Drumwaster's Rants

April 2008
S M T W T F S
   1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30      

Members:

Login | Register | Member List

Search


Advanced Search

tracker

Archives

July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003

Category Archives

Recent entries

The Evil Meter
Rockets Red Glare
O-bortion!
Happy Independence Day!
The “New” Old Battlefield
The Fall of the Old Grey Lady
McCain’s Greatest Hope Was Also Bush’s
The Media on Iraq: “Damn It, Damn It, Damn It!”
Book Plug
The “F” Doesn’t Stand for “Fantastic”

Categories

Syndicate

RSS 1.0
RSS 2.0
Atom

All e-mail submissions and comments are subject to publication or parody at the sole discretion of the authors of this site, unless prior arrangements have been made.

Take the MIT Weblog Survey




If tempted by something that feels 'altruistic', examine your motives and root out that self-deception. Then, if you still want to do it, wallow in it! -- Robert Heinlein


Saturday, April 12, 2008


The Broken Window fallacy

I was just watching Neil Cavuto (well, listening, since I was facing the other way), and heard some moron advocate the economic fallacy that “creative destruction is good for the economy”.

The idea is an odd one, and easily disproven, even though it is a popular fallacy.

The scenario is this: a shop keeper is open for business when some young ruffian comes along and tosses a brick through the front window of his shop, shattering it. People come along to see the damage and start contemplating that the broken window is actually a good thing, because the shopkeeper will now have to hire a glazier to replace the window, and the glazier therefore gets business he might not have otherwise gotten. The glazier will then be able to spend that additional income on things he needs, causing additional ripples throughout the economic cycle, and that must therefore be a good thing for the economy as a whole.

Therefore, destruction is a good thing for the economy.

One problem.

The shopkeeper, who had been slowly accumulating a small sum of money he had wanted to spend on (say) a new suit, must now perforce spend those accumulated funds on a new window instead of the new suit he had wanted. So instead of having a window and a new suit, he is forced to be happy with just having the window. And while his money would go to the glazier, causing that ripple, it is now not going to go to the tailor, who would have made the new suit, and then spent that income in those expanding ripples, exactly as the glazier did.

But now the economy is missing a new suit, and is just that much poorer, since the wealth that would have created it now must be used to repair the damage. But because this new suit is never seen (since it was never made), the missing suit escapes the notice of the public, and the only one who knows about it is the shopkeeper. This is because Need is not the same as Demand. The shopkeeper didn’t need a new window, because he already had a window, and the savings would have been used for a different demand.

If you ever hear anyone arguing that natural disasters are good for the economy, feel free to laugh at them, and invite them to stand behind what they believe by destroying their belongings.

Posted by Drumwaster at 06:41 AM |
Page 1 of 1 pages