If billionaires and CEOs feel like they need to start paying for large security details, would that be an example of trickle down economics?
If billionaires and CEOs feel like they need to start paying for large security details, would that be an example of trickle down economics?
You're viewing a single thread.
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.
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.
The broken window theory certainly applies to the wealthy.
For clarity, would you mind outlining exactly how what OP proposed is an example of the Broken Window Fallacy?
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.
The only caveat would be is if they were going to hoard that money anyways it might not make it into anyones hands.
"Trickle" would definitely be the key word though.
That is the rub with it. It assumes full employment. Capitalism produces a surplus, and because of it, people just plain don't have to work very much to get all the basic needs met. Keynesianism was the liberal attempt at fixing this, basically by throwing their hands up and looking for ways to dig ditches to have them filled back in again. The leftist solution is to reduce working hours so you can focus on things that aren't work, or just letting people not work altogether.
Keynesianism is the only thing that's kept Capitalism going this long. The right is trying their hardest to dismantle it.
Instead of broken windows needing replacement, we have broken CEOs needing protection.
Hm, but a possible effect, imo, is that this incentivizes those companies to start being more consumer-friendly — perhaps they make a connection that predatory policies are a risk to their safety so, to mitigate that risk, they take more consumer-friendly position. However, I think where that idea may break down and become more like the broken window fallacy is if people get the idea that policies will keep improving if CEO's keep getting killed — I think that would just make it so that insurance companies are too scared to operate, which would shift the supply curve to the left [1].
References
- "Change in Supply: What Causes a Shift in the Supply Curve?". Author: "Akhilesh Ganti". Investopedia. Published: 2023-08-31. Accessed: 2024-12-10T07:12Z. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/change_in_supply.asp.