gmorinI think the possibility that people work harder after destruction makes sense and only reinforces the validity of the broken window fallacy: namely that in order to get back to where you would have been otherwise absent the destruction you literally have to work twice as hard. So this gives the appearance of great industry however the motivation is simply to quickly restore what you lost and then recoup what you would have been producing during the time you wasted restoring what you lost… you’re always a bit behind but eventually you asymptotically approach where you would have been absent the destruction, but it takes many years and is certainly not a reason to promote destruction. I suppose the only value that lies in destruction is in demonstrating to people what they truly are capable of, i.e. we all could probably be twice as productive as we are now, but we choose not too because we consider the cost to be too great relative to what we have already (cost in time not spent in leisure).