The latest ongoing debate amongst our political nomenklatura is about the $14 billion hard-earned tax dollars that are being spent on knocking down and rebuilding school buildings. When you consider that fourty-two percent (yes, 42%) of Australian families either don’t pay tax or receive more in government benefits than they pay in tax, this amounts to a significant ‘investment’ in education – but is it actually going to provide any long-term benefit for Australia or is it simply yet another example of the broken window fallacy [see Bastiat or Hazlitt], in other words a colossal waste of resources?

I’ll spare you the banter that’s being thrown around in parliament (a brief summary: Labor is defending the spending, saying it will “…modernise school facilities and support jobs in the local community,” and that it represents “…value for money;” the Liberals are calling it “wasteful and reckless spending.”) and instead focus purely on the numbers and whether or not it will ‘stimulate’ the economy – which was, after all, the whole point of it.

Fourteen billion dollars ($14,000,000,000) equates to almost $1,800 for every tax-paying Australian (assuming only 8million people pay tax). Now that’s a significant amount of money those taxpayers no longer have to spend or save – in other words, our omnipotent government has decided that they know how to spend the money better than you, the person who earned it. Whereas the taxpayer earns their income by satisfying the infinite and ever changing wants and needs of the consumer (whether as an entrepreneur or employee of an organisation that does), the government is under no such obligation. They’re not bound by profit or loss; indeed, on the contrary, all they care about are the various interest groups to whom they sold their souls to move up the political ranks.

The stimulus spending on education will not help our economy one iota. Yes, it will create, or rather maintain jobs in the building and construction industry. But at what cost? Going back, what about the $1,800 that taxpayers no longer have to spend or save? Lets assume this money was saved in a bank – that money would added to the national pool of savings which, due to supply and demand (and the subsequent reduction in the interest rate), would lower the cost of borrowing for businesses who would then been able to expand (invest) and spend on ‘productive’ consumption – that is, consumption that will enable future production and increase the total productivity and wealth of the nation. Not only that but it would create jobs in the process; jobs allocated by the market rather than through bureaucratic whims. The difference? One is sustainable while the other can only continue for as long as the stimulus does.

To answer my initial question, will the ‘stimulus’ of knocking down and rebuilding schools help the economy? Will it enable an increase in future production? Will promoting malinvestment and creating jobs in areas where they’re simply not needed achieve anything other than furthering political careers by gaining support from certain unions and interest groups? Unfortunately, no.

“Experience shows that nothing is operated with less economy and with more waste of labour and material of every kind than public services and undertakings. Private enterprise on the other hand naturally induces the owner to work with the greatest economy in his own interest,” Ludwig von Mises

Aside from boosting GDP statistics in the short term, the only thing that will be achieved by this stimulus (aside from shiny new school buildings for the kids of course) is a delay in the necessary reallocation of scarce resources from areas of malinvestment to areas where they’re most urgently needed. The reckless spending embarked on by this government is incredibly short-sighted and there is no doubt that in the process they have lowered the standard of living for all future Australians.

[This article is excerpted from "That Which Is Seen, And That Which Is Not Seen". It was first published in 1850.]

Have you ever witnessed the anger of the good shopkeeper, John Q. Citizen, when his careless son happened to break a pane of glass? If you have been present at such a scene, you will most assuredly bear witness to the fact, that every one of the spectators, were there even 30 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 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 cost six francs to repair the damage, and you say that the accident brings six francs to the glazier’s trade — that it encourages that 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.

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 not seen."

It is not seen that as our shopkeeper has spent six francs upon one thing, he cannot spend them upon 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 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 glazier’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 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 consider John Q. Citizen 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, where we suppose the window not to have been broken, he would have spent six francs in shoes, and would have had at the same time the enjoyment of a pair of shoes and of a window. Now, as John Q. Citizen 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: “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 Industriel? what will you say, disciples of good M.F. Chamans, who has calculated 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 him to begin them again, by taking into the 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, John Q. Citizen, represents the consumer, reduced, by 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 tradesman), whose labor suffers proportionally by the same cause. It is this third person who is always kept in the shade, and who, personifying that 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 profit 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, 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 naive question — What would become of the glaziers, if nobody ever broke windows?