2 ms·

The job creation effect isn't the argument here. The argument is wether wealth is better while active rather than passive capital. People with great wealth don

The job creation effect isn't the argument here. The argument is wether wealth is better while active rather than passive capital. People with great wealth don't spend proportionally as much as people with less wealth. I.e. it's true that the wealth of the 1% doesn't trickle down but the 99% does because it's active and thats what makes the economy go around (economic activity, spending money) But if you want to discuss that then: "...American Business is Overwhelmingly Small Business. In 2012, according to U.S. Census Bureau data, there were 5.73 million employer firms in the U.S. Firms with fewer than 500 workers accounted for 99.7 percent of those businesses, and businesses with less than 20 workers made up 89.6 percent..."

pmoriarty 11y ago
That just shows that almost all businesses in America are small businesses. It says nothing about whether most employees in the US are employees of large or small businesses.
- ThomPete 11y ago
  Because that's not important to this discussion. The point is that lots of small businesses are much better "consumers" because the they have much more needs than if you only had a few big companies. The number of employees aren't important, the number of companies are. The wealth which the trickle down economy critics talk about is not the wealth that is meant when talking about trickle down effects by most people. The wealth that is meant is the wealth of the many small companies rather than the few wealthy who have most of their wealth in ex. real-estate. The wealth of the few ultra rich isn't trickling down, but the wealth of the many small companies are because it's creating other jobs in other companies. In other words. If we live in a world were only 1000 people had any wealth their ability to stimulate the economy from their own needs aren't enough compared to their wealth. But if we lived in a world where 100000000 are sharing the wealth then that alone creates much more economic activity.

pmoriarty 11y ago

That just shows that almost all businesses in America are small businesses. It says nothing about whether most employees in the US are employees of large or small businesses.

ThomPete 11y ago
Because that's not important to this discussion. The point is that lots of small businesses are much better "consumers" because the they have much more needs than if you only had a few big companies. The number of employees aren't important, the number of companies are. The wealth which the trickle down economy critics talk about is not the wealth that is meant when talking about trickle down effects by most people. The wealth that is meant is the wealth of the many small companies rather than the few wealthy who have most of their wealth in ex. real-estate. The wealth of the few ultra rich isn't trickling down, but the wealth of the many small companies are because it's creating other jobs in other companies. In other words. If we live in a world were only 1000 people had any wealth their ability to stimulate the economy from their own needs aren't enough compared to their wealth. But if we lived in a world where 100000000 are sharing the wealth then that alone creates much more economic activity.