And that made me realized one more point I didn't address in that analogy. We also are poorer because glazier found employment in making glass to replace the broken panes when he could had made brand new panes to sell to people with new building. Or perhaps if there's no demand for panes as there are no broken windows, glazier would have had spent his time farming, and thus producing a bushel of carrots, so instead of making a window to replace the one that was broken by vandal, we could been richer by having an extra bushel of carrots or an extra pane for a new house.
The point here is that it's easy to think that the vandalism may seem to simulate the economy but in reality what it meant was that we had to devote our time and resources to get back to where we were in square one (and thus lose our time and resource in process), which ultimately make us poorer
I completely agree with this point, in fact, I think that GDP should be calculated in net terms. Right now, a lot of our GDP are actually things that detract from our wealth. For instance, when a refinery or a military base contaminates an area, a cleanup often costing thousands or hundreds of thousands of dollars has to be completed. This money is counted as additional GDP - there are consultants, contracters, subs, equipment suppliers, and on and on. But all of this is actually NEGATIVE GDP, because those are resources that could have been spent on the actual mission of the company (such as expanding refining capactiy, or training more soldiers), but those resources are instead wasted on cleaning up a mess.