Jewish temple and city of Jerusalem were two different world. Jerusalem was very poor. It was backward province without any influence outside its provincial boundary and outside of major Roman centers, road, and ports. Even majority of Jews lived outside Judea. Alexandria had 3x as many Jews than Jerusalem. Temple was different, because it had wealth accummulated for the past 80 years and was beneficiary of Herod and many other Jews who donated money there. Even NT does not deny it, and Jesus was disgusted with the commercialization of the temple rites. Pagan temples in Greece were nothing more than treasury of the Greek states and some like Delphi was target of sack as far from Celts in France.
Overall sacking and destruction of Jerusalem barely paid for the cost of the Roman warfare. These costs are easy to trace by monetary circulation of the Roman coinage in each time and measure silver and gold content in it. Juduea had probably boosted Roman economy by two years or so with its wealth. For comparison, Persian sacking persian capital and with it treasury postponed economic decline of Roman Empire by 40 years. Trajan's conquest of Dacia boosted gold and silver by 25 - 30 years. Jerusalem did not had economy to produce and generate wealth. Roman and all preindustrial civilizations were agricultural. Judea agriculture was too small to play role that would challenge major trading hubs of the time, plus it was not a port city, and laid outside major trade routes. From Egypt there was port of Berenice than handled Indian trade. On Meditteranean there was Alexandria, Ephesus, Antionch, and Athens that trades with entire known world as far as China. For John of Patmos who was aware of these major places in the Eastern Mediterranean, Jerusalem was rather secondary city within larger Roman Empire.