The real nuance of the broken window fallacy is that it's about the lack of economic benefit of a window being broken, not the most economically beneficial deci

The real nuance of the broken window fallacy is that it's about the lack of economic benefit of a window being broken, not the most economically beneficial decision to make once it is. Clearly you're better off if you have an intact window and you can spend your six francs on something you don't already have. But once your window is broken, replacing it is an equally viable economic decision compared with other uses of your six francs. The window breaking represents an economic loss, but replacing it might actually be the most economically advantageous decision of the ones available ("I wish it wasn't broken" not being an actual option). In the case of the Russia invasion of Ukraine, Russia already broke the metaphorical window by throwing a giant rock through it. So now the relevant economic benefits discussion of sending weapons to Ukraine to use to shoot Russians vs buying everyone in America a pony should be framed (hah) post broken window, not from some hypothetical perspective where keeping an intact window is an option. I totally agree there are economic downsides, nobody should be arguing they don't exist. But I think it's important to make it clear the economic downsides are from Russia starting the war. Once they did so, I think it is reasonable to argue our best economic response is to help Ukraine defend themselves.