The economy does better than it would otherwise when the rich have control of the money

At this point, I would like to remind Pro that he is to post "no round as agreed upon" for the final round to ensure that we both have the same amount of arguments. "I had no idea I was suppose to wright a research paper. This is a debate, and I have never seen a debate where people cite sources." There's a reason that one of the criteria for these debates is "most reliable sources." You cannot simply say that you found data on the Russian Federation, and expect both me and our voters to believe you. You need to back up your claims with facts, which you have not done. "First off you miss the point of the debate you challenged me to. " I trust the rich, before I trust the government ",said me." Actually, I did cover this point extensively. I pointed out in Round 1 that we've essentially been following the type of policies that you would advocate -- trusting the rich -- but yet, their wealths have increased whilst others have been doing progressively worse. You have not proved your point. "The Depression was caused in part by a banking collapse, but it was the dust bowl that that made things horrible. The "Dust Bowl " was a result of government policy failure." It's true that the Dust Bowl was a severe hardship in the 1930s, though you can hardly say that it, ipso facto, is what "made things horrible." You have not proved that. Moreover, how was it a result of policy failure? You haven't connected that point, either. Should the government have had policies in place in attempt to circumvent it -- by regulating the farming techniques that led to it (plow-based farming, largely)? Perhaps. But that is a case that is contrary to your argument because it involves trusting government. You're arguing for more government here, not less government, which significantly undercuts your case. Actually, most would not agree that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac caused the Great Recession. Sure, they played a role. However, the main cause of the Recession w as deregulation -- that began under Ronald Reagan and continued through Clinton and Bush Jr. -- that deregulated derivatives and repealed the Glass-Steaggal Act (enacted in the 30s to separate commercial and investment banks so that banks couldn't become too large, too overleveraged, and gamble with depositor's money). Naturally -- and this is quite similar to the Great Depression, following the laissez-faire policies of Herbert Hoover -- banks extended credit to people who had no hope of repaying their mortgaged, using complex financial tools that they could not understand, and took on far too much risk. As a result, they blew up the global economy, and relied on a taxpayer bailout -- only to pay out large bonuses to themselves after the fact. Yes, the "rich" whom you trust clamored for a bailout, then paid themselves bonuses. "When ever the government get involved the people lose." Then explain to me why that didn't happen in the three decades following WWII, as I pointed out earlier. You have not refuted my counterexample. "Just ask the Soviets, or the North Korean citizens. China and Cuba and the Russian Federation are all going down the path that excludes social equality, and there economies grow ." This is a massive reductio ad absurdum. There is absolutely no comparison between the Soviet Union and North Korea, and the United States. You brought up China, Cuba, and Russia and of course have not backed up your arguments. I'd like to key in on Russia though, because it's an interesting case. There have been studies done on the Russian flat tax, actually, and there is no evidence that it led to a substantial productivity gain ). The only genuine finding was that it increased tax compliance, only because tax evasion was rampant prior to it. A main conclusion of the paper (http://www.eurekalert.org...) was this: "The adoption of a flat rate income tax is not expected to lead to significant increases in tax revenues because the productivity response is shown to be fairly small. However, if the economy is plagued by ubiquitous tax evasion, as was the case in Russia, the flat rate income tax reform can lead to substantial revenue gains via increases in voluntary compliance." Therefore, there is no evidence that the supply-side arguments for the flat tax hold. "I would consider the International Monentary Fund or IMF as the primary authority on repairing or growing economies. They do what is right, not what the people think is right." Actually, the IMF was a big proponent of austerity, until it saw the destruction it had on the eurozone periphery. They had an "oops, I guess we were wrong" moment. So, effectively, by endorsing the IMF, you're endorsing stimulus spending -- contrary to your position. Conclusion: You have not proven that putting the vast majority of money into the hands of rich people is better for the economy. You have no cited any sources in favor of your position, and I have disproven all of your arguments and provided you with a counterexample. Sources: http://economistsview.typepad.com... http://www.eurekalert.org... http://www.theguardian.com...