Talk:Parable of the broken window/Archive 1

Exceptions to the broken window fallacy
There is a required condition for the broken window parable to be a fallacy : it only applies if the shopkeeper would otherwise have used six francs to buy a good or service in the village. Imports and hoarding mess the parable up. If the village is in depression and the shopkeeper is going to either hoard his money or spend it on foreign goods, then it is probably best for the village to have that window broken.

--Guillaume777 05:54, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


 * In your example you're also assuming that the glazier won't hoard the money he makes just like the shopkeeper. Which one of them has the money is irrelevant because we don't know what either of them will do with it and there isn't any reason to suppose one outcome is better than the other. The real harm here isn't that some currency has changed hands but rather that the glazier had to expend effort doing something useless. The fact that the shopkeeper paid for that effort is why people become confused. The trivial version of the fallacy is that the glazier's kid breaks the window and the glazier makes a new one for free; clearly here the glazier is harmed by having his time wasted and no benefit is derived from it by anyone.

I don't see why is that. Suppose the shopkeeper was going to buy a new and better tool from a nearby village that would increase his production... The point is in any case money is potential that is in this case lost and could otherwise be used. If the shopkeeper spends his money on foreign goods this means he is going to import something of equal value either to increase productivity (tools) or social wellfare (books, food for his familly) that will allow them to think / live better and produce more. Plus he will probably import something localy unavailabe thus increasing diversity.

--ntg_sf, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Guys, just remember this article is about *the parable*, not your personal opinions about it :-)

--Juraci Krohling, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

We're talking about the fallacy in the fallacy. Is that possible? I'll assume it is (Crap, now I'm doing it) Really. Mr. ntg, I doubt you have a point against hoarding (Or, as I call it, a bank account) because money in circulation is better than no money in circulation. Also, since all fallacies (is that the correct plural?) need to apply to modern society, if the kid breaks the window, it's the super-rich owner of Safeway that gets hurt a tiny bit, which is probably covered by insurance, who reduces their shares by a billionth of a cent. (See; Stainless Steel Rat series, by Heinlein.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.163.229.187 (talk) 23:11, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

--Um, actually, The Stainless Steel Rat is the hero of a series of science fiction novels written by Harry Harrison.68.194.58.19 (talk) 04:36, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

The simplest way to explain why this fallacy is a fallacy, is that it neglects the concept of opportunity cost. All the time and resources employed to fix the window is at the expense of what they would have be used for instead, had the window not been broken. The overall effect to the town is that it not any richer; it is actually poorer by the cost of one window! The town also lost the more productive uses of time, labor, and resources it would have had if they didn't have to be diverted towards repairing the window. Those who try to explain it away by pointed out the benefit of the shopkeeper's money being put into circulation are still neglecting the more porductive uses he could have otherwise put the money to; even if he wasn't planning on spending the money immediately he likely would have spent it eventually, or kept it in the bank, thus generating interest and capital; in the long run the town would still benefit more from the window not being broken! 24.8.252.164 (talk) 17:46, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

It is impossible for the broken window to be a "collective good", because any positive effect of the broken window for the glazier, or anyone else, is offset by the negative effect of the broken window on the shopkeeper. Also, let's not forget that if the shopkeeper didn't need to spend the six francs, she (or the bank in which she deposited the money) can choose to lend the six francs to someone else, thus generating economic activity. Thus we dispose of the "hoarding" argument. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.67.85.162 (talk) 19:40, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

War
...immense resources are spent merely to restore things to the condition they already were before the war began. This only applies to the country that has been invaded. The invading country may well benefit. Am I missing something?--Adoniscik 18:36, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The invading country removes able men from the workforce, causing shortages in that area. It literally blows up or burns resources in the form of ammunition, bombs, fuel et c.  It removes resources such as steel from the industry, driving up prices and/or causing shortages.
 * In short, yes you miss something. You care only about that which you see, and not that you do not see. /85.228.39.223 (talk) 06:21, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I have deleted two paragraphs that discussed why war is sometimes a good idea. The point of the broken window fallacy is that the apparent economic benefits that come from increased production of war-related materials in-and-of itself is not really a benefit; the hidden opportunity costs will always outweigh the benefits. I think the article’s section on war makes that perfectly clear. The two paragraphs that I deleted mentioned that sometimes going to war is a good economic decision because it can allow you to capture economically valuable resources or avert a worse war later on. While that’s surely true, it has nothing to do with the broken window fallacy. It appears that someone thought the article was taking on an anti-war POV and wanted to interject their own ideas about war not necessarily being such a bad thing. As the article stands now, there is no appreciable anti-war bias; the article simply points out that the extra employment and production associated with war that often leads people to claim “war is good for the economy” is actually an economic broken window. May 22, 2006


 * Actually, it occurs to me that there is a situation where the Broken Window is beneficial to an economy. (Let me first say, I've studied a lot of econ, and I can tell that you also know what you are talking about, and I'm not arguing for perpetual motion here, the broken window fallacy is still a fallacy.) Here's how it could work: If an economy is being operated irrationally, but the broken window changes economic conditions so the townsfolk behave less irrationally, then there could be net GDP and utilitarian improvement. WWII could be described this way: The Fed followed stupid irrational tight monetary policy after the '29 crash, and this made the economy worse and the Great Depression greater. WWII then engendered a more appropriate stimulative montary policy, and bailed the economy out. The fallacy is not noticing that it was monetary policy that changed, rather than the wholesale destruction of a vast amount of wealth, and the economy would have been even better off following the appropriate monetary policy in the first place, with the windows intact. (Oh, and while I'm at it, decaying European crony colonialism, while once an economonic stimulant, may also have become a drag on the world economy, and WWII sweeping colonialism away may have also liberalized the world economy to the point of improvement, even though it entailed destruction and "transfer or theft" of private assets.)

-

The end of this article seems to degenerate into a political debate (ex: "WWII had exactly that effect," implying that Bastiat is wrong).

Perhaps we should simply expose the parable, and leave contrary opinions to their own entries, thus avoiding the transformation of wikipedia into a gigantic flamewar.

Sprotch 19 Aug 2004 - Small comment: A reference to when Frederic Bastiat created the parable of the broken window would be nice. After a fast check I'd say it's 1850, but I won't edit the article because I haven't done a good enough check to see whether that is correct. -- anon (Ilari Kajaste) (and sorry if this talk message isn't where it's supposed to be - I'm still a bit confused about talk pages)

- In order to analyze this let us suppose 2 countries are at war, let us call them A and B. If A wins and no citizen of A dies, while all citizens of B die, and assuming both countries have n citizens, then the whole economy is now half of what it was at the beggining. What is the economic benefit of that?

The real problem seems to be that natural resources are scarce, so a war may be in best interest of the few in country A that will control the supply of said natural resources. The rest of the people just follows because they are programmed to follow.

A consecuence of having more efficiency is that you need less people and less time to produce more products. Eventually people have terrible wages, very long working hours and very harsh working conditions. Supply and demand play a role here, when job supply is too big (too many jobless) and demand is too small (very few workers can produce everything needed).

You can send half of the jobless to fight a war and the other half will have to deliver the supplies to them. This will of course take the jobless out of the country (or in a bag). It is a solution, but it is not very clean, since some of the jobless return and they are still jobless, besides they have nightmares.

Another solution would be to educate the jobless so that they can get a job. This just means that instead of fighting a war they are sat in a classroom. A lot less bloody experience, but the amount of people looking for a job after the course is finished is the same. Actually they could take your job eventually (provided they are smart enough). This solution is ok if they know how to start their own companies, so that they create jobs instead of taking other people's jobs.

A third solution would be to pay them for staying at home, drinking beer and watching tv. Very much like the Matrix, but wasting money and energy instead of obtaining it. It may not seem reasonable, but what is the purpose of society if not obtaining the goals of society? What are the goals of society? Working more in order to earn less? The purpose of society necessarily is to benefit the society. It turns out that people used to work 100 hours per week, and now they only work 40 hours per week, which means that most people have leisure time. And they spend in the leisure time, which means the production must go up, which means more workers are employed.

In France people work 35 hours per week.

In Germany they work 32 hours per week.

Germany is the country with biggest exports in the world.

So instead of having thoughts about killing the jobless, we should educate them and reduce the number of hours of work per week. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.53.110.144 (talk) 15:15, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I venture a guess as to what might be going on here:

The "average" citizen gets more income from wages, salaries and tips than all other income sources combined. So we learn to equate "work that needs to be done" with "income opportunity". The *classical economists (where * can be neo-, para- etc. etc.) seem to find it incomprehensible that so many people have so much difficulty conceiving of themselves as getting income as investors, entrepreneurs, or some other class other than the working class. Capitalism is as intuitively obvious to these classicalists (or classists as I like to call them) as the fact that life is a bitch and then you die is to the rest of us. There is no meeting of minds because of bad PR. Most of us hear the words "laissez faire capitalism" (or even "classical economics") and what immediately comes to mind is "survival of (only) the fittest". We assume that means 99th percentile or something. So we pray for more broken windows because we have an emotional need to feel useful.


 * "Bad PR"--could be. This calls to mind another fallacy which probably needs to be written up, but I don't know of a common name for it. It's the fallacy that there's only so much work to be done. I.e., that somebody needs to break a window, so I'll have something to do. The reality is that if windows never broke--because they're made of super space plastic, for example--then the window installers would still have work building new houses. And even if many window installers went out of the window business, they'd still have plenty of work: some would work at the space-plastic plant; some would start installing the new computer-controlled automatic barber machines that are all the rage in 2050...the point is, human desire is infinite, so if we never have to worry about windows again we'll start thinking about new things which were undreamed of before, which are luxuries today, and will be called necessities (indeed, basic human rights) 50 years from now.


 * Unions believe that fallacy when they insist, for example, that buildings continue to employ elevator operators after installing automatic elevators (and don't laugh--I've seen it!). --Len


 * "only so much work" -- I don't have any references, but my dad tells a parable which touches on the subject. It goes like this.


 * Two men are marooned on a deserted island. They've come up with a plan to build a boat from the trees on the island.  Each day they cut down a tree, strip it, carve it into the right shape for a plank of their boat, treat it for resistance to leaks, and trim it for fit.  One day a board floats ashore.  The man named Harry picks it up and discovers it is already perfectly suited to be built into the boat.  He walks over to the construction area with the board, but the other man yells, "Throw that board back, Harry, or you'll be out a day's work!" -- Crag 00:53, 2004 Jun 16 (UTC)


 * I believe that the idea that there is only so much labor to go around is known as the "Lump of Labor" fallacy. -- rcriii 2009 07 Feb.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.158.28.4 (talk) 15:52, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Economists of the Austrian school of economics frequently cite this fallacy

We need a slight clarification. DOes this mean they frequently suffer from this fallacy, or that they frequently denounce it? - Montr&eacute;alais


 * if you read the whole article, they cite it to show that they don't believe it, and that other people are stupid because they seem to believe in it. For example, look to where the article says that Paul Krugman argues that the WTC 9/11 destruction would stimulate the economy.

- It seems to me that it is invalid to equate the "broken window" fallacy with tax. There are many cases where economies of scale mean that something can be centrally provided cheaper than by individuals. An extreme example would be defence spending. If every individual were to purchase equipment that they thought necessary to defend a country you could spend a lot without having an effective strategic force. Also there are many things that are necessary but not many people would individually see at their responsibility. -- Chris Q 14:15 Feb 3, 2003 (UTC)


 * Of course it is invalid. Sometimes taxation is used to break windows, sometimes it is used to do useful things. it depends.


 * The broken window fallacy is equally applicable to any category of economic activity. Whether that activity happens to be government activity or private sector activity is irrelevant. For example, consider, instead of "broken window", the (ahem - sorry for the bad pun) "broken Windows" fallacy.


 * Microsoft charge monopoly prices for software - somewhere around 5 times higher than market price, let's say. (The actual figure doesn't matter, just so long as it is indeed higher than a free market price.) Some people say (quite correctly) that this distorts the economy by diverting resources from other uses to the purchase of software and (again, quite correctly) that this results in a net loss to the nation because the portion of the money that is spent buying Windows or Office over and above the cost that these products would have in a free market is mis-allocated. Microsoft apologists, however, say (essentially) "so what?" In their view, Microsoft will just pay extra dividends and people who own MS shares will buy an extra Cadillac or two, or donate to a hospital, and the money gets returned to the economy anyway. This, of course, is just a more subtle version of the broken window fallacy. The breakage is harder to spot because it consists of diversion of funds and productive effort from whatever tasks a free market would allocate them to (a free market, remember, is generally considered the most efficient of all methods of determining economic prioriies) to a range of tasks, some of them productive (making extra Cadillacs), some of them not (buying influence in Washington, dreaming up ways to make Word documents unreadable by other programs so as to preserve the monopoly).

.
 * I think you should consider Microsoft a bad example. It's not a monopoly, it's not based in exploting natural resources, but on intellectual property. Nothing stops nobody to create a company to compete with them. Such a thing has done google, adobe and others. Microsoft don't sell software at monopolic prices, in fact SQL Server costs less than other Database Servers on the market. Microsoft is also competing with free software. OpenOffice is free and Linux too, so your theory of "buying Windows or Office over and above the cost that these products would have in a free market is mis-allocated" is based on a wrong personal view, not in facts. Also, if people is buying Microsoft software when they can use a free alternative, should lead to think on "is working for free a benefit to economy?". -- Mariano --200.32.31.132 (talk) 17:38, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

.
 * If you don't like the Microsoft example, pick another - Standard Oil, say, or the British east India Company. Monopolies always distort the economy. Of course, some monopolies are unavoidable - things like defence or water supply are very difficult to contract out. And it's not only monopolies that "break windows" - consider another example from the IT sector, computer viruses. Tannin


 * Of course it's valid. The amount of national defense spending that is required is not determined by the market in your statement, but by a federal policy, this will defer an undefinable amount of resources, contrary to a market position, to national defense that might in fact be more than is required.  The DoD's '08 budget comes to $1580 per capita, one could argue that that money could be used for defense by each individual.  Another argument would question if the spending in the DoD actually increases our national defense, dollar for dollar.  Some would argue that the instability and resentment our foreign policy generates actually reduces our national defense, voiding the purpose of the spending entirely. gwydion75

These sound worthy examples, but in the interim the examples given implied a right wing / economic liberal agenda, so I've tried to get nearer a NPOV:  Governments instead of Labor unions fighting outsourcing as the measures shown are under government control (by coincidence, in recent news the World Trade Organisation found that the U.S. government was breaching rules with such protectionist measures). A more plausible example could be of Labor unions demanding that an employer keep on staff who no longer produce work of economic value. Similarly, bureaucracy isn't necessarily an economic evil : dave souza 19:06, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

According to Frédéric Bastiat's article, he is seen as a "forerunner [in?] the Austrian School", so I understand why the Austrian School is mentioned. But I'm not clear why the libertarians are mentioned. They may believe the same thing, but many do. Are they the originators of this analysis? If not, they I don't believe they need to be mentioned. Dhelder - "The money spent on the war effort, for example, is money that can't be spent on food, clothing, health care, consumer electronics or other areas." Hm. Somehow, this good money is anyway spent mostly on security and government with friends. Where's the huge, wide internet in the USA? Where's an efficient medical care in Canada? Come on. As long as there are governments, big money will be spent on the things, which regular taxpayer never needs, but which benefit means of production owners. Like war.

I have added a source about the fallacy applied on 'war is good for the economy'. Guess the requirement for citations can be dropped; however the opposing view could use some reference as well. I'll leave this out for a few days and will remove the citation needed warning, if there are no objections.

Will see if there is something to be done about the POV objections, in the discussions about this part it seems most are quick to go off-topic. Pestergaines (talk) 09:31, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Sections
This article (it seems to me) could really use some headings to break the rather lengthy text up a little. PMcM 03:44, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

hmmm.. so doesn't the GDP have an inherent broken window fallacy? i'm thinking here of the exxon catastrophe specifically... just thought it might relate w/r/t: "Economists of the Austrian School and libertarians argue that the "broken window fallacy" is extremely common in popular thinking. For example, after September 11, 2001, some economists suggested that the rebuilding in New York would stimulate billions of dollars of economic activity, which would provide a net benefit to the United States economy" etc etc.
 * I'm not sure about the WTC example: the economy is measured by GDP (i.e., output) and motivating construction and borrowing to handle it could certainly increase the GDP, just as Exxon oil spills do the same. The idea is that the *wealth* of the world won't be increased as a result, but the economy itself could go up as a result. (Of course the issue about lack of confidence and growing concern of investments, like how the stock market went down after the attacks, could certainly erase and economic benefits rebuilding would give.) MShonle 04:21, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'm surprised this article doesn't mention the Apollo missions. Richard W.M. Jones 13:37, 14 January 2005 (UTC)

I completely support the Bastiat position that destruction is counter-productive.

The comment that victors profit in war is not a hard and fast rule. The United States of America did rise to become the most dominant power after WWII replacing not Germany but its ally and co-victor, Britain. By the 1960's West Germany was outpacing Britain in practically all aspects of economy - GDP, per capita income, worker productivity and with Mercedes Benz rising from the ashes of war to become one of the most prestigious and sought after car brands while British Leyland was soon to close due to bankruptcy. But this is explained through another socio-economic phenomenon called "the law of unintended consequences" which resulted from the intention of implementors of the Marshall Plan (to revive the economy of Europe to save it from communism) to be hard on the Germans (worked them for 16 hours a day) and be soft on the British (with their free-wheeling labor unions, their hefty pay increase schedules and long vacations). 70.174.62.11 Deusvolt

The eaten bread fallacy
How are broken windows any different from bread, clothes, automobiles and all the other goods we expect to use up or wear out and then have to replace?


 * Because bread that was somehow repeatedly eatable (say, a loaf that magically replenished sliced-off parts), unless it got "broken", would be better than bread you can only eat once. Having to spend only once for something is preferable to having to buy it repeatedly.

And why is it that when businesses deliberately break things in the pursuit of profits, economists call the process "creative destruction"?


 * Creative destruction isn't going around randomly breaking things. Its having a superor product or service, or a superior method of producing the same product or service, that forces other producers to adapt, or puts them out of business.  The destruction part is the business that go under, and the investment in old methods that are now rendered useless, but the net effect is positive not negative. Twfowler 00:53, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Some changes
I deleted the specific reference to WW2 and the following sentence: "Others attribute post-war recovery to the easing of regulations and dismantling of corporatist war boards." There have been arguments for war for thousands of years, and I don't think this particular statement illustrates the applicability (or not) of the fallacy. The sentence would, however, fit nicely in an article about WW2.

I also deleted several repeated occurrences of the broken record statement "the money would have been spent elsewhere". It should suffice to say that in the first two examples. Common Man 02:50, 15 June 2005 (UTC)

Confusing argument
The text uses some confusing examples. At the beginning it states: The article is arguing both that the baker is better off and worse off. It seems to me that the argument at the beginning and the end are spurious. The real matter is contained by the parts in the middle. In any case the argument as stated is clearly weak. — KayEss | talk 16:05, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
 * soon they start to suggest that the broken window makes work for the glazier, who will then buy bread, benefitting the baker, who will then buy shoes, benefitting the cobbler, etc.
 * It is not seen that if he had not had a window to replace, he would, perhaps, have replaced his old shoes, or added another book to his library
 * Perhaps he was going to buy bread, benefitting the baker, who would then have bought shoes, etc., but instead he was forced to buy a window. Instead of a window and bread, he had only a window. Or perhaps he would have bought a new shirt, benefitting the tailor; in that case the glazier's gain was the tailor's loss, and again the shopkeeper has only a window instead of a window and a shirt
 * Yet the facts observed by the onlookers remain true: the glazier benefits from the business, and so does the baker, the cobbler, and so on

I agree. The middle two statements are the clearest.

[quote]Thus, the child did not bring any net benefit to the town. Instead, he made the town poorer by at least the value of one window, if not more. His actions benefited the glazier, but at the expense not only of the shopkeeper, but the baker and cobbler as well.[/quote] How does it make the town poorer? Unless the baker + cobler that the shopkeeper goes to are in a different town with people who in turn never buy anything in the shopkeepers town, the town has lost no money at all. The only one that is worse off would be the glazier if no glass was broken or the shopkeeper if glass was broken. The rest is totaly unimportant since they get their money no matter what. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.203.27.18 (talk) 09:38, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

-- I think this sentence has Keynesian POV: "Note that the Austrian interpretation stems from the assumption that all resources are initially fully and appropriately employed." Austrians do sometimes assume this, but when they do it is very clearly a thought experiment set in an "evenly rotating economy". I don't see how or why such an assumption is needed here. Surely is possible to believe that make work projects are always a bad idea without beleiving that all resources are always "fully and appropriately" employed.

---

Some of these examples don't make a lot of sense to me:

Even if windmill / solar jobs come at the expense of hydrocarbon power jobs, isn't the reduction in money wasted on expensive oil & military to get our hands on oil a net benefit? And aren't the environmental benefits significant because no money will be wasted in later cleanups, long after the hydrocarbon power company goes out of business?

I thought the trade-in was for older high-mileage innefficient cars for NO miles new cars. Isn't this sentence formed backwards to the logical reality?

Ace Frahm (talk) 05:24, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not saying that the environmental benefits don't exist. It clearly says "While the more expensive sources have environmental benefits."  The point is that people often argue in favor of renewable energy because it would "create jobs".  Government spending can never "create jobs", it can only redistribute jobs. Same with cash for clunkers.  Yes, there is an environmental benefit, but useful cars are still destroyed, and the tax money spent on subsidizing production of the new cars displaces spending in other areas.Mac520 (talk) 05:36, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

POV: "Special Interests"
- I'm troubled by the section "Special interests and government," although I'm not certain yet how to improve it. If you click the link to read about the term "special interests" you might see that it is actually in itself a problematic term. This article, because of its wording, seems to imply a special interest is any group which asks the government for money.. Either that or it is relying on a common usage definition which is problematic. Some people might consider things like public education or health care as special interests.. i certainly wouldnt. Also, the broken window argument in this case completely ignores the factor of economy of scale.

It's a little bit like debating wether or not witches are evil... The whole question of who is a witch, what the word means, and whether they exist or not is skipped as if we all agree on those things. And having agreed on those things, what is the point of arguing witches are evil, since that is probably part of the definition we agreed to in the first place?

Perhaps the whole section should just be scrapped.

I suppose instead we could include a section on how the parable is used (or missused) in political propaganda. --LordBrain 17:57, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


 * - I think this section is valuable and should be retained but I also sense bias- I think all but one of the examples selected represent a particular POV. --Nil0lab 00:31, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Also, as it concentrates only on "green jobs" and disregards the entire chain of energy production (and hidden costs) from non-renewable sources it might actually be used as an example of falsely perceived benefit from not using renewable energy sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.146.180.37 (talk) 14:54, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * - Particularly the "wind farms and other renewable energy" example. Not only is it biased, but its explanation is based on a logical fallacy, implying that the higher cost of an energy source ensures environmental benefits. By that logic, burning a tree as an energy source has lesser environmental benefits than burning paper made from that tree.

- I'm in basic agreement with above comments on several points: The term "Special Interests" is basically a "weasel word" (as the term is used here in Wikipedia: intrinsically and irreconcilably biased). And agree perhaps the section should be scrapped or seriously reworked.

Of most trouble to me are the purported examples of "public works" projects and "wind farms", as these are NOT directly equatable to the "broken window parable", as they do not involve the wanton destruction of property for the sole purpose of generating the economic activity of the replacement. (Public works projects do not blow up town hall or perfectly good bridges just to build a new ones; renewable energy projects do not entail destroying existing production or distribution in order to justify the new work.) Without a doubt, the efficacy of such projects can and should be questioned by the public, but the matter should be equated to a shopkeeper with an unbroken window deciding to spend his 6 francs on either the baker or the cobbler or something else, as there is no broken window to replace.

Likewise, the "Cash for Clunkers" program -- while a possible candidate for comparison to the "broken window parable" -- is a poor choice for two reasons: a) the cars are near the end of life anyways (as if the boy broke a badly cracked window), and b) there are arguably energy independence and environmental gains from the program as well... NOT just the economic gains of the resulting economic activity.

Harasty (talk) 15:09, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

terrorist attacks/paul krugman
The section on terrorists attacks was misleading. It said Paul Krugman argued that the terrorist attacks would boost the economy through reconstruction. This is untrue, as can be seen in the reference article: http://www.pkarchive.org/column/91401.html. What he said was that politically, the effect of the attacks might be to boost public spending, which might boost the economy in a Keynesian fashion.

He did not say that the attacks themselves would have a positive effect on growth, that's ludicrous. It is not clear who the "others" might be that argued against Krugman, since to do so they would have had to have misunderstood him. The arguments in that section aren't false, but they set Krugman up as a straw man. I removed it because if no one made the arguments Krugman didn't make then it is silly to have a section refuting an argument that as far as I know no one ever made. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Graemeblake (talk • contribs) 01:23, 9 April 2007 (UTC).


 * I should have checked back on this page sooner - Krugman did, in fact, say that there could be economic benefits: "Ghastly as it may seem to say this, the terror attack -- like the original day of infamy, which brought an end to the Great Depression -- could even do some economic good. [...] there will, potentially, be two favorable effects. First, the driving force behind the economic slowdown has been a plunge in business investment. Now, all of a sudden, we need some new office buildings. As I've already indicated, the destruction isn't big compared with the economy, but rebuilding will generate at least some increase in business spending." I don't see how that could mean anything else. Korny O&#39;Near 04:57, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not the place for a he said, she said back and forth between pundits. Given that Krugman does not claim that there is a net economic gain in his article, it is not a reasonable example for this article.  Either a better quote or reference should be found, or more textual explanation of what is going on here needs to be included.  Otherwise it just looks like two floating quotes, one from a NYT Opinion Page writer, and the other from a guest host for Rush Limbaugh, neither of whom inspire much in terms of encyclopedic authority.


 * Krugman wrote "the terror attack... could even do some economic good." He explicitly states the possibility of net economic gain; I don't know how much clearer it could get. Whatever else Krugman and Williams are, they're both published, well-known economists, so I think their opinions are extremely valid here. Whom would you accept as a greater authority? Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 21:40, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Bastiat does not claim that there is zero good. If Krugman states that there is net good please provide the quote. The qoute you cite says some, not net.  As far as how reliable either author is, WP is not the place to rehash opinion page rhetoric. Without context this is just dueling pundits, hardly useful or informative.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.37.169.173 (talk) 22:54, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I think it's obvious from the context, and from his comparison to Pearl Harbor, that Krugman thinks it was a net economic good (or at least had the potential to be). If you thought a certain action would make you gain $2 but lose $10, would you write at length just about that $2 gain? In any case, my opinion and yours don't really matter; we have an opinion to that effect from a notable source (Williams). And who says Wikipedia is not a place for opinion page rhetoric? Please tell me where you get that idea. Opinion pages in newspapers are where many political and economic ideas are articulated, and opinion pieces are referenced in many other places on Wikipedia. Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 23:29, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * It's certainly not obvious. You're reading more into Krugman's words than what is there.  It may have been his unstated belief that it was a net good, but that appears nowhere in the article.  It may be reasonable to have a more fleshed out section on terrorist attacks, and those who claim that they are a net benefit to society.  While Williams may be a notable source, opinion page articles are rarely reliable sources.  Op-ed pieces which are responses to other op-ed pieces are even further removed from credibility.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.53.32.98 (talk) 01:55, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Again, you come out with these statements that you don't support. Who says that opinion pieces, or opinion pieces about other opinion pieces, are not reliable sources? Is that a Wikipedia guideline, or your own opinion? Surely they're reliable sources for indicating the opinion of the author, which is all that these quotes are being used for. These kind of quotes of notable commentators' opinions are all over Wikipedia, as I said earlier. Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 04:20, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure where you're going with this. You seem to want to go around and around about this.  I'll leave it at this; the Krugman article does not make the Broken Window falacy, and Williams gets that wrong.  These two quotes in isolation are not useful for clarifying what the parable of the broken window is about.Aprock (talk) 06:31, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think I'm going around and around at all. We have one economist's opinion of what a modern-day application of the broken window fallacy is, which I think is important because other than that the article lacks any real-world examples, to place the idea in context. Of course it's going to be a matter of opinion; we're in the realm of ideas here. But the article doesn't say that Krugman committed the fallacy, it just says, "in this person's view, he committed the fallacy", which I think is a wholly defensible statement. Would you be more comfortable if the example were in a section entitled "Possible applications of...", to more clearly indicate that Wikipedia doesn't hold an opinion on it? Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 18:06, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, that's my point exactly. William's view is wrong.  While he may have an opinion, the facts are in conflict with his opinion.  It's not the case that authority trumps logic.  If you want to decorate the two quotes with context, giving an indication that his opinion is an opinion and not a statement of fact, and that he is inferring things which are not written in the original Krugman piece that would be fine.  [sorry about the earlier signage, I was on vacation and forgot my password.]Aprock (talk) 18:56, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Fine, I'll look into making the section more even-handed. I should note, though, that Williams is not the only one who has this "wrong" opinion: a web search found two other commentators, Jonah Goldberg and Robert Tracinski, making the same claim. Meanwhile, I haven't found anyone, Krugman or otherwise, stating the opposite (I know absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence, but this is just to indicate that I'm not making an attempt to only present one side of the story). Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 19:22, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Economics in One Lesson
The article says that Henry Hazlitt devoted a chapter in Economics in One Lesson to the broken window fallacy. My impression was that the book was about nothing but the broken window fallacy and its myriad variants and applications, hence the title Economics in One Lesson (the one lesson being the identification and rebuttal of the broken window fallacy). I can't find my copy at the moment, though. - True; luckily there are online copies of the book out there. Pestergaines (talk) 10:32, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

GDP
From the "Differing interpretations" section...


 * ...the window owner's money (if the window was still intact)...saved for future consumption as an investment in the economy...serve[s] to increase GDP at a higher level of economic efficiency and utility...

This is untrue. Saving for future consumption represents investment potential, while the GDP only takes into account actual investment. Destinational (talk) 01:44, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Online Piracy section
I am removing the Online Piracy section. The section doesn't mention any Broken Window connection, and as far as I can see none can be made. Broken Windows is generally about something destroyed and always about an artificially imposed "Broken Window job" of dubious value displacing other economic activity. Copyright infringement involves no breaking of a window, the new copy is a pure creation of economic value. The copyright case is that unrestricted creation of new copies diminishes people's incentive to create other new works. While that is a strong and legitimate argument, it has absolutely no connection to Broken Windows. If someone feels the need to restore this section, please rewrite it with a clear illumination on how it involves Broken Windows. Alsee (talk) 00:08, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Wow
This article is really good. How come I never come across such articles when I click on the "Random article" button? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.122.33.194 (talk) 14:50, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Hidden Costs vs. Opportunity Costs
In the section "Special interests and government", it says that "this is a hidden cost, sometimes called opportunity cost." Note that hidden cost and opportunity cost are not the same thing. The sentence should be changed to reflect that.

This article has a fairly narrow scope; a full analysis of the case of the window would also involve the opportunity cost of the glazier and other customers of the glazier's. That is, if the glazier is fixing a given window, he cannot be fixing another, so other jobs, if there are any, are delayed. If another shopkeeper is waiting to get his window fixed, it may negatively affect his business.

There's also no mention of raw materials costs. Glass is not free. The fuel used to fuse the sand into glass could be put to other uses were it not going to creating replacement windows.24.193.226.19 (talk) 19:21, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

The Article is not critical enough of the fallacy, and nor does it mention how the Fallacy can be refuted. Why not add a criticism section? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hoffmanjohn (talk • contribs) 00:09, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * How can you refute the truth? :) 81.228.144.159 (talk) 16:38, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean by "How Can You refute the truth?".

Basically, the purpose of the parable is to refute the idea that "it is a good thing to break windows, that it causes money to circulate." That's the idea it's trying to refute, that we shouldn't go out of our ways to break proverbial windows, creating harms to the status quo simply so that we can charge money to restore the status quo to its original position.

Unfortunately, no one is actually advocating the argument being refuted, the idea that "it is a good thing to break windows." This attempt to create a fallacy is actually a hidden attempt at constructing a strawman that attempts to misconstrue the actual argument.

Who is arguing that we should break windows? No one. Because breaking windows has a negative net benefit.

What people ARE arguing is for things with a POSITIVE net benefit. Which is strange, because anytime a person gets hired, the inherent ASSUMPTION is that he will provide you with a positive net benefit (otherwise, you wouldn't hire him.). For instance, developing new infrastructure, or repairing old infrastructure.--Hoffmanjohn (talk) 14:25, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

One of the problems with the Broken Window fallacy is that it would only work if the economy was at 100% full employment,and further more it is perhaps the most unprofessional economic concept. Since when does an economist always assume that one economic concept will always be correct?--Hoffmanjohn (talk) 14:25, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Hoffmanjohn: unemployment is irrelevant. The town is always poorer by the cost of one window, no matter whether everyone in the town is working all day or starving penniless in the street. If everyone is unemployed, it is because no one has any money to spend. Breaking a window won't magically cause more money to appear...it will either force the shopkeeper to spend money on something other than his preference, or the window will remain broken because the shopkeeper has no money to fix it.

It's easy to see the fallacy by repeating the destruction: if breaking one window is good for the economy, breaking all of them ought to be even better, and burning down the entire town ought to make everyone instantly rich!

(The Keynesians will no doubt bring up the concept of a "savings glut" here, forgetting that one can only loan saved money, and that saved money is, therefore, still circulated.)

As far as "unprofessional", your refusal to understand this simple concept is an indictment of you, not Bastiat. 173.75.70.109 (talk) 22:12, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Removing "Limitations" section
I believe the "Limitations" section should be removed - it argues that war can help a country's economy, but uses as its only reference a page of "Economics in One Lesson", that argues the exact opposite point. If there are specific opposing viewpoints to this parable (like that of Keynes), they should be grouped in one section and cited. Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 15:07, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Regarding "Limitations": First it does not argue that war helps the economy. Second, the reference exactly supports the section.  Regarding Keynes and opposing views, your text was explicit in noting that Keynes did not address the Parable, suggesting such constitutes original research.  Aprock (talk) 18:37, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Can you point specially to a quote in the Hazlitt reference that backs up anything in that section? And, regarding Keynes - that's true; perhaps all of the references to Keynes and Keynesianism should be removed? Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 21:29, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * "There may be, it is true, offsetting factors. Technological discoveries and advances during a war may, for example, increase individual or national productivity at this point or that, and there may eventually be a net increase in overall productivity." - Hazlitt


 * With respect to Keynes, if there is something else that you think isn't relevant, by all means bring it to the talk page. I don't see any great need for Keynes to be discussed in the context of the parable. Aprock (talk) 22:04, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh, I see - I didn't realize the second part was nearly a direct quote. In any case, my issue was more with the first part, which talks about "creative destruction", which has nothing to do with what happens during a war; and makes a point about macroeconomics vs. microeconomics that's similarly unsupported (after all, breaking a window itself could, by some chance, also lead to increased productivity - it's improbable but not impossible). As to Keynes, I did bring it to the talk page: he's mentioned in the article, and maybe he shouldn't be. Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 01:53, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what you're talking about here. The section isn't about war, it's about the limitations of the parable.  Aprock (talk) 05:25, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Agree that section should be removed. It is barely tangential.  -- ForgottenManC (talk) 02:03, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Aprock - the reference provided for the sentence about "creative destruction" is, as you noted, about war. Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 14:11, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The book is about a lot of things, not just war. Aprock (talk) 15:27, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, but does it mention creative destruction? Or the differences between micro- and macroeconomics? Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 15:56, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Creative destruction is a separate topic from the reference. Specifically, it's an illustration of how destruction can occur in the context of a net gain for society.  For example, t's really silly to try and invoke the parable in opposition to the demolition of an old stadium.  I supplied the link to the wiki page, but if you'd like more references for what creative destruction is I'm sure I can dig some more up.  Microeconomics opperates at exactly the scale of the parable, whereas macroeconomics is outside the scope of the parable.  If you feel that these terms need to be introduced more thoroughly, that sounds reasonable.  Aprock (talk) 16:28, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, I don't think anyone is invoking the parable in the context of people destroying their own property (which is the case with the demolition of a stadium); otherwise you'd have economists from the Austrian school running around trying to get everyone to stop throwing their trash away. People from Bastiat onward have used the parable to talk about macroeconomics, and if you don't agree with them then you should find a reference that supports your view. Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 17:54, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Creative destruction isn't about destroying one's own property. I don't disagree with people talking about whatever they want to talk about.  Breaking a window is a strictly microeconomic event.  People might use the parable to discuss anything they like, but that doesn't change the scale of the parable. Aprock (talk) 18:22, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, obviously it's a parable about a small-scale event, but that's what a parable is. Bastiat himself meant it to stand in for large-scale spending, which is why he spends about 80% of his essay on macroeconomic stuff, like taxes and public works. If you think the reasoning shouldn't apply to macroeconomics, and that "creative destruction" proves it, that's fine, but please find a source that agrees with you if want that in the article; otherwise it feels like original research. Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 18:38, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That sounds reasonable, I'll fix the text to clarify that. Aprock (talk) 18:40, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I still think more should be removed. Here's the issue: the parable is about involuntary destruction: a shopkeeper has his window broken, taxpayers get their income taken away by the government. Creative destruction, though is about voluntary destruction: an employer decides to shut down a company because it's not making enough money, or an owner destroys a stadium in order to build a better one. The parable says nothing about voluntary destruction, and thus nothing about "creative destruction". Again, if you feel differently, you just have to find a reference. Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 19:14, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * There is plenty of involuntary destruction in creative destruction. The cannonical example being "buggy/whip" infrastructure.  In fact, the root origin of the phrase comes from the fact that *after* destruction creation takes place.  Do you have a reference for this view that creative destruction only applies to voluntary situations?  Aprock (talk) 19:20, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, this is starting to get into a semantic issue of what constitutes "voluntary" and "destruction". If people stop buying one's products, that's not voluntary, but I contend that it's not destruction either, per se; the destruction comes when the company owner then decides to go out of business. In any case, I don't need a reference for any of this, because I'm not the one trying to add stuff to the article right now. Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 19:27, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah, you seem to be going down some sort of strange semantic rabbit hole here. This isn't about adding stuff.  It's about clarifying what's already there. Aprock (talk) 20:43, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think I'm going down a semantic rabbit hole. How about this: it's the difference between the free market and destruction through force. Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 20:50, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I have no clue what that means, or how it relates to the article. This isn't an article about free markets, and free markets and destructive force certainly aren't mutually exclusive. Aprock (talk) 21:00, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, it is an article about free markets, and the lack thereof; that's the whole point of the parable. By "destruction through force", I mean destruction by people who don't own the property in question. Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 21:18, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


 * If it were an article about free markets, then I'd expect some mention of free market, or markets. While people may use the parable in discussing free markets, that's not what the parable or the article is about.  With respect to the whole "owning the property" issue, that's irrelevant in the parable.  The window is broken no matter who owns it.  Aprock (talk) 21:21, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, it's what the essay surrounding the parable is about. In any case, the underlying issue is: anything written about the limitations of the parable in the article, whether it's "creative destruction" or anything else, has to be cited. Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 21:29, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Certainly, and the cites are there. Aprock (talk) 21:38, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't see any citation connecting creative destruction with the parable of the broken window. The one citation there talks about destruction through enemy bombing, which surely you'd admit is not the "creative" kind. Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 21:42, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Removing "Modern Examples"
This entire section smells highly of WP:OR, reading more like a back and forth between editors than any kind of verifiable fact. Unless something can be found which links the facts in this section beyond various editors interpretations, I move that this section be removed. Aprock (talk) 20:09, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I entirely agree, there's no citations whatsoever. Although it is nice to keep articles topical, there should really be some more citations here.  Moreover, one can easily find seemingly reputable articles like http://www.economist.com/businessfinance/displayStory.cfm?story_id=14162193 that argue that the Cash for Clunkers program actually is good for society, at least from a short-term economic perspective.  Agnosticaphid (talk) 20:32, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Fixed it. Mac520 (talk) 05:08, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * There are still no references which link the text to the parable Aprock (talk) 16:37, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The Cash for Clunkers article has a reference on this:
 * http:// www.examiner.com/x-19142-Tucson-Libertarian-Examiner~y2009m8d4-The-bad-economics-of-Cash-for-Clunkers
 * --Roentgenium111 (talk) 19:15, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I just noticed that the reference was already in this article. I've changed the corresponding sentence so that it's clear the reference is for the comparison, not for the existence of "CfC". --Roentgenium111 (talk) 19:38, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Examiner.com is not generally a reliable source. See WP:RS/N passim. In addition, I think the repeated statement that the scheme is an example, rather than "[Reliable commenter X] states CARS is an example" fails to be neutral. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 15:16, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Steve Jobs calls Microsoft "Broken Windows"
This quote was on the bottom of the page, I took it out. Phrases like "the inherent instability of Microsoft Windows" are stated as fact rather than as Mr. Jobs' opinion. If someone wants to reword it and put it back, go for it.
 * In an interview, Steve Jobs quotes the 'broken-window' parable in referring to the Microsoft Windows Operating System. The inherent instability of Microsoft Windows can be likened to the 'broken-window' fallacy, which quite ironically seems to be a self-breaking window or a faulty window. 

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.146.7.188 (talk) 13:24, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Poorly written paragraph
A generally very good article, but the following paragraph needs revision:


 * One of the problems with arbitrating between different interpretations of Bastiat is that Austrian economists and those who reference Bastiat are making a statement about total wealth in society, whereas those they are criticizing are making a statement about a snapshot of production in a given year. Bastiat is not addressing production - he is addressing the stock of wealth, and therefore should not be applied to people who point out that destruction increases subsequent GDP growth.

I don't know enough about the subject to correct it, and it is unclear: Does "different interpretations of Bastiat" refer to his parable or his comments about the parable? Who are those who reference Bastiat? They are making a "statement" - what is that statement? I don't see how the criticized are making a statement about annualized production. The term "Stock of wealth" needs clarification & definition. Who are the people who point out? Are they "those they are criticizing"? Verytas (talk) 15:40, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

In the long term
In the long term, all of this balances out : There is a staistical certainty about wear, tear and damage, whether accidental or via vandalism. In the short term, it is nonsense because it attempts to predict a specific short-term human behavior, which is capricious under any circumstances.

As applied to the present, forcing the baker to spend now is advantageous to getting the economy rolling again, even though he may have spent the same money later.

Economics is a very, VERY complicated business because it is actually a matter of mostly unpredictable human behavior and not much else. Economists are mostly frauds. . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.17.205.40 (talk) 00:15, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

When you trow in the time variable, the conclusions are just the same. If the government borrows money to fix windows that it payed someone else to break, it is preventing someone with a creative idea from borrowing money to build the next best thing. By playing interest rate games, the government can pass the cost onto future generations, but someone still pays for the broken windows. 98.112.171.40 (talk) 17:56, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

It's about loss of wealth, not "economic stimulus"
The broken-window fallacy can be readily understood by simply adding up the amount of wealth that is involved, disregarding to whom it belongs.

At the beginning of the scenario, the shopkeeper possesses a window worth six francs; he also possesses six francs in cash; and the glazier possesses another window worth six francs. The sum total at the beginning, then, is eighteen francs of wealth.

As soon as the window is broken, six francs' worth of wealth has been destroyed. There are now only twelve francs of wealth in the scenario: the shopkeeper has six francs in cash, and the glazier has a new window. Regardless of whether the shopkeeper purchases that window from the glazier, no new wealth enters the scenario; the sum total has been reduced and stays reduced.

In short: destroying wealth actually accomplishes the destruction of wealth, and does not accomplish its opposite. It can rearrange who owns the wealth, but that is hardly the same thing. --FOo (talk) 07:57, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

what about incidental increases in wealth and/or productivity?

If the original wealth is 18fr, then the window is destroyed, leaving the value of 12fr, what then of the broken pieces of window? Or the custom that the shopkeep may gain by notoriety?

Allow me to explain:

The window has been broken, reducing the total wealth, however the shopkeep could sell the shards of broken window to be recycled into other glassware, earning him or her some wealth (albeit less than the cost of the intact window). The actions of the glazier may attract the attention of the locals and, through the power of suggestion (advertising, word of mouth, etc) the shopkeep may increase his or her business beyond that which they would have had if the window breaking incident had not taken place. Furthermore, by being employed in the task of repairing the window, the glazier may be seen by the public, increasing his or her notability in the economic sphere, attracting more persons to the glazier than may have been attracted if they had not been out to fix the window (however, one could also claim that the work taken by persons noting the glazier would be taken from other glaziers whom may have already been known in the particular sphere of the economy. But, as is the unpredictability of human nature, they may, perhaps, decide to build a new greenhouse or whatnot simply due to the fact that they saw the glass on the glaziers vehicle, and this would stimulate the economy somewhat, as it had created a demand that was not there prior).

I suppose that one could, in the manner of chaos, find more and more connection along the economic line to show how the breaking of the window has actually increased the power of the economy (although, when one deal in chaos, one may find that the end result of their calculation may not reflect reality, as they may find that, due to the ever increasing amount of demand [like an economic fractal], there may turn out to be an infinite amount of demand and, equally, and infinite amount of supply, which is, of course, impossible).

perhaps? CybergothiChé (talk) 09:39, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Removing the terrorism section
This section seems pretty irrelevant and not encyclopedic. It only uses primary source which do not agree, and the notability of the editorials is doubtful. It reads like a he said, she said, and doesn't give any insight into what the Parable is. It should be removed. A.Prock (talk) 02:24, 16 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The commentaries by Williams and Goldberg are secondary sources - they're commenting on the primary source, Krugman's editorials. I think these are all relevant - I don't see why they wouldn't be. Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 22:28, 26 May 2010 (UTC)


 * No, they are not secondary sources relative to the Parable of the broken window. Williams and Goldberg are the ones who discuss the Parable, and as such they are primary sources.  They are also opinion pieces, and not considered reliable.  Unless a reliable secondary source can establish the notability of this pundit squabble, this section is not encyclopedic. A.Prock (talk) 00:13, 27 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't understand what you mean by "secondary sources" here, with regard to a theory. An analyst like Williams, etc. is, almost by definition, a secondary source. Are you saying that Wikipedia articles on theories should only contain comments by people writing about people writing about those theories? Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 13:14, 27 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Please see WP:PRIMARY. Williams is a primary source here.  The topic is whether or not Krugman's article was related to the parable.  Without reliable secondary sources, this is not a notable section.  The editorials cited are neither reliable, nor secondary sources.  With respect to the definition of the parable, it is a secondary source, but it's not used in that context.  It is used in the context of discussing Krugman's op-ed. A.Prock (talk) 14:32, 27 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I just read that explanation, and Williams is not a primary source by any standard. He's not "close to an event", he's not "directly involved" and he doesn't offer "an insider's view". No offense meant, but - have you read it? Korny O&#39;Near (talk)


 * The event in question is interpreting Krugman's article as relating to the parable. He's certainly a primary source. A.Prock (talk) 17:15, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

So Krugman is a primary source, and Williams, in writing about him, is also a primary source? Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 17:27, 27 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Krugman never mentions the parable. He can't be a primary source with respect to it. A.Prock (talk) 17:30, 27 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Fine. I still think you have a complete misunderstanding of "primary source". It basically covers people who have directly experienced something. Analysts who provide commentary, by synthesizing events and views from different places, are, almost by definition, secondary sources. Korny O&#39;Near (talk)


 * Ok, I'll remove the section. Wikipedia shouldn't use unreliable primary sources as the basis for a section.  If you can come up with some reliable secondary sources, we can include the section. A.Prock (talk) 18:16, 27 May 2010 (UTC)


 * These are reliable (and notable) secondary sources, by any standard. Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 21:48, 27 May 2010 (UTC)


 * They are certainly primary, and op-ed columns are generally not considered reliable about anything but opinion. A.Prock (talk) 22:44, 27 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I assume you mean they certainly *are* primary? In any case, opinion is exactly what they're being used to illustrate here. Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 22:54, 27 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, they are primary sources for op-ed columnists opinion. A.Prock (talk) 23:54, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

By that limited view of things, could anything go into this article? After all, the original parable and interpretation come from a "primary source" (Bastiat), and all other commentary on it is opinion from other "primary sources". And here's a related question: should the opinions of commentators be removed entirely? Right now Wikipedia is full of them. Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 14:07, 28 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what you're arguing here. Please refer to WP:PRIMARY: Our policy: Primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them.  Currently, the sources are being misused to insert a non-notable petty squabble between pundits. From WP:PRIMARY again: Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation.  The op-ed commentaries do not constitute reliable secondary sources with respect to someone else editorial. A.Prock (talk) 16:32, 28 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm arguing that commentary written by a commentator is not a primary source at all; and I'm using a reductio ad absurdum argument to try to prove it. Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 18:07, 28 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Please refer to WP:PRIMARY instead of using RAA arguments on straw men. A.Prock (talk) 18:19, 28 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I did refer to WP:PRIMARY - it describes a primary source (correctly) as someone who's "directly involved" or "close to an event" - which is not the case here. Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 19:47, 28 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The event this section discusses is describing one op-ed columnist's article as relating to the Parable of the Broken Window. All the op-ed cites in this section are primary sources.  Likewise, none of the sources are reliable in this context either. A.Prock (talk) 20:13, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Let me try another tack: how do you feel about Wikipedia quoting movie reviews? After all, by your reasoning, those are all just unreliable primary sources too. Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 02:56, 1 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The tack that would be most constructive would be discussing the content in question, and referring to policy articles. A.Prock (talk) 04:09, 1 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I am, and have been; but you seem to be suffering from a misunderstanding of primary sources and what "events" are, that I'm trying to assuage, or at least get to the bottom of. So, how would you answer the question? To me it's an analogous situation: in both cases, noted, professional commentators are offering their opinions about something in their field of expertise. Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 16:05, 1 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I am not under any kind of misunderstanding. If you want to discuss the content, or the policy, then by all means do so.  Op-eds are only reliable with respect to the author's opinion, not other people's.  The event in question was characterizing Krugman's editorial as relating to the parable.  A.Prock (talk) 16:20, 1 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Aha, now I think we're getting somewhere. The issue here isn't whether Williams and Goldberg think Krugman believes in the broken window fallacy - which, as you note, only Krugman can tell us; the issue is whether the column he wrote is an example of that fallacy, which is perfectly valid for them to express an opinion on, since the source text is there for all to see. Just like it would be valid to quote, say, a movie critic calling a certain film a horror film, even if the film's director doesn't believe that it's a horror film. Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 17:22, 1 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, they are primary sources for that interpretation "event". A.Prock (talk) 17:24, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

So it wouldn't be valid to quote a movie critic who disagrees with a film's director? Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 18:00, 1 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Please stick to content relevant to this page. A.Prock (talk) 18:06, 1 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Sticking to the content seems to have brought us to an impasse, so I'm using an analogy to try to clarify the situation. Why not just humor me and answer the question? Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 18:19, 1 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I see you've re-added the section. I'll be removing it in due course unless you can explain why this should be included.  This time, please try to stick to the content. aprock (talk) 15:59, 7 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Sure, very simple: it describes what some notable commentators consider a modern-day instance of the broken windows fallacy. Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 18:49, 8 June 2010 (UTC)


 * It's not clear to me that the commentators in question are notable. Likewise, it's pretty clear that their editorials are not notable here.  There are no secondary sources supporting or discussing their interpretation.  Including a s/he said based purely on primary sources is not appropriate. aprock (talk) 23:50, 8 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Let me try another question, then: Henry Hazlitt is quoted repeatedly in the article, though he's just another person stating his opinion. Should he be removed as well? Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 15:50, 9 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Let's try to stick to the content in question. If you have concerns about other content, by all means bring them up in a separate section. aprock (talk) 19:32, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Are you serious? I keep bringing up questions that I think directly relate to how best to interpret the Wikipedia guidelines, and you keep ignoring them because they don't mention the exact content in question. It's like arguing with a computer. This last question, I thought, was the most relevant of all - I would think the vast majority of people who know about the parable of the broken window would agree that Henry Hazlitt could or should be mentioned in conjunction with it, and yet it would appear that by your reasoning, he doesn't belong in the article. You don't see how that presents a challenge to your view of the guidelines? Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 20:24, 9 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes I'm serious. This isn't about interpreting Wikipedia guidelines.  If you have an issue with specific guidelines there are notice boards where you can bring your concerns.  aprock (talk) 22:32, 9 June 2010 (UTC)


 * It definitely is about interpreting guidelines. I don't have a problem with the guidelines themselves; it's your idiosyncratic interpretation (like calling someone's op-ed an "event") that's the issue. And I think if you spent the 30 seconds to just answer one of my questions, that would become more obvious. Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 22:42, 9 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Your questions do not relate to the content in question.  The section is about characterising one op-ed as relating to the parable.  The primary sources of that characterisation are the only sources used here.  There are no secondary sources which discuss the event, indicating a lack of notability.  My interpretation is not idiosyncratic, and if you think it is, you might clarify where you think I've gone astray.  As far as I can tell, you don't seem to understand the distinction between primary source, and reliable secondary source.  Suggesting that Williams is a secondary source for this topic when he is the one making the characterisation makes no sense. aprock (talk) 23:04, 9 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I think my applying your logic to the Henry Hazlitt quotes perfectly illustrates where you've gone astray. Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 00:27, 10 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Again, if you aren't interested in discussing the actual content in question, it's going to be difficult for you to make any case for retaining it. With respect to Hazlitt, maybe you're arguing that the notability of his book would be more established if this article included more secondary sources referencing it.  I think that's a reasonable suggestion.  aprock (talk) 01:18, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for responding to the example. So, by your view, is Henry Hazlitt also a primary source? And if so, what would be a notable secondary source for referencing his statements? Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 14:17, 10 June 2010 (UTC)


 * If you have something to say about Hazlitt, then say it. I'm not really interested in playing Aristotle to your Socrates. aprock (talk) 15:37, 10 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Here we go again. If you were just willing to answer my questions, this could have been finished a long time ago. That last question is extremely relevant, because it gets at what I think is the flaw in your reasoning - that you incorrectly view secondary sources as primary sources. Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 16:05, 10 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I suggest that if you were willing to talk about the content in question it would have finished a long time ago. Conversely, if you have a point to make about anything, by all means go ahead.  I'm not here to make your point for you.  If you think the editorials are reliable secondary sources, then what is the primary source?  It can't be Krugman, because he does not mention the parable.  For the editorials to be reliable, they can only speak to what the authors think, for which they are again the primary source.  Clarifying why you think these editorials constitute reliable secondary sources would go a long way to resolving your understanding.  aprock (talk) 16:24, 10 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Fine, I'm perfectly willing to talk about the content. Thanks for your question: the answer is that I think all of these are secondary sources - Bastiat, who was trying to synthesize a variety of political and economic ideas into a single "parable", and Krugman, Goldberg and Williams, who all write opinion pieces synthesizing some events and ideas - none of these opinion pieces contained original reporting. For Goldberg and Williams specifically, there were two main sources: Krugman's opinion piece, and Bastiat's parable. I know you've said that, because they offered their own opinions, these are primary sources - to which my response was that, by that logic, movie and other reviews shouldn't be included in Wikipedia either. To which you didn't respond - but I really wish you would. Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 17:39, 10 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Movie reviews are not op-ed pieces. Wikipedia policy is very clear about how to deal with op-ed pieces .  The subject of the section is terrorism and how it relates to the parable.  The primary sources for this content are the op-ed pieces.  Bastiat does not discuss this. aprock (talk) 06:43, 11 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Okay, now I think we're definitely getting somewhere. Perhaps the real issue here is the title of the section - calling it "Terrorism" definitely could be interpreted as passing off opinion as fact. What if the section were renamed to something like "Alleged instances of the broken-windows fallacy"? Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 14:17, 11 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Renaming the section would not resolve any of the sourcing issues. aprock (talk) 16:26, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Surely the burden of proof is a lot lower if the section name doesn't imply that this is an instance of the parable, only that it's alleged to be an instance, no? Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 19:57, 14 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Burden of proof of what? aprock (talk) 20:06, 14 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Burden of proof for the implicit statement the section name makes - "this is an example" vs. "this is an alleged example". Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 20:10, 14 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The issue is using unreliable primary sources as the basis for the entire section. aprock (talk) 20:20, 14 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't understand your point of view. If the article states nothing more than "person A made statement B about person C", surely an opinion item by person A, published in a notable source, making that exact statement, is as reliable as it gets. The issue is not whether statement B is true; it's whether it was made. Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 20:30, 14 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, that is the sort of content we are discussing. There are no reliable secondary sources which demonstrate the notability of this he said/she said. aprock (talk) 20:46, 14 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Okay, I did a little research, and I found a citation that may help to break the impasse: here you can find a paper, written by some academics (click on "One-Click Download" to see it), that quotes Williams' critique of Krugman (actually it seems to be a quote from an earlier version of this Wikipedia article). What do you say to that as a reference? Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 21:28, 14 June 2010 (UTC)


 * A footnote quoting wikipedia hardly seems like a rationale for including that quote in wikipedia. This seems rather circular to me.  It's also not clear that an unpublished draft is in any way notable. aprock (talk) 01:06, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I would say the origin of the quote, while interesting, is not relevant - they chose to include that exact snippet, and they presumably stand by its contents. As to the fact that it's a draft paper - is there a Wikipedia guideline that applies at this point, or is that basically a personal opinion? Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 16:50, 15 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what you're saying about snipet origin. Re: draft status: from WP:RS "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources".  See also WP:SPS. aprock (talk) 20:16, 15 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, the origin issue is not that important, since you make a good point about the need for the source to be published. So, we're back to where we started, to an issue of how notable this information is, which I think is a matter of opinion and you think is spelled out in the guidelines. Even if I'm right, though (which I am), it's still a matter of two conflicting opinions, and neither of us is likely to be swayed. So, I'm giving up on this argument, at least for now. But if other people are reading this discussion, or will in the future, they can form their own judgments. Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 23:16, 16 June 2010 (UTC)


 * This discussion is very strange. The section about what Krugman said a few years ago is borderline-not noteworthy, and adds to a general partisan tone which, while it meets Wikipedia's guidelines in this case, seems in poor taste.  However, that discussion certainly passes the smell test for primary and secondary sources.  In this case, Wikipedia would be covering a dispute between columnists who cover the entire controversy--it does not use primary sources to synthesize an original controversy by saying "look, X said this, and here's Y over here saying this," where Y says something without acknowledging X.  Only citing Krugman, and saying this was an example of the broken window fallacy would be a misuse of a primary source.  Citing someone else saying this is an example of the fallacy is a correct use of a source.  A brief quote by Krugman in this case would help clarify things.  I really don't know where aprock is coming from here.  Anyway, the guideline says use common sense.71.16.116.2 (talk) 13:09, 16 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, Williams is a secondary source for what Krugman said. But op-eds are generally only considered reliable w.r.t. the author's view.  In this case, using another op-ed opine on the prosaic intent of another op-ed is misuse not of a primary source, but of an unreliable source. Likewise, secondary sources are generally used to establish notability, so while Krugman's editorial is notable, the commentary on the editorial does not appear to be noteworthy.  In sum:
 * William's op-ed is an unreliable secondary source for Krugman's opinion
 * William's op-ed is a primary source for his interpretation of Krugman's opinion
 * There is no source secondary to William's establishing notability of the "parable" interpretation
 * Common sense suggests that an op-ed he said, she said is not encyclopedic
 * aprock (talk) 22:52, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

By the way, the LvMI created a video about the terrorism/broken window connection. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gG3AKoL0vEs  Tisane  talk/stalk 20:31, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * IIRC, youtube is generally not considered a reliable source. Regardless, the video isn't about terrorism.  aprock (talk) 21:42, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Differing Interpretations
The Differing Interpretations section currently has a flag indicating that there are no citations in that section. This is not (at least currently) the case -- there are four citations in that section, and it seems to my skim that the parts without citations attached are summarization.

I'm cleaning up a couple of typos there, and am going to pull the flag while at it. If you feel that there is a missing citation there, it's probably best to flag the specific points that are uncited, rather than the whole section. Mark7-2 (talk) 18:55, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure that Differing Interpretations is really required or even helpful as a standalone sub-topic. What Keynes explains in The General Theory is not a challenge to the broken window fallacy either explicitly or implicitly. In fact, what he says in the cited sub-section of chapter 10 is actually a prime example of the kind of logic the broken window fallacy is meant to debunk, so to that end this sub-topic has all the appearance of a circular definition. Perhaps the content in this section can be combined into the article to provide a more comprehensive view of how the broken window fallacy is applied to examples, but I propose that this sub-section ultimately be eliminated.

General cleanup
I have begun some of the cleanup needed to improve this article. I cleaned up the contents of the introduction, changed the title of the first sub-topic from 'Theory' to 'The Parable' and cleaned up that sub-topic's contents as well. SouthStExit (talk) 07:02, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

In Popular Culture
A possible addition to the Popular Culture section: The parable reminded me very much of the British comedy duo Flanders and Swann's song "The Gasman Cometh", in which, as a series of botched repair jobs pile up and ever new workmen have to be called in, the refrain goes: "Oh, it all makes work for the working man to do." Which seemed to make perfect sense the first time I heard it - a good example of the common-sense appeal of the fallacy. Lyrics: http://www.iankitching.me.uk/humour/hippo/gas.html 88.90.130.204 (talk) 10:37, 18 March 2011 (UTC)molva

Keynesianism has no place here
Why on earth does an article by its very definition rejecting Keynesianism have Keynesianism in it? Does the Keynesian article have Bastiat in it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.90.3.180 (talk) 17:08, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree. The broken window parable is the definitive repudiation of the idiocy of Keynesianism.  Having this here is like letting the scientologists have a paragraph on the Psychology article.  67.161.2.184 (talk) 09:43, 21 August 2010 (UTC)


 * On the contrary, Keynesianism does not reject the parable of the broken window; it merely asserts that there are circumstances in which its application is limited. In an economy at full employment, Keynes would agree fully with the lesson of the parable. And even in a depressed economy, the broken window's only benefit is to push idle labor into activity. If the same goal can be achieved without breaking the window, everyone is better off. 99.181.230.148 (talk) 16:30, 8 June 2011 (UTC)


 * My understanding is Keynes would argue that the "Broken Window Fallacy" means that "creative destruction" (e.g., by breaking windows so they need to be replaced) is definitely not the most *efficient* way to stimulate economic activity, but often more efficient means of stimulus may not be politically or logistically feasible. For example, building an Interstate Highway System would probably have been a better investment for the US in the early 1940's than all the tanks, planes, ships, and bullets, but the military spending *did* stimulate the economy. Bhosp (talk) 14:13, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

1. The money that went into "pushing idle labor" into repairing the window was taken out of the money that would have went into pushing some other idle labor into doing someone else. That is neutral not a benefit. The level of employment is not relevant.


 * Money that goes into employing idle labor wasn't necessarily being used for employing idle labor elsewhere. This is a particularly topical point in the current economic environment, where vast reserves of private capital sit idle, while labor labor languishes for lack of work.  In such a case taxing the private capital and spending it on employing idle labor is a net economic gain, particularly in light of the multiplicative effects of the wages paid.  (idle capital having no multiplicative effect, meaning leaving capital idle is always an opportunity cost) 69.207.165.59 (talk) 08:39, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

2. Yes you stimulate the economy with govt spending if its done through debt as they do in wars. ...then you spend decades paying off the debt by taxing people which depresses the economy. At the end when all is said and done you are right back where you would have been anyway--minus all that you destroyed. Any gains the country made in that period was the result of people busy creating wealth in the meantime, not the government intervention.


 * Not necessarily. You are forgetting the effect of investments; properly invested capital, financed by debt, will return more than the cost of the debt, making it a net benefit.  Nearly all businesses use debt to finance such investments, and there is no reason why governments should not also.  (examples include schools, bridges, highways, etc.)  69.207.165.59 (talk) 08:41, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Both these arguments seem to ignore the hidden cost. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.155.81.74 (talk) 16:12, 30 August 2011 (UTC)


 * The problem with Keynesian spending is that no two public expenditures would produce the exact same benefit...


 * "This means that the terraces of the Champ-de-Mars are ordered first to be built up and then to be torn down. The great Napoleon, it is said, thought he was doing philanthropic work when he had ditches dug and then filled in. He also said: "What difference does the result make? All we need is to see wealth spread among the laboring classes."" - Bastiat


 * Can planners considering the opportunity costs of other people's money accurately determine the best possible use of limited public funds? Obviously not.  This is because according to Hayek's concept of partial knowledge...there is a significant information disparity between millions and millions of consumers and 535 congresspeople.  We all have some information but nobody has all the information.


 * The only way to guarantee the best possible use of public funds would be to allow taxpayers to directly allocate their taxes. This would force them to consider the opportunity costs of their tax allocation decisions and would produce the efficient allocation of public resources.  Incidentally this is known as pragmatarianism. Xerographica (talk) 11:10, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Unreliable source cited
This article erroneously claims wind power arguments are subject to the broken window fallacy.

The source for this argument 'David R. Henderson, 'Clean' Energy and Disguised Costs, Regulation, Vol. 33, No. 2, Summer 2010 ' is not a reliable source as it is questionable under WP:RS. It is published by the Cato institute which is widely acknowledged as promotional in nature, and also relies heavily on personal opinions. Moreover the article cited 'David R. Henderson, 'Clean' Energy and Disguised Costs, Regulation, Vol. 33, No. 2, Summer 2010' doesn't even mention Bastiat or the Broken Window, it's merely a review of some other work by the Center for American Progress. Hmcst1 (talk) 17:01, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe I'm stupid today, but I can't even figure out what the argument is saying. "Arguments for wind farms and other renewable energy. While the more expensive sources have environmental benefits, the increased "green jobs" are offset by others in the economy. It might be said that this argument ignores the cost of environmental devastation.[11]" It doesn't make sense. Mcdruid (talk) 07:52, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Have removed the argument now as noone has defended it's inclusion, it does not have a proper source as evidenced above. Hmcst1 (talk) 14:52, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Source 7 appears to be an opinion piece, and doesn't follow in any event. (Government projects are not all equivalents of the broken window, needless destruction that is replaced at cost to restore it to the original condition. Rather, they are typically investments that produce positive return)  I'll wait for any any objections before removing it. 69.207.165.59 (talk) 08:49, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

In light of a lack of objections, I've removed the questionable source. 69.207.165.59 (talk) 23:05, 25 November 2011 (UTC)