Frederic Bastiat wrote a piece in 1850 titled "That Which is Seen, and That Which is Not Seen".
I thought it might be a good idea to takes each of the sections of the paper and re-write them using modern language, terms, circumstances and dollars. The whole thing is well worth your time to read at the above link. My version will be quicker, though maybe not as satisfying. It is written with the hope more people will think about the economy and governance with freedom in mind.
The first section is THE BROKEN WINDOW:
I'm sure you've seen the convenience store where a car inevitably manages to drive right into one of those big plate glass windows. Not a pretty sight. And no doubt you've said, in consolation to the manager - "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?" OK, maybe you didn't say it the way Bastiat said it, but you probably thought that at least the glass company will get some work.
Wrong! That is not the way to think about it, even though most people do so, particularly the ones currently in charge in D.C.
Those windows are big and expensive. Suppose it cost $500 to repair the damage. You figure the glass company now has $500 it didn't have before. You are correct. You can see that the glass company has an additional $500. All this is that which is seen.
This might lead some to think that if breaking one window generates new business, than we should break more windows! Generate a LOT of new business. NO! You are only thinking about that which you can see.
What you do not see is that now that the convenience store had to spend $500 on a new window he cannot spend that $500 on other things. He cannot buy more stock for his store or a new bicycle to ride to work. (He lives close to the store.) If this accident had not occurred he could have spent that money in other ways.
OK, pay attention, this is key.
Thinking of the overall situation, you can see the glass company got $500. You cannot see the bike store will not get $500.
$500 was spent to repair a window. The owner now has $500 less just to get back to his original position.
If the window had not been broken the owner would still have his window AND a new bike.
Looking at the big picture, with the broken window, society has lost the $500 it cost to repair it. With no broken window, society still has the window and a new bicycle.
Here is Bastiat's explanation. (It is plain in any age.) When 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 labour; or, more briefly, "destruction is not profit."
You must always take into account that which you cannot see. In this instance you see the convenience store owner has a window again. You see the glass company has $500. You do not see the bike store has lost $500. It is the "bike store" that remains in the shadow, never seen. "Society" is out the new bike.
We see this idea even today. Recently "renowned" economists were stating that the destruction by the recent hurricanes would lead to economic growth. Billions will have to be spent to only bring us back to where we were before. That is money that cannot be spent on other things. Nope. Destruction is not profit.
Also, even though we are talking about destruction of a window, this also applies to government restrictions on the store owner. What must be spent complying with rules and regulation is as lost to society as that new bike.
(I do recommend you read the original in the link above. My attempt should be considered the "fast food" version.)