Creating/sustaining an inefficient financial industry [1] is a bad use of society's resources. Just like breaking a mirror for the sake of giving work to the repair man is a net loss to society.
[1] I claim "inefficiency" compared to crypto-currencies. Example: transferring $150 million via Bitcoin uses less resources than doing it via the legacy financial system: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6782706
Providing services is not "broken windows." Bitcoin isn't going to get me a mortgage or a business loan. Or have a real live person to yell at when I have an issue. Or provide a level of consumer protection for me. Or give me an entity to sue when I feel wronged.
>Creating/sustaining an inefficient financial industry [1] is a bad use of society's resources.
Not only are you being reductionist and naive, that statement is 100% opinion. Its not "inefficient" to have banks and the services they provide. That's just your pie-in-the-sky take here.
I am not calling all financial services inefficient/useless. Obviously there is value in providing loans, customer support, etc.
But at least some activities of the traditional financial sector can be made more efficient by crypto-currencies, hence the value they provide to society. (Again I refer you to this one example: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6782706)
The broken window fallacy is itself fallacious in that it is often used with an implicit assumption that all economic choices are zero-sum. Some times you can fix your windows and make shoes.
That isn't to say you should break your windows on purpose. That's just stupid.
Creating/sustaining an inefficient financial industry [1] is a bad use of society's resources. Just like breaking a mirror for the sake of giving work to the repair man is a net loss to society.
[1] I claim "inefficiency" compared to crypto-currencies. Example: transferring $150 million via Bitcoin uses less resources than doing it via the legacy financial system: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6782706