The problem isn't that the book isn't comprehensive or fails to comment on certain issues. It's that the book's logic isn't always sound because of its author's biases.
Look at the first example, "The Broken Window." The author describes a situation in which:
• Some kid breaks a baker's window.
• The crowd that gathers notes that, although unfortunate for the baker, the broken window will provide work for a glazier.
• The crowd fails to realize that the baker was planning to buy a suit, and the work provided for the glazier is counterbalanced by the work lost by the tailor. Also the baker's out a suit.
That's all well and good, but the author never considers the scenario where the baker is wealthy and losing $250 will not affect his spending habits (over at least the course of decades). Then the broken window actually results in $250 of created work for the glazier without any corresponding loss of work elsewhere (by e.g. the tailor) or loss of value (by e.g. the baker, who in the book's scenario couldn't buy a suit because of the broken window). In this scenario, the broken window is actually a net win for the community.
Nor does he consider the scenario where the baker is poor but thrifty and tends to save what he has. This is a very complex situation: in the short run the thrifty baker's spending habits will probably be unchanged by having to replace a window (or at least negligibly changed relative to the $250 that he was forced to spend), but in the long run he probably will end up spending about $250 less because of what he shelled out to the glazier, and moreover will fail to procure some items of value about $250. So then the math goes like this: because of the broken window, the glazier gains $250 dollars of work today. But some other worker loses $250 of work down the line, and the baker, in the long run, loses some items of value $250.
The thing is, spending $250 today creates more work than spending $250 next year, because the money will keep circulating, so it's not easy to demonstrate that the broken window is either helpful or harmful to the community here. (Note: spending $250 today instead of next year has a host of other effects, like increased inflation, that I obviously didn't mention. I don't mean to make a full analysis of these scenarios, just to point out that the author didn't make a full analysis of them himself.)
And a more glaring failure of logic in the second applied lesson: the author says, "No man would want to have his own property destroyed either in war or in peace. What is harmful or disastrous to an individual must be equally harmful or disastrous to the collection of individuals that make up a nation."
That's just not true. (A slightly ridiculous counterexample: when a serial killer dies of a heart attack, the nation he lives in is probably bettered.)
(In spite of all this, I still kind of liked the book.)
> [What if] the baker is wealthy and losing $250 will not affect his spending habits (over at least the course of decades)[?]
> The thing is, spending $250 today creates more work than spending $250 next year
In each of these cases, you're myopically focusing on consumption, while ignoring production. Over any period of time, society has a given productive capacity. Using up that capacity in an avoidable fashion necessarily detracts from the ability to apply that capacity to other problems. For example, if no one broke their windows, some of the glaziers may well go out of business, and engage in other, more socially beneficial (given the circumstances) courses of work, thus decreasing prices & increasing abundance in that area.
Even if the alternative is for money to be saved, rather than spent, then the problem is only changed to one of delayed consumption. And in the mean time of the delay, the baker is, by not using up productive capacity, reducing prices and increasing the availability of goods for others. The broken window is a net loss, just as Hazlitt describes.
I went into writing that post fully intending to make the point that "producing work" for e.g. the glazier is only useful AT ALL if the glazier isn't already working as much as he wants; moreover, even in such a special circumstance, obviously no additional wealth is created by the window breaking and the glazier getting paid to fix it. But in the special circumstance of the glazier working less than he wants before he gets the job and then getting paid to do the job by a rich guy, something good still happens -- wealth is distributed to the glazier via a mechanism that is voluntary for all parties involved. This is vital. Even in the best of cases, "creating work" through the destruction and replacement of wealth amounts to charity and nothing more. But "forced charity" of this sort can be very good for an economy on the whole in certain circumstances. Like in a depression.
Anyway, I must've been really out of it; I usually don't get wrapped up in the details of making a point to such an extent that I forget the point that I'm trying to make. My entire post was pretty stupid, except for the part where I said that this book is blinded by its own biases (which I stand by). Sorry about that.
PS: I'm still not in a great state of mind (I'm exhausted but experiencing mild insomnia), so I make no guarantees about the quality of the post, either.
> For example, if no one broke their windows, some of the glaziers may well go out of business, and engage in other, more socially beneficial (given the circumstances) courses of work
Or they could go out of business and engage in less socially beneficial courses of work, like highway robbery. It is always possible to think up a pathological scenario where breaking the window helps/hurts the economy. I think the original framing of the analogy is the most general, but it usually helps to consider the actual case at hand without resorting to analogies at all.
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."
Look at the first example, "The Broken Window." The author describes a situation in which:
• Some kid breaks a baker's window.
• The crowd that gathers notes that, although unfortunate for the baker, the broken window will provide work for a glazier.
• The crowd fails to realize that the baker was planning to buy a suit, and the work provided for the glazier is counterbalanced by the work lost by the tailor. Also the baker's out a suit.
That's all well and good, but the author never considers the scenario where the baker is wealthy and losing $250 will not affect his spending habits (over at least the course of decades). Then the broken window actually results in $250 of created work for the glazier without any corresponding loss of work elsewhere (by e.g. the tailor) or loss of value (by e.g. the baker, who in the book's scenario couldn't buy a suit because of the broken window). In this scenario, the broken window is actually a net win for the community.
Nor does he consider the scenario where the baker is poor but thrifty and tends to save what he has. This is a very complex situation: in the short run the thrifty baker's spending habits will probably be unchanged by having to replace a window (or at least negligibly changed relative to the $250 that he was forced to spend), but in the long run he probably will end up spending about $250 less because of what he shelled out to the glazier, and moreover will fail to procure some items of value about $250. So then the math goes like this: because of the broken window, the glazier gains $250 dollars of work today. But some other worker loses $250 of work down the line, and the baker, in the long run, loses some items of value $250.
The thing is, spending $250 today creates more work than spending $250 next year, because the money will keep circulating, so it's not easy to demonstrate that the broken window is either helpful or harmful to the community here. (Note: spending $250 today instead of next year has a host of other effects, like increased inflation, that I obviously didn't mention. I don't mean to make a full analysis of these scenarios, just to point out that the author didn't make a full analysis of them himself.)
And a more glaring failure of logic in the second applied lesson: the author says, "No man would want to have his own property destroyed either in war or in peace. What is harmful or disastrous to an individual must be equally harmful or disastrous to the collection of individuals that make up a nation."
That's just not true. (A slightly ridiculous counterexample: when a serial killer dies of a heart attack, the nation he lives in is probably bettered.)
(In spite of all this, I still kind of liked the book.)