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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
Well they can pay their employees better. They just don’t want to
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.
This is a different outlook on the situation, but I disagree:
The key difference is that companies don’t need to be at the top to survive but willingly choose to be the biggest slaver in town for profit. Their choice to do this is what puts pressure on everyone because they are being exploited and still have to meet their bodily demands that they absolutely require to survive.
Calling companies equal slaves to the system is disingenuous, they have the privilege of not being a living entity.
That’s true, but doesn’t preclude the existence of premium or prestige services for those with money to burn - the cost in those cases becoming the point of difference, and a proxing heuristic for an (assumed) improved service. Think visiting a tailor for your clothes.
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.
save one jackass, ever considered the job worth a damn to do anything over.
I feel like there’s a Dwight Shrute in every type of job under the sun.
Hang on, recently told the story and I’ll link it.
Edit, well, I was gonna, but apparently Lemmy only saves my comment history back a few days?
The problem with any deregulation theory is that deregulation does not exist. Especially in a country like US.
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?
That’s a great point! Let’s discuss it!
You see, regulations can be split into two categories: consumer protection and business protection.
Consumer protection policies and regulations protect consumers from business malpractice. For example, here in Europe we have 1-2 years (depending on the country) of warranty for every product sold enshrined in the law. And that’s something unheard of in the US, because communism or something.
On the other hand, business protection regulations protect existing businesses against competition. A good example is software patents: so common in the US, non existent in Europe.
Somehow when lobbyists are brainwashing American public to get more regulations, they’re talking about business protection and when they want to deregulate something they’re talking about removing consumer protections and American public makes the wrong choice every time.
Speaking of planes you can see this in Europe again: no competition regulations for air lines, yet strong consumer protections resulting in loads of air lines popping up all the time.
Worker protection regulations, as enforced by OSHA in the US, are also a target for deregulation by the right.
Look up “regulatory capture”
To be fair, trump was a candidate / former 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.
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.
To be fair, trump was a candidate / forner president at the time, not the sitting president nor president-elect.
Red herring.
The USSS probably just let their guard down and didn’t expect anyone to try anything.
Minimization.
Ad hominem is usually next. But, you instead could choose to answer the question in good faith.
Bit early in the thread for one word retorts and assumptions of bad faith isn’t it? I’m not even sure what’s supposed to be being argued right now.
No, it’s not. If there’s no logic in the foundation then what’s built upon it is nearly useless.
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.
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.
Trickle down economy is a thing….but only in costs, not in profits.
[…] trickle-down economics is an absurd nonsense theory […]
Would you mind defining exactly what you mean by “trickle down economics”?
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.
If it had a definition, it wouldn’t be nonsense, would it?
It would depend on the definition in question. The term in a vacuum is just a collection of words — what those words mean is rather important, imo.
Well, ok, turns out I wrote a definition of the next line.
It’s a nonsensical economical theory, with no definition on the context of economics.
[…] no definition on the context of economics.
Do you mean that, in your opinion, it has definitions in other contexts? If so, what would it be, and what would the contexts be?
[…] It’s a nonsensical economical theory, with no definition on the context of economics.
Hrm, if it has no definition in the context of economics, how could you know argue that, by its definition, it is a nonsensical economic theory? That seems to fail modus ponens.
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.
- [Trickle Down Economics] doesn’t exist and 2) nothing of value is created out of it.
How exactly are you defining trickle down economics?
I’m not, what do you think it is?
[…] what do you think it is?
Note that your shifting of the burden of proof is not a sound argument for the veracity of your claims. At any rate, imo, exactly what it means depends on the context; however, it’s generally accepted as the theory that certain economic policies favoring those on the upper tier of the economic spectrum will trickle down to benefit the masses [1][2].
References
- “Trickle-down economics”. Wikipedia. Published: 2024-12-01T17:10. Accessed: 2024-12-10T03:39Z. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trickle-down_economics.
- ¶1
Trickle-down economics is a pejorative term for government economic policies deemed to disproportionately favor the upper tier of the economic spectrum (wealthy individuals and large corporations) under the belief that this will eventually benefit the economy as a whole. […]
- ¶1
- “Trickle-Down Economics: Theory, Policies, and Critique”. By: “Will Kenton”. Published: 2024-11-09. Accessed: 2024-12-10T03:42Z. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/t/trickledowntheory.asp.
- ¶1
Trickle-down economics and its policies employ the theory that tax breaks and benefits for corporations and the wealthy will trickle down and eventually benefit everyone.
- ¶1
- “Trickle-down economics”. Wikipedia. Published: 2024-12-01T17:10. Accessed: 2024-12-10T03:39Z. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trickle-down_economics.
I’m not […]
What do you mean? Are you saying that you don’t have a definition for the term that you are using?
No u
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.
They’ll pay you peanuts to protect their gold. The only gold trickling down is a shower
There is no such thing as trickle down economics. The key part of that false hood is the trick part.
There is no such thing as trickle down economics.
How exactly are you defining trickle down economics?
Instead of fishing for a debate how about you just go ahead and say whatever it is you’re thinking
Instead of fishing for a debate […]
I will not engage in any debate without first knowing how the term is being defined.
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.
“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?”
i don’t think it counts as such when the money didn’t go down but sideways.
Just like a piñata, you have to hit it for the candies to fall down
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 by design and cannot be fixed without replacing it
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.
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.
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.
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.
What needs to be remembered is both police officers and security details get just as fucked by medical insurance and other corps same as other. Same run arounds we all do. Anyway that is a bit of a non sequitor from me.
