Credibly promising to be irresponsible...since 2004!
Huh. I don't know who is right, but this particular lecture isn't convincing. His major reason that destruction doesn't promote happy economic returns is that we aren't doing it. That's not a reason. That's an observation. Like saying poor people don't like ferraris because they don't buy any. Huh? The second point is that the shopkeeper would use the window money to buy clothes instead. But isn't this idea of broken windows that the shopkeeper would buy clothes AND a window? If not, then fire up the mungocam and do a better lecture.p.s. Captcha is sesamp. Elmo turned to eleven?
I think the BWF would have more impact if it was called "The Broken Legs Fallacy" instead.
Post a Comment