The Instigator
Gareth_BM
Pro (for)
Winning
3 Points
The Contender
anonymousforensicsalumni
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

trickle down economics is not the most effective methord of increasing general societies wealth.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Gareth_BM
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/3/2015 Category: Economics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 506 times Debate No: 77247
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (1)

 

Gareth_BM

Pro

I do not believe that trickle down economics by giving money to the richest in society is the best methord of helping the average person become wealthier and certainly doesn't help social mobility.
anonymousforensicsalumni

Con

Please look to Con as the Pro COMPLETELY overlooks the benefits of trickling down the economy. I agree that trickling down is a very risky move on the part of a government and is a rash decision. However, there are some points in history that trickling down is required. A perfect example is hand outs. When consumers no longer spend on the economy the economy becomes very stale and much of the produce become wasted. At this point in time the goverment needs to make a small push to move supply. To do so hands out occur. However, bear in mind that this is only possible in western democratic governments. Democratic or Democratic-esque goverments in asia usually would not do this because of their races way of thinking and counters their moral. But in western democratic goverments then yes I would agree that trickle down has a benefit. The more general use of trickle down is to move money from the richer part of the economy to the poor. This Robin Hood effect is morally correct in order to create some form of happiness and ease for the poor.
Debate Round No. 1
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 2
Gareth_BM

Pro

I do not believe that trickle down in our modern society is the most effective as the targets who are given the money are the richest of society. These rich people are most likely to consume luxury products, companies who sell such products are owned by the richest in society. Whilst some of the money is spent on business side of life money spent in business is spent in order to gain profit, as a result much of this money will eventually feed back into the hands of the super rich (who as I said spend much of their personal money on each other) who own these companies. Because you are spending money to bale out the big business and on the super rich you are trying to stop these people fail, for a market to not be stagnant people who fail either by pure bad decisions or by putting them selves in a position where the economic market causes the business to fail must actually fail and not have a safety web that keeps these business in the game and their owners still super rich. As a result the argument that it stop stagnation is counter intuitive. It also directly violates pretty much all schools of political and economic ideology be it capitalist or Marxist and communist.
anonymousforensicsalumni

Con

anonymousforensicsalumni forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Wylted 1 year ago
Wylted
That's not what I meant either, but cool
Posted by Gareth_BM 1 year ago
Gareth_BM
Maybe your right. I suspect most of the people who make such policies don't think it will work but they just have friends and a stake in these big companies and other rich people.
Posted by Wylted 1 year ago
Wylted
This is like one of those strawman arguments, that people think others actually believe. I doubt you'll get anyone accepting this.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by imabench 1 year ago
imabench
Gareth_BManonymousforensicsalumniTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: ff