Why won't the broken window fallacy go away?

Question

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2008/07/06/how_disasters_help/?page=full

One of the most famous economic fallacies is back once again. the Boston Globe published an article a few weeks ago claiming that the earthquakes in China will good for their economy.

Famously, Paul Krugman, New York Times pseudoeconomist committed this fallacy shortly after 9/11 when he claimed that 9/11 would be an economic benefit.

This goes back even further as J.M. Keynes, in one of his more embarrassing passages, argued that building pyramids is an economic benefit. This fallacy was also committed routinely by conservatives in the 1960s who defended the Vietnam War on the grounds that "war is good for business."

Why won't the idea that destruction of property and/or waste of resources is good for the economy go away? How can such an absurd idea be so widely believed?

Answer 1

Are you saying war is not good for the economy?  What are you stupid or a commie pinko simp, which if you'll pardon me didn't ever stimulate their economy anywhere near a war.  I recommend you give this some more thought because you're either to dense to understand life or you're just being a troller.

Answer 2

I believe the reason is human nature.  People tend to see things with a narrow view and think mostly on the present or very near future.  In order to appreciate the fallacy you have to understand the effects on people that are not close to you and understand how events impact the long run.  Think about it, people usually get very upset if a relative get sick or dies. But if you hear that a women in china is sick or dies you would not really pay much attention or give it a second thought.  The point here is that people have close networks and associations, they don't really pay attention or care much about what happens to an unknown group of people. Time is also an issue, do you really care how much taxes your grandson or granddauther will be paying 50-75 years from now?  I mean really? Most people are content that they are not the ones stuck with high taxes and forget about the future generation who will be stuck with our debt.  

Is it the nature of people to focus only on the familiar and the close group of people they relate too and only for the short term (now).  

Another reason might be the media, if you hear some politician or someone who you consider credible and what he or she sais makes sense then why question it?  

Lastly, you really proved your point on this fallacy.  I was very surprise to see the ignorant response by the 1st answerer.

Answer 3

I think it is so much accepted because it is repeated so often.

I can't believe how many idiots like the first poster believe war and spending on military is so good for the economy.

As for Keynes, I don't know the passage you refer to, but I suspect he favoured government projects to reduce unemployment and get the economy going, something that building government tombs or roads or bridges or capital buildings might accomplish, but as I recall, he would suggest this as temporary fixes.

And in the case of tradgedies such as earthquakes or 9/11, the economy will likely see a boost in employment and output in order to replace the damaged things. I don't think that means that the tradgedies are "good" for the economy, only that there will be some positive side effects.