@machaeroguy Usually in these situations, insurance pays for these repairs. Which in return causes our insurance to increase, thus taking away more money from us. The point really is as simple as Bastiat makes it, he just makes it with something that's not expensive so it seems not as effective. When you apply it to wars and natural disasters it makes more sense, in the short run it seems to boost the economy but like he says what is unseen is the money that could of been spent in another place.
But to use this principle to say that WW2 didn't assist in getting the US out of depression is poor. We were the substitute beneficiary of the countries that were in ruins. We had excess labor whose energy until the war was not going to any service or production. Care must be made when using his principle. He basically explained, destroying peoples stuff is not a way to increase wealth for a society at large which is really just common sense.
Hmmm, ya, kinda. You might say that Bastiat's argument of zero sum is a strong one while yours of negative sum is a weak one. Both are right (Bastiat's in fact and yours in potentiality) but Bastiat may not have wanted to leave the strong case and muddy the waters with the the weak one. The strong argument is obvious and requires no assumptions while the weak argument requires that we make assumptions that ain't necessarily so. After all the glazier might have gone on for a walk.
One very realistic scenario that is overlooked, is that the baker may have neither the money nor the skills necessary to replace the window. So I pose the question, has the community gotten richer since the baker now has gaping hole in his shop, and has had to throw out bread because broken glass fell upon it?
@machaeroguy The community has lost the value of one window in any scenario. Though the cost to replace the window would probably be less than the cost of leaving it broken.
@GuardofLiberty Right on...I'm just introducing the possibility that the baker might not have the cash on hand to repair the window, for whatever reason. Then the window just stays broken. This scenario would be more realistic perhaps if we were talking about more serious damage i.e. fire, tornado, etc.
plz disregard my previous comment on this video. I posted it before I finished watching the video, your vid does address what I made my post about. Great vid.
just wanted to add that even if the glazier went out of business without that one extra person's window broken, it would simply mean that nobody needed windows replaced at the price he was willing to charge and thus he'd be wasting resources by continuing to make windows (making losses instead of profit). In such a scenario, he should start looking for something *else* to do. By breaking the window, society is foregoing net benefits even if the *rate* of spending (and thus income) is unchanged.
i'd go even further than calling destruction 'negative for the community' instead of neutral for the community. You can not add or substract benefits for individual people in a community to end up with a total benefit/decrement. Th destruction in Iraq is a benefit for the people in the military industrial complex. Only individuals experience benefits/decrements, groups do not, because groups as such do not exist in reality. Take the individuals out off a group;there is no residue.
@machaeroguy Usually in these situations, insurance pays for these repairs. Which in return causes our insurance to increase, thus taking away more money from us. The point really is as simple as Bastiat makes it, he just makes it with something that's not expensive so it seems not as effective. When you apply it to wars and natural disasters it makes more sense, in the short run it seems to boost the economy but like he says what is unseen is the money that could of been spent in another place.
skiz8x 1 month ago
Ron Paul 2012!
pablocoon 1 month ago
But to use this principle to say that WW2 didn't assist in getting the US out of depression is poor. We were the substitute beneficiary of the countries that were in ruins. We had excess labor whose energy until the war was not going to any service or production. Care must be made when using his principle. He basically explained, destroying peoples stuff is not a way to increase wealth for a society at large which is really just common sense.
jmitterii2 6 months ago
Hmmm, ya, kinda. You might say that Bastiat's argument of zero sum is a strong one while yours of negative sum is a weak one. Both are right (Bastiat's in fact and yours in potentiality) but Bastiat may not have wanted to leave the strong case and muddy the waters with the the weak one. The strong argument is obvious and requires no assumptions while the weak argument requires that we make assumptions that ain't necessarily so. After all the glazier might have gone on for a walk.
equsnarnd 1 year ago
Comment removed
equsnarnd 1 year ago
One very realistic scenario that is overlooked, is that the baker may have neither the money nor the skills necessary to replace the window. So I pose the question, has the community gotten richer since the baker now has gaping hole in his shop, and has had to throw out bread because broken glass fell upon it?
machaeroguy 1 year ago
@machaeroguy The community has lost the value of one window in any scenario. Though the cost to replace the window would probably be less than the cost of leaving it broken.
GuardofLiberty 1 year ago
@GuardofLiberty Right on...I'm just introducing the possibility that the baker might not have the cash on hand to repair the window, for whatever reason. Then the window just stays broken. This scenario would be more realistic perhaps if we were talking about more serious damage i.e. fire, tornado, etc.
machaeroguy 1 year ago
Very very good, congratulations.
Omroon 1 year ago
Exceptionally well said.
1kings1918 1 year ago
@GuardofLiberty
Don't feed the troll.
MigDanskeren 1 year ago
Comment removed
kevinz1985 1 year ago
plz disregard my previous comment on this video. I posted it before I finished watching the video, your vid does address what I made my post about. Great vid.
:-)
stealthswimmer 1 year ago
just wanted to add that even if the glazier went out of business without that one extra person's window broken, it would simply mean that nobody needed windows replaced at the price he was willing to charge and thus he'd be wasting resources by continuing to make windows (making losses instead of profit). In such a scenario, he should start looking for something *else* to do. By breaking the window, society is foregoing net benefits even if the *rate* of spending (and thus income) is unchanged.
stealthswimmer 1 year ago
good video
TheAustrian08 2 years ago
Very interesting.
Thank you.
kevinz1985 2 years ago
Good video, interesting analysis.
787Bisurdaddy 2 years ago
i'd go even further than calling destruction 'negative for the community' instead of neutral for the community. You can not add or substract benefits for individual people in a community to end up with a total benefit/decrement. Th destruction in Iraq is a benefit for the people in the military industrial complex. Only individuals experience benefits/decrements, groups do not, because groups as such do not exist in reality. Take the individuals out off a group;there is no residue.
modelmark 2 years ago
Great arguments. Subtle, yet firmly grounded in reality. Thanks for the video.
Mastikator 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
what r ur thoughts on marx...marx would kick this nerd's butt. Literally >:)
SkankingKyle 2 years ago
Sorry, but the labor theory of value has been disproven time and time again. It is both philosophically and economically bankrupt.
But once again, I am not averse to worker coops on a free market.
GuardofLiberty 2 years ago
Bragging about kicking someone's ass is only a vulgar display of savagery.
Secondly, being a nerd rules.
Mastikator 2 years ago
I don't think Marx would really want to kick anyone.
JJDarklink 2 years ago
At least say Engels... Marx was an antagonistic intellectual lightweight when it came to philosophical discourse.
D0g63rt 2 years ago
says u, dogbert
SkankingKyle 2 years ago
As a follower of Marx you must share his lackluster argumentative capacity.
D0g63rt 2 years ago