3 ms·

I don't think this reply works. Situation 1: There is a window. It gets broken. The shopkeeper pays for it to be replaced, instead of buying a book. Situation

by philh 12y ago

I don't think this reply works. Situation 1: There is a window. It gets broken. The shopkeeper pays for it to be replaced, instead of buying a book. Situation 2: There is no window, and there is no need for a window. But the shopkeeper pays for a window anyway, instead of buying a book. Situation 1 is restoring the status quo, situation 2 is financing new production - but they seem equally bad, because in both cases you're paying someone to do something that doesn't (at the beginning of the situation) need to be done. I'm not saying that we're in situation 2 here, because windows are in fact useful. But zizee's original argument was roughly, "let's forget all the benefits that we get from windows, this project is paying the wages of glaziers, this money will get taxed and etc." And I think that that particular argument in favour of this project fails, and I think pravda was correct to point it out.

vonmoltke 12y ago
From the perspective of the Broken Window Fallacy, though, buying a new window is equivalent to buying a book. Need is not a component of the fallacy whatsoever. Thus, your final statement is incorrect. pravda was not pointing out anything; the fallacy is not applicable to this situation.
- philh 12y ago
  To be honest, I can't work out what part of my argument you think is wrong. Can you clarify your objection?
  - vonmoltke 12y ago
    > I think pravda was correct to point it out. pravda did not point that out. pravda claimed zizee was using the Broken Window Fallacy. zizee's argument and your summarization of it are not examples of the fallacy. Nor is situation 2 in your post above. The fallacy has nothing to do with something being useful or necessary.
    - philh 12y ago
      Okay, thanks. The broken window just doesn't strike me as a central part of the broken window fallacy. To me, the important part is that people see the glazier getting money in exchange for a service, and think that economics is happening and this is a good thing; but they don't see that if the glazier didn't get that money, the bookseller would. So I'd say that yeah, zizee is committing the broken window fallacy, even if the broken window itself has no analogous component in vis reasoning. (But I'm not going to argue about it if you continue to disagree. That would be a profoundly boring argument.)
anigbrowl 12y ago
Situation 2: There is no window, and there is no need for a window. But the shopkeeper pays for a window anyway, instead of buying a book. There's no need for any voluntary purchase, by definition. You're arguing that we should only spend so as to maximize utility, but utility is subjective and that's why we value markets over individuals. After all, what is the utility of the foregone book? It may merely afford pleasure to the reader, or be hurled across the room. It doesn't matter; the book's significance lies not in its content but in the fact of its production, for which the demand would not otherwise exist if the same money had been spent on the repair of a broken window.
- philh 12y ago
  > You're arguing that we should only spend so as to maximize utility, but utility is subjective and that's why we value markets over individuals. Um. I'm probably misinterpreting you, but it sounds like you're suggesting that we should force people to buy things they don't want or need in order to make the market healthy? If you are saying that, I strongly disagree. Both causally (I don't think that will make the market healthy) and normatively (even if it did, I would need a lot of convincing to advocate that). If you're not, could you clarify? > for which the demand would not otherwise exist if the same money had been spent on the repair of a broken window. Or if the money had been spent on any window. By "there is no need for a window", I meant "nobody cares if there's a window there". In both situations, money transfers from the shopkeeper to the glazier, the glazier does some glazing, and the shopkeeper ends up no better off than before.

by philh 12y ago

vonmoltke 12y ago

From the perspective of the Broken Window Fallacy, though, buying a new window is equivalent to buying a book. Need is not a component of the fallacy whatsoever. Thus, your final statement is incorrect. pravda was not pointing out anything; the fallacy is not applicable to this situation.

philh 12y ago
To be honest, I can't work out what part of my argument you think is wrong. Can you clarify your objection?
- vonmoltke 12y ago
  > I think pravda was correct to point it out. pravda did not point that out. pravda claimed zizee was using the Broken Window Fallacy. zizee's argument and your summarization of it are not examples of the fallacy. Nor is situation 2 in your post above. The fallacy has nothing to do with something being useful or necessary.
  - philh 12y ago
    Okay, thanks. The broken window just doesn't strike me as a central part of the broken window fallacy. To me, the important part is that people see the glazier getting money in exchange for a service, and think that economics is happening and this is a good thing; but they don't see that if the glazier didn't get that money, the bookseller would. So I'd say that yeah, zizee is committing the broken window fallacy, even if the broken window itself has no analogous component in vis reasoning. (But I'm not going to argue about it if you continue to disagree. That would be a profoundly boring argument.)

anigbrowl 12y ago

Situation 2: There is no window, and there is no need for a window. But the shopkeeper pays for a window anyway, instead of buying a book. There's no need for any voluntary purchase, by definition. You're arguing that we should only spend so as to maximize utility, but utility is subjective and that's why we value markets over individuals. After all, what is the utility of the foregone book? It may merely afford pleasure to the reader, or be hurled across the room. It doesn't matter; the book's significance lies not in its content but in the fact of its production, for which the demand would not otherwise exist if the same money had been spent on the repair of a broken window.

philh 12y ago
> You're arguing that we should only spend so as to maximize utility, but utility is subjective and that's why we value markets over individuals. Um. I'm probably misinterpreting you, but it sounds like you're suggesting that we should force people to buy things they don't want or need in order to make the market healthy? If you are saying that, I strongly disagree. Both causally (I don't think that will make the market healthy) and normatively (even if it did, I would need a lot of convincing to advocate that). If you're not, could you clarify? > for which the demand would not otherwise exist if the same money had been spent on the repair of a broken window. Or if the money had been spent on any window. By "there is no need for a window", I meant "nobody cares if there's a window there". In both situations, money transfers from the shopkeeper to the glazier, the glazier does some glazing, and the shopkeeper ends up no better off than before.