In both of your wealthy and thrifty baker examples, you seem to think that the $250 is stuck under his mattress, and needs to be pried out ASAP to do any good.

In both of your wealthy and thrifty baker examples, you seem to think that the $250 is stuck under his mattress, and needs to be pried out ASAP to do any good. More likely: 1) it's being invested in some business activity, which loses that capital in order to pay for a broken window OR 2) he's earning interest on it, negating most of the time difference in your thrifty banker example Lastly, even if it were under his mattress, putting that money back in circulation increases the amount of money in the market chasing goods, which increases everyone's prices by a small amount. As to your serial killer counterexample, I think the correct analogy is "if it's harmful to the serial killer to die of a heart attack, it's equally harmful for the nation to die of heart attacks."