No, this is effectively the Broken Window Fallacy - a debunked theory where it proposed that breaking windows (or similar) stimulates the economy because it would cause people to buy new windows and pay for the installation. But it doesn’t work like that. It’s just a drain on the local economy.
If billionaires and CEOs feel like they need to start paying for large security details, would that be an example of trickle down economics?
Submitted 1 week ago by ccunning@lemmy.world to [deleted]
Comments
Bronzebeard@lemm.ee 1 week ago
chiliedogg@lemmy.world 1 week ago
Not to be confused with Broken Window Theory, which posits that the presence of broken windows, graffiti, and other forms of vandalism creates lawlessness because people see that the laws aren’t enforced. The idea is that greater criminality is encouraged through the lack of action on minor criminal acts.
We need someone to Broken Window geometric postulate.
RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world 1 week ago
The broken window theory certainly applies to the wealthy.
Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works 1 week ago
For clarity, would you mind outlining exactly how what OP proposed is an example of the Broken Window Fallacy?
Bronzebeard@lemm.ee 1 week ago
Instead of broken windows needing replacement, we have broken CEOs needing protection. Causing destruction as a way to “spur the economy” isn’t really a productive thing.
marcos@lemmy.world 1 week ago
If you are asking this seriously, trickle-down economics is an absurd nonsense theory, there are no examples of it.
Also, money changing hands is not what creates wealth, and those security details would be just an artificially maintained middle-class that can never be large.
w3dd1e@lemm.ee 1 week ago
Trickle down economy is a thing….but only in costs, not in profits.
Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works 1 week ago
[…] trickle-down economics is an absurd nonsense theory […]
Would you mind defining exactly what you mean by “trickle down economics”?
marcos@lemmy.world 1 week ago
If it had a definition, it wouldn’t be nonsense, would it?
“Trickle down economics” is a rhetoric instrument by which people try to convince the public that taxing poor people and fiscally spending in rich people will increase the poor people’s quality of life.
FundMECFSResearch@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 week ago
I see it more as the absurdity of capitalism.
We have people starving on the streets, people unable to afford healthcare, yet the jobs the self-proclaimed “efficiency” of capitalism creates, is labour intended to protect the people who caused these problems in the first place, not labour intended to help the people who face these problems.
pdxfed@lemmy.world 1 week ago
Up voted for the dark humor but sincerely it’s Feudalism. A central state nor laws cannot be relied on for order nor process so those with the means purchase or are anointed with safety and power.
edgemaster72@lemmy.world 1 week ago
“If kings and nobles feel like they need to start paying for large retinues of soldiers, would that be an example of trickle down economics?”
Valmond@lemmy.world 1 week ago
No because 1) that thing doesn’t exist and 2) nothing of value is created out of it.
It’s like paying one team to dig holes during the day, and another to fill them up during the night.
Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works 1 week ago
- [Trickle Down Economics] doesn’t exist and 2) nothing of value is created out of it.
How exactly are you defining trickle down economics?
Bougie_Birdie@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 week ago
They’ll pay you peanuts to protect their gold. The only gold trickling down is a shower
9point6@lemmy.world 1 week ago
Rich people spending some money is not trickle-down economics.
Trickle down economics is the lie that centralising capital in the hands of the few benefits everyone due to their increased ability to invest their capital.
What happens is they spend a small amount of their fortune in self-serving pursuits (e.g. their security in this scenario) and then they hoard the vast majority of what’s left. The incentive structure of capitalism means a capitalist benefits more from holding capital than distributing it.
The system is broken and cannot be fixed without replacing it
SlopppyEngineer@lemmy.world 1 week ago
Trickle down is more lying by omission. Wealth trickles down, but at the same time flows up through various means so it’s a net negative for the poor, thus concentrating wealth on the hands of the few.
chillinit@lemmynsfw.com 1 week ago
The system is broken by design and cannot be fixed without replacing it
Teach them well: Explain also why the democratic republic has failed to protect society from the consequences of unmitigated capitalism.
leaky_shower_thought@feddit.nl 1 week ago
i don’t think it counts as such when the money didn’t go down but sideways.
Itdidnttrickledown@lemmy.world 1 week ago
There is no such thing as trickle down economics. The key part of that false hood is the trick part.
Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works 1 week ago
There is no such thing as trickle down economics.
How exactly are you defining trickle down economics?
doggle@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 week ago
Instead of fishing for a debate how about you just go ahead and say whatever it is you’re thinking
PanArab@lemm.ee 1 week ago
Just like a piñata, you have to hit it for the candies to fall down
humanspiral@lemmy.ca 1 week ago
Yes!!! Usually its police departments protecting them, but being a henchman is Bernie’s job guarantee program.
OTOH, if everyone in America is working security or mass deportation/incarceration, then there are fewer people available to make stuff.
hedgehog@ttrpg.network 1 week ago
No. Trickle down economics refers to things that benefit the wealthy (mostly government policies, particularly related to taxes and subsidies) that will allegedly benefit everyone by “trickling down.” Supply-side economics are an example of trickle-down economics. Trickle-down economic policies have been shown to effectively increase income inequality and studies suggest a link between them and reduced overall growth.
Giving the wealthy tax breaks in the hopes that they’ll spend the extra money they have available on security details, on the other hand, would be an example of trickle down economics.
Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works 1 week ago
Trickle down economics refers to things that benefit the wealthy (mostly government policies, particularly related to taxes and subsidies) that will allegedly benefit everyone by “trickling down.”
Addressing specifically the point of taxes (eg lowering taxes on the wealthy), I think it’s important to note the idea of the Laffer Curve.
Etterra@lemmy.world 1 week ago
Maybe, but not much of one. Honestly anyone supporting or protecting them is almost as bad as being them. Some technical terms would be sheltering, aiding, and abetting.
bokherif@lemmy.world 1 week ago
We won’t see trickle down economics unless rich people trickle down piss down their trousers out of fear.
CitizenKong@lemmy.world 1 week ago
They’re going to outsource that to AI-robots soon. And then I hope they malfunction.
peopleproblems@lemmy.world 1 week ago
Oh that would be a neat challenge.
AI security guards (which I can only imagine look like Daleks from Dr Who) vs the public. How long before they just outright massacre a crowd?
Or, better yet, what happens when people start using drones as flying pipe bombs and the robots can’t even aim at it.
Ooooh or better yet, we can create devices that create a distraction for the AI robots.
Or, since I am pretty sure they’d be using some wireless connection of some sort, bring a signal jammer and just push em over.
Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works 1 week ago
How exactly are you defining “trickle down economics”? It has been my experience that a lot of people use that term differently.
bear@lemmynsfw.com 1 week ago
Yes and shows how trickle down was right all along.
HK65@sopuli.xyz 1 week ago
No. Trickle-down economics is the theory that deregulation and business-friendly laws result in more successful businesses who can pay their employees better. What it forgets is on one side, who are paying for those businesses to get successful, and that businesses in general are interested in low wages above all.
This would be “job creation” at best, with the G4S shareholders getting most of the spend, the actual security guards are underpaid peons like us.
However, it would at least show and remind the leeches every day that they have something to fear.
Also, security details can be great at their job, but a lot of it is theatre, and even a determined lone assailant can get very far. And they only have to win once, the security detail has to win every day.
Trump was almost killed despite the USSS, JFK was also shot way back when. Is G4S better than the USSS?
dharmacurious@slrpnk.net 1 week ago
Granted, I’ve never done security for a billionaire CEO, but I worked security (including personal security) for well over a decade. And I can tell you without a doubt there is no security in security. Nothing we do matters, it’s all entirely for show. Now, at that high level CEO security detail type it may be different, but a security job is basically “be the one who call the popo,” and no one I knew in security, save one jackass, ever considered the job worth a damn to do anything over.
aesthelete@lemmy.world 1 week ago
I feel like there’s a Dwight Shrute in every type of job under the sun.
Aux@sh.itjust.works 1 week ago
The problem with any deregulation theory is that deregulation does not exist. Especially in a country like US.
HK65@sopuli.xyz 1 week ago
In the US, unions are very strictly regulated, but aeroplane manufacturers are pretty much completely unregulated.
We see the results.
Or what exactly do you mean?
PanArab@lemm.ee 1 week ago
Look up “regulatory capture”
PlexSheep@infosec.pub 1 week ago
Well they can pay their employees better. They just don’t want to
HK65@sopuli.xyz 1 week ago
So here’s a bit of Marx for you, no, they literally can’t.
Unregulated capitalism floats the most unscrupulous, must exploitative companies to the top, because if they stop being the arch-enemies of humanity, they will get outcompeted. Those at the top are just as much slaves to the system as those below, except most of them like it that way.
The only way they could really help is if they lobbied for getting money out of politics, or better workers’ laws. But they won’t because of the above point.
IDKWhatUsernametoPutHereLolol@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 week ago
To be fair, trump was a candidate / forner president at the time, not the sitting president nor president-elect. The USSS probably just let their guard down and didn’t expect anyone to try anything.
HK65@sopuli.xyz 1 week ago
Who expected a multimillionaire to be targeted before very public figures like Musk? And will private security take their job more seriously than the USSS?
If they only kill the billionaires whose security lets their guard down because “no way it’s happening to us”, that still makes for a steady stream of blood.
chillinit@lemmynsfw.com 1 week ago
Red herring.
Minimization.
Ad hominem is usually next. But, you instead could choose to answer the question in good faith.