The Broken Window, Frédéric Bastiat

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:01):
The Broken Window from the book Essays on Political Economy
by the late M. Frederic Bastiatt, published in eighteen seventy four,
in the section of the book entitled That which is
Seen and that which is not seen. This is a
LibriVox recording. All LibriVox recordings are in the public domain.

(00:24):
For more information or to volunteer, please visit LibriVox dot org.
The Broken Window. Have you ever witnessed the anger of
the good shop keeper James B when his careless son
happened to break a pane of glass? If you have
been present at such a scene, you will most assuredly

(00:45):
bear a 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

(01:09):
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 costs six francs to
repair the damage, and you say that the accident brings
six francs to the glazier's trade, that it encourages that

(01:32):
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.

(01:52):
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

(02:14):
not seen. It is not seen that as our shopkeeper
has spent six francs upon one thing, he cannot spend
them on 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

(02:35):
francs in some way which this accident has prevented. Let
us take a view of industry in general as affected
by this circumstance. The window being broken, the glacier's trade
is encouraged to the amount of six francs. This is
that which is seen. If the window had not been broken,
the shoemaker's trade or some other would have been encouraged

(02:57):
to the amount of six francs. This is that which
is not seen. And if that which is not seen
is taken into consideration because it is a negative fact
as well as that which is seen because it is
a positive fact, it will be understood that neither industry
in general nor the sum total of national labor is
affected whether windows are broken or not. Now let us

(03:22):
consider James b himself in the former supposition that of
the window being broken, he spends six francs and has
neither more nor less than he had before the enjoyment
of a window. In the second, were we to suppose
the window not to have been broken, he would have
spent six francs in shoes, and would have had at

(03:43):
the same time the enjoyment of a pair of shoes.
And of a window. Now, as James B forms a
part of society, we must come to the conclusion that
taking it all together, and making an estimate of its
enjoyments and its labors, it has lost the value of
the broken window. Whence we arrive at this unexpected conclusion,

(04:07):
society loses the value of things which are uselessly destroyed,
and we must assent to a maxim which will make
the hair of protectionists stand on end. To break, to spoil,
to waste is not to encourage national labor, or more briefly,
destruction is not profit. What will you say, moniteur industriale?

(04:30):
What will you say, disciples of good? M. F. Shamans,
who has circulated with so much precision, how much trade
would gain by the burning of Paris from the number
of houses it would be necessary to rebuild. I am
sorry to disturb these ingenious calculations, as far as their
spirit has been introduced into our legislation, but I beg

(04:50):
him to begin them again by taking into account that
which is not seen, and placing it alongside of that
which is seen. The reader must take care to remember
that there are not two persons only, but three concerned
in the little scene which I have submitted to his attention.
One of them, James B. Represents the consumer reduced by

(05:13):
an act of destruction to one enjoyment instead of two. Another,
under the title of the Glazier, shows us the producer
whose trade is encouraged by the accident. The third is
the shoemaker or some other tradesmen, whose labor suffers proportionably
by the same cause. It is this third person who
is always kept in the shade, and who, personating that

(05:36):
which is not seen, is a necessary element of the problem.
It is he who shows us how absurd it is
to think we see a prophet in an act of destruction.
It is he who will soon teach us that it
is not less absurd to see a profit in a restriction,
which is, after all, nothing else than a partial destruction. Therefore,

(05:57):
if you will only go to the root of all
the arguments which are adduced in its favor, all you
will find will be the paraphrase of this vulgar saying,
what would become of the glaziers if nobody ever broke windows?
End of the Broken Window by Frederic Bastiacht recording by

(06:18):
Michel Frye Batonuge Louisiana in September two thousand eighteen.