The broken window fallacy is the fallacy I chose to blog about because its very interesting and I think a lot of people are guilty of thinking incorrectly about the effects of "the broken window" . I think the best way to explain the broken window fallacy is just by example so I suppose I will walk you through a short scenario.
So lets say I take a stroll and feel the urge to launch a rock through a window, so I find a nice rock and send it on a line right through a $150 window of my liking and break it. Now the window has to be fixed and the person responsible(me) has to pay for it.
The broken window fallacy would lead you to believe that because I now have to pay for this window I actually did the community a favor. The logic is that my $150 being spent on this window will jumpstart the economy, in the sense that the local store makes money, along with who ever had to do with production of the window and perhaps some installation charge for a local company as well. This is where a common mistake in thought occurs some would truly think that my $150 sparked the economy but in actuality that money would have entered the economy at some point, I would have spent that money on some other new products that aren't dealing with maintenance. This bring me to me other reason which is the window is technically maintenance cost which really would not be labeled as profit.
A real world example of the broken window fallacy is when people assume that was and buying weapons will spark an economy but ultimately war will also lead to more maintenance costs and rebuilding and new things that may actually spark are economy will not be funded, old things will just be fixed if that makes sense. It really limits the overall expansion of an economy.