Trickle Down Economic Theory Does Not Work

"Employment is the mechanism by which business operates. The effectiveness of business is very relevant to whether it is effective to permit business to flourish." --True, but what what I was saying was that even though employment is a very positive force, it is not sufficient to prove that trickle down theory works. "This supposed negation is negated by the fact that if they must do it in order to live, then those necessities of life are not available if they do not take the offer-- the offer is the only thing keeping them alive. Clearly removing the only thing keeping you alive is not good for you." --I am not arguing for the removal of businesses. I am simply arguing that increasing the wealth of those businesses beyond its normal bounds (allowing them to "flourish") does not yield additional benefits. Essentially that their profits do not "trickle down" to the rest of society. This is an exquisite red herring that you have presented. "Having necessaries is an increase over not having them, which you just declared is an increase that occurs." --Then you didn't read what I said very carefully. People have been alive long before anything remotely resembling a business existed. See: http://en.wikipedia.org... "As a matter of fact, no such test has ever occurred-- no nation has ever permitted its businesses to flourish without interference, there has never been laissez-faire. No valid (controlled) test ever can exist in economics. However, the closest thing to it, the semicapitalist nations, have since their implementation of semi-capitalism (since the Industrial Revolution), roughly doubled their lifespan, and provided large numbers of common laborers with televisions, computers. Both a benefit in necessaries and nonessentials. It's not controlled, but neither is anything you have on offer." --If the theory was thought to work, then steps were successful in implementing it(the wealthy did indeed get wealthier as per the statistics already provided), and the result was not achieved(once again I have already demonstrated this), then that is called not working. It does not matter that the 'test' was not controlled because it does not matter why the desired results were not achieved, only that that were not acheived. There is not qualifying statement in the definition of "work", it does not say "to produce a desired effect or result when not interferred with", it says quite plainly "to produce a desired effect or result". "The Reagan Administration pressured the Federal Reserve to subsidize businesses that could not flourish, and eventually raised taxes on those that did. It was no paragon of the trickle down definition that you accepted." --Are you kidding? "the top marginal individual income tax rate fell from 70% to 28%" http://en.wikipedia.org... "Wealth is not dollars. Wealth is materials. Though this is not necessary to my argument, material wealth for the lower classes has increased since then-- technological advancement, other things equal, is an increase in wealth. Who does most of the technological advancement? Typically flourishing rich people." --Would you care to share where this is shown to be true? I have already provided statistics to the contrary. If you can diprove them using better sources, then I would be happy to accept this. But so far you have mearly stated that my sources were wrong without backing up your claim.