, steel, etc. - then you have acquired somebody else's wealth, but you have not produced anything. In fact you have reduced the total amount of wealth.

 

[Ronin Truth]

http://www.vho.org/aaargh/fran/livres9/BUTLERWaracket.pdf

 

[FSU63]

Not true. Increased productivity comes from the accumulation of capital in the means of production. War destroys capital. Acquiring people and territory does nothing to produce wealth. Now if you go into a country and simply steal what has already been produced - oil, grain, steel, etc. - then you have acquired somebody else's wealth, but you have not produced anything. In fact you have reduced the total amount of wealth.

Would production not be increased by taking their lands? If we invaded a country and made it a US state, and, hypothetically, the people agreed to become a part of our nation, how would that not increase production?

Obviously capital IS destroyed DURING war, but what about AFTER war? Could it not be rebuilt, and AFTERWARDS we would have more productivity that would eventually surpass the war costs?

 

[tod evans]

Would production not be increased by taking their lands? If we invaded a country and made it a US state, and, hypothetically, the people agreed to become a part of our nation, how would that not increase production?

Well let's start by looking at the regulations this new state would be subjected to...

Then look at the welfare system their population would have access to.

These two things have adversely affected the existing states for years what would cause you to think a "new" state would be any different?

 

[FSU63]

Well let's start by looking at the regulations this new state would be subjected to...

Then look at the welfare system their population would have access to.

These two things have adversely affected the existing states for years what would cause you to think a "new" state would be any different?

Well, I'm talking about my minarchist paradise.

 

[tod evans]

Sorry for injecting reality..:o

 

[Contumacious]

What do you make of conquests in which you acquire territories and/or have other nations pay reparations? Would it then not be a net increase?.

Let's see:

1- I have never approved of invading Iraq, Afghanistan

2- Should I be personally responsible for paying reparations ? Should my property be subject to seizure?

The Honorable Murray N Rothbard addressed this issue a long time ago. It is worth repeating:

"I propose, then, a seemingly drastic but actually far less destructive way of paying off the public debt at a single blow: outright debt repudiation. Consider this question: why should the poor, battered citizens of Russia or Poland or the other ex-Communist countries be bound by the debts contracted by their former Communist masters? In the Communist situation, the injustice is clear: that citizens struggling for freedom and for a free-market economy should be taxed to pay for debts contracted by the monstrous former ruling class. But this injustice only differs by degree from “normal” public debt. For, conversely, why should the Communist government of the Soviet Union have been bound by debts contracted by the Czarist government they hated and overthrew? And why should we, struggling American citizens of today, be bound by debts created by a past ruling elite who contracted these debts at our expense? One of the cogent arguments against paying blacks “reparations” for past slavery is that we, the living, were not slaveholders. Similarly, we the living did not contract for either the past or the present debts incurred by the politicians and bureaucrats in Washington."

.

 

[FSU63]

Let's see:

1- I have never approved of invading Iraq, Afghanistan

2- Should I be personally responsible for paying reparations ? Should my property be subject to seizure?

The Honorable Murray N Rothbard addressed this issue a long time ago. It is worth repeating:

"I propose, then, a seemingly drastic but actually far less destructive way of paying off the public debt at a single blow: outright debt repudiation. Consider this question: why should the poor, battered citizens of Russia or Poland or the other ex-Communist countries be bound by the debts contracted by their former Communist masters? In the Communist situation, the injustice is clear: that citizens struggling for freedom and for a free-market economy should be taxed to pay for debts contracted by the monstrous former ruling class. But this injustice only differs by degree from “normal” public debt. For, conversely, why should the Communist government of the Soviet Union have been bound by debts contracted by the Czarist government they hated and overthrew? And why should we, struggling American citizens of today, be bound by debts created by a past ruling elite who contracted these debts at our expense? One of the cogent arguments against paying blacks “reparations” for past slavery is that we, the living, were not slaveholders. Similarly, we the living did not contract for either the past or the present debts incurred by the politicians and bureaucrats in Washington."

.

I never said that it was right or Constitutional. I'm not talking about morals, I'm talking strictly about economics.

 

[Contumacious]

I never said that it was right or Constitutional. I'm not talking about morals, I'm talking strictly about economics.

As was Murray, he was an economist discussing Repudiating the National Debt which is an economic matter.

.

 

[FSU63]

As was Murray, he was an economist discussing Repudiating the National Debt which is an economic matter.

.

I'm talking about nations repaying us after war.

>We go in somewhere
>Defeat them
>Make them pay reparations forever

 

[Acala]

Would production not be increased by taking their lands? If we invaded a country and made it a US state, and, hypothetically, the people agreed to become a part of our nation, how would that not increase production?

Obviously capital IS destroyed DURING war, but what about AFTER war? Could it not be rebuilt, and AFTERWARDS we would have more productivity that would eventually surpass the war costs?

If you had two countries both with equal productivity and one country annexed the other country, (and let's assume not a shot was fired and nothing was destroyed) total productivity would be exactly the same as before. Only the political boundaries would have changed. So I suppose, if what you mean by expanding political boundaries is that you annex productive activity and what was previously Canadian productivity now "belongs" the the USA, then yes, although the total amount of productivity remained the same.