ECON RATIONALE
In a war, the general commanding an army and the soldier in the front line have, in one sense, the same objectives. Both want their side to win and both want both of them to survive the battle (Friedman, 1984).The mere thought of war usually sends trembles down an individual’s spine. The thought of shedding blood, killing each other, and taking over territory for the means of justice, simply sounds inhumane. War usually consist extreme violence, social disruption and an attempt at economic destruction. No matter how inhumane, vicious, and barbaric war may seem it still has its purpose. War is not simply a breakdown of a particular system, but a way of creating an alternative profit, power and even protection (Arson, et. al, 2005). But the main question will revolve around is whether or not …show more content…
The extra money spent on the war is money that will not be spent elsewhere. The war can be funded in a combination of three ways: increasing taxes, decrease spending in other areas and increasing debts. If you believe this, we will prove to you how it is utterly wrong. The flawed logic of the story is an example of something economists call The Broken Fallacy.
The Broken Window Fallacy is a principle that was illustrated in Henry Hazlitt's “Economics in one” 1946. Hazlitt gives the example of a hooligan throwing a brick through a shopkeeper’s window. The shop keeper has to spend about $250 on the glass store to repair the window. When people pass by the broken window they decide that the broken window is beneficial:
The glazier will have $250 more to spend with other merchants, and these in turn will have $250 to spend with still other merchants, and so and infinitum. The smashed window will go on providing money and employment in ever-widening circles. The logical conclusion from all this would be ... that the little hoodlum who threw the brick, far from being a public menace, was a public benefactor. (1946 -
In a war, the general commanding an army and the soldier in the front line have, in one sense, the same objectives. Both want their side to win and both want both of them to survive the battle (Friedman, 1984).The mere thought of war usually sends trembles down an individual’s spine. The thought of shedding blood, killing each other, and taking over territory for the means of justice, simply sounds inhumane. War usually consist extreme violence, social disruption and an attempt at economic destruction. No matter how inhumane, vicious, and barbaric war may seem it still has its purpose. War is not simply a breakdown of a particular system, but a way of creating an alternative profit, power and even protection (Arson, et. al, 2005). But the main question will revolve around is whether or not …show more content…
The extra money spent on the war is money that will not be spent elsewhere. The war can be funded in a combination of three ways: increasing taxes, decrease spending in other areas and increasing debts. If you believe this, we will prove to you how it is utterly wrong. The flawed logic of the story is an example of something economists call The Broken Fallacy.
The Broken Window Fallacy is a principle that was illustrated in Henry Hazlitt's “Economics in one” 1946. Hazlitt gives the example of a hooligan throwing a brick through a shopkeeper’s window. The shop keeper has to spend about $250 on the glass store to repair the window. When people pass by the broken window they decide that the broken window is beneficial:
The glazier will have $250 more to spend with other merchants, and these in turn will have $250 to spend with still other merchants, and so and infinitum. The smashed window will go on providing money and employment in ever-widening circles. The logical conclusion from all this would be ... that the little hoodlum who threw the brick, far from being a public menace, was a public benefactor. (1946 -