IncendiaryGunner
Master
But it really is not as simple as the broken window fallacy. The broken window fallacy illustrates how commerce alone does not equal production. Economic stimulation, however, can equate to more production and end consumer distribution of goods. Just the act of money changing hands does not stimulate production - but growing business practices that prove to generate production of goods that consumers consider valuable does. The broken window fallacy shows that money changing hands does not help the overall good, because the broken window was replaced - but to the end consumer that meant nothing - and it helped the glazier at the expense of the store owner. A system that benefits everyone in town, that is paid for by everyone it benefits, is not the same concept.
But they did not come about on their own, and when they were needed, they were created. The free market did not put those in place by the time we needed them - they were too slow, and did not supply our demand. The free market, in turn, had already failed us at creating sufficient routes of transportation. You could argue "well, thirty years later they would have"... but thirty years later, is thirty years later. If the free market did not create the roads that in turn helped stimulate our economic boom, that boom may not have existed.
In this case, it is not the glazier alone gaining benefit from the store keeper's broken window - it is many, many businesses and consumers gaining wealth from a system that companies had not capitalized on. It is not as simple as creating a demand for a service by taking from another.
Ideals can be applied, but wealth in the end is a quantitative thing. This is not justifying stimulation of one business at the pain of another - it is the stimulation of an entire economy - when the businesses "hurt" did not quickly provide that ability. The transportation industry had already dropped the ball - compared to the federal government on this case - they were the dead wood.
If a society can produce and distribute more goods to a community for a cheaper price - that is the merits of the free market.
Maybe the toll roads where you live were cheaper than the toll roads I have been on - but in this instance I think when you take into account the large portion of wealth generated by transportation, more wealth is created by federal owned roads. Maybe the toll roads would be cheaper if the interstate did not exist - but again, that is arguing what we, by your words, "cannot see".
Destroying something that never existed, in turn stimulating every efficient import/export company, can bring upon more wealth.
The fact is, no company was quick enough to meet the needs of our economy. Our economy demanded easy, cheap transportation for defense.
That demand was not met by the free market.
The train systems can continue to profit without paying a tax - if the consumer chose to use trains. People preferring to pay the gas tax, and using the interstate - in the end is consumer choice.
The difference between our current transportation system, and many other functioning portions of the free market - is lack of competition. Room for roads is a limited resource. Once a company were to own a road, why would it sell a profit generating machine? If it costs more to maintain, they can raise the rates - that will be passed onto the consumer, plus the margin of profit they require. Once a company owned a road - it would be like the patent that never expires. Once so many roads are built, another company could not walk in and build more roads to compete - the space alone would stifle competition. It is not the simple exchange of my good for your good - and the level of competition would not exist like in many areas of the free market.
Last edited:
.
