This is the “Broken Window” fallacy[1] which was explained by Bastiat.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window
This is the “Broken Window” fallacy[1] which was explained by Bastiat.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window
I don't fucking care about made up terms. If you can't see the actual economic growth (not some vague, theoretical fallacy) they create, you're just another moron in denial.
It's not a "made-up term", it's shorthand for a well-known argument. Not allowing re-usable arguments is like not allowing the use of libraries in software: It wastes time better spent on moving the frontier forward.
The wildfire industry brings growth but it would be a whole lot better if we didn't have wildfires.
The same thing is true with computers. Imagine all the nice things we could have if we didn't have to worry about people abusing the systems we build.
Well, to be honest, those old enough remember when cryptography was considered someting for the military and special services, and considering using encryption would put you under immediate suspicion. Now we can at least argue we need it to protect us from the cyber crime, even if we really have privacy and free speech in mind
If economic growth at all cost is the solution, then you are wasting your time giving your fiction away for free.