The Broken Window Economic Fallacy: Disasters, Vandalism, & Military Spending

One common economic fallacy is the belief that any economic activity, such as spending money to repair a broken window, automatically boosts the economy. This mindset fails to consider the hidden costs of repairs and that the money spent on repairs could have been used for potentially more productive investments.

Here are three examples of how governments fall into the Broken Window Fallacy:

Money Spent On Natural Disasters

When a natural disaster occurs, there is usually a temporary increase in jobs and business activity in areas such as construction, home repair, and rebuilding infrastructure. People may think that the disaster positively affects the local economy due to increased spending. However, this is not true long-term, and the disaster can negatively affect the economy. It's important to understand that the immediate boost in activity only sometimes leads to long-term growth.

For instance, after a hurricane, construction firms, roofers, glass companies, and other trades experience a surge in demand as communities work to repair the extensive damage. Insurance payments and emergency funds flow into the affected area, temporarily boosting local incomes.

When we spend resources (like money, workers, and materials) on rebuilding, we take them away from other productive activities. These other activities could include new projects or investments in different areas that might have to be delayed or cancelled.

Disasters cause property destruction, which leads to a net loss of wealth. Even if new materials are used, there is no net gain in wealth. The assets lost are simply being replaced, not added to.

Although diverting funds may lead to short-term economic growth, it can have long-term adverse effects such as increased insurance premiums.

Money Spent On Vandalism

Frequent vandalism, such as broken windows in city bus transit shelters or graffiti, might benefit the economy by providing jobs for repairers and cleaners. However, this is only a superficial benefit. In urban areas where vandalism is common, businesses are forced to spend money on repairs and maintenance instead of investing in growth, improving employee wages or lowering consumer prices.

Vandalism can discourage new businesses, affect economic growth and job creation, and reduce property values. Companies may have to spend more on security measures and pay higher insurance premiums, which can reduce their profitability and efficiency.

Money Spent On Military

When governments spend billions of dollars on military hardware to fight a proxy war in Ukraine against Russia in the name of national security and to create jobs in the defence sector, this generates economic activity through manufacturing, research and development, and operating military bases, which all cost money that is diverted from other areas of the economy.

High military spending can reduce investment in critical sectors like health, education and infrastructure, stifling innovation and long-term growth.

Excessive military spending can divert resources from producing goods and services that enhance citizens' quality of life. Dependence on defence contracts may lead to economic downturns if military spending is reduced, hindering diversification and financial flexibility.

While some examples, like increased employment in specific sectors, may have economic benefits, the overall effect is less clear when considering the overlooked costs and opportunities. Focusing only on what's visible without considering what's unseen leads to misinterpreting economic growth.

More from Numerous Narratives
All posts