Economic shifts invariably create a landscape of victors and vanquished. For instance, ride-sharing services have posed significant challenges to the traditional taxi industry, while autonomous vehicle companies like Waymo threaten to disrupt even the ride-sharing market. Similarly, the influx of affordable sneakers from China has dealt a blow to domestic shoe manufacturers. Now, we find that San Francisco’s recent initiatives against street crime also bear unintended repercussions for certain businesses.
Back in 1850, French economist Frédéric Bastiat articulated a crucial insight regarding the consequences of broken windows:
Imagine it costs six francs to mend a broken window, and you argue that this accident generates six francs for the glazier’s trade—thus benefiting that industry. I concede this point; your reasoning is indeed accurate. The glazier performs his work, receives his six francs, and internally thanks the careless child. However, this perspective only captures what is visible.
But if you conclude, as many do, that breaking windows is beneficial because it stimulates monetary circulation and encourages industrial growth, I must interject: “Hold on! Your theory only considers the visible effects; it overlooks the invisible consequences.”
What remains unseen is that the shopkeeper, having spent six francs on window repair, is now unable to allocate those funds elsewhere. Had there been no need to replace the window, he might have purchased new shoes or added to his library. In essence, he would have utilized his six francs for something more productive, which this unfortunate incident has thwarted.
Bastiat extended this lesson to international trade, pointing out that those who believe trade harms the economy make the same error as those who claim broken windows benefit it. They fail to account for “what is not seen.”
Critics often claim that economists are disconnected from reality when they advocate for a reduction in street crime. The argument is that glass repair shops provide stable jobs for blue-collar workers, allowing them to support their families. Detractors suggest that we, ensconced in our ivory towers, conjure theories of creative destruction without fully grasping the human costs involved. What, they ask, should the unemployed glass repairmen do—flip burgers?
Guilty as charged. Ultimately, I’d prefer a society where we have both intact car windows and hamburgers, rather than a dystopia without hamburgers and constant window repairs. A glance at global benchmarks reveals that the highest living standards are found in nations with elevated productivity, such as Switzerland, which boasts zero tariffs and minimal crime.
One might assume that the notion of breaking windows is far-fetched. Regrettably, this assumption is misplaced:
As Matt Yglesias recently noted, the desire to defund the police isn’t confined to leftist circles:
Conservatives understand that leniency toward crime can have spiraling consequences. Initially, a few individuals might evade tax obligations, but as more people follow suit, the situation escalates. Soon, fewer tax inspectors are chasing an ever-growing array of tax infractions, diminishing the chances of detection. Before long, America’s previously robust voluntary compliance with tax laws could erode, leading us toward a Greece-like fiscal crisis. Starving the government of tax revenue won’t alleviate the financial strain of an aging population or escalating tensions with China; it merely exacerbates debt and stifles economic growth.
