Technology is ruining the world's economy

I realize that the topic of this debate calls for broader discussion on several fronts, including politics, however, economics is a social science and as such is bound to several rules that do not change no matter what your personal political beliefs are. I will analyze my opponent's criticism of technology's role in the economy and explain why his points are incorrects, as well as some assumptions that he makes regarding the role of taxation and government intervention in the private market.My opponent opens the debate by writing that technological advances do not translate into savings for the customers who end up buying the products, because "Companies simply pocket the extra profits and generally dispurse them to their shareholders as dividends. Or, pay their CEO's huge, obscene bonuses."This statement is of course false. Every single product becomes cheaper over time, because the free market provides incentives for competition, and technology drives private manufacturers of goods to strive to always produce a better product at a lower cost to be able to outcompete other manufacturers and make a profit.If you look at pretty much every product that you can buy, from a car, to a cellphone, to an industrial machine, you will be able to see that over time, every product has become more advanced and more affordable. If company X is able to produce 1000 items of product A at half of the cost of company Y, it is in a company's interest to pass on the savings to the consumer, because nobody in his right mind would pay 1000$ for the same product that they can get for 800$, which results in more people buying the cheaper product, which translates in higher profits for the company.When they came out, cellphones where gadgets that only the rich could afford. Today, because of the free market and advances in technology that allow to produce better products at a lower cost, not only are cell phones cheaper, better, and available to a large size of the population. An iPhone 4 isundisputabely a better than a Motorola DynaTAC, even though the iPhone only costs around 600$, weather the DynaTac's retail price was of 3,995$, whichwould be over 8,800$ in today's money.[1] You can verify this phenomenon with almost every product.The issue of passing savings to the customer is a very important one, especially because you mentioned your belief that the notion that "tax cuts for the rich will stimulate the economy, and tax-cuts for business will encourage investments" is false. I will explain why the notion is actually, indeed, correct.Unlike the savings in the manufacturing process that allow a company to make a product more affordable to the consumer, corparate taxes, even though on the books are paid by the company, are indeed just paid by the custumer.Every time there is a corporate tax increase, the company just passes on the tax burden to the consumer.The reason for this is that the tax is applied to every business, so there is no disadvantage for the company to pass on the tax hike. If I manufacture a product and sell it for 1000$, which allows me to make a profit of 200$, and then the governmant increases the tax on my product to 200$, I will not sell my product at a profit of 0$. To keep my margin of profit intact I will increase the sale prive to 1200$. I don't have to be afraid of a competitor either, because in order to keep his business running, he also needs to make a profit, and will also need to increase the cost of his product that is compeating with mine. The downside of increasing corporate taxes however is that a consumer that had been so far able to buy my product for 1000$, will not be able to do it anymore. The company loses because it can't sell as many products, the consumer loses because it can't buy as many products. Translate this example to the global market and you will realize why corporate taxes are bad for the economy.In regards to taxes for the rich and stimulating the economy:If a rich person, at the end of the year has 1 Million $ left over that the government doesn't take away from him because of tax cuts, he has several option on what to do with it:1) He is going to spend it.Which would put one million $ into the economy, helping business staying afloat, which in turn can pay their employees, who in turn spend their incomes for other goods and therefore help the economy even further.2) He can invest it to get a high returnIn this case, he will spend money buying products to start a company and hire people to work for him, thus stimulating the economy. The funny thing about the so-called trickle down economy, is that it is actually a trickle up, because when you invest 1M$, the money goes to the emploeys first, who benefit from it directly, and back to the investor last, after, and if, the company turns profitable.3) He can put it in the bank and get interests.This allows the bank to be able to borrow several times the amount of his deposit to business that need start up cash or are expanding. This in turn allows those businesses to hire people or buy goods, which stimulates the economy.4) He takes the cash and locks it up in his closet. This is the only option that does not stimulate the economy. It of course does not make any sense either, because if you don't spend your money you don't get anything for it, if you don't deposit it or invest it in a bank you will not get a return and on top of that, inflation makes your money worth less every day that goes by.If the government takes that 1M and gives it to people who have not produced anything for it, in form of labor, investment or deposit, the overall effect of it on the economy is less. If you don't understand this point I will explain it further in the next round. In his second point my opponent argues that I do not show that we have more wealth per capita than ever before. I did not post a link because I am sure that that is self-evident, if it is not for my opponent I encourage him to ask his grandparents, or other older people, how life was 60 years ago. However I will provide a linke that deals with this argument. [2]In his third point, my opponent writes that even though technology has provided us with some "cool things" and has indeed increased our standard of living, it has not helped with the "affordability index"While I would like to point out that standard of living is actually how you measure economic output, and if technology has increased it, than it has, by definition, improved the economy, I don't know that my opponent means with "affordability index"I am familiar with the. "housing affordability index", but am not sure if that is what my opponent reffers to, so I would like him to clarify his position.In his last point my opponent points out to a senstence that I quoted. It was not my intention to take the sentance out of context or misrepresent my opponents position. Indeed, even with the entire senstence quoted, the outcome of it is the same because the logical fallacy that my opponent formulated is rooted in the fact that a population increas not only grows the pool of workers (supply), but also of consumers (demand).Technology is always good for the economy and not only when it makes workers obsolete, but especially if it makes workers obsolete, because those workers are are freed up from a position that could produce the same amount of goods, or wealth, without them, and are now able to be employed in a different position, which allows them to manufacture different goods, which would not have been there if they had still been employed in the old position.I understand that sometimes economics can seem contradictorty, but it is of paramount importance to realize the macroeconomic reality of a situation, and not only the microeconomic impact, such as workers being fired because a new machine. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org...[2] http://economics.about.com...