It’s great for the general store owner, who now gets to sell all the needed supplies to both families to rebuild.
It’s not so great for the ones to suffer it, though.
the difference between a good economist and a bad economist is that a bad economist can only see the immediate effect of the policy of the recipient, but not on the effect on all people in the economy
Economic in One Lesson, The Broken Window Fallacy. While the general store may owner may benefit from selling supplies to family to rebuild what was broken. Another general store owner (or the same store owner) may suffer, because instead of buying a new clothes for the season that year, both families were using their resources to replace what was ttheir broken windows.
So if you look at the entire economy.
Without the broken window, society would’ve one window, new clothes. To a society with a broken window, that only have the replaced window
Which society is richer? Obviously the society without the broken window
“It’s great for the general store owner, who now gets to sell all the needed supplies to both families to rebuild.”
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Sounds like it may be good for the store owner but the net result is that both families are ruined and generate far LESS total trade with anyone in the future. Any benefit derived from war that accrues to any one person, company or country is always more than offset by losses to someone else. For every “Daddy Warbucks” there are thousands of ruined or ended lives.