When I'm Cleanin' Broken Windows (from Fail Quotes)

[Ibrahim90]

"your economy will automatically default"

no dumbass, government is the one in danger of defaulting. And frankly, it's better off that way.

[dallen68]

no dumbass, government is the one in danger of defaulting. And frankly, it's better off that way.

If the government defaults, wouldn't that set off a chain reaction causing other sectors of the economy to fail?

[evensgrey]

If the government defaults, wouldn't that set off a chain reaction causing other sectors of the economy to fail?

Firstly, government is not a sector of the economy, unless you consider thieves to be an economic sector.

Secondly, the only businesses or individuals who would be harmed in the medium or long term by government not paying bills are those doing unproductive things for political reasons.

[dallen68]

Firstly, government is not a sector of the economy, unless you consider thieves to be an economic sector.

Secondly, the only businesses or individuals who would be harmed in the medium or long term by government not paying bills are those doing unproductive things for political reasons.

Firstly, the government spends more money than practically anything else (at least as one organism), which MAKES IT A SECTOR OF THE ECONOMY, regardless of the thieving.
Secondly, what about those that are doing PRODUCTIVE things for political reasons? Like say...manufacturing M-16s? Or Jets, Or Tanks, or being janitors at the school...

[Travis Retriever]

If the government defaults, wouldn't that set off a chain reaction causing other sectors of the economy to fail?

Broken Window Fallacy.  Even if what you said is true, it wouldn't matter.

[dallen68]

Broken Window Fallacy.  Even if what you said is true, it wouldn't matter.

Nope, by definition, no Broken Window Fallacy on my part. A broken window fallacy is when you say *some natural disaster* (and I'll throw in anthromorphic ones for fairness sake), will improve the economy because of the costs of repairing the damage, while ignoring the contingent losses. Since I never said that...

How would it NOT matter? Granted, at the level of the economy I operate on, It probably doesn't all that much, but for the entire economy, taken as a whole, given the government-corporate whatever it is you want to call it that's going on, there would be at least significant problems.

Note: I am not saying this is how it "should be", simply that it "is". Nor am I saying these problems would be insurmountable, or anything like that, just that it would take time and resources for the other elements of the economy to adjust to the new situation. Also, the resulting worthlessness of the legal tender would create a different set of problems I didn't think of until just now.

[Lord T Hawkeye]

If the government defaults, wouldn't that set off a chain reaction causing other sectors of the economy to fail?

If the government defaults, those most affected would be those on it's payroll in some way because those are the people the government would be forced to cut loose.

This is why I warn people not to plan your life around government handouts.  You're setting yourself up to be betrayed.

[dallen68]

If the government defaults, those most affected would be those on it's payroll in some way because those are the people the government would be forced to cut loose.

This is why I warn people not to plan your life around government handouts.  You're setting yourself up to be betrayed.

Fair enough.

[MrBogosity]

Nope, by definition, no Broken Window Fallacy on my part. A broken window fallacy is when you say *some natural disaster* (and I'll throw in anthromorphic ones for fairness sake), will improve the economy because of the costs of repairing the damage, while ignoring the contingent losses. Since I never said that...

There is absolutely nothing in the Broken Window Fallacy that says it has to be a natural disaster, and in fact there was no natural disaster in Bastiat's original parable. The essence of the Broken Window Fallacy is that the shop owner is forced, tricked, or otherwise made to spend his money some other way (repairing the window) than the way he wanted (buying a new suit), and that people do not consider the latter when examining the situation economically.

[dallen68]

There is absolutely nothing in the Broken Window Fallacy that says it has to be a natural disaster, and in fact there was no natural disaster in Bastiat's original parable. The essence of the Broken Window Fallacy is that the shop owner is forced, tricked, or otherwise made to spend his money some other way (repairing the window) than the way he wanted (buying a new suit), and that people do not consider the latter when examining the situation economically. [/unquote]

I included possible anthromophic causes for the required undesired event; still has nothing to do with whether or not the government defaulting on it's obligations is a good thing for the economy. Even with the nit-picking, I still didn't commit a broken window fallacy.

And how do you know there *wasn't* a natural disaster that broke the window?

[MrBogosity]

And how do you know there *wasn't* a natural disaster that broke the window?

Because a boy threw a rock and broke it.

[dallen68]

Because a boy threw a rock and broke it.

Okay. Anthromorphic causes then.

Also, it occurs to me that the parable isn't a very good illustration of the idea. There is nothing that says you can't grab a broom, clean up the glass, tape some vapor barrier over the window-sized hole (about $0.45 a square foot), and buy the suit.

Vapor barrier is a thick sheet of plastic, in case anyone is wondering.

[MrBogosity]

Also, it occurs to me that the parable isn't a very good illustration of the idea. There is nothing that says you can't grab a broom, clean up the glass, tape some vapor barrier over the window-sized hole (about $0.45 a square foot), and buy the suit.

That's still a loss of wealth. You're still missing a plate glass window, and a vapor barrier just isn't as good.

One way or the other, you've lost a window or you've lost a suit. NO net advantage will come from the broken window.

[Travis Retriever]

There is absolutely nothing in the Broken Window Fallacy that says it has to be a natural disaster, and in fact there was no natural disaster in Bastiat's original parable. The essence of the Broken Window Fallacy is that the shop owner is forced, tricked, or otherwise made to spend his money some other way (repairing the window) than the way he wanted (buying a new suit), and that people do not consider the latter when examining the situation economically. [/unquote]

I included possible anthromophic causes for the required undesired event; still has nothing to do with whether or not the government defaulting on it's obligations is a good thing for the economy. Even with the nit-picking, I still didn't commit a broken window fallacy.

And how do you know there *wasn't* a natural disaster that broke the window?

Yes, you still did.  It's still a because a broken window fallacy because you were taking into account the seen while ignoring or at least downplaying the unseen economic consequences.  That's a broken window fallacy boiled down to its essence, and even if not, it's close enough.

[dallen68]

Yes, you still did.  It's still a because a broken window fallacy because you were taking into account the seen while ignoring or at least downplaying the unseen economic consequences.  That's a broken window fallacy boiled down to its essence, and even if not, it's close enough.

No, I didn't. There was no seen/unseen ANYTHING being discussed. What WAS being discussed was whether or not the gov't is part of the economy, with NO COMMENT being made of any consequent value. Therefore, there was no broken window, or any other fallacy.

To recap:

someone posted a picture saying the economy is going to default in about a minute.

You said "it's the gov't that's going to default, which is the greatest thing ever!!!!" (Or close enough to it)

I said, "The gov't is part of the economy"

You said, "only if you count thieves as part of the economy"

I said,  "the gov't is the single largest force in the economy; at least as far as spending goes" (I was going to make a smart-ass remark that thieves ARE in fact, part of the economy- but I was trying to not derail the conversation to much, so I resisted.) I wasn't making a comment about them being beneficial or malignant forces, simply that they do exist with in the economy.

You said, "broken window fallacy"

At no time was there any opportunity for a broken window fallacy to occur.

edit: come to think of it, if there was a "sort of resembles" a broken windows fallacy, YOU committed it when you said the gov't defaulting wouldn't have any medium or long term effects outside the "unproductive". And then the conversation went sideways.