Slightly flawed though, one is assuming that, in this case, the baker would of spent his money elsewhere had the hooligan not smashed the window. Also that the baker would no longer be able to afford his new suit as he had to pay the cost for a new window. If he was a good business owner he would some capital spare to cover unexpected costs thus it would of not effected his original spending plans.
@DigitalAmmunition No, you're missing the point. The point is, will the Communist state make better use of my earnings or will the Communist state use my own earnings to grow larger and larger until the sacred fire of my liberties is completely snuffed out? THAT is the point!
@Darlo4me Yeah. The problem that Broken Window tries to solve is the problem of recession where confidence is low, everyone saves, and spending is low (IF everyone including the baker is saving too much). Forcing someone to spend (on broken windows) can help in certain situations, since it gets the cycle going again. The person who the money goes to may perceive themselves as wealthier, and hence be willing to spend more and so on.
WAIT, if taxes didn't exist, sure, people would be able to spend their money on consumer goods etc, BUT this will mean that public works program (roads, bridges, etc) cannot be built. I don't think you can compare government taxation and expenditure with the 'hooligan' example. The government aren't actually breaking or destroying anything, they are merely putting money to a different use. You can argue about whether consumers would've made better use of the money, but thats a different debate.
@keyboardwarrior2011 it's a fallacy to think "because the gov't does it, if the gov't doesn't do it, it wont get done." private road construction has already been tried, it works, and it's better for the environment. roads would be built based on demand plus alternative forms of transportation would likewise compete. nobody wants to buy train tickets because it's free to drive on the highways, but if there were toll booths then more people might ride trains or fly.
What private company or individual will be charitable enough to build public goods like roads, tunnels, bridges, streetlight so that everyone could use them but without necessrily paying. Sure, there are examples such as charging tolls, but imagine how chaotic it would be to have all sorts of roads and bridges built by different people who all charge at different rates and have different rules on them, etc.
You've had your argument blown to pieces by a mere amateur and so you've now resorted to the condescending smokescreen that apparently means one needs to have studied economics to understand basic common sense like this.
If you've truly studied economics and cannot even see the idiocy of what you're suggesting (privatising all public goods such as roads and transportation), you might as well flush your so-called 'degree' down the toilet. Dismal science as usual.
@keyboardwarrior2011 lmao, oh you, you really blew my argument to shreds hahaha. you're asking the wrong questions, if you're concerned about "free-riders" then you'd want to end gov't in all parts of the economy. 1/2 of the people don't pay federal income tax but still benefit from those who do. nearly ALL economists are libertarian and/or anarchist and have promoted private road construction. just do some research and you can find evidence.
Wtf, so suddenly I'm asking the wrong questions am I?
I originally said that the argument of this video itself is a fallacy, because it wrongly compared the government to a hooligan breaking other people's property. It is wrong because, unlike the hooligan, the government aren't actually destroying anything. They are merely taking your money and putting it to a different use. The taxpayer's TV and fridge is still there and working along with all their other stuff.
@keyboardwarrior2011 clearly you don't get it and it's pointless arguing with you. the very fact that the gov't is stealing money out of the private sector and building roads, bridges, etc. and then not charging for it is destructive for the private sector. that's less capital circulating that could create jobs and produce something, even the same thing. it's no different than paying people to dig ditches, and then fill them. it IS destructive, just in a more abstract way, for different people.
It is you who doesn't get it. Its stupid to make the comparison between government spending and 'paying people to dig ditches and then fill them'. Roads and bridges are the very infrustructure of the economy; to make a simple example, how else do you think workers commute to work without roads?
The fact that we don't have to pay road charges isn't destructive as the extra money we have from this are spent on other goods/service - maintaining capital circulation.
@keyboardwarrior2011 I see your point, but some wealth is destroyed since the apparatus set up to collect, decide, and then spend taxes cost money too, but you may really believe that the govt. spend the money they have left so well that if the people used it themselves, they'd actually be worse off, but it is a fallacy to say it IS so (unseen). For all i know public education is so bad for people's health and wallet that most would be better off with no education at all (not measurable).
I agree with you, the whole question about the govt. is whether their decision on money is better than ours. However, this video is not arguing that, it wrongly compares the role of the govt. to the hooligan, and this is what I've been trying to say all along. Where I think you're wrong, is saying that 'some weath is destroyed' by the govt's role. Wealth is never destroyed, I think you're just trying to point out the opportunity cost that govt. intervention has.
@keyboardwarrior2011 Wealth is determined by individual valuation, so when wealth is forcibly transferred, there’s value lost to the taxed and gained by the collector, but it can’t be quantified. Wealth to one, garbage to another. Opportunity cost: the choice is between paying the tax and trying to evade it. Voluntary exchange is +/+, theft/coercion is +/-. How do you justify forcibly taking people's property (money) when you can't know if doing it is "better" (subjective) than the alternative?
Yeah but in the context of this video, we're talking about the combined wealth of society, not individual agents within it. And for society as a whole, wealth is not lost, one agent (consumers) loses it, another (govt) gains it. The question, you're trying to get to, is opportunity cost, and in answer your last Q, well do you suppose its better to leave vital public services like health and defence for people to pay individually? Surely that simply wouldn't work.
@keyboardwarrior2011 Ah yes, the commune... Only problem is your commune no longer has borders. The 'society as a whole' which you're referring to is now global. If you thought Congress didn't hear you over the so-called 'affordable heathcare act' America, just wait until the U.N. or some other such monstrous bureaucracy is making those decisions for you.
@4YHVHdaughter "Sorry Mr. Jacobson, you can't have that heart stent which may add 10 yrs to your life. It's just not practicle, or socially just, when Chaka Khan, Kublai Khan and the whole damn Khan directed commune needs their antivirals."
No thanks pal! ~ it's nothing more than a well devised racket designed to subjegate the Jacobsons of the world.
@keyboardwarrior2011 You could say wealth was destroyed because of opportunity costs. The baker would have had a window and a coat, for the same amount of money he now he only has a window. You could argue that is a loss of wealth.
@keyboardwarrior2011 Taking capital from others, and investing it in something else that the original group who produced the capital did not choose to invest in, creates a false market (an artificial demand for a market that would not otherwise exist).
You're right, but thats not what I'm arguing against. This video equated the government to a hooligan breaking people's property. I argue that is false, because while the govt. taxes you, they don't actually destroy anyone's properties, so society as a whole doesn't lose anything that it originally had before the govt. came to take a bit of money off each person.
@keyboardwarrior2011 Is government not a hooligan when it takes my "bit of money", money I've earned in the pursuit of mine & my family's happiness, and uses it for services that I am adamantly opposed to, such as killing unborn infants, financing the Arab Spring (which WILL backfire in your presumptuous faces), and dumping cash into the same types of unprofitable green energy projects which brought Spain's economy to it's knees?
@4YHVHdaughter Here's what your argument boils down to: I (America) should give more of my money to you (the Communist state) because you know how to spend it better than I. You will use my earnings to finance and support projects, policies, and people who would not otherwise gain a foot hold because America at large has not and would not support/finance them. Such a ruse...
@4YHVHdaughter You are correct ~ government is not a hooligan when it uses my own bit of money to antiquate our most sacred liberty, the First Amendment. At this point government has graduated from hooligan to wily beast. Government has drawn a line in the sand and is now the clearly defined enemy of freedom.
@4YHVHdaughter Is government a hooligan when it uses my 'bit of money' to put weapons in the hands of the Mexican drug cartels in a grand scheme to antiquate my second most sacred liberty, the right to bear arms? No, government is not merely a hooligan. Now government is an unconscionable criminal and the foremost threat to my way of life.
Surely in the baker scenario, the glazier still loses out on potential earnings, thus either way the hooligan hasn't destroyed any wealth, hes merely redistributed it from the baker to the glazier?
@Miycu: not quite. There is money "redistributed" from the *tailor* to the glazier, as the baker would have purchased a suit with the money he must now otherwise use to fix his window. So if we look at this vandalism as the glazier's gain, it is the tailor's loss. But more than simple redistribution, there is an *overall* loss in wealth, as the baker has now only a window (as opposed to a window and a suit).
The initial premise is good, if you assume that the same amount of money would be spent anyways. The problem is that the broken window is not a good comparison to stimulus spending. The broken window scenario requires society to lose something, a window, and the money would be used to fix it. In the stimulus, the money would always be spent, but society always ends up with something, either the luxury goods or repair/new infrastructure. The infrastructure is already broken by use and time.
Breaking a window is just as good for the economy as is purchasing a suit. A service is being utilized and wealth is being circulated. Breaking a window may not be necessarily better than not breaking a window though; destruction isn't the only way to improve the economy, there are even ways in which destruction harms the economy, but creation can also harm the economy (brilliant robots negating human workforce?)
The differences between destruction and creation are not economical but ethical.
@J4m3z1 But let's be consistent - apply that principle logically, and you must think it would be good for the economy to destroy an entire city, since that would create tons of new jobs in construction, cleanup, etc.
You're assuming I believe destruction is necessarily better for economy when actually you must have skipped over when I said in my original comment that it isn't necessarily better. The reason destroying an entire city would be bad for economy is simply because the service that would otherwise be employed to clean up the mess has also been destroyed. The principle here is destruction of objects is good for economy. Destruction of services, isn't.
I was entertained by the explanation and solution of the broken window fallacy. I was not amused when, after about 2:31 the author of this video carried out a blatant hijack of the principle for his own libertarian motives. Absolutely stupid: yes the money spent on public works is a substitute for the potential consumption by the taxpayers, but the video NEVER explains why these public works are worth any less. Which would you rather have - a new fridge or a working police force?
@samcg5 You can't really fault a 3 minute video for not explaining everything in depth. The idea is based off the work of Hazlitt/Bastiat. In "Economics in One Lesson", Hazlitt explains the broken window fallacy and says he isn't claiming that having public sector workers is inherantly bad or anything, merely that it's not CREATING employment, but merely DIVERTING it. He didn't have the police in mind, it refers more to things such as building a new railway to 'create jobs' being flawed.
Great video. What's sad is that this even needs to be explained. What's even sadder is that there are high-paid (usually by "government") so-called "experts" out there trying to dispute this obvious reality. This is something every ten-year-old should already understand, yet most of the country still doesn't get it. Again, great video.
Just because the baker has saved money from not having to spend it on a new window, doesn't mean he will spend that money on something else. He might hoard wealth, and that would provide no economic benefit. Therefore, it's making too much of a blanket statement to call it the "Broken Window Fallacy" because the argument it uses is more of a probabilistic one than a logical one.
@J4m3z1 That logic doesn't work because 'hoarding' wealth isn't bad for the economy. This mostly stems from the thinking that money = wealth, when it does not. Think of it this way. The Baker is working to create goods [wealth] for the community. The community gives him money for that wealth If the Baker keeps that the money, but has given wealth out, he is in effect working for free. The money deflates the communities currency, meaning other people can acquire more wealth.
Interesting point of view; I never thought of goods being wealth instead of money and hoarding earnings as effectively working for free.
But surely if I hoard all my earnings, there is less money circulating in the economy which means fewer goods circulating in the economy (since goods are *usually* exchanged for money). And it's bad for the economy when wealth is static. Ofcourse, it's worse when it's destroyed but at least that destruction will lead to some new motion in wealth.
@J4m3z1 Hoarding money removes it from the money supply. Effectivly deflating the money supply & transfering its perchasing power to everyone else via a decrease in prices. If Bill Gates were to burry his fortune in a hole in the ground forever he would just be giving away his share of societies value.You can not destroy value in society by destroying money, as real wealth remains the same.(unless that money happens to be a good in itself like gold or cattle)
@NecroNick1 But Bill Gates used to support alot of businesses with his money which he no longer does in this scenario. Those businesses now have to find new buyers. So if Bill Gates buried all his money, there would be less circulation of wealth, which can't be good economically. It would be economically better if somebody vandalised Bill Gates' possessions so much that he had to spend all his money on repairs.
Krugman is an evil, lying piece of human excrement. He needs to be put in a small room with padded walls. "could do some economic good" If that were the case buildings would routinely be destroyed. It amazes me that he has the arrogance to say such utter nonsense with a straight face on t.v. Wesley Mouch in the flesh I suppose. Without touching on the human aspect of the tragedy, how can one ignore the amount of business and capital that were destroyed along with the building?
In fairness, there is a little difference between the argument for war and the argument for other public works projects. In a war, as with the broken window, goods are actually destroyed, and thus there is a net loss to society. With public works projects, society still reaps the benefits of whatever the government spends money on. Keynesians argue that there are some situations where the government can spend money more rationally than the market.
@QuatFax That's not to say that I agree with the Keynesians; I am a hardcore market anarchist. But we should characterize their arguments fairly. Keynesian arguments for military spending are completely fallacious; Keynesian arguments for civilian government spending are somewhat more plausible.
The broken window fallacy is best suited to counter arguments against war being an economic stimulator than say public works. When infrastructure is built and maintained, it adds value to society. The question here is whether it is better for individuals alone to decide how to spend or to vote on it. If the consumers spend on foreign exports, the positive effect is less than domestic infrastructure spending.
Idiotic conclusion. Those public projects, according to the video, do produce the same amount of jobs if they were to be created in the private sector due to customer demand.
But that's not the point. The point is when the private sector doesn't roll the econ. wheel & create jobs for those workers, because of stagnated demand by the customer (i.e. econ. uncertainty), then the public projects could grease the econ wheel instead.
As video suggested, they're equal w/ private jobs respectively.
@ninuxy Just because you don't understand it (because it doesn't fit into your preconceived worldview) doesn't mean it was idiotic. Government digging holes and filling them up again does not create wealth or prosperity, no matter how many people are employed. Private sector jobs based on honest supply and demand can and do.
@canfad Quit stalking me on YT. You are again mistaking what I implied, here and on other thread. Government is not digging and refilling a hole. If an infrastructure needs repair or maintenance, then it is hardly what you just described it to be. Perhaps, you need to do away with your cretinous preconceived notion of what government is trying to do and actually quit lending your ears to a bunch of blowhard pundits for once. The point of a bill is to jolt, not to carry the economy indefinitely.
So instead of the glazier earning some money, the tailor does. How is this better overall? What happens when everyone has all the suits they need? The tailor goes out of a job. Enter a new type of hooligan; the suit burner.
@Pumpkinhead77 How's it better? You're not even listening, are you? The baker would've had BOTH a good window and a new suit. You don't care about prosperity?
The problem with this is that people buy products that are imported, from companies that have outsourced long ago to save a couple bucks. There's no doubt that buying products benefits the economy as a whole, but it may not be the Country's.
Public works jobs however, guarantee jobs within the country. The Government does it's part. It's up to the citizens to then buy responsibly, even if it costs a little extra.
This video doesn't seem to realize most rich people stash 90% of their money in bank accounts. Taxed at 15% or 50% they're still going to spend the same amount of money.
when the govt sells bonds the people buying them probably were not going to buy refrigerators. banks and savers. sorry but your bond metaphor thingy doesn't exactly hold true
While the essence of this video might be true in an ideal world, it doesn't happen that way in real life. People may not spend their extra money in times of recession, and even if they spend, the created jobs might not be in line with the poor people, which will take more time for them to adapt. So, ceasing stimuli and subsidies may contribute to more social unbalance that may prevent a society from ever reaching the point of equilibrium.
@catcare201 Hmm I'm not sure saving and investing are the same thing. Saving money in a back account is going to help that bank, but surely it's better to spend that money to give somebody a job, so that they'll spend that money etc etc. Investing money seems like another way to spend money, though it with less (local) economic benefits and more personal financial benefits.
@jonthemagicmelon What do you think that bank does with the money? They don't just put it in a bank vault. Instead, they issue it in loans. Those loans are why you earn interest on savings. The amount of money that a bank issues in loans does not equal their amount of assets, but rather includes a significant portion of those that have money in savings.
Maybe I'm not getting something, but the economy is no worse off because the baker had a broken window. This fallacy only works if we assume that the baker was going to spend his money on something else. But that is not so in other cases. For example, the tailor likes to hoard all the money he makes. A hoodlum then smashes his window. The tailor is forced to spend some of his savings on buying a new window. Thus stimulating the economy. This seems about as fallacious as an egg.
you are assuming that savings does not help the economy. Your point is correct ONLY if savings were kept under a bed etc.. capital accumilation (savings) is the single most important tool in growing business/economy. that is why, as much as we may not like it, we need rich people - because they will save ( and invest) their money and not need to spend it all.
@catcare201 No we do not need "rich people", the 1% rich of today is taking 90% of all capital, while the rest is living of the crumbs that the rich is doeling off to us. A society with inequality of wealth only allows the rich to accumulate power and enslave the rest of the populus as the only means of living becomes to serve the rich.
@lordmetroid Start a business and make some money! If you're going to say that that would be too difficult, you're right. It is difficult. If it were easy, everyone would do it. That's why there's fewer rich people than any other. Stop complaining and make something of yourself.
This is an excellent video. It also destroys the fallacy of taxation and redistribution as a means of stimulating the economy. For instance, redistributed wealth may stimulate certain industries that sell commodities to the poor. However, the money that was taken through taxation (let's say, taken from wealthy business people) would've been invested in the market or stored in banks (which lend money at interest). Thus, the economic gain from redistribution is nil.
This assumes we are at a long term equilibrium with respect to potential output. Given that, in a recession,w e are not, this doesn't begin to address the validity of stimulus spending, lmao.
Regardless of where we are in the macroeconomic cycle, government spending is inherently LESS efficient than free-market spending.
Beit through taxation and spending, or through deficit-borrowing and inflation, any gov't spending in an attempt to stimulate the economy will be a 'waste' of resources as opposed to free market activity.
Consider the cost of Obama's stimulus: $278,000 per job created! Taxpayers could've simply spent that ~$700B privately and created/kept far more jobs!
The broken Windows Theory is altogether something different, it's not economic. It's a theory espoused by the police and cities that basically says that graffitited / vandalized environments become worse as it promotes the appearance that no one cares. If the graffiti is covered over, windows repaired quickly after such acts, it promotes a better environment. This theory actually works. I am not sure what you call the above video - I'm not bagging on it, just confused
@thefink68 they're two different things. You're talking about the criminological theory developed by James Wilson and George Kelling in 1982 having to do with preventing escalation of crime. This video is about the economic parable by Frédéric Bastiat meant to demonstrate to people the need to account for what is unseen
The fallacy in this "fallacy" confuses intention with action, imagined wealth with real.
With apologies to Wittgenstein: To intend to buy something is not to to buy it. Hence it is not possible to buy in one's mind: otherwise thinking one was buying something would be the same thing as buying it.
It also presupposes life and freedom without history. That is, even without vandals, windows do actually get broken, and bridges do not get built merely through a collective wish.
@avastyer It is SURE that you would NOT buy it if your money was taken from you. What this video fails to represent is that War is not made as a means to spur the economy... at least not by rational people.
@WELanning It is sure that you could buy nothing if you had no money. But that is not what's in question here. A choice is not a choice until it it is made, however much we wish to believe otherwise. And I repeat, sometimes windows get broken and new suits have to be put on hold.
The premise of the fallacy presupposes an ahistorical situation that can only be imagined, never lived or chosen. It is pure fantasy, and its personification of social problems, and government, as a vandal is puerile
I'm afraid war is made as a means to spur economies. Rationally too. Even and especially if you think that the rationale is madness. I also think war is madness, but there are plenty of people out there who see it as an opportunity to make a killing. Capitalism thrives on crises. Its driving ethos is based on the profitable exploitation of a situation, a need. That historical situation is bigger than a pleasant ideal of transparent trade in goods and services. Freedom is bigger too.
@avastyer The "prosperity" the US witnessed out of the World War II era was due to sacrifices people made to support the war effort. In making these sacrifices (which were made to reach a goal... winning the war) the economy was able to grow in war production. Once the war was over, the established healthy economy transformed from producing supplies for war into consumer products and services.
@WELanning I've no idea whether this is really true or not. Even if it is, your argument suggests that certain conditions forced certain decisions in the war: people made sacrifices, they made a decision to reach a goal. This is exactly what the fairytale capitalism described in broken window fallacy attempts to deny: the imagined purchase is just as real as the real one, just "unseen". Only the vandal's motivation and the real cost of the wished-for suit - such as cheap labour - are unseen.
@WELanning With this comment, you have undone your own argument because the economy was able to grow in war production (via certain choices; ie not selfishly buying a new suit). The "established healthy economy", as you put it, set the course for a period of prosperity. There was a crisis that was helped by war production. This is an argument for investment in capital projects to help lift an economy out of crisis. Like you, I suspect, I'd prefer governments to build bridges than bomb cities.
This is BULLSHIT!!! Just ask HALIBURTON or BLACKWATER!!!! Fuckiing Idiots, so fucking stupid. no, it may not make YOU money but it sure as hell makes the UBER RICH MORE MONEY. Everytime wealth takes a trip to the top 5% it is after some CRISIS!! Fucking Repugnantcans trolling websites to back their BULLSHIT TAX THE POOR POLICIES: FUCKTARDS.
The point about public works in the video just made no sense! Why did the money being spent by the people with jobs stimulate the economy while the money spent by the public workers did not? I'm sorry, but that's just plain stupid.
@zenmetheus Money spent on public works produce goods of lesser value then money spent by taxpayers voluntary. Otherwise they would be produced without any public works programs.
@thinksimon Ummm... no, that still doesn't make any sense. For goodness sake, don't write to me like I'm an idiot! The money was used to build something insanely useful like a power plant or a bridge therefore public works are not a waste of money and secondly you were talking about people buying the farmer's produce, everyone has to eat so even if they only spent their money on food it is still helping the economy because then the farmer can buy those quality goods now.
In other words, you want the window repair guy to starve while you parade around in your new suit that you bought with profits from selling your artery clogging baked goods. Nice.
you have to think of it in terms of currency circulation. you're more likely to decide not to buy the suit than not replace the window. The problem with the economy now is that those who have the money are not spending it. Corporations are sitting on 2 trillion dollars. If only they had some windows to replace.
@raystinsky I don't know where you're getting that, but check this out: There is a direct correlation between most of the recent economic activity and QE2. This means that most of the buying and selling going on is either directly or indirectly related to the money that the fed is pumping into the economy. So what happens in June when this is scheduled to end? Will there be a QE3? If so then how much inflation can we expect? If not, will there be another collapse? so yea, there's hording.
@raystinsky Ok, I got your point. Technically the money is not completely out of circulation. So what? Are you just being desperately contrary or are you do you really have something to say?
@bedspirit If you save for retirement, you depend on companies saving and investing. You don't want them spending all their capital dealing with damage. Saving is good, in spite of what the government tries to foist on us during recessions. The reason you don't get lower prices during recession is due to Keynesian and monetarist economists engineer it away with credit manipulation.
@raystinsky You're more than a little confused. I was talking about real shit. You are pulling a bunch of baloney out of your ass. Do you realize that Keynesian and Monetarists are on opposite ends of the spectrum? Do you really believe that Bernanke is a Monetarist? You think it's good that businesses aren't expanding and hiring because people are saving for retirement? What the hell does that even mean? The only thing I get is that you don't like disasters. NO ONE DOES! WTF?
@bedspirit On opposite ends of the spectrum? Both believe pumping non-backed money into a system will solve a recession. Monetarist think velocity will overcome bad investments and Keynesians think deflation is horrible. Both end up taxing citizens through inflation. Businesses expand when they can if you don't distort the market with falsely low interest rates--the money they "save" through investment benefits anyone with interest bearing accounts (working or not).
@raystinsky At least that made some sense. Just to check to see if I was crazy I googled Bernanke and monetarists and oddly enough I see an article from last week which headlined Monetarists approve of Bernanke. I find this odd as Monetarists believe precisely monitoring the money supply and Bernanke is printing it faster than you can count it. Either I exaggerate qe2 or this was fluff article designed to ease fears of the massive inflation that is coming.
@raystinsky Also amusing was that the article referenced how banks and businesses are hoarding money and they used the word "hoarding". I imagine you'll want to head over there and educate those guys on that one. Monetarists and Keynesians are absolutely on opposite ends of the spectrum but it's valid to argue that both can cause inflation.
@raystinsky It seems to me that we're on the same page about what's going on. While you point out some insignificant benefit of money sitting in an account, I'm sure you'd much rather see unemployment drop and businesses expand. You understand that what the fed is doing is completely f'd up. So what's your beef? We agree. Everybody says corporations are sitting on massive amounts of money, it's not just me. Watching CNBC must drive you crazy.
@bedspirit We are in agreement on all that. If we'd stop with central planning, the businesses could expand, but they really don't know from day to day what the planners are going to do so I don't blame them. It's like GE not paying taxes: the people who set up the game are now complaining that GE played it well.
@averros31415926 Lysenkoism, or in its modern form of Cultural Marxism in the West, has been a lot harder to implement here than in the USSR but do you think that Paul Krugman represents the view of most modern economists? He seems laughably off about certain issues. I don't mean to disparage him but in certain instances he is simply outright wrong.
@raystinsky the repair guy didn't receive any compensation. So any one involved with the manufacture of the glass would see less production. The only difference between the "suit scenario" and the "window scenario" is a shift in where the economic activity is taking place. Now imagine how many bakers will buy the suit anyway or whose financial plans were unaffected by the window repair. One scenario guarantees economic activity while the other offers only potential economic activity.
@raystinsky As you agreed, at worst, destruction keeps commerce at the same exact level and at best it creates more commerce. So the video is wrong when it implies that it decreases economic activity. It doesn't. Krugman wasn't suggesting that we destroy shit just so we can fix it. He said disasters can cause economic good. By that he means more currency can circulate through our economy. You may prefer fridges to bridges or suits to windows, but that's not the point.
@raystinsky Do you really think it's really about a baker, really??? It's about millions of slave laborers in Asia, it's about a plundered international economy. It's about criminal behavior by bankers, hedge fund managers, speculators, and government officials. It's not about a window, it's about smoke and mirrors and if you can't see through it, it's because you don't want to see through it. People with out jobs don't buy bread, no bread, no suit, no shit.
@raystinsky It's not about a baker, it's not about the baking industry. It's about the global economy. The metaphor has been taken to the lowest intellectual level because finance and economics are difficult subjects that the average American cannot grasp. That's why so many Americans lost their jobs, homes and dreams. 1929 and the current financial crisis had nothing to do with hooligans, unless of course the hooligans are unregulated bankers.
@hollywoodt00 This video made for progressives that support people like Krugman and other Keynesians that can't understand that destroying wealth does not create more wealth.
@ih8ronpaulh8ers You can't really "destroy wealth". Truly wealthy people understand this. They could use their wealth to create jobs and useful products but they don't. Wealthy people are criminals, they exploit labor, they don't pay taxes, they hide their wealth in off shore accounts, they pollute the air, poison the water. They don't buy bread, they don't buy suits or windows. They don't care about you and neither do I.
@hollywoodt00 That's quite a broad brush there buddy. I can't think of many things more pathetic than those who make fake generalizations. What do you consider wealthy? The majority of the top tax bracket pays their taxes in full. Its a tiny fraction of a percent at the very top the don't pay most of their taxes. Taxation is immoral and no one should have to pay taxes. Taxation is form of theft, pure and simple. All of the "wealthy" people I know are very charitable and friendly.
well, most of the so-called "liberals" are patently incapable of understanding things an average third-grader can easily grasp. apparently it takes a lot of education to fry one's brain so completely.
@thejayjayjay I didn't deny that something good could come from taxes. I'm just pointing out the connection between the broken window and taxes. You should demonstrate how the two are different to the baker. On one hand, he has his window broken, on the other hand he has his money taken away from him.
@JoelYrick - The baker has a very small amount of money taken away from him. The baker's delivery boy, even less. The banker pays a large amount of money, because of course, he makes a very large amount of money from the commerce in the town. For their money, everybody in town gets a police officer, who protects them from the people in the next town over, who are notorious pickpockets. Now the baker and the banker have both saved money on their security costs by sharing them (proportionately).
@JoelYrick I might add that, the more advanced the town or city, the more advanced the shared needs of the people in it. Therefore, a higher level of cooperation is needed. The analogy town doesn't need a swat team, but Chicago does. The analogy town probably doesn't need a Food and Drug Administration, but you can sure as hell bet the United States does. Taxes are totally necessary. The only issue is, the wealthy use their influence to try and avoid paying their fair share, and it's working.
@thejayjayjay Having someone take your wealth in taxes is like having someone break your window. Just because it is done with good intentions to stimulate doesn't mean that it doesn't cause you and everyone harm.
@JoelYrick It sounds like somebody wants to live in a country without police and fire departments, without stop lights at intersections, and without building codes or health codes, or anybody to enforce them.
@thejayjayjay You're falling into yet another fallacy. It goes something like this - "The government currently provides X. Therefore, if there is no government, nobody will provide X."
Do you really think that in a free society there would be no demand for things like fire/emergency services? If there is a demand for that service, won't individuals voluntarily subscribe to organizations that provide them? I know I sure as hell would...
@cjrsoccer1 as a person who studies history, I can actually speak to the fact that private-sector firefighting has been used in the past, and does not work well. You should have thought of that already, considering a conservative state recently had a major headline about their opt-in fire service... but historically there is even more evidence. Try it out and you'll find it's very difficult to put out only the fires of your customers, especially without having the fire spread to other buildings.
@thejayjayjay All snark aside, I wouldn't think it'd be handled on an individual basis. I'd think it would be handled via private contracting with neighborhood associations, not individual homeowners. Sort of the way landscaping services are, or private security for gated communities. That takes care of the "spreading" problem, and the tangential 'free-rider / opt-in' sort of problems you're talking about.
@hayekian this video hasn't gone viral because it is propaganda serving the interests of billionaires. people (present company excluded of course) are too smart to fall for these lies.
@thejayjayjay What you fail to recognize is that a lot of this stimulus money spending is what enriches these billionaires! All these big miltary, education and health corporations come to congress and say, "Spend on this project, it will help the economy!" When congress falls for it, we are forced to redirect our money to these products produced by these self serving corporations. and then we can't spend as much in other areas. Think about it.
@tacitus7 yes, but the fact that stimulus spending is misdirected to billionaires is no reason to back policies that cut taxes in the name of cutting spending. The problem lies in rhetoric which acts as if "cutting taxes" or "raising taxes" are across-the-board actions with no variation. Changing the tax structure isn't as simple as raising or cutting, and simplifying it down to "taxes bad, spending bad" is not just patronizing, it's inaccurate. You can't use a shiv to sew a button.
@thejayjayjay I could agree with you in part, if taxes were low and we truly needed to raise taxes. The truth is the wealthy pay a larger percentage and amount of their income than the rest of us do. I would however like to see a simplification of the tax code...no tax shelters etc, just a simple flat tax. I could see a few percentage more for those making over say, 250,000. Still, the problem is too much money going to government and then it being taken by the powerful, as always happens.
@tacitus7 I guess you missed the fact that GE actually paid no taxes last year, and got a major refund? Or the fact that Bank of America paid no taxes? Or dozens of others. 250,000 is a silly number. Those people are paying plenty. It's people making over 1,000,000 who really aren't paying enough. We'd all like to see a simplification of the tax code, but a flat tax is a joke. How could you possibly justify taking the same percentage from a single mom working at IHOP and a CEO making millions?
I guess the point of the video is that GE is going to use its ten million dollar tax refund to buy surf boards, thereby stimulating the economy? This video is absolutely stupid.
@thejayjayjay No, you're absolutely stupid if you cannot grasp the point, which is simply that destruction and calamity never result in a net gain in economic productivity.
@PongGod - How is taxation and stimulus spending "destruction and calamity?" Clearly, the video says that when people pay taxes and those taxes go to build construction projects, that is the same as when a kid throws a brick through a window and the shop owner has to repair it.
@thejayjayjay They are presenting two different variations of the same economic fallacy. Starting at 2:30 they begin explaining how this fallacious argument is used by ignorant and/or deceptive politicians to claim that they are CREATING jobs through their public works programs. But, there is not truly any NET increase to jobs because they are simply diverting wealth from the hands of the citizens into uses of their own choosing. At best, this represents no net change, but is actually worse.
@PongGod (con't) It's worse because the citizens are deprived of the opportunity to use their wealth in ways they deem best for themselves, rather than politicians and bureaucrats (who presume to know what's best for everyone else) spending it for them. Besides, such coercive programs are notoriously wasteful, which is to be expected in any situation involving the spending of other people's money.
@PongGod that is absurd. There are certain tasks which only public works programs can accomplish. The interstate highway system DID in fact create jobs. No investor would have spent money on building thorough interstate transit system. No group of individual investors would have pooled money together for such a project. And yet the interstate highway created a boom of shipping and tourism that created demand for more goods and services all around the country. That's a positive net change, bitch.
Slightly flawed though, one is assuming that, in this case, the baker would of spent his money elsewhere had the hooligan not smashed the window. Also that the baker would no longer be able to afford his new suit as he had to pay the cost for a new window. If he was a good business owner he would some capital spare to cover unexpected costs thus it would of not effected his original spending plans.
Darlo4me 2 months ago
@Darlo4me I think that misses the point. It's regardless of "if the baker had the capital" or not. The point is the net effect.
DigitalAmmunition 2 months ago
@DigitalAmmunition No, you're missing the point. The point is, will the Communist state make better use of my earnings or will the Communist state use my own earnings to grow larger and larger until the sacred fire of my liberties is completely snuffed out? THAT is the point!
4YHVHdaughter 2 weeks ago
@Darlo4me Yeah. The problem that Broken Window tries to solve is the problem of recession where confidence is low, everyone saves, and spending is low (IF everyone including the baker is saving too much). Forcing someone to spend (on broken windows) can help in certain situations, since it gets the cycle going again. The person who the money goes to may perceive themselves as wealthier, and hence be willing to spend more and so on.
DanielYHu 3 weeks ago
WAIT, if taxes didn't exist, sure, people would be able to spend their money on consumer goods etc, BUT this will mean that public works program (roads, bridges, etc) cannot be built. I don't think you can compare government taxation and expenditure with the 'hooligan' example. The government aren't actually breaking or destroying anything, they are merely putting money to a different use. You can argue about whether consumers would've made better use of the money, but thats a different debate.
keyboardwarrior2011 2 months ago
@keyboardwarrior2011 it's a fallacy to think "because the gov't does it, if the gov't doesn't do it, it wont get done." private road construction has already been tried, it works, and it's better for the environment. roads would be built based on demand plus alternative forms of transportation would likewise compete. nobody wants to buy train tickets because it's free to drive on the highways, but if there were toll booths then more people might ride trains or fly.
HanStanwell 2 months ago
@HanStanwell
Ever heard of the 'free-rider' problem?
What private company or individual will be charitable enough to build public goods like roads, tunnels, bridges, streetlight so that everyone could use them but without necessrily paying. Sure, there are examples such as charging tolls, but imagine how chaotic it would be to have all sorts of roads and bridges built by different people who all charge at different rates and have different rules on them, etc.
keyboardwarrior2011 2 months ago
@keyboardwarrior2011 you clearly have never studied economics so I shouldn't even debate with you since you wont comprehend.
HanStanwell 2 months ago
@HanStanwell
You've had your argument blown to pieces by a mere amateur and so you've now resorted to the condescending smokescreen that apparently means one needs to have studied economics to understand basic common sense like this.
If you've truly studied economics and cannot even see the idiocy of what you're suggesting (privatising all public goods such as roads and transportation), you might as well flush your so-called 'degree' down the toilet. Dismal science as usual.
keyboardwarrior2011 2 months ago
@keyboardwarrior2011 lmao, oh you, you really blew my argument to shreds hahaha. you're asking the wrong questions, if you're concerned about "free-riders" then you'd want to end gov't in all parts of the economy. 1/2 of the people don't pay federal income tax but still benefit from those who do. nearly ALL economists are libertarian and/or anarchist and have promoted private road construction. just do some research and you can find evidence.
HanStanwell 2 months ago
@HanStanwell
Wtf, so suddenly I'm asking the wrong questions am I?
I originally said that the argument of this video itself is a fallacy, because it wrongly compared the government to a hooligan breaking other people's property. It is wrong because, unlike the hooligan, the government aren't actually destroying anything. They are merely taking your money and putting it to a different use. The taxpayer's TV and fridge is still there and working along with all their other stuff.
keyboardwarrior2011 2 months ago
@keyboardwarrior2011 clearly you don't get it and it's pointless arguing with you. the very fact that the gov't is stealing money out of the private sector and building roads, bridges, etc. and then not charging for it is destructive for the private sector. that's less capital circulating that could create jobs and produce something, even the same thing. it's no different than paying people to dig ditches, and then fill them. it IS destructive, just in a more abstract way, for different people.
HanStanwell 2 months ago
@HanStanwell
It is you who doesn't get it. Its stupid to make the comparison between government spending and 'paying people to dig ditches and then fill them'. Roads and bridges are the very infrustructure of the economy; to make a simple example, how else do you think workers commute to work without roads?
The fact that we don't have to pay road charges isn't destructive as the extra money we have from this are spent on other goods/service - maintaining capital circulation.
keyboardwarrior2011 2 months ago
@keyboardwarrior2011 I see your point, but some wealth is destroyed since the apparatus set up to collect, decide, and then spend taxes cost money too, but you may really believe that the govt. spend the money they have left so well that if the people used it themselves, they'd actually be worse off, but it is a fallacy to say it IS so (unseen). For all i know public education is so bad for people's health and wallet that most would be better off with no education at all (not measurable).
fleskebille 1 month ago
@fleskebille
I agree with you, the whole question about the govt. is whether their decision on money is better than ours. However, this video is not arguing that, it wrongly compares the role of the govt. to the hooligan, and this is what I've been trying to say all along. Where I think you're wrong, is saying that 'some weath is destroyed' by the govt's role. Wealth is never destroyed, I think you're just trying to point out the opportunity cost that govt. intervention has.
keyboardwarrior2011 1 month ago
@keyboardwarrior2011 Wealth is determined by individual valuation, so when wealth is forcibly transferred, there’s value lost to the taxed and gained by the collector, but it can’t be quantified. Wealth to one, garbage to another. Opportunity cost: the choice is between paying the tax and trying to evade it. Voluntary exchange is +/+, theft/coercion is +/-. How do you justify forcibly taking people's property (money) when you can't know if doing it is "better" (subjective) than the alternative?
fleskebille 1 month ago
@fleskebille
Yeah but in the context of this video, we're talking about the combined wealth of society, not individual agents within it. And for society as a whole, wealth is not lost, one agent (consumers) loses it, another (govt) gains it. The question, you're trying to get to, is opportunity cost, and in answer your last Q, well do you suppose its better to leave vital public services like health and defence for people to pay individually? Surely that simply wouldn't work.
keyboardwarrior2011 1 month ago
@keyboardwarrior2011 Ah yes, the commune... Only problem is your commune no longer has borders. The 'society as a whole' which you're referring to is now global. If you thought Congress didn't hear you over the so-called 'affordable heathcare act' America, just wait until the U.N. or some other such monstrous bureaucracy is making those decisions for you.
4YHVHdaughter 2 weeks ago
@4YHVHdaughter "Sorry Mr. Jacobson, you can't have that heart stent which may add 10 yrs to your life. It's just not practicle, or socially just, when Chaka Khan, Kublai Khan and the whole damn Khan directed commune needs their antivirals."
No thanks pal! ~ it's nothing more than a well devised racket designed to subjegate the Jacobsons of the world.
4YHVHdaughter 2 weeks ago
@keyboardwarrior2011 You could say wealth was destroyed because of opportunity costs. The baker would have had a window and a coat, for the same amount of money he now he only has a window. You could argue that is a loss of wealth.
cooljj82 2 weeks ago
@keyboardwarrior2011 Taking capital from others, and investing it in something else that the original group who produced the capital did not choose to invest in, creates a false market (an artificial demand for a market that would not otherwise exist).
DigitalAmmunition 2 months ago
@DigitalAmmunition
You're right, but thats not what I'm arguing against. This video equated the government to a hooligan breaking people's property. I argue that is false, because while the govt. taxes you, they don't actually destroy anyone's properties, so society as a whole doesn't lose anything that it originally had before the govt. came to take a bit of money off each person.
keyboardwarrior2011 2 months ago
@keyboardwarrior2011 Is government not a hooligan when it takes my "bit of money", money I've earned in the pursuit of mine & my family's happiness, and uses it for services that I am adamantly opposed to, such as killing unborn infants, financing the Arab Spring (which WILL backfire in your presumptuous faces), and dumping cash into the same types of unprofitable green energy projects which brought Spain's economy to it's knees?
4YHVHdaughter 2 weeks ago
@4YHVHdaughter Here's what your argument boils down to: I (America) should give more of my money to you (the Communist state) because you know how to spend it better than I. You will use my earnings to finance and support projects, policies, and people who would not otherwise gain a foot hold because America at large has not and would not support/finance them. Such a ruse...
4YHVHdaughter 2 weeks ago
@4YHVHdaughter You are correct ~ government is not a hooligan when it uses my own bit of money to antiquate our most sacred liberty, the First Amendment. At this point government has graduated from hooligan to wily beast. Government has drawn a line in the sand and is now the clearly defined enemy of freedom.
4YHVHdaughter 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@4YHVHdaughter Is government a hooligan when it uses my 'bit of money' to put weapons in the hands of the Mexican drug cartels in a grand scheme to antiquate my second most sacred liberty, the right to bear arms? No, government is not merely a hooligan. Now government is an unconscionable criminal and the foremost threat to my way of life.
4YHVHdaughter 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
4YHVHdaughter 2 weeks ago
Surely in the baker scenario, the glazier still loses out on potential earnings, thus either way the hooligan hasn't destroyed any wealth, hes merely redistributed it from the baker to the glazier?
Miycu 2 months ago
@Miycu: not quite. There is money "redistributed" from the *tailor* to the glazier, as the baker would have purchased a suit with the money he must now otherwise use to fix his window. So if we look at this vandalism as the glazier's gain, it is the tailor's loss. But more than simple redistribution, there is an *overall* loss in wealth, as the baker has now only a window (as opposed to a window and a suit).
Destruction is: destruction of wealth.
donathos 2 months ago
The initial premise is good, if you assume that the same amount of money would be spent anyways. The problem is that the broken window is not a good comparison to stimulus spending. The broken window scenario requires society to lose something, a window, and the money would be used to fix it. In the stimulus, the money would always be spent, but society always ends up with something, either the luxury goods or repair/new infrastructure. The infrastructure is already broken by use and time.
LycanAmyral 2 months ago
Breaking a window is just as good for the economy as is purchasing a suit. A service is being utilized and wealth is being circulated. Breaking a window may not be necessarily better than not breaking a window though; destruction isn't the only way to improve the economy, there are even ways in which destruction harms the economy, but creation can also harm the economy (brilliant robots negating human workforce?)
The differences between destruction and creation are not economical but ethical.
J4m3z1 2 months ago
@J4m3z1 But let's be consistent - apply that principle logically, and you must think it would be good for the economy to destroy an entire city, since that would create tons of new jobs in construction, cleanup, etc.
graaaaaagh 2 months ago
@graaaaaagh
You're assuming I believe destruction is necessarily better for economy when actually you must have skipped over when I said in my original comment that it isn't necessarily better. The reason destroying an entire city would be bad for economy is simply because the service that would otherwise be employed to clean up the mess has also been destroyed. The principle here is destruction of objects is good for economy. Destruction of services, isn't.
J4m3z1 1 month ago
Very true, but the money spent on war goes to big corporations like Lockheed Martin and Halliburton instead of local economies. That's the problem.
Promotechangenow 2 months ago
You quoted Hazlitt hehe
Zimnyification 2 months ago
@Zimnyification Though I'm sure he doesn't mind...
Zimnyification 2 months ago
So simple. So true. Yet still, people don't get it. Thanks for posting.
PistolPackingPatriot 3 months ago
I was entertained by the explanation and solution of the broken window fallacy. I was not amused when, after about 2:31 the author of this video carried out a blatant hijack of the principle for his own libertarian motives. Absolutely stupid: yes the money spent on public works is a substitute for the potential consumption by the taxpayers, but the video NEVER explains why these public works are worth any less. Which would you rather have - a new fridge or a working police force?
samcg5 3 months ago
@samcg5 You can't really fault a 3 minute video for not explaining everything in depth. The idea is based off the work of Hazlitt/Bastiat. In "Economics in One Lesson", Hazlitt explains the broken window fallacy and says he isn't claiming that having public sector workers is inherantly bad or anything, merely that it's not CREATING employment, but merely DIVERTING it. He didn't have the police in mind, it refers more to things such as building a new railway to 'create jobs' being flawed.
CandyFlipper1 3 months ago
Great video. What's sad is that this even needs to be explained. What's even sadder is that there are high-paid (usually by "government") so-called "experts" out there trying to dispute this obvious reality. This is something every ten-year-old should already understand, yet most of the country still doesn't get it. Again, great video.
LarkenRose 3 months ago 2
Just because the baker has saved money from not having to spend it on a new window, doesn't mean he will spend that money on something else. He might hoard wealth, and that would provide no economic benefit. Therefore, it's making too much of a blanket statement to call it the "Broken Window Fallacy" because the argument it uses is more of a probabilistic one than a logical one.
J4m3z1 3 months ago
@J4m3z1 That logic doesn't work because 'hoarding' wealth isn't bad for the economy. This mostly stems from the thinking that money = wealth, when it does not. Think of it this way. The Baker is working to create goods [wealth] for the community. The community gives him money for that wealth If the Baker keeps that the money, but has given wealth out, he is in effect working for free. The money deflates the communities currency, meaning other people can acquire more wealth.
MakarisX 3 months ago
@MakarisX Also, by the Baker not spending his money, he lowers demand. Lowering prices and helping the economy out that way, too.
In essence, 'Hoarding Money = Bad' is just another fallacy.
MakarisX 3 months ago
@MakarisX
Interesting point of view; I never thought of goods being wealth instead of money and hoarding earnings as effectively working for free.
But surely if I hoard all my earnings, there is less money circulating in the economy which means fewer goods circulating in the economy (since goods are *usually* exchanged for money). And it's bad for the economy when wealth is static. Ofcourse, it's worse when it's destroyed but at least that destruction will lead to some new motion in wealth.
J4m3z1 3 months ago
@J4m3z1 Hoarding money removes it from the money supply. Effectivly deflating the money supply & transfering its perchasing power to everyone else via a decrease in prices. If Bill Gates were to burry his fortune in a hole in the ground forever he would just be giving away his share of societies value.You can not destroy value in society by destroying money, as real wealth remains the same.(unless that money happens to be a good in itself like gold or cattle)
NecroNick1 2 months ago
@NecroNick1 But Bill Gates used to support alot of businesses with his money which he no longer does in this scenario. Those businesses now have to find new buyers. So if Bill Gates buried all his money, there would be less circulation of wealth, which can't be good economically. It would be economically better if somebody vandalised Bill Gates' possessions so much that he had to spend all his money on repairs.
J4m3z1 2 months ago
Krugman is an evil, lying piece of human excrement. He needs to be put in a small room with padded walls. "could do some economic good" If that were the case buildings would routinely be destroyed. It amazes me that he has the arrogance to say such utter nonsense with a straight face on t.v. Wesley Mouch in the flesh I suppose. Without touching on the human aspect of the tragedy, how can one ignore the amount of business and capital that were destroyed along with the building?
swoldier1016 3 months ago
Businesses that were producing things, employing people, and adding to the economy. Is the man truly insane not to see this.
swoldier1016 3 months ago
In fairness, there is a little difference between the argument for war and the argument for other public works projects. In a war, as with the broken window, goods are actually destroyed, and thus there is a net loss to society. With public works projects, society still reaps the benefits of whatever the government spends money on. Keynesians argue that there are some situations where the government can spend money more rationally than the market.
QuatFax 3 months ago
@QuatFax That's not to say that I agree with the Keynesians; I am a hardcore market anarchist. But we should characterize their arguments fairly. Keynesian arguments for military spending are completely fallacious; Keynesian arguments for civilian government spending are somewhat more plausible.
QuatFax 3 months ago
The broken window fallacy is best suited to counter arguments against war being an economic stimulator than say public works. When infrastructure is built and maintained, it adds value to society. The question here is whether it is better for individuals alone to decide how to spend or to vote on it. If the consumers spend on foreign exports, the positive effect is less than domestic infrastructure spending.
richardhutnik 3 months ago
Very informative video! And well made too, well done.
TheLunaDivider112 4 months ago
Really, Really, Really well done. Thank you!!!
I am going to send this video to all my family and friends.
Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.
Ron Paul 2012!!!!
derek2010x 5 months ago
Idiotic conclusion. Those public projects, according to the video, do produce the same amount of jobs if they were to be created in the private sector due to customer demand.
But that's not the point. The point is when the private sector doesn't roll the econ. wheel & create jobs for those workers, because of stagnated demand by the customer (i.e. econ. uncertainty), then the public projects could grease the econ wheel instead.
As video suggested, they're equal w/ private jobs respectively.
ninuxy 5 months ago
@ninuxy Just because you don't understand it (because it doesn't fit into your preconceived worldview) doesn't mean it was idiotic. Government digging holes and filling them up again does not create wealth or prosperity, no matter how many people are employed. Private sector jobs based on honest supply and demand can and do.
canofsand 4 months ago in playlist More videos from samselikoff
@canfad Quit stalking me on YT. You are again mistaking what I implied, here and on other thread. Government is not digging and refilling a hole. If an infrastructure needs repair or maintenance, then it is hardly what you just described it to be. Perhaps, you need to do away with your cretinous preconceived notion of what government is trying to do and actually quit lending your ears to a bunch of blowhard pundits for once. The point of a bill is to jolt, not to carry the economy indefinitely.
ninuxy 4 months ago
Comment removed
ninuxy 5 months ago
So instead of the glazier earning some money, the tailor does. How is this better overall? What happens when everyone has all the suits they need? The tailor goes out of a job. Enter a new type of hooligan; the suit burner.
Pumpkinhead77 5 months ago
@Pumpkinhead77 How's it better? You're not even listening, are you? The baker would've had BOTH a good window and a new suit. You don't care about prosperity?
canofsand 4 months ago in playlist More videos from samselikoff
The problem with this is that people buy products that are imported, from companies that have outsourced long ago to save a couple bucks. There's no doubt that buying products benefits the economy as a whole, but it may not be the Country's.
Public works jobs however, guarantee jobs within the country. The Government does it's part. It's up to the citizens to then buy responsibly, even if it costs a little extra.
MrChyrch 5 months ago
This video doesn't seem to realize most rich people stash 90% of their money in bank accounts. Taxed at 15% or 50% they're still going to spend the same amount of money.
Kitteh2006 5 months ago
banks don't lend money. they lend bank credit.
rodneyorondeaujr 6 months ago
when the govt sells bonds the people buying them probably were not going to buy refrigerators. banks and savers. sorry but your bond metaphor thingy doesn't exactly hold true
rodneyorondeaujr 6 months ago
Comment removed
gdbalck 6 months ago
@samselikoff: Have you thought of doing a similar video on the Candlemakers' Petition?
benrudin 6 months ago
that must be why Irene is stimulating the economy...
/sarc
711wido 6 months ago
PLEASE dial down the volume on the music - it's supposed to be BACKGROUND music! Distracts me from the content, which is quite goo.
lesstx 6 months ago
While the essence of this video might be true in an ideal world, it doesn't happen that way in real life. People may not spend their extra money in times of recession, and even if they spend, the created jobs might not be in line with the poor people, which will take more time for them to adapt. So, ceasing stimuli and subsidies may contribute to more social unbalance that may prevent a society from ever reaching the point of equilibrium.
mmoneib 6 months ago
@catcare201 Hmm I'm not sure saving and investing are the same thing. Saving money in a back account is going to help that bank, but surely it's better to spend that money to give somebody a job, so that they'll spend that money etc etc. Investing money seems like another way to spend money, though it with less (local) economic benefits and more personal financial benefits.
jonthemagicmelon 6 months ago
@jonthemagicmelon People save in order to spend later. Saving is good because that enables investments of greater magnitudes.
lordmetroid 6 months ago
@jonthemagicmelon What do you think that bank does with the money? They don't just put it in a bank vault. Instead, they issue it in loans. Those loans are why you earn interest on savings. The amount of money that a bank issues in loans does not equal their amount of assets, but rather includes a significant portion of those that have money in savings.
711wido 6 months ago
@711wido Yeah, ok. I'm not sure what you are trying to say here, i.e. what the relevance is.
jonthemagicmelon 6 months ago
Maybe I'm not getting something, but the economy is no worse off because the baker had a broken window. This fallacy only works if we assume that the baker was going to spend his money on something else. But that is not so in other cases. For example, the tailor likes to hoard all the money he makes. A hoodlum then smashes his window. The tailor is forced to spend some of his savings on buying a new window. Thus stimulating the economy. This seems about as fallacious as an egg.
jonthemagicmelon 6 months ago
@jonthemagicmelon
you are assuming that savings does not help the economy. Your point is correct ONLY if savings were kept under a bed etc.. capital accumilation (savings) is the single most important tool in growing business/economy. that is why, as much as we may not like it, we need rich people - because they will save ( and invest) their money and not need to spend it all.
catcare201 6 months ago
@catcare201 No we do not need "rich people", the 1% rich of today is taking 90% of all capital, while the rest is living of the crumbs that the rich is doeling off to us. A society with inequality of wealth only allows the rich to accumulate power and enslave the rest of the populus as the only means of living becomes to serve the rich.
lordmetroid 6 months ago
@lordmetroid Start a business and make some money! If you're going to say that that would be too difficult, you're right. It is difficult. If it were easy, everyone would do it. That's why there's fewer rich people than any other. Stop complaining and make something of yourself.
adamkajones 6 months ago
This is an excellent video. It also destroys the fallacy of taxation and redistribution as a means of stimulating the economy. For instance, redistributed wealth may stimulate certain industries that sell commodities to the poor. However, the money that was taken through taxation (let's say, taken from wealthy business people) would've been invested in the market or stored in banks (which lend money at interest). Thus, the economic gain from redistribution is nil.
leantom18 6 months ago
Oh my god. This is so much better than without those freaking accents. Thank you.
SirTenenbaum 7 months ago
This assumes we are at a long term equilibrium with respect to potential output. Given that, in a recession,w e are not, this doesn't begin to address the validity of stimulus spending, lmao.
spawk1993 9 months ago 2
@spawk1993
Regardless of where we are in the macroeconomic cycle, government spending is inherently LESS efficient than free-market spending.
Beit through taxation and spending, or through deficit-borrowing and inflation, any gov't spending in an attempt to stimulate the economy will be a 'waste' of resources as opposed to free market activity.
Consider the cost of Obama's stimulus: $278,000 per job created! Taxpayers could've simply spent that ~$700B privately and created/kept far more jobs!
alexwltr 7 months ago
The broken Windows Theory is altogether something different, it's not economic. It's a theory espoused by the police and cities that basically says that graffitited / vandalized environments become worse as it promotes the appearance that no one cares. If the graffiti is covered over, windows repaired quickly after such acts, it promotes a better environment. This theory actually works. I am not sure what you call the above video - I'm not bagging on it, just confused
thefink68 10 months ago
@thefink68 yeah that was why I clicked this at first then i remembered it from before my criminal justice class lol
darris321 9 months ago
@thefink68 they're two different things. You're talking about the criminological theory developed by James Wilson and George Kelling in 1982 having to do with preventing escalation of crime. This video is about the economic parable by Frédéric Bastiat meant to demonstrate to people the need to account for what is unseen
benrudin 6 months ago
Wow, very insightful.
HonorableTheft 10 months ago
great video! what kind of video editor was used to make this?
triplerox 10 months ago
@triplerox After Effects, and a bit of Illustrator
samselikoff 10 months ago
The Broken Window Fallacy = why government spending CANNOT, on net balance, make a society wealthier.
Remember your Bastiat folks. Take into account both what is seen and what is unseen.
vspqbd 11 months ago
The fallacy in this "fallacy" confuses intention with action, imagined wealth with real.
With apologies to Wittgenstein: To intend to buy something is not to to buy it. Hence it is not possible to buy in one's mind: otherwise thinking one was buying something would be the same thing as buying it.
It also presupposes life and freedom without history. That is, even without vandals, windows do actually get broken, and bridges do not get built merely through a collective wish.
Just a thought.
avastyer 11 months ago
@avastyer It is SURE that you would NOT buy it if your money was taken from you. What this video fails to represent is that War is not made as a means to spur the economy... at least not by rational people.
WELanning 10 months ago
@WELanning It is sure that you could buy nothing if you had no money. But that is not what's in question here. A choice is not a choice until it it is made, however much we wish to believe otherwise. And I repeat, sometimes windows get broken and new suits have to be put on hold.
The premise of the fallacy presupposes an ahistorical situation that can only be imagined, never lived or chosen. It is pure fantasy, and its personification of social problems, and government, as a vandal is puerile
avastyer 10 months ago
I'm afraid war is made as a means to spur economies. Rationally too. Even and especially if you think that the rationale is madness. I also think war is madness, but there are plenty of people out there who see it as an opportunity to make a killing. Capitalism thrives on crises. Its driving ethos is based on the profitable exploitation of a situation, a need. That historical situation is bigger than a pleasant ideal of transparent trade in goods and services. Freedom is bigger too.
avastyer 10 months ago
@avastyer The "prosperity" the US witnessed out of the World War II era was due to sacrifices people made to support the war effort. In making these sacrifices (which were made to reach a goal... winning the war) the economy was able to grow in war production. Once the war was over, the established healthy economy transformed from producing supplies for war into consumer products and services.
WELanning 10 months ago
@WELanning I've no idea whether this is really true or not. Even if it is, your argument suggests that certain conditions forced certain decisions in the war: people made sacrifices, they made a decision to reach a goal. This is exactly what the fairytale capitalism described in broken window fallacy attempts to deny: the imagined purchase is just as real as the real one, just "unseen". Only the vandal's motivation and the real cost of the wished-for suit - such as cheap labour - are unseen.
avastyer 10 months ago
@WELanning With this comment, you have undone your own argument because the economy was able to grow in war production (via certain choices; ie not selfishly buying a new suit). The "established healthy economy", as you put it, set the course for a period of prosperity. There was a crisis that was helped by war production. This is an argument for investment in capital projects to help lift an economy out of crisis. Like you, I suspect, I'd prefer governments to build bridges than bomb cities.
avastyer 10 months ago
@avastyer "even without vandals, windows do actually get broken"
Yes, but less frequently!
Viliam1234 10 months ago
Shut off the piano. It is too loud.
IPCC351 11 months ago
Opportunity cost. Right?
ILYIAB 11 months ago
Awesome demo!
JamesBlakeWilliams 11 months ago
This is BULLSHIT!!! Just ask HALIBURTON or BLACKWATER!!!! Fuckiing Idiots, so fucking stupid. no, it may not make YOU money but it sure as hell makes the UBER RICH MORE MONEY. Everytime wealth takes a trip to the top 5% it is after some CRISIS!! Fucking Repugnantcans trolling websites to back their BULLSHIT TAX THE POOR POLICIES: FUCKTARDS.
tenacity0818 11 months ago
@tenacity0818 Did you have any idea what the video was about?
Bowser2398 11 months ago
@Bowser2398 Don' feed la trolls
masonkiller666 11 months ago
@tenacity0818 I believe you mad
masonkiller666 11 months ago
The point about public works in the video just made no sense! Why did the money being spent by the people with jobs stimulate the economy while the money spent by the public workers did not? I'm sorry, but that's just plain stupid.
zenmetheus 11 months ago
@zenmetheus Money spent on public works produce goods of lesser value then money spent by taxpayers voluntary. Otherwise they would be produced without any public works programs.
thinksimon 11 months ago
@thinksimon Ummm... no, that still doesn't make any sense. For goodness sake, don't write to me like I'm an idiot! The money was used to build something insanely useful like a power plant or a bridge therefore public works are not a waste of money and secondly you were talking about people buying the farmer's produce, everyone has to eat so even if they only spent their money on food it is still helping the economy because then the farmer can buy those quality goods now.
zenmetheus 11 months ago
In other words, you want the window repair guy to starve while you parade around in your new suit that you bought with profits from selling your artery clogging baked goods. Nice.
you have to think of it in terms of currency circulation. you're more likely to decide not to buy the suit than not replace the window. The problem with the economy now is that those who have the money are not spending it. Corporations are sitting on 2 trillion dollars. If only they had some windows to replace.
bedspirit 11 months ago
@bedspirit Money that is saved does not simply "disappear." Corporations don't horde money.
raystinsky 11 months ago
@raystinsky I don't know where you're getting that, but check this out: There is a direct correlation between most of the recent economic activity and QE2. This means that most of the buying and selling going on is either directly or indirectly related to the money that the fed is pumping into the economy. So what happens in June when this is scheduled to end? Will there be a QE3? If so then how much inflation can we expect? If not, will there be another collapse? so yea, there's hording.
bedspirit 11 months ago
@bedspirit If the money is not in cash form locked away outside of savings and/or investment, it's not hoarded.
raystinsky 11 months ago
@raystinsky Ok, I got your point. Technically the money is not completely out of circulation. So what? Are you just being desperately contrary or are you do you really have something to say?
bedspirit 11 months ago
@bedspirit If you save for retirement, you depend on companies saving and investing. You don't want them spending all their capital dealing with damage. Saving is good, in spite of what the government tries to foist on us during recessions. The reason you don't get lower prices during recession is due to Keynesian and monetarist economists engineer it away with credit manipulation.
raystinsky 11 months ago
@raystinsky "Keynesian and Monetarists economists engineered 'lower prices' away with credit manipulation." I'm completely speechless. You win.
bedspirit 11 months ago
@bedspirit I'm a little confused by your tactics, so I'm gonna keep acting tough.
raystinsky 11 months ago
@raystinsky You're more than a little confused. I was talking about real shit. You are pulling a bunch of baloney out of your ass. Do you realize that Keynesian and Monetarists are on opposite ends of the spectrum? Do you really believe that Bernanke is a Monetarist? You think it's good that businesses aren't expanding and hiring because people are saving for retirement? What the hell does that even mean? The only thing I get is that you don't like disasters. NO ONE DOES! WTF?
bedspirit 11 months ago
@bedspirit On opposite ends of the spectrum? Both believe pumping non-backed money into a system will solve a recession. Monetarist think velocity will overcome bad investments and Keynesians think deflation is horrible. Both end up taxing citizens through inflation. Businesses expand when they can if you don't distort the market with falsely low interest rates--the money they "save" through investment benefits anyone with interest bearing accounts (working or not).
raystinsky 11 months ago
@raystinsky At least that made some sense. Just to check to see if I was crazy I googled Bernanke and monetarists and oddly enough I see an article from last week which headlined Monetarists approve of Bernanke. I find this odd as Monetarists believe precisely monitoring the money supply and Bernanke is printing it faster than you can count it. Either I exaggerate qe2 or this was fluff article designed to ease fears of the massive inflation that is coming.
bedspirit 11 months ago
@raystinsky Also amusing was that the article referenced how banks and businesses are hoarding money and they used the word "hoarding". I imagine you'll want to head over there and educate those guys on that one. Monetarists and Keynesians are absolutely on opposite ends of the spectrum but it's valid to argue that both can cause inflation.
bedspirit 11 months ago
@raystinsky It seems to me that we're on the same page about what's going on. While you point out some insignificant benefit of money sitting in an account, I'm sure you'd much rather see unemployment drop and businesses expand. You understand that what the fed is doing is completely f'd up. So what's your beef? We agree. Everybody says corporations are sitting on massive amounts of money, it's not just me. Watching CNBC must drive you crazy.
bedspirit 11 months ago
@bedspirit We are in agreement on all that. If we'd stop with central planning, the businesses could expand, but they really don't know from day to day what the planners are going to do so I don't blame them. It's like GE not paying taxes: the people who set up the game are now complaining that GE played it well.
raystinsky 11 months ago
Liked and favorited!
TreachMarkets 11 months ago
Krugman - the raving lunatic.
MushroomCloud666 11 months ago 28
Voice too low.. Music too loud...
Brantoc 11 months ago
Krugman is INSANE.
CurtHowland 11 months ago 40
@CurtHowland How can someone who won a Nobel Prize reveal himself to be so uninformed in other areas of economics?
FitnessByMatt 11 months ago
@FitnessByMatt
Because it's in fact not a Nobel prize but a prize awarded by the Swedish central bank for spreading Keynessian bullshit :)
MushroomCloud666 11 months ago 3
@FitnessByMatt: because a very large part of modern "economics" is a pseudo-science, and because this is not a real Nobel Prize.
Or did you think Lysenkoism was something which could happen only in the USSR?
averros31415926 11 months ago
@averros31415926 Lysenkoism, or in its modern form of Cultural Marxism in the West, has been a lot harder to implement here than in the USSR but do you think that Paul Krugman represents the view of most modern economists? He seems laughably off about certain issues. I don't mean to disparage him but in certain instances he is simply outright wrong.
FitnessByMatt 11 months ago
This video was made on a third grade level, I guess it was made for conservatives.
hollywoodt00 11 months ago
@hollywoodt00 Then explain to me on a third grade level how it is wrong. Did the baker get his suit, too?
raystinsky 11 months ago
@raystinsky the repair guy didn't receive any compensation. So any one involved with the manufacture of the glass would see less production. The only difference between the "suit scenario" and the "window scenario" is a shift in where the economic activity is taking place. Now imagine how many bakers will buy the suit anyway or whose financial plans were unaffected by the window repair. One scenario guarantees economic activity while the other offers only potential economic activity.
bedspirit 11 months ago
@bedspirit Destruction doesn't fuel an economy--it merely diverts available money to another area.
raystinsky 11 months ago
@raystinsky As you agreed, at worst, destruction keeps commerce at the same exact level and at best it creates more commerce. So the video is wrong when it implies that it decreases economic activity. It doesn't. Krugman wasn't suggesting that we destroy shit just so we can fix it. He said disasters can cause economic good. By that he means more currency can circulate through our economy. You may prefer fridges to bridges or suits to windows, but that's not the point.
bedspirit 11 months ago
@raystinsky Do you really think it's really about a baker, really??? It's about millions of slave laborers in Asia, it's about a plundered international economy. It's about criminal behavior by bankers, hedge fund managers, speculators, and government officials. It's not about a window, it's about smoke and mirrors and if you can't see through it, it's because you don't want to see through it. People with out jobs don't buy bread, no bread, no suit, no shit.
hollywoodt00 11 months ago
@hollywoodt00 'Baker' is a job. This is about the economy of the baking industry.
raystinsky 11 months ago
@raystinsky It's not about a baker, it's not about the baking industry. It's about the global economy. The metaphor has been taken to the lowest intellectual level because finance and economics are difficult subjects that the average American cannot grasp. That's why so many Americans lost their jobs, homes and dreams. 1929 and the current financial crisis had nothing to do with hooligans, unless of course the hooligans are unregulated bankers.
hollywoodt00 11 months ago
@hollywoodt00 This video made for progressives that support people like Krugman and other Keynesians that can't understand that destroying wealth does not create more wealth.
ih8ronpaulh8ers 11 months ago
@ih8ronpaulh8ers You can't really "destroy wealth". Truly wealthy people understand this. They could use their wealth to create jobs and useful products but they don't. Wealthy people are criminals, they exploit labor, they don't pay taxes, they hide their wealth in off shore accounts, they pollute the air, poison the water. They don't buy bread, they don't buy suits or windows. They don't care about you and neither do I.
hollywoodt00 11 months ago 2
@hollywoodt00 That's quite a broad brush there buddy. I can't think of many things more pathetic than those who make fake generalizations. What do you consider wealthy? The majority of the top tax bracket pays their taxes in full. Its a tiny fraction of a percent at the very top the don't pay most of their taxes. Taxation is immoral and no one should have to pay taxes. Taxation is form of theft, pure and simple. All of the "wealthy" people I know are very charitable and friendly.
ih8ronpaulh8ers 11 months ago
@ih8ronpaulh8ers A NICE GUY WITH A LOT OF BREAD! Will I see you at the match tomorrow?
India's richest man Mukesh Ambani has shelled out $1.12 million dollars for tickets to the ICC World Cup Final between India and Sri Lanka tomorrow.
hollywoodt00 11 months ago
@hollywoodt00:
well, most of the so-called "liberals" are patently incapable of understanding things an average third-grader can easily grasp. apparently it takes a lot of education to fry one's brain so completely.
averros31415926 11 months ago
@averros31415926 So you're a conservative, I suggest you get a little education before you decide who's brain is fried and who's brain is washed.
hollywoodt00 11 months ago 2
@thejayjayjay I didn't deny that something good could come from taxes. I'm just pointing out the connection between the broken window and taxes. You should demonstrate how the two are different to the baker. On one hand, he has his window broken, on the other hand he has his money taken away from him.
JoelYrick 11 months ago
@JoelYrick - The baker has a very small amount of money taken away from him. The baker's delivery boy, even less. The banker pays a large amount of money, because of course, he makes a very large amount of money from the commerce in the town. For their money, everybody in town gets a police officer, who protects them from the people in the next town over, who are notorious pickpockets. Now the baker and the banker have both saved money on their security costs by sharing them (proportionately).
thejayjayjay 11 months ago
@JoelYrick I might add that, the more advanced the town or city, the more advanced the shared needs of the people in it. Therefore, a higher level of cooperation is needed. The analogy town doesn't need a swat team, but Chicago does. The analogy town probably doesn't need a Food and Drug Administration, but you can sure as hell bet the United States does. Taxes are totally necessary. The only issue is, the wealthy use their influence to try and avoid paying their fair share, and it's working.
thejayjayjay 11 months ago
@thejayjayjay Having someone take your wealth in taxes is like having someone break your window. Just because it is done with good intentions to stimulate doesn't mean that it doesn't cause you and everyone harm.
JoelYrick 11 months ago
@JoelYrick It sounds like somebody wants to live in a country without police and fire departments, without stop lights at intersections, and without building codes or health codes, or anybody to enforce them.
thejayjayjay 11 months ago
@thejayjayjay You're falling into yet another fallacy. It goes something like this - "The government currently provides X. Therefore, if there is no government, nobody will provide X."
Do you really think that in a free society there would be no demand for things like fire/emergency services? If there is a demand for that service, won't individuals voluntarily subscribe to organizations that provide them? I know I sure as hell would...
cjrsoccer1 11 months ago
@cjrsoccer1 as a person who studies history, I can actually speak to the fact that private-sector firefighting has been used in the past, and does not work well. You should have thought of that already, considering a conservative state recently had a major headline about their opt-in fire service... but historically there is even more evidence. Try it out and you'll find it's very difficult to put out only the fires of your customers, especially without having the fire spread to other buildings.
thejayjayjay 11 months ago
@thejayjayjay All snark aside, I wouldn't think it'd be handled on an individual basis. I'd think it would be handled via private contracting with neighborhood associations, not individual homeowners. Sort of the way landscaping services are, or private security for gated communities. That takes care of the "spreading" problem, and the tangential 'free-rider / opt-in' sort of problems you're talking about.
Those can't be your only objections....
cjrsoccer1 11 months ago
I'm a little shocked this video has not gone more viral... Awesome vid
hayekian 11 months ago
@hayekian this video hasn't gone viral because it is propaganda serving the interests of billionaires. people (present company excluded of course) are too smart to fall for these lies.
thejayjayjay 11 months ago
@thejayjayjay What you fail to recognize is that a lot of this stimulus money spending is what enriches these billionaires! All these big miltary, education and health corporations come to congress and say, "Spend on this project, it will help the economy!" When congress falls for it, we are forced to redirect our money to these products produced by these self serving corporations. and then we can't spend as much in other areas. Think about it.
tacitus7 11 months ago
@tacitus7 yes, but the fact that stimulus spending is misdirected to billionaires is no reason to back policies that cut taxes in the name of cutting spending. The problem lies in rhetoric which acts as if "cutting taxes" or "raising taxes" are across-the-board actions with no variation. Changing the tax structure isn't as simple as raising or cutting, and simplifying it down to "taxes bad, spending bad" is not just patronizing, it's inaccurate. You can't use a shiv to sew a button.
thejayjayjay 11 months ago
@thejayjayjay I could agree with you in part, if taxes were low and we truly needed to raise taxes. The truth is the wealthy pay a larger percentage and amount of their income than the rest of us do. I would however like to see a simplification of the tax code...no tax shelters etc, just a simple flat tax. I could see a few percentage more for those making over say, 250,000. Still, the problem is too much money going to government and then it being taken by the powerful, as always happens.
tacitus7 11 months ago
@tacitus7 I guess you missed the fact that GE actually paid no taxes last year, and got a major refund? Or the fact that Bank of America paid no taxes? Or dozens of others. 250,000 is a silly number. Those people are paying plenty. It's people making over 1,000,000 who really aren't paying enough. We'd all like to see a simplification of the tax code, but a flat tax is a joke. How could you possibly justify taking the same percentage from a single mom working at IHOP and a CEO making millions?
thejayjayjay 11 months ago
I guess the point of the video is that GE is going to use its ten million dollar tax refund to buy surf boards, thereby stimulating the economy? This video is absolutely stupid.
thejayjayjay 11 months ago
@thejayjayjay No, you're absolutely stupid if you cannot grasp the point, which is simply that destruction and calamity never result in a net gain in economic productivity.
PongGod 11 months ago
@PongGod - How is taxation and stimulus spending "destruction and calamity?" Clearly, the video says that when people pay taxes and those taxes go to build construction projects, that is the same as when a kid throws a brick through a window and the shop owner has to repair it.
thejayjayjay 11 months ago
@thejayjayjay They are presenting two different variations of the same economic fallacy. Starting at 2:30 they begin explaining how this fallacious argument is used by ignorant and/or deceptive politicians to claim that they are CREATING jobs through their public works programs. But, there is not truly any NET increase to jobs because they are simply diverting wealth from the hands of the citizens into uses of their own choosing. At best, this represents no net change, but is actually worse.
PongGod 11 months ago
@PongGod (con't) It's worse because the citizens are deprived of the opportunity to use their wealth in ways they deem best for themselves, rather than politicians and bureaucrats (who presume to know what's best for everyone else) spending it for them. Besides, such coercive programs are notoriously wasteful, which is to be expected in any situation involving the spending of other people's money.
PongGod 11 months ago
@PongGod that is absurd. There are certain tasks which only public works programs can accomplish. The interstate highway system DID in fact create jobs. No investor would have spent money on building thorough interstate transit system. No group of individual investors would have pooled money together for such a project. And yet the interstate highway created a boom of shipping and tourism that created demand for more goods and services all around the country. That's a positive net change, bitch.
thejayjayjay 11 months ago