The guy who destroy houses shouldn't be the one getting contracted to reconstruct them afterward, idiot. It just gives him more incentive to destroy more houses.

Sticks and stones make break my bones, but words will never hurt me.

Firstly, sticking with the original analogy - the construction company that does the damage doesn’t need to be the one contracted to rebuild, but it should definitely should be held accountable and foot the bill - reparations are a thing for a reason.

Secondly, the US made money as a result of the Marshall Plan (which was largely grants, not loans) - because rebuilding Europe meant additional friendly markets for which to trade with, but also because it would serve to prevent the same dire economic circumstances that befell Europe in the aftermath of WW1, leading to the rise of the Nazi Party, and ultimately WW2.

Doing an ostensibly good thing, even for purely selfish reasons, where one stands to benefit from others also doing well, is not inherently a bad thing. The phrase “a rising tide lifts all boats” is fitting - or maybe I’m just a Consequentialist at heart.