I already said that the windows were already broken. And I explicitly said people who would be otherwise unemployed. It's like you didn't read what I wrote. An

I already said that the windows were already broken. And I explicitly said people who would be otherwise unemployed. It's like you didn't read what I wrote. And if breaking windows is a thing we value in society, then it wouldn't be a bad thing to go around breaking windows and continuously employ people to fix them up again. The reason I'm stretching it like this is to make "broken windows fallacy" fit fidget spinners and other fads, because that's what's needed to make the analogy work. (You know, the actual topic.) You can never stimulate a growth of wealth by destroying wealth I never said you could. People can, however, increase their wellbeing by consuming wealth, and a cycle of consuming wealth and producing wealth is not a waste of time; if breaking windows was beneficial to wellbeing, then it wouldn't be a waste of time to continuously cycle between breaking and repairing windows. Don't forget that wealth isn't a terminal value anyone is interested in; wellbeing (aka utility) is.