LogFAQs > #979533130

Technically, the concept works in multiple senses.

Broadly, though, "trickle-down" is handled as a meaningless talking point. And the idea of letting private citizens accumulate wealth has led to the success of every wealthy nation on the planet because, pragmatically speaking, the accumulation of wealth has traditionally been an incredible motivator. Likewise, wealth is needed to pursue greater wealth, which leads to investments. However, as with anything else, not everything is going to be productive -- which is why even when wealth is taken by the government to redistribute (minus what winds up in government's pockets, on the book or off it), it doesn't always lead to spending that benefits society.

Private enterprise will generally always outpace government development in most areas, mostly because you have a larger pool of people working on problems with a greater degree of autonomy. However, thanks to government creating perverse incentives, it's not a pure system.

But, broadly, private enterprise works first to the benefit of private enterprise while government works first to the benefit of government. Everybody else is, at best, a secondary consideration. That's even true in the case of non-profits, where very little money actually goes to benefit a cause... unless the objective is "raising awareness" which can be justified any number of ways.

Yellow posted...

The real metric is income inequality, which has skyrocketed since Reagan.

Income inequality is a questionable measure at best, meaningless at worst. The closer you get to perfect income/financial equality, the poorer societies tend to be. Likewise, as nations grow wealthier, inequality tends to increase.

That said, a large part of the rise in inequality has been owed to societal band-aids that've allowed us to avoid confronting actual issues. Credit/loans in particular have largely obfuscated what the real prices for things should be, stopping systems from adjusting so that products would be more affordable.