Comment: DEFICITS DON'T MATTER? WRONG, Obama.
| Next >> |
Why Obama can't create jobs without destroying others? More about the Broken Window Theory.
Frédéric Bastiat says, way back in 1850. He explained the fallacy as follows: Imagine some shopkeepers get their windows broken by a rock-throwing child. At first, people sympathize with the shopkeepers, until someone claims that the broken windows really aren’t that bad. After all, they “create work” for the glassmaker, who might then be able to buy more food, benefiting the grocer, or buy more clothes, benefiting the tailor. If enough windows are broken, the glassmaker might even hire an assistant, creating a job.
Did the child therefore do a public service by breaking the windows? No. We must also consider what the shopkeepers would have done with the money they used to fix their windows had those windows not been broken. Most likely, the shopkeepers would have ploughed that money into their store: perhaps they would have bought more stock from their suppliers, or maybe they would have hired new employees. Before the windows broke, the shopkeepers had intact windows and the money to purchase more goods or hire new workers. After the windows broke, they had to use that money to repair the windows, and thus were unable to expand their business.
Can you create jobs? Sure. But by creating new jobs with the purpose of reducing the oil industry, then all of those people who work for the oil industry will THEN be without jobs!
"Let's destroy the evil oil industry and create jobs that are green and good for the environment". It sounds fantastic EXCEPT FOR THOSE PEOPLE WHO WILL THEN LOSE THEIR JOBS. And who will the new jobs go to? Probably a lot of the same people who will have lost their jobs in the oil industry, but who have the technical experience related to energy. But most of them will go to people who install windmills, solar panels, etc. 5 million new jobs? Not without destroying 20 million old jobs.
[Review in RDF] Frédéric Bastiat says, way back in 1850. He explained the fallacy as follows: Imagine some shopkeepers get their windows broken by a rock-throwing child. At first, people sympathize with the shopkeepers, until someone claims that the broken windows really aren’t that bad. After all, they “create work” for the glassmaker, who might then be able to buy more food, benefiting the grocer, or buy more clothes, benefiting the tailor. If enough windows are broken, the glassmaker might even hire an assistant, creating a job.
Did the child therefore do a public service by breaking the windows? No. We must also consider what the shopkeepers would have done with the money they used to fix their windows had those windows not been broken. Most likely, the shopkeepers would have ploughed that money into their store: perhaps they would have bought more stock from their suppliers, or maybe they would have hired new employees. Before the windows broke, the shopkeepers had intact windows and the money to purchase more goods or hire new workers. After the windows broke, they had to use that money to repair the windows, and thus were unable to expand their business.
Can you create jobs? Sure. But by creating new jobs with the purpose of reducing the oil industry, then all of those people who work for the oil industry will THEN be without jobs!
"Let's destroy the evil oil industry and create jobs that are green and good for the environment". It sounds fantastic EXCEPT FOR THOSE PEOPLE WHO WILL THEN LOSE THEIR JOBS. And who will the new jobs go to? Probably a lot of the same people who will have lost their jobs in the oil industry, but who have the technical experience related to energy. But most of them will go to people who install windmills, solar panels, etc. 5 million new jobs? Not without destroying 20 million old jobs.
by Simplify3 on Dec. 22 2008
Back to main page · 
React to this post · Quote · Edit · Delete
