Actually I now think no wealth is destroyed in the process just redistributed. Well not destroyed at this moment in time at least.
The person had 100 units of money and they spent it repairing a window. They could've spent it on a suit, of the same price, but they spent it on a window. And that propagated and that is the argument for improvement of society through this process,that propagation, the flow of money is good for the economy. Spending that money created jobs, it gave people work and employment.
However in reality this does not aid the economy as all it does is transfer wealth from yourself to other people.
Well actually it can. If these were your savings, money you were going to spend at a later point in time, and you spent it now then you introduced money into the economy making it grow. But that raises the whole other unrelated question of what happens when later comes as now that later money cannot be spent later and growth of the economy now implied as subtraction of the economy latter. Given the same amount of resources, money.
But ignoring that and considering this is money that is coming out of a paycheck then you did not aid the economy as all you did was transfer wealth from yourself to other people. The same thing which would've happened if you would've bought the suit instead of the window. But the difference is that nowyou work for your money but you do not enjoy the fruits of your own labor.
And that's the point. Why this is a bad thing.
Originally Posted by
Empire
The problem of course is not government intervention, without government there would be no market and no free marketers
What makes you say that?