this post was submitted on 08 Dec 2024

345 points (94.8% liked)

No Stupid Questions

36180 readers

963 users here now

No such thing. Ask away!

!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.

The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:

Rules (interactive)

Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.

All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.

Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.

Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.

Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.

Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.

Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.

That's it.

Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.

Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.

Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.

Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.

On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.

If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.

Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.

If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.

Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.

Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.

Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.

Let everyone have their own content.

Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.

Credits

Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!

The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

345

If billionaires and CEOs feel like they need to start paying for large security details, would that be an example of trickle down economics? (lemmy.world)

submitted 2 weeks ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

67 comments fedilink hide all child comments

top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] [email protected] 91 points 2 weeks ago (4 children)

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?

[–] [email protected] 12 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

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?

[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

The problem with any deregulation theory is that deregulation does not exist. Especially in a country like US.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

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?

[–] [email protected] 14 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 2 weeks ago

Worker protection regulations, as enforced by OSHA in the US, are also a target for deregulation by the right.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 weeks ago

Look up “regulatory capture”

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Well they can pay their employees better. They just don't want to

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

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.

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (4 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 2 weeks 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.

load more comments (3 replies)

[–] [email protected] 50 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

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.

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

For clarity, would you mind outlining exactly how what OP proposed is an example of the Broken Window Fallacy?

[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 weeks ago

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.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

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.

[–] [email protected] 31 points 2 weeks ago (7 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 weeks ago

Trickle down economy is a thing….but only in costs, not in profits.

load more comments (6 replies)

[–] [email protected] 28 points 2 weeks 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.

[–] [email protected] 24 points 2 weeks ago

They'll pay you peanuts to protect their gold. The only gold trickling down is a shower

[–] [email protected] 24 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 weeks 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?"

[–] [email protected] 22 points 2 weeks ago (5 children)

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.

load more comments (5 replies)

[–] [email protected] 20 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (2 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 9 points 2 weeks 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.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 weeks 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.

[–] [email protected] 17 points 2 weeks ago

i don't think it counts as such when the money didn't go down but sideways.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

There is no such thing as trickle down economics. The key part of that false hood is the trick part.

load more comments (3 replies)

[–] [email protected] 13 points 2 weeks ago

Just like a piñata, you have to hit it for the candies to fall down

[–] [email protected] 8 points 2 weeks 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.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

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.

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

They're going to outsource that to AI-robots soon. And then I hope they malfunction.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 weeks 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.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

And yet, despite being the ones with the power (compared to the rest of us), they still lick the boot.

load more comments (3 replies)

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 weeks 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.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 weeks ago

We won't see trickle down economics unless rich people trickle down piss down their trousers out of fear.

load more comments