The Broken Windshield Fallacy

In the Texas section of today’s New York Times (p. 33A) under a four column picture of a fellow installing a new windshield is the headline “Big Rocks, Torn-Up Roads, Fragile Glass.” A sub-headline reads “An Oil Boom Can Be Good for All Kinds of Entrepreneurs.” One hardly has to read the article to know the content, especially ones who recall the old story about the way denim jean “entrepreneurs” thrived during the California gold rush. Of course the oil boom in South Texas results in cracked windshields and of course money can be made repairing them.

(I put entrepreneur above  in quotes to protest the way Joseph Schumpeter’s concept has been corrupted by the popular press to cover just about any small business venture no matter how common and routine it has become.)

Readers in the know are ahead of me and have already made the connection with Frederic Bastiat’s classic “Broken Window Fallacy.” In Bastiat’s original version, some teenagers throw a brick through a baker’s window. The gathering crowd said what a shame, but soon focused on the silver lining: much helpful economic activity will be set in motion when the baker has the window replaced. The repairman has more income to spend on something else, and the seller of something else will have more income to spend on still something else, and so on until we have an expansion of economic activity that is some multiple of the initial repair job.

Bastiat called it a fallacy because, while the spending chain originating with the broken window, does generate economic activity, it does so at the expense of other spending chains that don’t occur because this one did. In other words, had he not had to spend his money on window repair, the baker would have spent on something else, and the beneficiary of that spending would have new income to spend, etc. The broken window didn’t create net new economic activity. What it did was divert economic activity from one set of players to another. While some people benefit from the spending that took place, others are harmed (probably unknowingly) by the diversion of spending away from them.

Broken windows do not add to the wealth of nations. They diminish it by destroying part of the nation’s capital stock and productive capacity. Surely the nation would be better off if unbreakable windows could be produced as easily and cheaply as breakable windows. Surely, the nation, and the world, would be better off if trains, planes and automobiles could run on water rather than on the product of those South Texas oil fields. (See Merle Haggard’s “Rainbow Stew.”)

The Broken Window Fallacy is a great tool for understanding much of what goes on today. We are confronted daily by pitches for government to spend on this or spend on that to generate economic activity without anyone pointing out that the economic activity that does not take place because of that that does. One classic example is what I call “stadium socialism.” The franchise owner gets local governments to help finance a new stadium on the grounds of all the new business it will generate locally. Left out of the equation is what spending is cancelled by the use of resources in this way rather than other ways and the locations that miss out on the stadium windfall. This doesn’t necessarily mean that I wouldn’t do it if I were the local mayor, but it probably does mean I wouldn’t do it as president.

The broken window fallacy is reproduced over and over every day, but rarely is it as clear as glass. Thank you New York Times for giving us the broken windshield fallacy. (Those readers who unfortunately don’t get the Texas section in their NY Times will have to take my word for it.)

 

Comments (4)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Eric says:

    Hello, Bob,

    Great blog and Merry Christmas and Happy New in advance. I wanted to weigh in with a comment about one assumption all of these believers may be placing much weight on, which they never mention. It’s not just that they assume destruction creates the need for replacement, expenditure, and the follow-on multiplier effect: it’s that they assume there is value in it happening right now, and not years down the road. In other words, they are making the assumption that the baker had no immediate plans to spend that money (sounds like a familiar problem to all those banks and corporations refusing to lend and hire/invest, respectively, today). It’s the very reason why some economists worry about excessive austerity. It’s not that balancing a budget is bad, but that it is happening right now, when C and I and to some degree X is lagging…that G needs to help bridge the gap. So, while I agree that breaking windows is counterproductive in the long run, there is a certain benefit that is necessary in the short run from ensuring that it happens right now (this is not to say that investment right now wouldn’t be wiser than breaking a window), when we need velocity to increase right now, as counterproductive as that may be from a resource and capital stock perspective. This gets back to your argument about banks perhaps needing to sit on their excess reserves for fear of existing embedded losses on the balance sheet…it may be the case that this is so, but that doesn’t change the fact that without an uptick in velocity today, the economy may begin a more damaging spiral for which there may be fewer policy choices. Thoughts?

  2. Brendan says:

    Excellent post! We will be linking to this great article on our website.
    Keep up the good writing.

    Also visit my web site: ātrie kredīti interetā (finansublogs30.wordpress.com)

  3. reservasi wisata pulau tidung says:

    Now i am really fascinated with your creating abilities plus with all the structure on your weblog. Are these claims any compensated style as well as do you modify that your self? Anyway maintain the favorable high-quality publishing, it’s rare to check an incredible blog site exactly like it nowadays.

  4. Elder Scroll Online Monthly Fee says:

    Thanks a lot a great deal regarding discussing that effortlessly individuals you truly recognize what you’re really talking over! Book marked. Make sure you also visit this site Equates to). We may employ a hyperlink swap agreement amongst all of us