what if the shop owner would have spent his money overseas (had the window not been broken)?
what i say is: we go to wally-world, bust their sh*t, (particularly the sh*t they got in this country) and then they have to spend that money here to fix their sh*t instead of on wares from china.
Destruction is good if it happens to someone else. Then they buy your stuff to fix theirs.
All money is created out of thin air because money is based on trust. Without trust, nothing is money. Gold, silver, paper...these aren't money. They only become money when someone will take them in exchange for their production...with the trust that others will take the same 'money' for their production. Otherwise, it's just barter.
See I am not the best to talk to on the matter of the economy & I dont like taking sides, but I think you missed a point. it is by destroying the window the money switching hands to the window maker is going to happen but if the shop keeper doesnt have to spend money on anything other then taxes he can horde it. & what if a millionair hordes their money? keeping millions sitting in the bank costing the Government $.40 (or what ever it is)......
The point is that destruction of an asset diverts wealth to replace what was lost rather than saving it, purchasing an additional asset or investing it.
While what you lost may be replaced, the value of what was lost was needlessly wasted. For the broken window fallacy, the town is still one less window despite the material and labor used to replace it; the loss is expressed as the money that was paid to replace it when it could otherwise have been used for something else.
If there is a situation where the shop owner is uncertain about the economy and is therefor saving money and not spending it, and then a kid comes a long and breaks his window, in that case the kid actually does stimulate the economy.
@Dutchguy74 This is false. The argument that uncertainty may cause people to save is true. It is a simple evaluation of Risk. The kid breaking the window only justifies the perception of Risk and encourages even more saving.
There is only so much spending you can cut risk or no risk, just because in a gheto life is dangerous does not mean people don't buy a new washing machine when if breaks down.
@Dutchguy74 A broken down washing machine, that was used as a productive good, and saved labor (time/effort) those many years of service, increased over all productivity over its useful lifetime. A window that has yet to serve its useful life, broken, is wasted productivity. Instead of the new glass made going someplace else, it has to go replace the broken one, that already consumed labor in earlier production.
@Dutchguy74 As for Risk - This is what interest rates would reflect in a monetary system that perfectly matched increases in productivity. No such system can ever exist, no one knows the future.
If you are trying to discuss deflationary forces, the say so, don't dance around it.
No, im only talking about whether there can be a situation where basically forcing people to spend money, when they have cut spending to a bare minimum as can be expected during a depression can actually stimulate the economy or not, I think it can.
@Dutchguy74 Who has the moral authority to force anyone else to spend? That's a whole other topic but shesh, you're making an argument for force. Sad.
Anyway, if there is a depression, it is a great motivator for innovation. That innovation creates an excess of productive capacity, which can be used to create additional wealth. Savers who have capital, can invest in that innovation and further increase wealth. Depression sweeps away bad investment, and encourages productive investment.
every state every where uses force all the time. that is how any order has been throughout history everywhere on the planet without exceptions.
I agree with you that a depression creates opportunity, however it comes with great pain and with massive unemployment before everyone has adjusted.
Ever since fractional reserve banking has been invented savings are no longer required. the banks create the capital as soon as a business man comes to them with a "good plan"
@Dutchguy74 The appeal to antiquity is a fallacy, much less it is supposition.
Prolonging the depression, attempting to "soften" the landing, making a recession is just as painful and takes even longer.
FR banking creating money out of thin air simply dilutes the value of all the other money already there. This is monetary inflation. It is theft from all for the benefit of a few, mainly those that create the new money out of nothing.
Well if you have a theory of how to maintain order without using force, please let me know, if you have an example from real life where this actually worked please point to it.
I do think there is historic evidence that stimulating demand during a depression does soften the impact and avoided all kinds of extreme reaction by the population.
You may be opposed to FR the market created this, I suspect because it is more efficient. it would require regulation to force full reserve B
@Dutchguy74 Look at many tribal cultures. Many of them had order by way of religion and used religion as the basis for a moral code. When the moral code is understood by all, transgressions tend to be minimal.
What is your historic evidence, the WWII canard?
FR or not FR requires some amount of enforcement so long as people are willing to accept something other than a real thing as money. So let the market decide what is and is not money with out limit or regulation on acceptance.
sigh looking at an empty glass as still being half full.. yeah, yeah it's like an eye for an eye. it's a coin flip altered realities it's unknown which is better. The glassmaker might 'ave needed that money for his rent and was one client short if that guy hadn't came in it's looking at one unseen not another the tailor could have been the richest man on the block and whether or not that guy came in he still would've been rich.
@WhisperShoes If the glassmaker is not getting enough business, it is because the community has no need for a glassmaker, or it has too many glassmakers. He needs to go into a different business.
Actually, the act of a child breaking a window with a rock is a good thing, because it gives the shopkeeper an opportunity to be forgiving and patient. Who gives a fleeced fuck about economics? It's not about what the window costs the shopkeeper's wallet; what's important is how he treats the situation.
Dude...what the fuck. I don't troll or hate on the internet, but someone spent a shit load of time making a senseless stupid unclear video. This is the fanciest looking piece of shit video I've seen since I filmed a turd with glitter on it.
This is one of those things. At first, you might think, "yeah, it's good. Pay the window maker" but then after you think a little, this should be common sense.
I am no apologist for the US invasion but in economic terms despite the vast sums of money spent on the military securing the long term supply of oil to the US may have been economically ‘worth it’.Again this fallacy was thought of at a time where oil dependence not an issue. However in defence of Bastiat's argument governments today are still activity encouraging unnecessary destruction (in less extreme ways of course) through schemes like the Car Scrappage (UK) and boiler replacement program.
@wesayukdotcom2012 Precisely. Those who were for it did not believe it would create economic stimulus, but that it was necessarily for peace, stability, or whatever. Strangely though, many of those who are against the Iraq war, which I'm not saying is a bad position, would claim that it was both done for economic reasons and that it was ruining our economy.
This fallacy comes from an era where the world being at war was the norm. No political leader today in their right mind at least is going to go to war on the premise that they are doing for the good of the economy and jobs. However, whilst this may sound a contradiction of the ‘fallacy’ it may indeed be good for the economy if we smash the windows of other countries as in the case of the invasion of Iraq. Re: Halliburton et al in the rebuilding process.
... ARE YOU REFERENCING THAT DESTRUCTION IS ALL THAT HAS OCCURED LATELY BECAUSE HONESTLY IF YOU DO, THIS VIDEO IS A REFERENCE TO A CONVOLUDED PERCEPTION TO ECONOMICS
The glass-maker and florist were both really slow that week, the glass-maker hadn't had a date in a couple years, and finally conspired with the kid to break the window. Window and case closed.
I thought this would be a rebuttal of "broken windows theory." The topic at hand was interesting though. It's something that I learned the hard way in Sim City. No, sending tornadoes to destroy your city doesn't help it rebuild.
I agree and see the validity of this video but could the broken window theory hold any merit if the object that is replaced is more efficient or is replaced with a more technologically advance system.
Im not attempting to disprove this video, just asking out of curiosity
@CobwebsAndStrange93 No, because if the upgrade was worth it then it would be performed regardless of breakage. So basically there'd be no negative effect but also no postive one. What you're envisaging is someone wrecking a building that was due for demolition anyway.
@CobwebsAndStrange93 The shopkeeper could have replaced the window himself at a later time of his choosing (once it made economic sense to do so) rather than replace it prematurely due to it being shattered.
Of course, government spending IS in fact good for the economy. We have to have government spending in order to pick up the slack for all of the private consumers that aren't consuming like they're supposed to. Think of what would happen to the economy if we laid off a good portion of the military. Think of the disaster that would cause to our economy. The government absolutely MUST create employment.
@TheManiacalSatanist6 You're talking to people who have an over simplified view of the world and put into a box the way they want-- they forget economics you have to state economic assertion starts with "All things being equal" meaning you don't account for anything else. Type of currency (fiat or commodity backed), war winners and losers, point of destruction that occurred, cooperation between nations, federal and local governments, etc.They ignore these other factors.
@TheManiacalSatanist6 What a load of shit. What you're saying is that because the government has made so many people reliant on its redistribution system, that system can't be undone without damage being done. Certainly that's true. But it neither makes the system right nor sustainable. Do you want to pay the price for bad policy sooner or later, when it will be substantially greater?
@WalterLiddy "Do you want to pay the price for bad policy sooner or later, when it will be substantially greater?"
Bad policy would be cutting spending. Look at all of the Iraq veterans that came home and can't find employment now. You think the Middle Class would be eroding if the market were creating jobs now? Instead of spending to create jobs in infrastructure and giving out healthcare and education, we spent this fucking money on tax cuts for the rich!
So in the case of say, Joplin, Missouri or New Orleans, it would have been better off if the government hadn't given a penny to those cities to rebuild? The correct definition of an oppressive government is a government that turns a cold shoulder to its citizens in need.
Think outside the box people. I know we think globally and we are interconnected. Economies are localized though. It will help my economy if I go to another country, break their windows, and sell them new ones from my country. I like how he even points to it. We should have armies of kids breaking windows. We already have that. Wars = Increased Arms Sales = Artificial GDP Boost through Fiscal Policy = More Lending Power = More Spending for all = Implement new government securing contracts
The goal of "Uncle Sam and Company" is to create poverty through income tax, property tax, and licensing. When people become poor enough, they will become PAID soldiers to protect the system that impoverished them.
Its production that create wealth not destruction. You need to include, it is not consumption that create wealth either. When you consume something, the item is gone
I don't think that the idea of Keynesian economics is that wars or things like that actually produce wealth, just that it gives incentive for labor that wasn't there before, and hopefully people stay employed after the initial incentive for labor has gone away.
Did you hear that one about Krugman and the alien invasion? If not, listen to it on youtube, and then ask yourself the questions: What jobs are people going be employed in preparing for an alien invasion? And how would those jobs relate to jobs in a prosperous non-wartime economy?
When the problem is that the economy is unsustainably distorted, the solution is not to distort it in some other nonsensical bubbly direction.
Yeah, but at least now you have the internet, where with the slightest amount of interest you can immediately debunk factoids, whereas in the old days you literally had to go around enlightening all the imbeciles that bought into this kind of fallacy. And you could never compete with the speed it spread.
I don't spend money because I want to, I spend money because I HAVE to. I haven't bought new clothes in years, but if you burn down my wardrobe, I'm sure as shit gonna buy new clothes.
@NinjaFilip Only if the shopkeeper wouldn't spend his money right away. But then again, if he didn't, it would be in a bank somewhere, and barring the once every 80 massive slowdown on lending, will be loaned to someone else to buy a house, or car, or something. Making the shopkeeper spend money takes that money from the bank, which takes it from someone that could also use it right away to create jobs. So, maybe only when you can't get a loan should you break windows?
@DeathOfAMudkip It is very true that WW2 did not directly aid the economy and I agree with the video, but some of the economic effect was from technology invented during the war and the massive reorganization and reinvigoration of people that may have got their spirits up for a better future, since the destruction was behind them. Before the war there was a lot of social anxiety. But those additional theories are less verifiable.
@MadPutz To the contrary, governmnet spending is a DRAG on technology. How much private automotove technology did not come into being because the resources had been reallocated to military applications (most of which have no value to consumers). And no matter how high "spirits" were raised, how much more productive would have been the quarter of a million people lost?
Obviously destruction doesnt bring prosperity but it is good for the economy, this dude doesn't understand.
In case of disasters money comes out of third source via government spending by money created ( borrowed or printed ). So if to extrapolate the example, there is both glass repaired and dude have money to spend elsewhere.
Monetary economics sucks anyway no matter what they stand for.
@shogu666 No, it is NOT good for the economy. The governmnet cannot create wealth; every dollar it spends must come from someone else, either via taxation, borrowing (which removes resources from the private credit markets) or exapnsion of the money supply (devaluing savings). The government then passes each taken dollar through a wasteful bureaucracy and allocates it to politically, rather than economically, viable avenues. Governmnet spending is an economic disaster.
@FletchforFreedom "every dollar it spends must come from someone else, either via taxation, borrowing (which removes resources from the private credit markets) or exapnsion of the money supply (devaluing savings)."
Still the shopkeeper has the glass and money to spend on something elses doesn't he ??
Even if your argument is correct ( i dont want to go debate about that here ) the video is still misleading
@FletchforFreedom " The governmnet cannot create wealth; every dollar it spends must come from someone else,"
That is very funny. Try pitching that argument to Lockheed, Northrup, and all the wealthy lobbyist in DC. All because you don't agree with how govt is spending it's resources (and ours), doesn't automatically mean that it's destructive. If that where the case, we wouldn't be talking... over the internet.
@TylerNutify I can EASILY pitch it to anyone. You can't seem to grasp that the wealth generated at Lockheed and Northrup is offset by the GREATER amount of wealth lost in taking it from elsewhere. Governmnet cannot create wealth on a NET basis.
And the old canard about the government's (or Al Gore's) creation of the internet is a great way to announce that you don't know what you're talking about.
@FletchforFreedom Except in situations where the people who hold money are not spending it in ways that benefit the economy. For example a liquidity trap situation. Wonder where you could find one of those?
@Friarmarkv I wionder where you can find one of those too since they don't exist. The nonsensical claim of a liquidity trap is based on the notion that the economy is driven by consumption rather than production and that ignoring the actions of individual actors in the economy and concentrating on "aggregate demand" actually works. Since there has never been a case where "stimulus spending" has actually worked, "liquidity trap" is just a fiction to describe a broken banking system.
@FletchforFreedom Old adage: If you laid all the economist in the world end to end, they still not reach a consensus.
John Mauldin in one of his newsletters in early 2009 stated at if you look at all the economic theories, they all agree that what we saw in the fall of '08 should never have been possible.
@TylerNutify Old adage: those who rely on old adages are doomed to remain ignorant.
As John <auldin is an investment advisor and not an economist (far from the same thing), it is perhaps understandable that he is completely wrong. ONLY the Keynesian school holds that position (the largest school but not a majority of economists). Not only did other schools (most notably the Chicago and Austrian schools) say it was possible, many PREDICTED it.
@shogu666 But that money was taken from the people, not really created. Borrowing money puts the taxpayers on the hook for interest payments and eventually paying back the debt. Printing devalues the money already in the economy. Borrowing a printing do not create permanent wealth.
@stalrunner "But that money was taken from the people, not really created. Borrowing money puts the taxpayers on the hook for interest payments and eventually paying back the debt. Printing devalues the money already in the economy. Borrowing a printing do not create permanent wealth."
I said i dont want to debate it here.
Even if you are right my argument was that video is misleading and simplifies important aspect, why dont you just admit i, it should be re-done.
Very good presentation. People insist that The Broken Window Fallacy is the most persistent economic fallacy, but actually, the notion that in the realm of Supply and Demand one is prior to the other is the most persistent economic fallacy. The notion that Demand is absolutely prior to Supply, i.e., that Supply is entirely dependent on Demand, is the central driving force behind the broken window.
So don't break windows? Not a very complicated thought process. Maybe they should have sent this one to Bush before he broke a lot more than windows in Iraq and started dumping money into the laps of military contractors.
gotta love liberal speculation. if this were true about war than our government would be filthy rich and not in debt. nor would our unemployment be so fucked.
@15a4k0n I had a history professor tell me that Katrina helped the economy, that WW2 helped the economy, that 9/11 helped the economy, etc. It takes an intellectual to somehow justify the stupidest of logic... and an even better intellectual to disprove it... but somebody with common sense doesn't waste his time on such silly matters.
so, this is stating the fallacy of looking at the class half fool. rather then half empty. you can look at all the good points you want, but it will not change the fact that something bad happened. trying to see the good that came out of it only blinds us of the fact that we still have the bad thing happened. now when looking at the glass half empty, you see the problem and you focus on it. you keep contemplating it until you come up with a better solution.once you find it, you improve it.
So this right winger just made an argument agaist Creative Destruction. Buying a company to shut it down does not help the economy, it just destroys jobs and a company.
@therichardking4242 Most companies that are financially sound are either too expensive to be purchased, or are not for sale. Companies that are for sale tend to be in trouble and the owners are looking for "an out". Investors would rather the business they are purchasing be capable of being saved than shut down. If that is the case then selling assets from the company (which is already doomed) and investing that capital can lead to other jobs. Often more than the previous failing business had.
@THEORIGINALEXSCAPER You miss my point about how if broken widows don't help the economy then why do broken companies. Under the rules of logic you should be able to replace the variable widows for companies and the argument still hold true. But it doesn't so one of them is wrong. If broken companies help the economy then broken widows must as well or neither of them do.
@therichardking4242 I watched the video a second time and realized it is flawed in its characterization of the 'broken window" example. He uses it to reject the claim (which is correct) that terrorist attacks and natural disasters in the long run are good for the economy because they stimulate prioduction and business as they require things to be rebuilt, purchased, etc. The "broken window" example actually is meant to portray the negative effects on all from excessive taxation by the government
@TWSceptic You miss my piont. BOTH are valid. Creative destruction and the broken widows theory are the same argument when you break it down in logic. A weak company being shut down to make way for stronger ones or a weak house being destroyed in a storm to be replaced both help the economy. And yes I'm left wing but I agree with creative destruction.
I saw this entire video as an advertisement on CharlieIsSoCoolLike. Loved it. Thanks for advertising and making a great video, I automatically clicked on it and am now subscribed to you. I hope I can see more interesting videos like this in the future.
You ain't gotta read no dang "wealth of nations" to understand capitalism, people living in bassackward primative societies with enough wealth and freedom to run a flea market get it. even when you ban capitalism like they did in the USSR and are almost done doing in the US capitalism keeps on happening, capitalism is not an economic "plan" like socialism pretends to be. It is what happens by default; when people are free it works great.
WRONG! If that person replacing the Window was unemployed he is now part of the economy and helping increasing the velocity of money! As always these idiotic arguments go to extremes by saying “let’s have an army of kids”. If there were an Equal amount of army unemployed than Yes lets tear this bitch up! On the Other extreme to combat his idiotic analogy Let’s avoid making things because we all know someone will break it eventually by accident or otherwise! Simply idiotic!
@CitizenNumber Youre forgetting something very basic. If the person who has had his window broken does not have the money to repair it, no person will be employed (paid) to fix it. Eventually with enough broken windows, for everyone in the same neighborhood, people will no longer shop there leading to closed businesses, high crime, and blight. And that unemployed person expecting a new job replacing windows? Guaranteed to blame the wealthy business people for leaving him desolate and jobless.
@THEORIGINALEXSCAPER You do understand that a Broken window is an analogy right?
If % of Broken windows = % of unemployment you get increased productivity! Next if your theory was remotely correct more than 50% of the population would be unemployed! Because back in the day we required 50% of the pop to produce food Today we only require 3% of the Population producing to accomplish the same amount of output. Efficiency = job loss and vice versa
@CitizenNumber Yes I understand it is an analogy. My point is that the "broken window fallacy" is intended to show the false belief that INTENTIONALLY causing harm, destruction, or hardship is good. Prof Cardens uses it incorrectly by using motives such as war, terrorism and natural disasters. Wars and terrorism are not enacted for the sake of improving an economy through the need for increased production, but for the sole motives OF war and terrorism. I did not say increasing broken windows
@CitizenNumber increases productivity. Efficiency does not lead to long term job loss. In fact the opposite is true. Efficiency has lead to developments (ie, jobs) in advances in medicine, mechanization, and computer science, just to name a few. In fact there are thousands (?) of YouTube workers who are employed with good paying jobs motivated by the INCREASED and efficiencent mode of communication via the internet, who otherwise might only have been able to go around breaking windows...
@THEORIGINALEXSCAPER You are wrong. Increased efficiency does create job loss. Gov must step in and higher till new Technology comes along. Than workers must be retrained and start at the bottom and work their way up. This is not up to debate. A farmer cannot just start manufacturing cars. A construction worker cannot just go into IT. Sorry but you are extremely Wrong!
@CitizenNumber In a free market economy the owner(s) of a company have the final say as to decisions regarding the business THEY own/ manage. Govts role in such a system (US) is by its own constitution intended to be limited regarding the powers it has with private industry. If a company decided to go 50% or 100% automated, they are within their legal right to do so even if it would mean their employees would losetheir jobs. It is each INDIVIDUALS responsibility to improve themself through
@THEORIGINALEXSCAPER No Argument here. You are correct. Job Outsourcing is a more efficient method of producing. No different than producing a super efficient machine Yet all Americans bitch about it. Why? Because efficiency causes JOB LOSS! That is capitalism & advancement. They don’t see that it frees up people to apply themselves in better and even more efficient jobs that create more wealth for all US Citizens. We don’t need Americans making Toothpicks. We need them to Designing Iphones!
@CitizenNumber education and training. This is a part of the problem here in the US recently, as employees who felt entitled to life-long jobs, were never educated regarding how the free market economy works. The result is undereducated, mis-informed workers, SHOCKED that the company they worked at for years is moving to Mexico or India because their employer realizes that nations with lower wages, and taxes means greater profitability! Businesses are NOT in business as social programs! Govt's
@THEORIGINALEXSCAPER I Agree except for the Gov part. If Gov does not support the transition period you will get a total economic collapse. if that occurs whats the point? 1 step forward 10 steps back. The Result is India China etc.Without Gov support during training periods when unemployment is high and Gov support for higher education no one will have an income to consume inelastic products and all Biz will lose as well! Like I said before Total economic collapse! Gov is Vital to any eco.
@CitizenNumber are even worse in this role because they waste tax payer dollars (or ruppes) through deliberate INEFFICIENCY! Access to trillions of dollars are like a magnet to unethical politicians whose eyes glaze over at the prospect of the power in controlling such funds. Which breeds 15 trillion dollar debts, a slowing economy and a weary citizenry. Big govt is ALWAYS BAD! Small govt, less bad. You arethe one who is wrong. The example you described is socialism! Not democracy or the free
@THEORIGINALEXSCAPER No you have it backwards. What you view as inefficiency is extremely efficient on a macro long term economic health. 15T of debt is 10T of US savings friend. 70% of all US debt is owned by Americans. Only 4.5T or 30% is foreign debt. Which means 70% of all interest paid is returned back into circulation in the US Ecnomy. All Gov spending is spend in the US Economy which means income for everyone in the economy through the multiplier effect. One mans debt is anothers savings!
@CitizenNumber market! Regarding the company that let 50% -100% of its employees go in favor of automation?In a democracy with free press which would report such a move by a company, it would receive EXTREMELY bad press, risk a public backlash resulting in buyer revolt for goods or services provided by that company. Which is why businesses dont do it.Efficiency, long term, is good for business, and creates jobs.Govt should be limited to defense, foriegn affairs, and the running of the govt ONLY!
@THEORIGINALEXSCAPER Again I agree! But again During Transition Periods of High Unemployment Gov must step in. Efficiency causes job loss! Even if the US removed all Taxes prices will rise Overnight causing inflation. Result?Biz will reach the Top, fail and collapse the entire economy. If you and I had $100 and bid for 1 item The highest price that item will go for is $100. If taxes were removed we both get an additional $100 in our pockets the Item will go for a max $200. Result is the same!
uh... cell phones basically self destruct after two years... you must spend every last dollar you have to get a new one... this is capitalism, its inherently destructive, and it makes people filthy rich. you sir, are only looking at half of the coin. imagine if the window disintegrated after two years, every two years and they only got more expensive to replace.
Similarly the common refrain that Christmas helps the economy is bunk. Fear of cultural consequences of "opting out" of this yearly ritual makes us trade goods and services we want (we have less money to buy them after X-mas shopping) for goods and services that give us less utility (gifts chosen for us by others, who are unlikely to know our preferences as well we know our own).
@NOLAMarathon2010 cash for clunkers was actually an idea from the chinese embassy for the US to acquire raw materials to trade to China, because they needed something more than our dollars to continue trading with us.
Unbelievable!!! If people can’t understand the reasoning behind this than we really are doomed. Destroying is not creating. And replacing should be done by choice not by force. And also sometimes it is true that after things are destroyed, better ways come out. New Orleans comes to mind in that after Katrina they have moved to a nearly all charter school system and went from having the worst test scores to having the best in the state. But those things should have happened anyway.
@jaspony1 It scares the heck out of me that the front runners in the RNC are proposing socialist health care , to replace obamacare, proposing hiring subsidies and protectionist tariffs, ....are their no capitalist republicans?
@halloranedward I consider myself a "Realist Conservative". Im not happy with the current offerings from the GOP. I dont have a problem with Romneys Mass. healthcare legislation as it can simply be credited as a "states right" decision. In fact states SHOULD be making the decisions about MOST issues, and the Fed govt should be as small an entity as possible with few powers (and less taxes) except Nat Def. the actual running of the govt. dealing with foriegn countries and thats about it.
@THEORIGINALEXSCAPER so you admit that you are a fascist? you believe that the state governments should decide who produces what, in what quantity, and for what price? You consider yourself an "anti-capitalist conservative? You feel that some states could vote for freedom and others can "vote" to be a communist slave state? really?
@halloranedward Each individual state (Texas, New York, etc) is by the US Constitution empowered to enact laws specifically beneficial to its citzens. If a state were to pass laws, supported by its citizens, to have their healthcare paid for through their own taxes, it would be constitutional and legal. Thats not fascism. Other states can, under the US Constution, pass any laws beneficial to their state that do not conflict with the Constitution. Did not refer to my self as an "anti-capitalist"
@halloranedward 1. Fascism. nationalist movement that controlled Italy from 1022 to 1943 under the dictatorship of Benito Mussolini. Originally based on opposition to Communism and socialism, Fascism established rigid economic controls and attempted to organize most phases of Italian life. 2. any similar movement, such as German Naziism or the Falange in Spain, which advocatea a NATIONAL dictatorship, private ownership of property but state control of the economy, and suppression of opposing
@halloranedward political movements, particularly socialism and Communism.
3. Doctrines or methods of such movements. (1922-1943, not 1022)
Fascism is a label tossed around by many who think they know the definition to but dont. And your connection with anything I have stated to fascism is?... You also accused me of promoting a "communist slave state". As the def of fascism reveals it is the polar opposite of communism, I believe you are the one who does not know the definition of either.
@THEORIGINALEXSCAPER socialism is the government control of prices, facism is socialism that allows limited property owner ship. communism does not allow property ownership.
@halloranedward Socialism. 1. theory or system of social organization based on collective or government ownership and control of the basic means of production, distribution, and exchange. 2. policies or practices of those who advocates such a system. 3, In Marxist theory, socialism is the third stage of society following capitalism in the transition to communism.
@halloranedward Communism. 1. Theory of social and economic organization, advanced chiefly by Karl Marx, advocating public ownership of the means of production, as factories and resources, the sharing of products of labor, and the establishment of a society in which hostile, competitive social classes disappear.
@halloranedward A "communist slave state" would qualify as un-Constitutional.Our system of government is not capitalism. It is democracy in the form of a Federal Republic. Communisn, socialism, marxism,are all polar opposites to the American method and could never be enacted, even on a state level, as they require the possesion of industries, capital, and property by a state. I also didnt say states should do anything like this
What if the shop sells pretty dope stuff but it has the ugliest window in the world? A replacement to a standard window will then increase revenue. What he doesn't take into account is any destruction encourages a redesign to a more efficient replacement which may bring net benefit to the economy.
This is how Europe got rid of its Medieval alley-ways in the onslaught of WWII.
Now I am not saying destruction guarantees a positive outcome, but take what I said into consideration.
This guy seems like a total moron, as to most people featured in videos on this channel. Apparently I've found the channel that libertarians go to on youtube to get more cool aid.
Ay what this bag isnt telling you is that after a natural disaster, you should think smarter. See, after disaster and destruction, you should invest in the companies that make the windows, not the maintenance man who replaces them. See, invest in sheetrock, after that, wood, see how this concept works. Then literally, pull out after you've made a couple thousand. And move on. Professor talk alot likes to keep you simple minded. See how it works boys and girls? Class dismissed.
@yami700thumper Had the window not been broken, then the shopkeeper could spend his money on a new suit, instead of on the repair of a window. So, a profit is still made in the village; it just happens to be the tailor making the profit instead of the glaser. From the shopkeeper's perspective, he has both a new suit an an intact window! Had the window been broken, then he would only have the newly repaired window, and no money for a new suit.
Destroy = money to the self-interest person, who payed the kid to break the window 1/10 of what he can charge the store owner to fix's the window. This is the unseen the greedy person. The so called HERO.
Why do so many people buy into this fallacy? Because it's propaganda. We've been encouraged to believe it. While war is bad for society it is very very good for defense contractors. I prefer the more blunt and honest term though - war profiteers.
"ending is better than mending" -from brave new world.
n7275 1 day ago
what if the shop owner would have spent his money overseas (had the window not been broken)?
what i say is: we go to wally-world, bust their sh*t, (particularly the sh*t they got in this country) and then they have to spend that money here to fix their sh*t instead of on wares from china.
SicSemperTyrrannus 1 day ago
Destruction is good if it happens to someone else. Then they buy your stuff to fix theirs.
All money is created out of thin air because money is based on trust. Without trust, nothing is money. Gold, silver, paper...these aren't money. They only become money when someone will take them in exchange for their production...with the trust that others will take the same 'money' for their production. Otherwise, it's just barter.
solusdiver 1 day ago
.....per dollar they have to make to replace the absent money from the millionair.
SturFriedBrains 1 day ago
See I am not the best to talk to on the matter of the economy & I dont like taking sides, but I think you missed a point. it is by destroying the window the money switching hands to the window maker is going to happen but if the shop keeper doesnt have to spend money on anything other then taxes he can horde it. & what if a millionair hordes their money? keeping millions sitting in the bank costing the Government $.40 (or what ever it is)......
SturFriedBrains 1 day ago
@SturFriedBrains His main idea was production>destruction. The examples you give does not equal production
pat02537 1 day ago
Good video.
The point is that destruction of an asset diverts wealth to replace what was lost rather than saving it, purchasing an additional asset or investing it.
While what you lost may be replaced, the value of what was lost was needlessly wasted. For the broken window fallacy, the town is still one less window despite the material and labor used to replace it; the loss is expressed as the money that was paid to replace it when it could otherwise have been used for something else.
Watcher3223 3 days ago
@Watcher3223 you said everything i was thinking
baddkittys211 3 days ago
The awkward moment when you listen to an entire ad.
NicoNicoNess 5 days ago
If there is a situation where the shop owner is uncertain about the economy and is therefor saving money and not spending it, and then a kid comes a long and breaks his window, in that case the kid actually does stimulate the economy.
Dutchguy74 6 days ago
@Dutchguy74 This is false. The argument that uncertainty may cause people to save is true. It is a simple evaluation of Risk. The kid breaking the window only justifies the perception of Risk and encourages even more saving.
mersk100 6 days ago
@mersk100
There is only so much spending you can cut risk or no risk, just because in a gheto life is dangerous does not mean people don't buy a new washing machine when if breaks down.
Dutchguy74 5 days ago
@Dutchguy74 A broken down washing machine, that was used as a productive good, and saved labor (time/effort) those many years of service, increased over all productivity over its useful lifetime. A window that has yet to serve its useful life, broken, is wasted productivity. Instead of the new glass made going someplace else, it has to go replace the broken one, that already consumed labor in earlier production.
mersk100 5 days ago
@Dutchguy74 As for Risk - This is what interest rates would reflect in a monetary system that perfectly matched increases in productivity. No such system can ever exist, no one knows the future.
If you are trying to discuss deflationary forces, the say so, don't dance around it.
mersk100 5 days ago
@mersk100
No, im only talking about whether there can be a situation where basically forcing people to spend money, when they have cut spending to a bare minimum as can be expected during a depression can actually stimulate the economy or not, I think it can.
Dutchguy74 5 days ago
@Dutchguy74 Who has the moral authority to force anyone else to spend? That's a whole other topic but shesh, you're making an argument for force. Sad.
Anyway, if there is a depression, it is a great motivator for innovation. That innovation creates an excess of productive capacity, which can be used to create additional wealth. Savers who have capital, can invest in that innovation and further increase wealth. Depression sweeps away bad investment, and encourages productive investment.
mersk100 5 days ago
@mersk100
every state every where uses force all the time. that is how any order has been throughout history everywhere on the planet without exceptions.
I agree with you that a depression creates opportunity, however it comes with great pain and with massive unemployment before everyone has adjusted.
Ever since fractional reserve banking has been invented savings are no longer required. the banks create the capital as soon as a business man comes to them with a "good plan"
Dutchguy74 5 days ago
@Dutchguy74 The appeal to antiquity is a fallacy, much less it is supposition.
Prolonging the depression, attempting to "soften" the landing, making a recession is just as painful and takes even longer.
FR banking creating money out of thin air simply dilutes the value of all the other money already there. This is monetary inflation. It is theft from all for the benefit of a few, mainly those that create the new money out of nothing.
mersk100 5 days ago
@mersk100
Well if you have a theory of how to maintain order without using force, please let me know, if you have an example from real life where this actually worked please point to it.
I do think there is historic evidence that stimulating demand during a depression does soften the impact and avoided all kinds of extreme reaction by the population.
You may be opposed to FR the market created this, I suspect because it is more efficient. it would require regulation to force full reserve B
Dutchguy74 5 days ago
@Dutchguy74 Look at many tribal cultures. Many of them had order by way of religion and used religion as the basis for a moral code. When the moral code is understood by all, transgressions tend to be minimal.
What is your historic evidence, the WWII canard?
FR or not FR requires some amount of enforcement so long as people are willing to accept something other than a real thing as money. So let the market decide what is and is not money with out limit or regulation on acceptance.
mersk100 5 days ago
sigh looking at an empty glass as still being half full.. yeah, yeah it's like an eye for an eye. it's a coin flip altered realities it's unknown which is better. The glassmaker might 'ave needed that money for his rent and was one client short if that guy hadn't came in it's looking at one unseen not another the tailor could have been the richest man on the block and whether or not that guy came in he still would've been rich.
WhisperShoes 6 days ago in playlist Favorites
@WhisperShoes If the glassmaker is not getting enough business, it is because the community has no need for a glassmaker, or it has too many glassmakers. He needs to go into a different business.
stalrunner 6 days ago
How does insurance come into play though?
dnon75 6 days ago in playlist Favorites
a journalist/writer calls this "Marshall's fallacy".. and he's given a really good treatment of it: webhome.idirect.com/~andyt/marshall.html
hellznrg 6 days ago
:D i saw this ad when i was trying to watch a different video on youtube
BananasLoveMeXD 1 week ago
I wish everyone in Florida who says Hurricanes are good for Florida because of the repairing business would watch this.
WakingLife55 1 week ago
Actually, the act of a child breaking a window with a rock is a good thing, because it gives the shopkeeper an opportunity to be forgiving and patient. Who gives a fleeced fuck about economics? It's not about what the window costs the shopkeeper's wallet; what's important is how he treats the situation.
gunslingingmadness 1 week ago
I can't wait for a 5 year old who sets fire to the living room sofa to say "Look mommie, I am creating jobs." LOL!
MrConservative608 1 week ago
Dude...what the fuck. I don't troll or hate on the internet, but someone spent a shit load of time making a senseless stupid unclear video. This is the fanciest looking piece of shit video I've seen since I filmed a turd with glitter on it.
malinao08 1 week ago
Awesome. I love economics. It makes sense.
YouHaveWonAFreeiPad 1 week ago
This is one of those things. At first, you might think, "yeah, it's good. Pay the window maker" but then after you think a little, this should be common sense.
allintexaholdem 1 week ago
I am no apologist for the US invasion but in economic terms despite the vast sums of money spent on the military securing the long term supply of oil to the US may have been economically ‘worth it’.Again this fallacy was thought of at a time where oil dependence not an issue. However in defence of Bastiat's argument governments today are still activity encouraging unnecessary destruction (in less extreme ways of course) through schemes like the Car Scrappage (UK) and boiler replacement program.
wesayukdotcom2012 1 week ago
@wesayukdotcom2012 Precisely. Those who were for it did not believe it would create economic stimulus, but that it was necessarily for peace, stability, or whatever. Strangely though, many of those who are against the Iraq war, which I'm not saying is a bad position, would claim that it was both done for economic reasons and that it was ruining our economy.
worldofdraculas 1 week ago
@wesayukdotcom2012 Oil "dependence" doesn't change the story.
On the "oil dependence" nonsense, why aren't the producing countries bitching about "dollar dependence"?
You would think they would want to get off the dependency on foreign funds and keep their oil.
Hmmm....
jeffiek 1 week ago
This fallacy comes from an era where the world being at war was the norm. No political leader today in their right mind at least is going to go to war on the premise that they are doing for the good of the economy and jobs. However, whilst this may sound a contradiction of the ‘fallacy’ it may indeed be good for the economy if we smash the windows of other countries as in the case of the invasion of Iraq. Re: Halliburton et al in the rebuilding process.
wesayukdotcom2012 1 week ago
... ARE YOU REFERENCING THAT DESTRUCTION IS ALL THAT HAS OCCURED LATELY BECAUSE HONESTLY IF YOU DO, THIS VIDEO IS A REFERENCE TO A CONVOLUDED PERCEPTION TO ECONOMICS
ThnkIaA 1 week ago
The glass-maker and florist were both really slow that week, the glass-maker hadn't had a date in a couple years, and finally conspired with the kid to break the window. Window and case closed.
hybridmcgee 1 week ago
I thought this would be a rebuttal of "broken windows theory." The topic at hand was interesting though. It's something that I learned the hard way in Sim City. No, sending tornadoes to destroy your city doesn't help it rebuild.
Xplayer007 1 week ago
Please stop buying adspace on the videos I watch. Please.
NonisMain 1 week ago
2:41 - I refuse to believe that an outcome that results in "LAWYER" is more desirable; broken window or not. :P
CountArtha 2 weeks ago
I agree and see the validity of this video but could the broken window theory hold any merit if the object that is replaced is more efficient or is replaced with a more technologically advance system.
Im not attempting to disprove this video, just asking out of curiosity
CobwebsAndStrange93 2 weeks ago
@CobwebsAndStrange93 No, because if the upgrade was worth it then it would be performed regardless of breakage. So basically there'd be no negative effect but also no postive one. What you're envisaging is someone wrecking a building that was due for demolition anyway.
WalterLiddy 2 weeks ago
@WalterLiddy Thanks for the answer, Im just a young kid trying to sift through all the shit that is feed to me.
I appreciate your response
CobwebsAndStrange93 1 week ago
@CobwebsAndStrange93 The shopkeeper could have replaced the window himself at a later time of his choosing (once it made economic sense to do so) rather than replace it prematurely due to it being shattered.
sniperontheroof123 1 week ago
Of course, government spending IS in fact good for the economy. We have to have government spending in order to pick up the slack for all of the private consumers that aren't consuming like they're supposed to. Think of what would happen to the economy if we laid off a good portion of the military. Think of the disaster that would cause to our economy. The government absolutely MUST create employment.
TheManiacalSatanist6 2 weeks ago in playlist Favorite videos
@TheManiacalSatanist6 You're talking to people who have an over simplified view of the world and put into a box the way they want-- they forget economics you have to state economic assertion starts with "All things being equal" meaning you don't account for anything else. Type of currency (fiat or commodity backed), war winners and losers, point of destruction that occurred, cooperation between nations, federal and local governments, etc.They ignore these other factors.
jmitterii2 2 weeks ago
@TheManiacalSatanist6 What a load of shit. What you're saying is that because the government has made so many people reliant on its redistribution system, that system can't be undone without damage being done. Certainly that's true. But it neither makes the system right nor sustainable. Do you want to pay the price for bad policy sooner or later, when it will be substantially greater?
WalterLiddy 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@WalterLiddy "Do you want to pay the price for bad policy sooner or later, when it will be substantially greater?"
Bad policy would be cutting spending. Look at all of the Iraq veterans that came home and can't find employment now. You think the Middle Class would be eroding if the market were creating jobs now? Instead of spending to create jobs in infrastructure and giving out healthcare and education, we spent this fucking money on tax cuts for the rich!
TheManiacalSatanist6 1 week ago
In a liquidity trap the broken window fallacy ceases to be a fallacy... just saying.[/neokeynesian]
HypotheticalRedness 2 weeks ago
@HypotheticalRedness Actually, it is the liquidity trap that is a fallacy. [Austrian]
FletchforFreedom 2 weeks ago
So in the case of say, Joplin, Missouri or New Orleans, it would have been better off if the government hadn't given a penny to those cities to rebuild? The correct definition of an oppressive government is a government that turns a cold shoulder to its citizens in need.
TigerghostPictures 3 weeks ago
The shopkeeper broke the window. Learn the truth now!
XHauntX 3 weeks ago 3
Think outside the box people. I know we think globally and we are interconnected. Economies are localized though. It will help my economy if I go to another country, break their windows, and sell them new ones from my country. I like how he even points to it. We should have armies of kids breaking windows. We already have that. Wars = Increased Arms Sales = Artificial GDP Boost through Fiscal Policy = More Lending Power = More Spending for all = Implement new government securing contracts
Malbogia84 3 weeks ago
@Malbogia84 Yes, that's the fallacy of this explanation. War reaps the benefit of destroying another economy to help ours.
JaySee5 3 weeks ago
not really.. the third alternative is that the shopkeeper may not ever spend that money.
kamalmichael 3 weeks ago
@kamalmichael That's his prerogative.
crazypants88 3 weeks ago
The goal of "Uncle Sam and Company" is to create poverty through income tax, property tax, and licensing. When people become poor enough, they will become PAID soldiers to protect the system that impoverished them.
geehuckwow 3 weeks ago in playlist Favorites
so...i can run around town and break windows then? and tell people i'm helping them? :D
FrostySnow1000 3 weeks ago
wtf is this so maybe u americans are the ones who caused the 9/11 attack so u can create more jobs eh eh eh dumbasss
jrarobo 3 weeks ago
Its production that create wealth not destruction. You need to include, it is not consumption that create wealth either. When you consume something, the item is gone
outforsushi 1 month ago
It's a false flag operation!! Look very carefully at the video - I saw the shopkeeper breaking the window, and now he blames it on some poor kid.
boohoo746 1 month ago
I don't think that the idea of Keynesian economics is that wars or things like that actually produce wealth, just that it gives incentive for labor that wasn't there before, and hopefully people stay employed after the initial incentive for labor has gone away.
AllOtherNamesTaken2 1 month ago in playlist Favorites
@AllOtherNamesTaken2 What a sorry excuse for Keynesian economics!!
Did you hear that one about Krugman and the alien invasion? If not, listen to it on youtube, and then ask yourself the questions: What jobs are people going be employed in preparing for an alien invasion? And how would those jobs relate to jobs in a prosperous non-wartime economy?
When the problem is that the economy is unsustainably distorted, the solution is not to distort it in some other nonsensical bubbly direction.
boohoo746 1 month ago
nice explanation
vonGleichenT 1 month ago
Yeah, but at least now you have the internet, where with the slightest amount of interest you can immediately debunk factoids, whereas in the old days you literally had to go around enlightening all the imbeciles that bought into this kind of fallacy. And you could never compete with the speed it spread.
19shapte7 1 month ago in playlist Favorites
Cool explanation!
ResisterOfEvil 1 month ago in playlist Favorites
If your a Graff writer this is the best thing ever
HerroAsianMan 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I don't spend money because I want to, I spend money because I HAVE to. I haven't bought new clothes in years, but if you burn down my wardrobe, I'm sure as shit gonna buy new clothes.
bloodhazard67 1 month ago
Comment removed
bloodhazard67 1 month ago
You're an idiot and I hate that you have the money to throw away on a youtube advertising slot.
blizzardregulus 1 month ago
It can help the economy in short-term. The shopkeeper with a broken window is forced to spend his money right away and therefore create quick jobs.
NinjaFilip 1 month ago in playlist Favorites
@NinjaFilip Only if the shopkeeper wouldn't spend his money right away. But then again, if he didn't, it would be in a bank somewhere, and barring the once every 80 massive slowdown on lending, will be loaned to someone else to buy a house, or car, or something. Making the shopkeeper spend money takes that money from the bank, which takes it from someone that could also use it right away to create jobs. So, maybe only when you can't get a loan should you break windows?
TG1212able 1 month ago
Loving this mofos videos.
goragan6 1 month ago
What...The...Hell?
2KrAzYfriends 1 month ago
But my public school taught me that WWII was a job creator and helped the economy.......
DeathOfAMudkip 1 month ago in playlist Favorites
@DeathOfAMudkip It is very true that WW2 did not directly aid the economy and I agree with the video, but some of the economic effect was from technology invented during the war and the massive reorganization and reinvigoration of people that may have got their spirits up for a better future, since the destruction was behind them. Before the war there was a lot of social anxiety. But those additional theories are less verifiable.
MadPutz 1 month ago in playlist Favorites
@MadPutz To the contrary, governmnet spending is a DRAG on technology. How much private automotove technology did not come into being because the resources had been reallocated to military applications (most of which have no value to consumers). And no matter how high "spirits" were raised, how much more productive would have been the quarter of a million people lost?
FletchforFreedom 1 month ago in playlist Favorites
Obviously destruction doesnt bring prosperity but it is good for the economy, this dude doesn't understand.
In case of disasters money comes out of third source via government spending by money created ( borrowed or printed ). So if to extrapolate the example, there is both glass repaired and dude have money to spend elsewhere.
Monetary economics sucks anyway no matter what they stand for.
shogu666 1 month ago
@shogu666 No, it is NOT good for the economy. The governmnet cannot create wealth; every dollar it spends must come from someone else, either via taxation, borrowing (which removes resources from the private credit markets) or exapnsion of the money supply (devaluing savings). The government then passes each taken dollar through a wasteful bureaucracy and allocates it to politically, rather than economically, viable avenues. Governmnet spending is an economic disaster.
FletchforFreedom 1 month ago in playlist Favorites 33
This has been flagged as spam show
@FletchforFreedom "every dollar it spends must come from someone else, either via taxation, borrowing (which removes resources from the private credit markets) or exapnsion of the money supply (devaluing savings)."
Still the shopkeeper has the glass and money to spend on something elses doesn't he ??
Even if your argument is correct ( i dont want to go debate about that here ) the video is still misleading
shogu666 1 month ago
@FletchforFreedom " The governmnet cannot create wealth; every dollar it spends must come from someone else,"
That is very funny. Try pitching that argument to Lockheed, Northrup, and all the wealthy lobbyist in DC. All because you don't agree with how govt is spending it's resources (and ours), doesn't automatically mean that it's destructive. If that where the case, we wouldn't be talking... over the internet.
TylerNutify 2 weeks ago
@TylerNutify I can EASILY pitch it to anyone. You can't seem to grasp that the wealth generated at Lockheed and Northrup is offset by the GREATER amount of wealth lost in taking it from elsewhere. Governmnet cannot create wealth on a NET basis.
And the old canard about the government's (or Al Gore's) creation of the internet is a great way to announce that you don't know what you're talking about.
But, hey, thanks for playing!!!
FletchforFreedom 2 weeks ago 8
@FletchforFreedom Except in situations where the people who hold money are not spending it in ways that benefit the economy. For example a liquidity trap situation. Wonder where you could find one of those?
Friarmarkv 2 weeks ago
@Friarmarkv I wionder where you can find one of those too since they don't exist. The nonsensical claim of a liquidity trap is based on the notion that the economy is driven by consumption rather than production and that ignoring the actions of individual actors in the economy and concentrating on "aggregate demand" actually works. Since there has never been a case where "stimulus spending" has actually worked, "liquidity trap" is just a fiction to describe a broken banking system.
FletchforFreedom 2 weeks ago
@FletchforFreedom Old adage: If you laid all the economist in the world end to end, they still not reach a consensus.
John Mauldin in one of his newsletters in early 2009 stated at if you look at all the economic theories, they all agree that what we saw in the fall of '08 should never have been possible.
So who are you kidding.
TylerNutify 2 weeks ago
@TylerNutify Old adage: those who rely on old adages are doomed to remain ignorant.
As John <auldin is an investment advisor and not an economist (far from the same thing), it is perhaps understandable that he is completely wrong. ONLY the Keynesian school holds that position (the largest school but not a majority of economists). Not only did other schools (most notably the Chicago and Austrian schools) say it was possible, many PREDICTED it.
I'm kidding no one. I'm informed.
FletchforFreedom 2 weeks ago
@FletchforFreedom well said!
noronahahaha 1 week ago
@shogu666 But that money was taken from the people, not really created. Borrowing money puts the taxpayers on the hook for interest payments and eventually paying back the debt. Printing devalues the money already in the economy. Borrowing a printing do not create permanent wealth.
stalrunner 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@stalrunner "But that money was taken from the people, not really created. Borrowing money puts the taxpayers on the hook for interest payments and eventually paying back the debt. Printing devalues the money already in the economy. Borrowing a printing do not create permanent wealth."
I said i dont want to debate it here.
Even if you are right my argument was that video is misleading and simplifies important aspect, why dont you just admit i, it should be re-done.
shogu666 3 weeks ago
Very good presentation. People insist that The Broken Window Fallacy is the most persistent economic fallacy, but actually, the notion that in the realm of Supply and Demand one is prior to the other is the most persistent economic fallacy. The notion that Demand is absolutely prior to Supply, i.e., that Supply is entirely dependent on Demand, is the central driving force behind the broken window.
TheManiacalSatanist6 1 month ago
So don't break windows? Not a very complicated thought process. Maybe they should have sent this one to Bush before he broke a lot more than windows in Iraq and started dumping money into the laps of military contractors.
colddrake80 1 month ago in playlist Favorites
Comment removed
DreamPoliceAcademy 1 month ago in playlist Favorites
u just now figure this out wtf this is stupid
ganjahuh 1 month ago
Wow... amazing! :)
squeaty 1 month ago in playlist Favorites
gotta love liberal speculation. if this were true about war than our government would be filthy rich and not in debt. nor would our unemployment be so fucked.
dudewtf1776 1 month ago in playlist Favorites
Cash for clunkers in action right here.
01Z06guy 1 month ago 11
Wow my mind is officially blown. I now know that destroying things is bad. No shit sherlock
15a4k0n 1 month ago
@15a4k0n I had a history professor tell me that Katrina helped the economy, that WW2 helped the economy, that 9/11 helped the economy, etc. It takes an intellectual to somehow justify the stupidest of logic... and an even better intellectual to disprove it... but somebody with common sense doesn't waste his time on such silly matters.
ThoseWhoStayUofM 1 month ago in playlist Favorites
i cant believe this guys make politics interesting
Jstudios24 1 month ago
so, this is stating the fallacy of looking at the class half fool. rather then half empty. you can look at all the good points you want, but it will not change the fact that something bad happened. trying to see the good that came out of it only blinds us of the fact that we still have the bad thing happened. now when looking at the glass half empty, you see the problem and you focus on it. you keep contemplating it until you come up with a better solution.once you find it, you improve it.
jrmgame 1 month ago
So this right winger just made an argument agaist Creative Destruction. Buying a company to shut it down does not help the economy, it just destroys jobs and a company.
therichardking4242 1 month ago
@therichardking4242 Most companies that are financially sound are either too expensive to be purchased, or are not for sale. Companies that are for sale tend to be in trouble and the owners are looking for "an out". Investors would rather the business they are purchasing be capable of being saved than shut down. If that is the case then selling assets from the company (which is already doomed) and investing that capital can lead to other jobs. Often more than the previous failing business had.
THEORIGINALEXSCAPER 1 month ago
@THEORIGINALEXSCAPER You miss my point about how if broken widows don't help the economy then why do broken companies. Under the rules of logic you should be able to replace the variable widows for companies and the argument still hold true. But it doesn't so one of them is wrong. If broken companies help the economy then broken widows must as well or neither of them do.
therichardking4242 1 month ago
@therichardking4242 I watched the video a second time and realized it is flawed in its characterization of the 'broken window" example. He uses it to reject the claim (which is correct) that terrorist attacks and natural disasters in the long run are good for the economy because they stimulate prioduction and business as they require things to be rebuilt, purchased, etc. The "broken window" example actually is meant to portray the negative effects on all from excessive taxation by the government
THEORIGINALEXSCAPER 1 month ago
Comment removed
TWSceptic 3 weeks ago
@TWSceptic You miss my piont. BOTH are valid. Creative destruction and the broken widows theory are the same argument when you break it down in logic. A weak company being shut down to make way for stronger ones or a weak house being destroyed in a storm to be replaced both help the economy. And yes I'm left wing but I agree with creative destruction.
therichardking4242 3 weeks ago
I saw this entire video as an advertisement on CharlieIsSoCoolLike. Loved it. Thanks for advertising and making a great video, I automatically clicked on it and am now subscribed to you. I hope I can see more interesting videos like this in the future.
harmonymelodypress 1 month ago
That awkward moment when you need a video explaining to grown ups why destruction is bad...
Girl0Interrupted0 1 month ago 120
@Girl0Interrupted0 destruction bad M-kay?
realhxq 1 month ago in playlist Favorites
@Girl0Interrupted0 You couldn't have put it any better :)
Rattlesnakemeuk 1 month ago
Comment removed
TWSceptic 3 weeks ago
You ain't gotta read no dang "wealth of nations" to understand capitalism, people living in bassackward primative societies with enough wealth and freedom to run a flea market get it. even when you ban capitalism like they did in the USSR and are almost done doing in the US capitalism keeps on happening, capitalism is not an economic "plan" like socialism pretends to be. It is what happens by default; when people are free it works great.
halloranedward 2 months ago
good video
SAVINGS AND PRODUCTION FTW!
TheBlitz1 2 months ago
WRONG! If that person replacing the Window was unemployed he is now part of the economy and helping increasing the velocity of money! As always these idiotic arguments go to extremes by saying “let’s have an army of kids”. If there were an Equal amount of army unemployed than Yes lets tear this bitch up! On the Other extreme to combat his idiotic analogy Let’s avoid making things because we all know someone will break it eventually by accident or otherwise! Simply idiotic!
CitizenNumber 2 months ago in playlist Favorites
@CitizenNumber Youre forgetting something very basic. If the person who has had his window broken does not have the money to repair it, no person will be employed (paid) to fix it. Eventually with enough broken windows, for everyone in the same neighborhood, people will no longer shop there leading to closed businesses, high crime, and blight. And that unemployed person expecting a new job replacing windows? Guaranteed to blame the wealthy business people for leaving him desolate and jobless.
THEORIGINALEXSCAPER 1 month ago
@THEORIGINALEXSCAPER You do understand that a Broken window is an analogy right?
If % of Broken windows = % of unemployment you get increased productivity! Next if your theory was remotely correct more than 50% of the population would be unemployed! Because back in the day we required 50% of the pop to produce food Today we only require 3% of the Population producing to accomplish the same amount of output. Efficiency = job loss and vice versa
CitizenNumber 1 month ago
@CitizenNumber Yes I understand it is an analogy. My point is that the "broken window fallacy" is intended to show the false belief that INTENTIONALLY causing harm, destruction, or hardship is good. Prof Cardens uses it incorrectly by using motives such as war, terrorism and natural disasters. Wars and terrorism are not enacted for the sake of improving an economy through the need for increased production, but for the sole motives OF war and terrorism. I did not say increasing broken windows
THEORIGINALEXSCAPER 1 month ago
Comment removed
THEORIGINALEXSCAPER 1 month ago
@CitizenNumber increases productivity. Efficiency does not lead to long term job loss. In fact the opposite is true. Efficiency has lead to developments (ie, jobs) in advances in medicine, mechanization, and computer science, just to name a few. In fact there are thousands (?) of YouTube workers who are employed with good paying jobs motivated by the INCREASED and efficiencent mode of communication via the internet, who otherwise might only have been able to go around breaking windows...
THEORIGINALEXSCAPER 1 month ago
@THEORIGINALEXSCAPER You are wrong. Increased efficiency does create job loss. Gov must step in and higher till new Technology comes along. Than workers must be retrained and start at the bottom and work their way up. This is not up to debate. A farmer cannot just start manufacturing cars. A construction worker cannot just go into IT. Sorry but you are extremely Wrong!
CitizenNumber 1 month ago
@CitizenNumber In a free market economy the owner(s) of a company have the final say as to decisions regarding the business THEY own/ manage. Govts role in such a system (US) is by its own constitution intended to be limited regarding the powers it has with private industry. If a company decided to go 50% or 100% automated, they are within their legal right to do so even if it would mean their employees would losetheir jobs. It is each INDIVIDUALS responsibility to improve themself through
THEORIGINALEXSCAPER 1 month ago
@THEORIGINALEXSCAPER No Argument here. You are correct. Job Outsourcing is a more efficient method of producing. No different than producing a super efficient machine Yet all Americans bitch about it. Why? Because efficiency causes JOB LOSS! That is capitalism & advancement. They don’t see that it frees up people to apply themselves in better and even more efficient jobs that create more wealth for all US Citizens. We don’t need Americans making Toothpicks. We need them to Designing Iphones!
CitizenNumber 1 month ago
@CitizenNumber education and training. This is a part of the problem here in the US recently, as employees who felt entitled to life-long jobs, were never educated regarding how the free market economy works. The result is undereducated, mis-informed workers, SHOCKED that the company they worked at for years is moving to Mexico or India because their employer realizes that nations with lower wages, and taxes means greater profitability! Businesses are NOT in business as social programs! Govt's
THEORIGINALEXSCAPER 1 month ago
Comment removed
CitizenNumber 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@THEORIGINALEXSCAPER I Agree except for the Gov part. If Gov does not support the transition period you will get a total economic collapse. if that occurs whats the point? 1 step forward 10 steps back. The Result is India China etc.Without Gov support during training periods when unemployment is high and Gov support for higher education no one will have an income to consume inelastic products and all Biz will lose as well! Like I said before Total economic collapse! Gov is Vital to any eco.
CitizenNumber 1 month ago
@CitizenNumber are even worse in this role because they waste tax payer dollars (or ruppes) through deliberate INEFFICIENCY! Access to trillions of dollars are like a magnet to unethical politicians whose eyes glaze over at the prospect of the power in controlling such funds. Which breeds 15 trillion dollar debts, a slowing economy and a weary citizenry. Big govt is ALWAYS BAD! Small govt, less bad. You arethe one who is wrong. The example you described is socialism! Not democracy or the free
THEORIGINALEXSCAPER 1 month ago
@THEORIGINALEXSCAPER No you have it backwards. What you view as inefficiency is extremely efficient on a macro long term economic health. 15T of debt is 10T of US savings friend. 70% of all US debt is owned by Americans. Only 4.5T or 30% is foreign debt. Which means 70% of all interest paid is returned back into circulation in the US Ecnomy. All Gov spending is spend in the US Economy which means income for everyone in the economy through the multiplier effect. One mans debt is anothers savings!
CitizenNumber 1 month ago
@CitizenNumber market! Regarding the company that let 50% -100% of its employees go in favor of automation?In a democracy with free press which would report such a move by a company, it would receive EXTREMELY bad press, risk a public backlash resulting in buyer revolt for goods or services provided by that company. Which is why businesses dont do it.Efficiency, long term, is good for business, and creates jobs.Govt should be limited to defense, foriegn affairs, and the running of the govt ONLY!
THEORIGINALEXSCAPER 1 month ago
Comment removed
CitizenNumber 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@THEORIGINALEXSCAPER Again I agree! But again During Transition Periods of High Unemployment Gov must step in. Efficiency causes job loss! Even if the US removed all Taxes prices will rise Overnight causing inflation. Result?Biz will reach the Top, fail and collapse the entire economy. If you and I had $100 and bid for 1 item The highest price that item will go for is $100. If taxes were removed we both get an additional $100 in our pockets the Item will go for a max $200. Result is the same!
CitizenNumber 1 month ago
uh... cell phones basically self destruct after two years... you must spend every last dollar you have to get a new one... this is capitalism, its inherently destructive, and it makes people filthy rich. you sir, are only looking at half of the coin. imagine if the window disintegrated after two years, every two years and they only got more expensive to replace.
NUGNESS123 2 months ago in playlist Favorites
Ha! The lego-dominoe said "Small Riot".....
AdamRainStopper 2 months ago in playlist Favorites
This guy is such a liberal fag
JonDrinksWater 2 months ago in playlist Favorites
What about the cost of prosecuting the window-breaker if he is caught? Subtract that and you have a net loss in the equation.
maclandyouth 2 months ago
Similarly the common refrain that Christmas helps the economy is bunk. Fear of cultural consequences of "opting out" of this yearly ritual makes us trade goods and services we want (we have less money to buy them after X-mas shopping) for goods and services that give us less utility (gifts chosen for us by others, who are unlikely to know our preferences as well we know our own).
eswyatt 2 months ago in playlist Favorites
@NOLAMarathon2010 cash for clunkers was actually an idea from the chinese embassy for the US to acquire raw materials to trade to China, because they needed something more than our dollars to continue trading with us.
soratsol 2 months ago
Unbelievable!!! If people can’t understand the reasoning behind this than we really are doomed. Destroying is not creating. And replacing should be done by choice not by force. And also sometimes it is true that after things are destroyed, better ways come out. New Orleans comes to mind in that after Katrina they have moved to a nearly all charter school system and went from having the worst test scores to having the best in the state. But those things should have happened anyway.
jaspony1 2 months ago in playlist Favorites
@jaspony1 It scares the heck out of me that the front runners in the RNC are proposing socialist health care , to replace obamacare, proposing hiring subsidies and protectionist tariffs, ....are their no capitalist republicans?
halloranedward 2 months ago
@halloranedward I consider myself a "Realist Conservative". Im not happy with the current offerings from the GOP. I dont have a problem with Romneys Mass. healthcare legislation as it can simply be credited as a "states right" decision. In fact states SHOULD be making the decisions about MOST issues, and the Fed govt should be as small an entity as possible with few powers (and less taxes) except Nat Def. the actual running of the govt. dealing with foriegn countries and thats about it.
THEORIGINALEXSCAPER 1 month ago
@THEORIGINALEXSCAPER so you admit that you are a fascist? you believe that the state governments should decide who produces what, in what quantity, and for what price? You consider yourself an "anti-capitalist conservative? You feel that some states could vote for freedom and others can "vote" to be a communist slave state? really?
halloranedward 1 month ago
@halloranedward Each individual state (Texas, New York, etc) is by the US Constitution empowered to enact laws specifically beneficial to its citzens. If a state were to pass laws, supported by its citizens, to have their healthcare paid for through their own taxes, it would be constitutional and legal. Thats not fascism. Other states can, under the US Constution, pass any laws beneficial to their state that do not conflict with the Constitution. Did not refer to my self as an "anti-capitalist"
THEORIGINALEXSCAPER 1 month ago
@THEORIGINALEXSCAPER look up the word "fascist" in the dictionary, you clearly do not know what it means.
halloranedward 1 month ago
@halloranedward Look up The US Constitution. You obviously do not know what the concept of "states rights" means.
THEORIGINALEXSCAPER 1 month ago
@halloranedward 1. Fascism. nationalist movement that controlled Italy from 1022 to 1943 under the dictatorship of Benito Mussolini. Originally based on opposition to Communism and socialism, Fascism established rigid economic controls and attempted to organize most phases of Italian life. 2. any similar movement, such as German Naziism or the Falange in Spain, which advocatea a NATIONAL dictatorship, private ownership of property but state control of the economy, and suppression of opposing
THEORIGINALEXSCAPER 1 month ago
@halloranedward political movements, particularly socialism and Communism.
3. Doctrines or methods of such movements. (1922-1943, not 1022)
Fascism is a label tossed around by many who think they know the definition to but dont. And your connection with anything I have stated to fascism is?... You also accused me of promoting a "communist slave state". As the def of fascism reveals it is the polar opposite of communism, I believe you are the one who does not know the definition of either.
THEORIGINALEXSCAPER 1 month ago
@THEORIGINALEXSCAPER socialism is the government control of prices, facism is socialism that allows limited property owner ship. communism does not allow property ownership.
halloranedward 1 month ago
@halloranedward Socialism. 1. theory or system of social organization based on collective or government ownership and control of the basic means of production, distribution, and exchange. 2. policies or practices of those who advocates such a system. 3, In Marxist theory, socialism is the third stage of society following capitalism in the transition to communism.
THEORIGINALEXSCAPER 1 month ago
@halloranedward Communism. 1. Theory of social and economic organization, advanced chiefly by Karl Marx, advocating public ownership of the means of production, as factories and resources, the sharing of products of labor, and the establishment of a society in which hostile, competitive social classes disappear.
THEORIGINALEXSCAPER 1 month ago
@halloranedward A "communist slave state" would qualify as un-Constitutional.Our system of government is not capitalism. It is democracy in the form of a Federal Republic. Communisn, socialism, marxism,are all polar opposites to the American method and could never be enacted, even on a state level, as they require the possesion of industries, capital, and property by a state. I also didnt say states should do anything like this
THEORIGINALEXSCAPER 1 month ago
Have we not hired a bunch of kids with rocks? as in THE MILITARY INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX?
skb0rzn 2 months ago in playlist Favorites
The most recent and ridiculous manifestation of the broken window fallacy was "Cash for clunkers".
NOLAMarathon2010 2 months ago
I got a job working for FEMA at a crematory center:)...havent been very busy , yet.
DVincentW 2 months ago in playlist Favorites
What if the shop sells pretty dope stuff but it has the ugliest window in the world? A replacement to a standard window will then increase revenue. What he doesn't take into account is any destruction encourages a redesign to a more efficient replacement which may bring net benefit to the economy.
This is how Europe got rid of its Medieval alley-ways in the onslaught of WWII.
Now I am not saying destruction guarantees a positive outcome, but take what I said into consideration.
lliihhaann 2 months ago
This guy seems like a total moron, as to most people featured in videos on this channel. Apparently I've found the channel that libertarians go to on youtube to get more cool aid.
coopclauson 2 months ago in playlist Favorites
Ay what this bag isnt telling you is that after a natural disaster, you should think smarter. See, after disaster and destruction, you should invest in the companies that make the windows, not the maintenance man who replaces them. See, invest in sheetrock, after that, wood, see how this concept works. Then literally, pull out after you've made a couple thousand. And move on. Professor talk alot likes to keep you simple minded. See how it works boys and girls? Class dismissed.
snowmanexpr 2 months ago in playlist Favorites
What about the glass maker who profits from the broken window?
yami700thumper 2 months ago in playlist Favorites
@yami700thumper Had the window not been broken, then the shopkeeper could spend his money on a new suit, instead of on the repair of a window. So, a profit is still made in the village; it just happens to be the tailor making the profit instead of the glaser. From the shopkeeper's perspective, he has both a new suit an an intact window! Had the window been broken, then he would only have the newly repaired window, and no money for a new suit.
NOLAMarathon2010 2 months ago
Destroy = money to the self-interest person, who payed the kid to break the window 1/10 of what he can charge the store owner to fix's the window. This is the unseen the greedy person. The so called HERO.
This is my version of the invisible hand.
stewartde 2 months ago
Why do so many people buy into this fallacy? Because it's propaganda. We've been encouraged to believe it. While war is bad for society it is very very good for defense contractors. I prefer the more blunt and honest term though - war profiteers.
Ansonidak 2 months ago in playlist Favorites
"The guy whose window was broken could have bought a suit if it wasn't."
Or he could've sat on the money for a year before he spent it, in which case the window break made the money circulate a year earlier.
This does not imply that breaking windows is a good policy recommendation.
tifforo1 2 months ago
i like how he just blinks at the end like "you're stupid if you don't understand this"
oh, and @ billbo380 - materials are biodegraded and reused
unfortunately, when we blow up our bombs, its not so easy to recycle them :(
You drink your recycled shit every day!
weswill2008 2 months ago in playlist Favorites 10
don't eat food. it's destroying wealth.
billb380 2 months ago in playlist Favorites
Comment removed
billb380 2 months ago in playlist Favorites