Tom Palmer of the Atlas Network has a very concise – yet quite devastating – video exposing the Keynesian fallacy that the destruction of wealth by calamities such as earthquakes or terrorism is good for economic growth. Tom cites the work of Bastiat, who sagely observed that, “There is only one difference between a bad economist and a good one: the bad economist confines himself to the visible effect; the good economist takes into account both the effect that can be seen and those effects that must be foreseen.” As you can see from the video, many who pontificate about economic matters today miss this essential insight:
I can’t resist the opportunity to also plug a couple of my own videos that touch on the same issues. Here’s one of Keynesian economics, one on the failure of Obama’s faux stimulus, and another on the policies that actually promote prosperity.
[…] argue that the government should have squandered even more money. Heck, he even asserted that the 9-11 attacks were a form of stimulus and has argued that it would be pro-growth if we faced the threat of an alien […]
[…] got lucky (the “seen”). But it means a lot of consumers get left out (as Bastiat points out, those are the […]
[…] and her staff is ignorant. Simply stated, there’s no understanding of indirect effects. Bastiat would be very […]
[…] doesn’t change the fact that change means temporary pain. And this is a political challenge. Especially since those who suffer are the “seen” and the beneficiaries often are […]
[…] Bastiat , o grande economista francês (sim, tais criaturas costumavam existir) do século XIX, observou que um bom economista sempre considera as consequências “visíveis” e […]
[…] Bastiat , o grande economista francês (sim, tais criaturas costumavam existir) do século XIX, observou que um bom economista sempre considera as consequências “visíveis” e […]
[…] economists who genuinely seem to believe that government can artificially boost growth. They claim terrorist attacks and alien attacks can be good for growth if they lead to more spending. They even think natural […]
[…] I though Bastiat was the only good French economist. But Monsieur Leroy-Beaulieu obviously is a very sensible […]
[…] inevitably show substantial economic costs, which means that the jobs that are saved (the “seen“) are more than offset by the jobs that are lost or never created (the […]
[…] to channel the wisdom of Frederic Bastiat. There are many well-meaning people who understandably want to help workers by […]
[…] time to channel the wisdom of Frederic […]
[…] time to channel the wisdom of Frederic […]
[…] by this poster, is that more government is the problem instead of the solution. Which is something Bastiat warned us about back in the […]
[…] Bastiat, the great French economist (yes, such creatures used to exist) from the 1800s, famously observed that a good economist always considers both the “seen” and “unseen” consequences of […]
[…] Bastiat, the great French economist (yes, such creatures used to exist) from the 1800s, famously observed that a good economist always considers both the “seen” and “unseen” consequences of any […]
[…] Bastiat, the great French economist (yes, such creatures used to exist) from the 1800s, famously observed that a good economist always considers both the “seen” and “unseen” […]
[…] Bastiat, the great French economist (yes, such creatures used to exist) from the 1800s, famously observed that a good economist always considers both the “seen” and “unseen” […]
[…] help readers recognize that there are adverse unintended consequences of government intervention. Bastiat would be very […]
[…] Because of my concerns about government inefficiency, I enjoyed the discussion about targeting vs timeliness, but Keynesians only care about having the government somehow dump money into the economy. And they’ll use any excuse, even a terrorist attack. […]
[…] Because of my concerns about government inefficiency, I enjoyed the discussion about targeting vs timeliness, but Keynesians only care about having the government somehow dump money into the economy. And they’ll use any excuse, even a terrorist attack. […]
[…] Prof. Dorfman explains that Keynesianism is merely a version of Bastiat’s broken-window fallacy. […]
[…] bizarre, he really said that the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center would “do some economic good” because of […]
[…] bizarre, he really said that the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center would “do some economic good” because of […]
[…] periodically cited the great 19th-century French economist, Frederic Bastiat, for his very wise words about the importance of looking at both the seen and the unseen when analyzing public […]
[…] periodically cited the great 19th-century French economist, Frederic Bastiat, for his very wise words about the importance of looking at both the seen and the unseen when analyzing public […]
[…] periodically cited the great 19th-century French economist, Frederic Bastiat, for his very wise words about the importance of looking at both the seen and the unseen when analyzing public […]
[…] Krugman even asserted the 9-11 attacks were good for the economy because governments then spent more […]
[…] And Krugman also argued that the 9-11 terrorist attacks were pro-growth! […]
[…] the way, Krugman also said the 9-11 terrorist attacks would “do some economic […]
[…] bizarre, he really said that the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center would “do some economic good” […]
[…] the great economist Frederic Bastiat teaches us to look at both direct and indirect effects (or, as he put it, the “seen” and “unseen”), so […]
[…] of reminds me of what the great Frederic Bastiat wrote more than 150 years ago, “The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live […]
[…] of reminds me of what the great Frederic Bastiat wrote more than 150 years ago, “The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live […]
[…] They want us to believe this will lead to more jobs for young people, but they overlook (and hope we’re unaware of) Bastiat’s warning about the seen and the unseen. […]
[…] the great economist Frederic Bastiat teaches us to look at both direct and indirect effects (or, as he put it, the “seen” and “unseen”), so […]
[…] occur when the carpenter and dog walker then have to cut back on their purchases? Maybe we need to take Bastiat’s advice and go break some […]
[…] argue that the government should have squandered even more money. Heck, he even asserted that the 9-11 attacks were a form of stimulus and has argued that it would be pro-growth if we faced the threat of an alien […]
[…] argue that the government should have squandered even more money. Heck, he even asserted that the 9-11 attacks were a form of stimulus and has argued that it would be pro-growth if we faced the threat of an alien […]
[…] key to good economic analysis, as Bastiat explained in the 1800s, is looking at the seen and the unseen. And you don’t have to be an economist to recognize that the secondary and tertiary effects […]
[…] Journal has published some wise observations by a leading French economist (an intellectual heir to Bastiat!), who shares my disdain for the current discussion. Here are some excerpts from Prof. Salin’s […]
[…] Journal has published some wise observations by a leading French economist (an intellectual heir to Bastiat!), who shares my disdain for the current discussion. Here are some excerpts from Prof. Salin’s […]
[…] the great economist Frederic Bastiat teaches us to look at both direct and indirect effects (or, as he put it, the “seen” and “unseen”), so […]
[…] the great economist Frederic Bastiat teaches us to look at both direct and indirect effects (or, as he put it, the “seen” and […]
[…] A simple explanation for the stupidity of politicians is that there are more consumers than gas station owners. But I also think this is an example of their illiteracy about what Bastiat referred to as the seen and the unseen. […]
[…] no fun to be an economist. Or, to be more specific, it’s rather frustrating to understand Bastiat’s insight about the “seen” and the “unseen” and to always be asking “at what […]
[…] no fun to be an economist. Or, to be more specific, it’s rather frustrating to understand Bastiat’s insight about the “seen” and the “unseen” and to always be asking “at what […]
[…] no fun to be an economist. Or, to be more specific, it’s rather frustrating to understand Bastiat’s insight about the “seen” and the “unseen” and to always be asking “at what […]
[…] Turgot (Bastiat was not the only great French economist) looked at the new nation of the United States and saw the […]
[…] Turgot (Bastiat was not the only great French economist) looked at the new nation of the United States and saw the […]
[…] Journal has published some wise observations by a leading French economist (an intellectual heir to Bastiat!), who shares my disdain for the current discussion. Here are some excerpts from Prof. Salin’s […]
[…] Journal has published some wise observations by a leading French economist (an intellectual heir to Bastiat!), who shares my disdain for the current discussion. Here are some excerpts from Prof. […]
[…] To provide a bit of additional background, the cartoon is channeling Bastiat’s broken-window insight that make-work projects don’t create prosperity, as explained in this short video narrated by Tom Palmer. […]
[…] de Rugy then closes with an important insight from Frederic Bastiat (who is probably Veronique’s great great grandfather since I’m only slightly […]
[…] we look only at direct effects, the answer is yes. But if we channel our inner Bastiat and look at both the seen and the unseen, the answer […]
[…] we can safely assume that the great 19th-century French economist Frederic Bastiat is rolling over in his grave. Classical liberalism is not enjoying a rebirth in […]
[…] Yesterday, there were rumors that Krugman stated that it would have been stimulative if the earthquake had been stronger and done more damage, but he exposed this as a prank(though it is understandable that many people — including me, I’m embarrassed to admit — initially assumed it was true since he did write that the 9-11 terrorist attacks boosted growth). […]
[…] Yesterday, there were rumors that Krugman stated that it would have been stimulative if the earthquake had been stronger and done more damage, but he exposed this as a prank (though it is understandable that many people – including me, I’m embarrassed to admit – initially assumed it was true since he did write that the 9-11 terrorist attacks boosted growth). […]
[…] Yesterday, there were rumors that Krugman stated that it would have been stimulative if the earthquake had been stronger and done more damage, but he exposed this as a prank(though it is understandable that many people — including me, I’m embarrassed to admit — initially assumed it was true since he did write that the 9-11 terrorist attacks boosted growth). […]
[…] Yesterday, there were rumors that Krugman stated that it would have been stimulative if the earthquake had been stronger and done more damage, but he exposed this as a prank (though it is understandable that many people – including me, I’m embarrassed to admit – initially assumed it was true since he did write that the 9-11 terrorist attacks boosted growth). […]
[…] committed the “broken-window” fallacy, explained more than 150 years ago by a famous French economist, Frederic […]
[…] (via International Liberty) […]
I’m a free-lance cartoonist for Ej Webb Inc. magazine and shouldn’t it show how and why the child wanted to brake the glass? Better yet! Show a picture of who created those disturbing eras?
B J Patterson