Trickle Down Economic Theory Does Not Work

" --Normal bounds would be where the businesses would be without interference, I imagine this is difficult to find where this would be, however, it is assumed that by helping out the businesses, that the businesses would be above their normal bounds to at least some degree." Helping is not what is being asked for here, leaving without interference is. And "help" for one business tends to harm another. "--Yes it does. Where do you think the extra wealth comes from to increase their capital? It comes from the rest of society." Economics is not a zero sum game. " This is exactly how it has been done in the past when the tax burden was pushed onto the middle and lower classes" "Letting businesses flourish" consistently, since businesses are started by entrepreneurs of all classes, requires the abolition of taxes on all classes. " --Trickle down theory is not specifically for businesses existing, it is for letting the *flourish*." To flourish is to exist-- well. " This means *above* and *beyond* where they normally would be without this help. " "Letting" does not mean help. It means "Get the **** out of the way." "ust because businesses benefit society by existing, it is a non sequitor to say "If their existence has benefits, so does their profits"." Without profits, they shall not exist. No one forms them unless profits exist to be had. "Yes, the industrial revolution benefited society, but it was also businesses operating without considerable government help. This is entirely different than them *flourishing*" It is not different from "Let them flourish." It is different from "make them flourish," but that is not the policy being advocated, by the definition that was a stipulation of this debate. "They were ALIVE, proving that they had the necesities of LIFE and this is clear IPSO FACTO." And then they were dead, proving they ceased to have those necessities. The necessities of life are a quantitative thing, that can be improved upon, in terms of having the necessities for a longer life. " --Oh, but I can. Trickle down theory isn't working partway just by businesses existing(I am obviously not arguing that businesses don't exist)" To exist is onlya quantitative difference from flourish. " --The first of these obviously happened. But the second one has not. " To say that net help has not occurred, which is all you said, and is itself false, is even if true not to establish that a specific thing did not marginally help. It is merely to establish that if that thing helped, other uncontrolled variables harmed. "--No, asserting that I reject the scientific method is a clear red herring. If something asserts that: if condition A if fulfilled, then B will be true. And then condition A is subsequently fulfilled but B remains untrue, then whatever asserted that statement is wrong." Dropping the context. The assertion contains the assumption of other things equal, which is not fulfilled. Condition A is "other things equal, leaving businesses alone to flourish will..." Economic effects are powerful, but they are not omnipotent. " --Wrong. The goal of gravity is an action, not a result. " Gravity doesn't have a goal. And an action is a result. Trickle down theory describes an action or process of profits affecting middle and lower classes positively, or the result of a MARGINAL positive effect (not an omnipotent positive effect, uncontrolled variables can mask it). "--Who do you think owns the businesses? Who do you think owns the capital? The people who are in the top income tax bracket" Shares are sold to people of many varying classes, and government pension funds claims to which are almost never owned by the top brackets. "--I just so happen to be doing that right now. This demonstrate that technology exists, but not that it is resulting from trickle down theory. Government funding plays a huge part in the scientific advancement of our society, not just businesses." How many parts of your computer were manufactured by the government, or developed into something usable for your purposes? (ARPAnet was not usable for your purposes). " --Wrong. I provided relevant statistics which you said were incorrect." I said nothing about the correctness of the statistics, only the notion that they were useful (after all, they do not come from a laboratory, they come from chaos). : If I am not mistaken, you have yet to back up one word with any sort of citations. When an abstract argument is pitted against a concrete, empirical argument based in facts and statistics, The abstract argument has one fact going for it. The most important fact around here. That is that empricism requires controls or it is naught but noise. Assume an NFL team runs a pure jumbo offense and a high school team runs a West Coast offense. The two teams play. Does the sheer domination by the NFL team prove that it is better to run Jumbo than a West Coast offense? I'd pay more attention to the nature of the teams, though unlike in football, there are millions of "teams," most of which you know nothing about.