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].
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.
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