we'll see about the shot in the arm when illegals are caught working on the project
On Jun 1, 7:47 am, MJ <[email protected]> wrote: > Post-Tornado Rebuilding Will Be Shot in the Arm for Local Economies“There is > no silver lining to a funnel cloud, as anyone who survived the tornadoes can > attest, but reconstruction can help rebuild local economies as well as > neighborhoods.” (New York Times)In other words, there is a silver lining to a > funnel cloud.What Is Seen and What Is Not SeenThe Bad Economist Confines > Himself to the Visible EffectFrederic Bastiat > June 2001 • Volume: 51 • Issue: 6 •This excerpt is from the first chapter > ofSelected Essays on Political Economy, translated by Seymour Cain and edited > by George B. de Huszar, published by the Foundation for Economic Education.In > the economic sphere an act, a habit, an institution, a law produces not only > one effect, but a series of effects. Of these effects, the first alone is > immediate; it appears simultaneously with its cause;it is seen.The other > effects emerge only subsequently;they are not seen;we are fortunate if > weforeseethem.[1]There is only one difference between a bad economist and a > good one: the bad economist confines himself to thevisibleeffect; the good > economist takes into account both the effect that can be seen and those > effects that must beforeseen.Yet this difference is tremendous; for it almost > always happens that when the immediate consequence is favorable, the later > consequences are disastrous, and vice versa. Whence it follows that the bad > economist pursues a small present good that will be followed by a great evil > to come, while the good economist pursues a great good to come, at the risk > of a small present evil. > The same thing, of course, is true of health and morals. Often, the sweeter > the first fruit of a habit, the more bitter are its later fruits: for > example, debauchery, sloth, prodigality. When a man is impressed by the > effectthat is seenand has not yet learned to discern the effectsthat are not > seen, he indulges in deplorable habits, not only through natural inclination, > but deliberately. > This explains man’s necessarily painful evolution. Ignorance surrounds him at > his cradle; therefore, he regulates his acts according to their first > consequences, the only ones that, in his infancy, he can see. It is only > after a long time that he learns to take account of the others. Two very > different masters teach him this lesson: experience and foresight. Experience > teaches efficaciously but brutally. It instructs us in all the effects of an > act by making us feel them, and we cannot fail to learn eventually, from > having been burned ourselves, that fire burns. I should prefer, in so far as > possible, to replace this rude teacher with one more gentle: foresight. For > that reason I shall investigate the consequences of several economic > phenomena, contrasting thosethat are seenwith thosethat are not seen.The > Broken WindowHave you ever been witness to the fury of that solid citizen, > James Goodfellow,[2]when his incorrigible son has happened to break a pane of > glass? If you have been present at this spectacle, certainly you must also > have observed that the onlookers, even if there are as many as thirty of > them, seem with one accord to offer the unfortunate owner the selfsame > consolation: “It’s an ill wind that blows nobody some good. Such accidents > keep industry going. Everybody has to make a living. What would become of the > glaziers if no one ever broke a window?” > Now, this formula of condolence contains a whole theory that it is a good > idea for us to expose,flagrante delicto, in this very simple case, since it > is exactly the same as that which, unfortunately, underlies most of our > economic institutions. > Suppose that it will cost six francs to repair the damage. If you mean that > the accident gives six francs’ worth of encouragement to the aforesaid > industry, I agree. I do not contest it in any way; your reasoning is correct. > The glazier will come, do his job, receive six francs, congratulate himself, > and bless in his heart the careless child.That is what is seen.But if, by way > of deduction, you conclude, as happens only too often, that it is good to > break windows, that it helps to circulate money, that it results in > encouraging industry in general, I am obliged to cry out: That will never do! > Your theory stops atwhat is seen.It does not take account ofwhat is not seen. > It is not seenthat, since our citizen has spent six francs for one thing, he > will not be able to spend them for another.It is not seenthat if he had not > had a windowpane to replace, he would have replaced, for example, his > worn-out shoes or added another book to his library. In brief, he would have > put his six francs to some use or other for which he will not now have them. > Let us next consider industryin general.The window having been broken, the > glass industry gets six francs’ worth of encouragement;that is what is > seen.If the window had not been broken, the shoe industry (or some other) > would have received six francs’ worth of encouragement;that is what is not > seen.And if we were to take into considerationwhat is not seen, because it is > a negative factor, as well aswhat is seen, because it is a positive factor, > we should understand that there is no benefit to industryin generalor > tonational employmentas a whole, whether windows are broken or not broken. > Now let us consider James Goodfellow. > On the first hypothesis, that of the broken window, he spends six francs and > has, neither more nor less than before, the enjoyment of one window. > On the second, that in which the accident did not happen, he would have spent > six francs for new shoes and would have had the enjoyment of a pair of shoes > as well as of a window. > Now, if James Goodfellow is part of society, we must conclude that society, > considering its labors and its enjoyments, has lost the value of the broken > window. > From which, by generalizing, we arrive at this unexpected conclusion: > “Society loses the value of objects unnecessarily destroyed,” and at this > aphorism, which will make the hair of the protectionists stand on end: “To > break, to destroy, to dissipate is not to encourage national employment,” or > more briefly: “Destruction is not profitable.” > What will theMoniteur industriel[3]say to this, or the disciples of the > estimable M. de Saint-Chamans,[4]who has calculated with such precision what > industry would gain from the burning of Paris, because of the houses that > would have to be rebuilt? > I am sorry to upset his ingenious calculations, especially since their spirit > has passed into our legislation. But I beg him to begin them again, > enteringwhat is not seenin the ledger besidewhat is seen.The reader must > apply himself to observe that there are not only two people, but three, in > the little drama that I have presented. The one, James Goodfellow, represents > the consumer, reduced by destruction to one enjoyment instead of two. The > other, under the figure of the glazier, shows us the producer whose industry > the accident encourages. The third is the shoemaker (or any other > manufacturer) whose industry is correspondingly discouraged by the same > cause. It is this third person who is always in the shadow, and who, > personifyingwhat is not seen, is an essential element of the problem. It is > he who makes us understand how absurd it is to see a profit in destruction. > It is he who will soon teach us that it is equally absurd to see a profit in > trade restriction, which is, after all, nothing more nor less than partial > destruction. So, if you get to the bottom of all the arguments advanced in > favor of restrictionist measures, you will find only a paraphrase of that > common cliché: “What would become of the glaziers if no one ever broke any > windows?”NotesThis pamphlet, published in July 1850, is the last that Bastiat > wrote. It had been promised to the public for more than a year. Its > publication had been delayed because the author had lost the manuscript when > he moved his household from the rue de Choiseul to the rue d’Alger. After a > long and fruitless search, he decided to rewrite his work entirely, and chose > as the principal basis of his demonstrations some speeches recently delivered > in the National Assembly. When this task was finished, he reproached himself > with having been too serious, threw the second manuscript into the fire, and > wrote the one which we reprint.Editor.In French, Jacques Bonhomme, used like > “John Bull” in English to represent the practical, responsible, unassuming > average man.Translator.Newspaper of the Committee for the Defense of Domestic > Industry, a protectionist organization.Translator.Auguste, Vicomte de > Saint-Chamans (1777-1861), Deputy and Councillor of State under the > Restoration, protectionist and upholder of the balance of trade. His > celebrated stand on the “obstacle” here quoted by Bastiat comes from his > Nouvel essai sur la richesse des nations, 1824. This work was later (1852) > incorporated in his Traité d’économie > politique.Translator.http://www.thefreemanonline.org/featured/what-is-seen-and-what-is-not-seen-2/ -- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
