Broken window fallacy _ broken window fallacy

The old rules involve two emotions:

A few years down, the project one after another, just finished a project, evening off work do not know what to do, want to relax and do not know where to go. Grab a book on a company's bookshelf, "Economics of a lesson," start looking, scratching your legs while you look. (When writing this sentence, kill two mosquitoes).

Gump

The second chapter of the Book Broken window fallacy read the feeling harvest a lot, the following excerpt from the original.

Say a urchin about bricks, smashed the shop window.

When the shopkeeper angrily chased out, little mischief had already fled, only a group of watching the lively onlookers.

They stared at the holes in the windows and the fragments of glass scattered in private. At a different meeting, people think that we should do some philosophical thinking.

As usual, some people began to talk, reassuring the shopkeepers and the hearts of the crowd: it was a pity that the glass was broken, but there was a good side to it. No, there is another business in the glass shop opposite.

The more they were thinking, the more they were going: how much would it cost to have a new window? to 250 dollars. This is not a small amount of money.

However, there is nothing to complain about, this is the case, if the glass is never broken, then do glass business people eat what.

Glass shop more than 250 dollars, will go to other businesses there to spend, the pockets of those businesses a few more money, but also to more businesses to spend.

After such a small window, the little one can continuously provide funds to more businesses, many people get employment opportunities.

If this logic is pushed down, the conclusion is:

The little trick that throws bricks is not only the scourge of society, but the Good Samaritan for the benefit of society.

Wait. Let's analyze the fallacy. At least the first thing the onlookers did was, yes, this little act of sabotage does bring business to a glass shop.

The glass shopkeeper, in addition to a little sympathy for the troublemaker, should be happy. However, the Baker lost 250 of dollars, originally intended to take to make a suit.

Now, the money is forced to move to the window and go out and wear a new suit (or a few other commodities or luxuries of the same price).

He used to have a window and 250 dollars, and now there's only one window left.

Or, in the afternoon of preparing for a suit, he could have had a window and a suit at the same time, only to face the terrible reality of a window without a suit.

If we treat him as a member of the community, then the community loses a new suit that would otherwise be, and becomes poorer than before.

In short, the glass shopkeeper's business was shifted from the tailor's shop owner. The whole process did not add "job opportunities".

The onlookers had only thought of the-------of the two parties-------the baker and the glass shopkeeper, forgetting the embarrassment--------the third party-------the tailor-shop owner, who might be involved.

The onlookers completely forgot him, precisely because now the glass is broken, he also lost the opportunity to appear.

People will see a brand-new window in two days, but they will never see the extra suit that was sacrificed, because he will never be made.

People always see what's in front of them ....