Austrian vs. Keynesian Economics & Bastiat’s Broken Windows

Reddit

The claim of the Austrian School that has scandalized members of other schools for 150 years is the following. The propositions of economics are universal. The principles apply in all times and all places, because they derive from the structure of reality and human action.

What brought about economic growth, inflation, or the business cycle in China 300 BC are the same institutions that drive phenomena in the United States in AD 2008. The circumstances of time and place change, but the underlying economic reality is identical.

That claim has made other economists – to say nothing of sociologists, historians, and politicians – scatter like pigeons. The Historical School poured scorn on this idea, and Carl Menger, the founder of the Austrian School, fought them tooth and nail. The Chicago School of positivists found the claim preposterous, and Mises and Hayek and Rothbard battled them. The Keynesians have long been outraged, and the postwar Austrian generation reasserted the truth. The socialists, who posit that rearranging property titles will transform all of reality, say that the claim is absurd, capitalistic nonsense.

But there it stands. No matter where or when, the essential prerequisite for economic growth is capital accumulation in a framework of freedom and sound money. The consequence of price control is shortage and surplus. The effect of money expansion is inflation and the business cycle. The effect of every form of intervention is to make society less prosperous than it would otherwise be.

The list of universals is endless, which is why every age needs good economists to explain and articulate the truth.

Well, I would like to add that there are universal fallacies too.

Frédéric Bastiat pointed to one: the belief that the destruction of wealth fuels its creation. He explains this by means of an allegory that has come to be known as the story of the broken window. Most famously it was retold as the opening of Henry Hazlitt’s Economics in One Lesson, which is probably the bestselling economics book of all time.

A kid throws a rock at a window and breaks it, and everyone standing around regrets the unfortunate state of affairs. But then up walks a man who purports to be wise and all-knowing. He points out that this is not a bad thing after all. The man fixing the window will get money for doing so. This will then be spent on a new suit, and the tailor too will get money. The tailor will spend money on other items and the circle of rising prosperity will expand without end.

What’s wrong with this scenario? As Bastiat put it, “It is not seen that as our shopkeeper has spent six francs upon one thing, he cannot spend them upon another. It is not seen that if he had not had a window to replace, he would, perhaps, have replaced his old shoes, or added another book to his library. In short, he would have employed his six francs in some way which this accident has prevented.”

You can see the absurdity of the position of the wise commentator when you take it to absurd extremes. If the broken window really produces wealth, why not break all windows up and down the whole city block? Indeed, why not break doors and walls? Why not tear down all houses so that they can be rebuilt? Why not bomb whole cities so construction firms can get busy rebuilding?

It is not a good thing to destroy wealth. Bastiat puts it this way. “Society loses the value of things which are uselessly destroyed.”

It sounds like an unexceptional claim. But herein rests the core case against everything the government does. Perhaps, then, we can see why the allegory is not better known. If we took it seriously, we would dismantle the whole apparatus of American economic intervention.

If you are with me to this point, perhaps you have a hard time believing that anyone really believes that wealth destruction is actually a good thing. Let me try to show that the fallacy is as pervasive as ever.

After every natural disaster, we at the Mises Institute start what we call the Broken Window Watch.

After Hurricane Katrina, the Labor Secretary said: “What will happen – and I have seen this in previous catastrophes and hurricanes – there is a bright spot in that new jobs do get created.”

And The Economist said, “While big hurricanes like Katrina destroy wealth, they often have a net positive effect on GDP growth, as the temporary downturn immediately after the storm is more than made up for by the burst of economic activity that takes place when the rebuilding begins.”

And the New York Times said: “Economists point out that although Katrina has destroyed a lot of accumulated wealth, it ultimately will probably have a positive effect on growth data over the next few months as resources are channeled into rebuilding.”

After last year’s California fires, we heard this. “In the odd nature of economic accounting, this will probably be a stimulus,” said Alan Gin, a University of San Diego economist. “There will be a huge amount of rebuilding in the next couple of years, financed by insurance payments.”

And CBS MarketWatch said: “Economists have noted the perverse reality that in the wake of disasters, re-construction spending helps the economy, even as people are still struggling to recover from their personal losses.”

Note that personal loss here is deemed rather irrelevant compared with the beneficial macroeconomic results. Here we have a theme we find often in economics, the attempt to drive a wedge between what makes sense for individuals and what is good for society. We see this on display in this recessionary environment, when people are told to spend spend spend, even though most people understand that recessions are times for saving.

Continuing on, we find the Broken Window fallacy popping up even after 9-11.

Timothy Noah of Slate wrote: “We live in a very wealthy nation that responds to horrible disasters by spending large sums of money… It will also provide a meaningful Keynesian stimulus to a national economy that, let’s face it, was tottering on the brink of recession well before Sept. 11. The recession may still come, but the countercyclical spending should help shorten it.”

Another economist declared: “Initially, this could provide a significant boost to an economy that had been slumping. The construction industry could benefit from the rebuilding process. There may also be a boon for slumping tech sales, in replacing lost equipment.”

Thus can we see the continuing relevance not only of Bastiat’s allegory but also of the characters in the story. The posturing wiseguy who says that breaking windows is good for the economy keeps reappearing again and again. So entrenched is this mistake that we might call it official economic doctrine for the whole country.

Regards,

Lew Rockwell

Lew Rockwell
Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr. is founder and president of the Ludwig von Mises Institute in Auburn, Alabama, editor of LewRockwell.com, and author of Speaking of Liberty. Get your copy here.
Reddit

Leave a Reply

25 Comments on "Austrian vs. Keynesian Economics & Bastiat’s Broken Windows"

Notify of
avatar
Sort by:   newest | oldest | most voted
mark dobson
Guest

guess disasters are an opportunity to be factored in human behaviour as we all want to get rich(natural selection) means good gains in investing are to be realised if one has the conviction to follow through

mark dobson
Guest

fix the english in business language that others understand

Cynical
Guest

Why do we even naturally accept something written, probably by a 2 bit hack, or hired pen, hiding behind the banner of a big media outlet as wise or even truthful in the first place? The logical fallacy; argumentum ad verecundiam (argument from authority) is rampant. I appreciate your highlighting another one.

mike
Guest

..in the happy debtors’ paradise…a broken window is a mirage at the end of a fiat paper rainbow….

novosonic
Guest
lovely article lew, food for thought; along with the interesting comments. personally, i think equities look good in the long haul, but i’m not into gambling in stocks, as it makes me too nervous. But, reflecting on MISES’s magnum opus HUMAN ACTION, one can only conclude that the SUB-PRIME mess = CRACK UP BOOM. PAIN NOW or MORE PAIN LATER. If i get motivated, I’ll have to take a look at Rothbard’s POWER AND MARKET again, and compare that to MISES’s theory of capital. I highly recommend Joshiah Warren’s TRUE CIVILIZATION (lassiez-faire books use to carry it) in case you… Read more »
grg
Guest
“Economists point out that although Katrina has destroyed a lot of accumulated wealth, it ultimately will probably have a positive effect on growth data over the next few months as resources are channeled into rebuilding.” As opposed to what you are trying to say, this statement is fallacy free: Wealth gains and losses are not accounted for in the calculation of the GDP, [much like stock market losses] which thus render your problem with the limitation of GDP itself. In fact, whether or not the mechanism of wealth transfer from Insurance Companies to the Insured parties (via construction and other… Read more »
pupnik
Guest
grg’s claim that ‘redistribution’ from insurance companies to the insured after the destruction of capital can yield net positive economic gain reduces to the broken window fallacy. It can not be escaped. The 100% destruction of value of the glass can not be compensated by class-based social-value theories of redistributionism. The money that must be spent to restore the prior state is opportunity lost to spend on additional goods and services. His argument rests upon the belief that the money held by insurers is useless unless spent on the working class. The fact is that the money held by insurers… Read more »
grg
Guest
GDP as a tool, does not account for wealth lost and regained, it only measures the amount of production. From that perspective, GROWTH DATA (such as GDP) will be positively affected through the restoration process. Hence, claiming that Katrina and other disasters “will ultimately probably have a positive effect on growth data” (not wealth) is in fact true. The article is criticizing the wrong examples using a true theory; put in other words for blind readers such as Mr. Poopnik: The consequence of a catastrophe (assuming rebuilding activities to follow) WILL BE POSTIVE when measured by the GDP. And while… Read more »
LP
Guest
GRG, you’re arguing something completely irrelevant. GDP hasn’t been used as a measure of economic health for decades. Not by any self-respecting economist anyhow. The author isn’t saying that the statement (that GDP growth will occur) isn’t true, he is saying that the implication – that economic health will result from 100% destruction will occur. It’s not all that abstract. Most people believe that GDP = barometer of economy. GDP growth as a result of such destructive catastrophes must therefore = economy growth. That is what is being contended. Your argument is either irrelevant or intellectually dishonest. The article’s main… Read more »
Sean
Guest
Let’s say a good number of us lived on an island, and had 1,000 dollars. Let’s pretend that another island close by provides us with coconuts and food. Even if we spent a couple hundred dollars a year to feed us, our money would dwindle away in about four years and we would become bankrupt and starve.. I think that’s where the roll of the central bank takes place. We import so much oil (52% of trade deficit-08′) and other goods, that we have to export securities or “government debt.” The main argument for a trade deficit is that other… Read more »
Sean
Guest
I was looking at a chart about the value of the dollar and I realized something very important. As long as inflation stays balanced, than there is a limit to how low the value of the dollar can reach. It’s a simple algebraic formula called Infinite Sequence, or Infinite Summation using Geometric Sequencing. For instance.. If I have a hundred dollars and I take away 3% of the value, than it is worth 97 dollars. That is a 3 dollar difference. If I took 3% away from 97 than I would get 94.09. That’s a difference of 2.91 instead of… Read more »
rick e
Guest

If you do your experiment for what you’re saying your answers would end up negative pass the numeral 1 and continue. Nice try though

Sean
Guest

The formula is e^-.03x check it out on a graphing calculator.

Sean
Guest

It’s like saying we grow 3% a year, but that 3% gets smaller as the country gets larger.

Dan
Guest
Sean: Inflation is a tool used by banks to amass wealth, plain and simple. Dilution of wealth by devaluing currency is nothing other than theft, a thing already identified as usury thousands of years ago. The couching of things in a different language serves to distract people from the reality of what inflation and charging interest means (fraud). We try to get around it by forecasting asset values ‘in real terms’, but all it means that unless we are working and toiling, someone is continually robbing us. When people wake up to that fact, they tend to want vengeance. To… Read more »
Tim
Guest
I am no expert on inflation but I see a flaw in this logic… If inflation actually decreased the value of your money directly then Sean’s theory applies, but, my logic suggests that the movement isn’t against your money directly each year, it’s the increase of prices around your dollars which increase, hence “diluting” the value (buying power) of your 100 cents (dollar). Saying that my dollar will only buy 97 cents next year is a simple explaination but it’s not actually correct in my mind. It will still buy you $1 worth of something; that dollar may not buy… Read more »
Greg Atkinson
Guest
Tim, I guess it depends on what you do with your money. If you invest and earn a return above inflation then you retain your buying power and a little more. If you park your money under you bed and earn 0% interest and you don’t get a pay raise at work, then you are probably not doing so well. Also inflation is a pretty abstract thing. Just because there might be inflation in an economy does not mean it affects your world as much as the quoted inflation figures. For example inflation in late 2007/early 2008 in Australia was… Read more »
Ned S
Guest
Sean and Tim – Some numbers that show what happens to the price of a basket of groceries that costs $100.00 today (Year 0) over the next 10 years at 3% pa inflation: Year Price Increase 0 $100.00 $- 1 $103.00 $3.00 2 $106.09 $3.09 3 $109.27 $3.18 4 $112.55 $3.28 5 $115.93 $3.38 6 $119.41 $3.48 7 $122.99 $3.58 8 $126.68 $3.69 9 $130.48 $3.80 10 $134.39 $3.91 So if you have $100 today you can buy the basket of groceries. But in 10 years time you’ll need $134.39 to buy that same basket of groceries. But if you’ve… Read more »
Ned S
Guest

Sorry about the table formatting!

Tim
Guest

Thanks Ned, good thorough response. I concur with your view as it expands further on what I was thinking, I just didn’t want to write a novel! I was suggesting that in each individual year inflation will rise at 3% of that years dollar so as to follow the mathematical path you suggested i.e 1.03, 1.06, 1.09 compared to the base year (year 1).

Ned S
Guest
Tim: Sounds like you’ve got a handle on it – In the path I suggest the increases are $3.00, $3.09, $3.18 etc (When rounded off to 2 decimal places for money anyway – As in the increases keep getting bigger because every year they are based on 3% of an ever increasing base figure.) Same with your example where the increases are $0.03 each year up until the 7th year when it becomes $0.04 per year when rounded off to 2 decimal places for money. The other thing that can make a big difference is the yearly income tax we… Read more »
william
Guest
Mr. Rockwell, what do you propose is done in the event of a “shocked economy” if not to attempt as vigorously as humanly possible to re-establish the community and social life? The effects of these actions taken by both the government and private organizations do bring about a growth in GDP and stimulate job creation; even if it is all subsidized by the unfortunate system of fiat money. Maybe one day these policies will lead to the fall of the current global super-power but with an international market as commonly intertwined as the one in which we live today, I… Read more »
RF
Guest
I fail to understand why nobody sees the obvious fallacy of the broken window allegory: the false dilemma. The allegory assumes that there are only 2 possible outcomes, each leading to the same flow of money: paying for the broken window, or paying for the shoes. Given that the flows are the same, breaking a window is obviously the worse outcome since it leads to a diminished stock. However, this is an over simplification. There also exists the possibility of paying for the window and the shoes, by drawing on credit or taking out money saved for a rainy day.… Read more »
mike
Guest

“The window she is broken and the rain is comin’ in
If someone doesn’t fix it I’ll be soaking to my skin
But if we wait a day or two the rain may go away
And we don’t need a window on such a sunny day
(manana, manana, manana is soon enough for me) Oba! Oba!
(manana, manana, manana is soon enough for me) Oba! Oba!”

notaneconomist
Guest

I think the broken window allegory works just fine, Lew. I tend to liken the economy to a garden and pruning things back properly will cause more growth than to have left it alone to begin with. The allegory on it’s own makes perfect sense, but when seen in a larger scope I think the point is extra work and wealth redistribution which alleviates stagnation and lack of demand. Demand is everything.

wpDiscuz
Letters will be edited for clarity, punctuation, spelling and length. Abusive or off-topic comments will not be posted. We will not post all comments.
If you would prefer to email the editor, you can do so by sending an email to letters@dailyreckoning.com.au