I've never liked that parable; it seems to me an incredibly poor argument, standing on its own. It literally itself contrasts the definite circulation of money in the destruction case, with a "could" spend on other things. Or he could not. He could have kept it, waiting for another opportunity later, reducing the velocity of money and contributing to inequality.

It doesn't even cover non-renewable resources, or state that the window intact is a form of wealth on its own!

I'm not naive, I'm sure thousands have made these arguments before me. I do think intact windows are good. I'm just surprised that particular framing is the one that became the standard