I've heard of the "broken window fallacy", and this seems an incorrect representation.
The fallacy is that breaking windows must have an inherent value (and the fallacy is that its a good thing to have vandalism). Part of the justification that it might be otherwise is the benefit of having window repairmen, and how they couldn't exist if they didn't have a steady income - and it's here that lies the fault, however the fault is one of quantification, in fact a broken window can be socially useful, just with decreasing usefulness as quantity increases, plus there are better ways to do it (e.g. insurance payment); It's still true that (in an unmanaged market) if (somehow) there aren't enough broken windows, when one breaks there might not be anyone who can repair it (economically) - I think it's the same category of problem as, donating clothes to Africa destroys its own textile biz.
The fallacy is that breaking windows must have an inherent value (and the fallacy is that its a good thing to have vandalism). Part of the justification that it might be otherwise is the benefit of having window repairmen, and how they couldn't exist if they didn't have a steady income - and it's here that lies the fault, however the fault is one of quantification, in fact a broken window can be socially useful, just with decreasing usefulness as quantity increases, plus there are better ways to do it (e.g. insurance payment); It's still true that (in an unmanaged market) if (somehow) there aren't enough broken windows, when one breaks there might not be anyone who can repair it (economically) - I think it's the same category of problem as, donating clothes to Africa destroys its own textile biz.