3 ms·

So why not keep the house and just give what they would have payed directly to the builders, potters and glass makers? They would probably pay much less becaus

So why not keep the house and just give what they would have payed directly to the builders, potters and glass makers? They would probably pay much less because the builders, potters and glass makers time would not be taken up building, potting and glassmaking. And they wouldn't have had to to destroy their house. Or, are you simply saying they just wanted a new house? Who else would they pay to make it for them?

mikeash 10y ago
The broken window fallacy is still not very widely understood. Expecting everybody to understand it 4-8,000 years ago may be a bit too much.
- waqf 10y ago
  If you live in a small subsistence community with a barter economy or primitive trade, then it's a great deal more obvious that destroying capital just makes everybody poorer.
  - jmmcd 10y ago
    But we know potlatch really happened in North America in just those conditions.