The Tallahassee Democrat
By Bradley K. Hobbs
Letter to the Editor
December 16, 2011
Re: “The answer might be a Category 4 stimulus” (Paul Flemming, Dec. 5).
I read Paul Flemming’s column hoping to find some facetious element but failed to do so. Once we get beyond the fact that there is no one able to choose “nonlethal” hurricanes, we have to address the fundamental premise of his remaining argument, which is this: Destruction is productive. This persistent, popular and absolutely wrong belief has been noted by economists since the 18th century, and in particular by Frederic Bastiat.
Bastiat (a political economist and member of the French Assembly) identified what he termed “the broken window fallacy.”
Bastiat tells the story of a shoemaker whose window is smashed by a ruffian with a stone. As the townspeople gather, one notes to another that at least there is a silver lining in that the broken window will provide the town glazier with work.
While this is true — and it is what is seen — it is also crucial to recognize what is not seen. The monies that the shoemaker must now provide to the glazier are monies that he cannot use to expand his shop, or to buy additional tools, or to purchase food for his family or any other myriad of things that all of us could spend our money upon. Thus, if it were true that destruction provided what Flemming calls an “economic bump,” that bump is immediately offset by a depression in the road elsewhere.
And if it were true that hurricanes provide a positive “economic bump,” then why should we wait for a hurricane? I’m sure we can enlist a willing crew with hammers-in-hand (putting the unemployed to work at the same time?) to roam the countryside of Florida, breaking every window they can reach and thus providing copious amounts of work for window-replacement companies.
And, if it is true that destruction is good for the economy, then why stop at breaking windows? Regular random arson, specifically designed to employ all of the skilled trades in construction, would provide a significantly larger economic stimulus. It would be easy to warn members of the household or commercial building before the lighting of the fire, and this would remove the unpredictability of death and injury associated with hurricanes, solving Flemming’s nonlethal requirement. (Unless, of course, you happen to be a firefighter, but then again they would also be provided with more work and perhaps even additional jobs would be “created.”)
Arguments such as Flemming’s are commonplace. But it is a mistake to focus on what is seen and to ignore what is not seen. Destruction is never productive, and jobs “created” through destructive forces — whatever their source or origin — are a fool’s errand.
