Quote:
Originally Posted by HHW
Agreed and that is not small change.
However, that is not money just thrown away. This mostly goes towards real wages, primarily for local Calgarians / Albertans.
|
The money is just thrown away. It is taken away in taxes from people who would otherwise have spent it on things they actually wanted and valued. And where does it go?
Yes, it goes in wages. It goes in wages to people who could otherwise have spent the time at other jobs, producing goods and services. Those people produce nothing while they are working on Olympic security; they only protect other people from
losing their lives, health, or property to threats that would never have occurred if it were not for the Olympics.
Frédéric Bastiat had it exactly right:
Quote:
Have you ever witnessed the anger of the good shopkeeper, James Goodfellow, when his careless son has happened to break a pane of glass? If you have been present at such a scene, you will most assuredly bear witness to the fact that every one of the spectators, were there even thirty of them, by common consent apparently, offered the unfortunate owner this invariable consolation – "It is an ill wind that blows nobody good. Everybody must live, and what would become of the glaziers if panes of glass were never broken?"
Now, this form of condolence contains an entire theory, which it will be well to show up in this simple case, seeing that it is precisely the same as that which, unhappily, regulates the greater part of our economical institutions.
Suppose it cost six francs to repair the damage, and you say that the accident brings six francs to the glazier's trade – that it encourages that trade to the amount of six francs – I grant it; I have not a word to say against it; you reason justly. The glazier comes, performs his task, receives his six francs, rubs his hands, and, in his heart, blesses the careless child. All this is that which is seen.
But if, on the other hand, you come to the conclusion, as is too often the case, that it is a good thing to break windows, that it causes money to circulate, and that the encouragement of industry in general will be the result of it, you will oblige me to call out, "Stop there! Your theory is confined to that which is seen; it takes no account of that which is not seen."
It is not seen that as our shopkeeper has spent six francs upon one thing, he cannot spend them upon another. It is not seen that if he had not had a window to replace, he would, perhaps, have replaced his old shoes, or added another book to his library. In short, he would have employed his six francs in some way, which this accident has prevented.
|
The effect remains the same if you spend the six francs (or $1 billion) stationing guards in front of the windows to prevent them from being broken. If the guard prevents anybody from breaking the window, society is worse off by the value of that guard's labour. If he fails and the window is broken, society is worse off by the value of the guard's labour
plus the cost of replacing the window.