LET US BEGIN with the simplest illustration possible: let us, emulating
Bastiat, choose a broken pane of glass.
A young hoodlum, say, heaves a brick through the window of a
baker’s shop. The shopkeeper runs out furious, but the boy is gone. A
crowd gathers, and begins to stare with quiet satisfaction at the gaping
hole in the window and the shattered glass over the bread and pies.
After a while the crowd feels the need for philosophic reflection. And
several of its members are almost certain to remind each other or the
baker that, after all, the misfortune has its bright side. It will make
business for some glazier. As they begin to think of this they elaborate
upon it. How much does a new plate glass window cost? Two hundred
and fifty dollars? That will be quite a sum. After all, if windows were
never broken, what would happen to the glass business? Then, of course,
the thing is endless. The glazier will have $250 more to spend with other
merchants, and these in turn will have $250 more to spend with still
other merchants, and so ad infinitum. The smashed window will go on
providing money and employment in ever-widening circles. The logical
conclusion from all this would be, if the crowd drew it, that the little
hoodlum who threw the brick, far from being a public menace, was a
public benefactor.
Now let us take another look. The crowd is at least right in its first
conclusion. This little act of vandalism will in the first instance mean
more business for some glazier. The glazier will be no more unhappy to
learn of the incident than an undertaker to learn of a death. But the
shopkeeper will be out $250 that he was planning to spend for a new
suit. Because he has had to replace a window, he will have to go without
the suit (or some equivalent need or luxury). Instead of having a window
and $250 he now has merely a window. Or, as he was planning to buy
the suit that very afternoon, instead of having both a window and a suit
he must be content with the window and no suit. If we think of him as a
part of the community, the community has lost a new suit that might
otherwise have come into being, and is just that much poorer.
The glazier’s gain of business, in short, is merely the tailor’s loss of
business. No new “employment” has been added. The people in the
crowd were thinking only of two parties to the transaction, the baker
and the glazier. They had forgotten the potential third party involved,
the tailor. They forgot him precisely because he will not now enter the
scene. They will see the new window in the next day or two. They will
never see the extra suit, precisely because it will never be made. They
see only what is immediately visible to the eye.
Comments