1. The accidental destruction of wealth is a loss to the owner, rarely with benefit, on the whole, to others. In the consumption of wealth the loss of its utility is accompanied by the gratifying of wants; in the destruction of wealth utility is lost without the gratifying of wants. In a simple society, without exchange, the result of such a loss is evident. If food is destroyed, men suffer from hunger or gratify appetite less perfectly; if clothing is destroyed, they are cold; if houses are destroyed, they have no shelter. Likewise, if the self-sufficing family on a farm loses wealth by fire or storm or blight, its economic environment is made less fitted to gratify wants. In the conditions of our society, where goods are exchanged, the result appears to be different. The need to replace the lost goods makes a demand for special kinds of labor or goods. There may be, therefore, an immediate benefit to some, which obscures the corresponding loss to others. If a part of the income of the loser must be diverted from other uses to replace the wealth destroyed, those from whom he would have bought suffer an unexpected falling off of their sales, and he has himself gained nothing. The net result is a loss of wealth and gratification to the community as a whole.

There is a real exception where the accidental destruction removes some social difficulty. The great fire in London and the great fire in Chicago resulted in wonderful improvement. When an old city is built almost entirely of wood, each owner may think it to his interest to keep the old buildings. A great fire sweeps them all down and compels the rebuilding of the city on a new and higher standard. But the usual social result of accidental destruction is a loss. It is a use of wealth without a fulfilling of the purpose of production, the gratifying of wants.

Loss of wealth in an isolated or an exchanging economy.

Intentional destruction of wealth by the owner.

2. The intentional destruction of wealth by the owner, to make trade good, benefits neither himself nor others. The case in mind is one where there is full choice between keeping or losing the good, not such a case as the throwing overboard of a part of the cargo when the ship is in danger of sinking, in the hope thereby of saving the rest, or as the blowing up of buildings to prevent the spread of a fire. In such cases the destruction is inevitable without man's action; he merely tries to minimize it. The case in mind is the deliberate destruction of wealth that might be kept for use. One labor leader, for example, boasted that when he drank pop he always broke the bottle "to make trade good" by helping the glass industry. The refuting of this fallacy is one of the time-honored tasks in political economy. There is, it is true, an increase in the demand for glass and glass-blowers' labor, but without an increase in gratification; but at the same time there is a decrease in the demand for other goods which would afford additional gratification. The proverb, old in Shakespeare's time, runs, "Nothing can come of nothing." What is spent for one purpose cannot be for another;" you cannot eat your cake and have it too." A given income can be spent in one of many ways, but not in all ways or even in two ways at once. It is a question of this or that. At the same moment that the demand for pop-bottles is increased, the demand for other things is decreased, possibly that for pop-corn or pop-guns or Populist papers - who can tell? Such a form of benevolence is a mistaken, uneconomic attempt to provide labor for one man by taking it from another.

If the advocate of wealth-destruction would be consistent, he should break, not merely the pop-bottle, but the water-pitcher and the table as well; he should make a bonfire at least once daily of his clothing, his house, and its furnishings; he should advise blowing up the steamboat and ripping up the railroad when they have carried a single load of passengers. Thus, when all men were naked and starving, and civilization had sunk to savagery, trade would have been made as "good" as, by the policy of destruction, he could ever hope to make it.

3. The intentional destruction of wealth owned by other persons is falsely thought to benefit trade in general. The cases referred to are not acts done with criminal motives, but those done with a view to the public interest. If one sets fire to the property of another, seeking revenge or plunder, he is guilty of the crime of arson. But what shall be said of volunteer firemen that let an old house burn down to provide labor for carpenters and "to make business good"? The duty of firemen is to put out fires, no matter what the building is; but they choose sometimes to be ministers to the social interest as they interpret it. The more spent for carpenters' work out of any income, the less can be spent for other objects. It is true, however, that if in a small town the money to rebuild is borrowed from a distant loan or insurance company, there is an increase in employment in that town for one season; and that is as far as most men try to carry their economic analysis. Let the student carry it further.

Intentional destruction of others' wealth.

Servants sometimes excuse the breaking of dishes and furniture on the ground that it makes work, and that the employer can afford it. But income is thus diverted from other expenditure, either for production or for consumption. In the light of the theory of wages, it would appear that carelessness reduces the servant's own efficiency, and in the long run the loss comes, in part at least, off the wages of that particular servant. Bastiat's discussion of the broken window-pane is often and deservedly quoted. What is seen is a certain immediate benefit that the glass-maker and glazier get; what is not seen is that the power to expend an equal amount for other things is thereby lost by the owner of the house.

The seen and the unseen.

The wasteful use of wealth.

4. The destruction of unnecessarily large value to secure a given gratification is not economically sound. The careless use of wealth to secure an inadequate result is likewise justified as "making trade good." The blunder that compels the rebuilding of a wall in a rich man's garden is an occasion for congratulation to those who see in it a happy provision of work for the unemployed. It is easy to forget that the proper use of goods is the final step in production. According as goods are well or poorly used, the production - that is, the real income or gratification they afford - is large or small. Differences in skill in the use of wealth are great. A French cook, we are often told, can make a palatable soup from what goes from the average American kitchen into the swill-pail. Waste in the use of goods is more likely to be found in new countries where wealth comes more easily and necessity does not enforce frugality.

The praise of waste implies the error noted in the preceding propositions. Deliberately securing less than the maximum result from wealth is merely a minor degree of the intentional destruction of wealth. The mistaken view is essentially that of the opponents of labor-saving machinery. It may be true, if the interests of a small class of workers or of tradesmen for the moment are looked at; it is false, if the interests of society as a whole be considered. Far more of wisdom lies in the proverb, "A penny saved is two earned." The economic use of wealth as surely adds to wealth (and, ultimately, to the income of society) as any other mode of production.

Waste in public outlay.

Some government expenditures, as for river and harbor improvements, are sometimes favored, not because their immediate purposes are good, but because they "make work" and "distribute money' throughout the country. This money comes from taxation, and no matter what the system of taxation, the burden falls on some one, reducing the incomes at the disposal of the people to expend for objects of their own choice. If the work is not worth doing for itself, the collection of money in small amounts from many taxpayers and its expenditure as a large sum in one locality results in a net loss to society as a whole. Where the result is worth something, but not enough by itself to justify the expenditure, the fallacy of the destruction of wealth is present in a smaller degree. Examples are seen in the extreme use of pensions and in some public subsidies.

5. The supposed benefits of destruction and waste are due to a narrow and incomplete view of the question. Let us restate the ideas that have been touched upon. In many cases it is possible that one person may benefit by another's mishap or folly in the use of wealth. The complex interrelations of men in society make this inevitable. But, to appreciate the final effects of such action upon society, one needs but to go back to the essential thought of wealth and its purposes. As the average efficiency and bounty of the world fall, so fall the income and welfare of men. As it rises, the social and economic levels rise also. Every kind of economic wealth has potentially two kinds of uses: to gratify wants - thus fulfilling its destiny - or to be converted into higher and more efficient agents - consumption or production. That the possibilities of the latter are boundless is overlooked in the fallacies here criticized. An efficient world would be the result of "economy" and saving; a wasted and used-up world, the result of the fallacy of the destruction and waste of wealth.

The fallacy of waste.