<p>If someone throws a stone into a shop window, the owner needs to repair it. This puts people to work (the glass maker makes more glass, the shipping company ships a windows, an installer will have to fit it into place) and increases total output.</p>
<p>that’s lame. what if the shopowner catches you? it’ll be increasing total output at YOUR expense.</p>
<p>If your intent is to create jobs, the government could take care of it. Remember Roosevelt’s New Deal or something where there was mass government projects or something like that?</p>
<p>maybe the shopowner could stop the guy who was about to break the window and give him a job in the store…more jobs, and everyone’s happy.</p>
<p>The shopowner could have expanded his business, or brought in more merchandise. Just as much econonic activity.</p>
<p>Just go shopping.</p>
<p>that might work.</p>
<p>That wouldn’t work drew: the shop owner would have to pay for it, an unecessary expense. They lose money, where the glass-repair people make very little, because they do that thing all the time, it isn’t rare.</p>
<p>Plus, then you spend more tax payer’s dollars for the police who now have to take longer shifts to try and catch the people doing it. If they are caught, more taxpayer dollars are spent on trials, legal fees, etc. </p>
<p>In the long run, it would hurt the economy, not help.</p>
<p>um, I wasn’t being serious. What I explained to you is a textbook example of the broken window fallacy</p>
<p>o, ok. my mistake. I kinda thought you were joking, but everyone else seemed to be taking it seriously.</p>
<p>I like this theory. I have already begun.</p>