Original sentence: A pure automobile example of the broken window fallacy would be the government buying up new cars only to crush them.As a result, though employment would increase, quality of life would decrease as the amount of wealth available - used cars - decreases.However, the old vehicles would be destroyed, reducing the pool of used cars which will lead to their increased market value.Others argue this analogy of Cash for Clunkers is not entirely applicable.The Cash for Clunkers is more analogous to a business replacing older plant machinery or computers with newer and more efficient versions and discarding or recycling the older ones.The government would offer a trade-in rebate for old cars provided that a consumer purchase a new, energy-efficient car, which would stimulate employment in the automobile industry as there will be more demand for the new cars.The hypothetical shopkeeper's window does not have a carrying cost, continually consume precious and limited resources, or pollute the air as older low-mileage vehicles do.The pollution has a cost in human health and the extra oil consumed increases the net export of US wealth via the purchase of foreign oil.Therefore, replacing clunkers with newer, less polluting, and higher mileage vehicles can have a net increase in the village wealth once all the costs and benefits are summed up.These are especially of value to those who cannot afford new cars.They may be forced into cheap foreign options such as the Tata Nano instead, or go without a car altogether.Though someone else who couldn't afford new machinery may have been more than happy to buy it for a reduced price instead.Whether this fallacy applies or not depends on how often the owner intends to use the car - If they are pensioners that only use it to drive to the grocery store, it certainly does; for frequent travelers, it doesn't