In the Realm of Economics, Freedom Ought to be Valued Above Equity

Given that the PRO speaker has failed to set up any structure or rules for the debate, I will simply begin by refuting the Contentions and logic presented. A fundamental fault in the logic provided is the failure to provide any real point of contention or comparison between PRO's value of freedom in economics to the value of equity in economics. PRO does just fine at proving that freedom is good, but that simply isn't the thesis; the thesis is that freedom ought to be valued above equity. Take a look at the first Contention: 'Technology Advancement is a good thing because it can grow the Economy and Disprove the Theory of Economic Equity'. We know from PRO's earlier definitions that equity is simply economic fairness. If PRO's own definition is correct, then equity is helpful to technological advancement, not a hindrance of it. After all, a more fair system allows more people to compete, meaning that more ideas enter into the marketplace. Technological advancement is a value upheld by both freedom and equity: thus, it provides no relevant point of comparison for this debate. The logic provided in Contention 1 provides no reason to believe that fairness is less valuable than freedom. Contention 2 hinges upon much of the arguments from C1, but while were talking about economic growth, its important to note that equity can help improve growth. As the International Monetary Fund notes: "Equity and growth can be complementary: some policies that promote equity--particularly investment in human capital--can boost growth in the long run and thus alleviate extreme poverty, increase social cohesion, and reduce the scope for political conflict." (http://www.imf.org...) Clearly, if a strengthened economy is so important, equity should be of high value. The third contention is of how Free Enterprise helps the economy. Again, this provides no point of comparison, as it only shows that economic freedom is good, but not necessarily that it is superior to equity. Indeed, an economy where all players are on a fair, level playing field is much of the essence behind freedom, as such a situation allows all people to fully exercise their economic potential. Contention 4: As far as helping the economic grow, equity does just that. Consider the evidence provided earlier (and other empirical results: http://www.imf.org..., http://elibrary.worldbank.org...) Since Contention 5 is essentially a reiteration of C3 and C4, such arguments have already been covered, in that equity benefits growth and improves the economy. None of these points really serve to establish that equity is somehow inferior to economic freedom. However, I do think it's interesting that PRO would rely on NAFTA to prove benefits of free trade, given that NAFTA utterly failed at its central goals of reducing trade deficits and providing jobs for Americans. Our trade deficits with Canada and Mexico multiplied by over 5 times over 2 decades of NAFTA implementation, and according to the US government's Trade Adjustment Assistance program, roughly 720,000 jobs were lost during that period. (http://www.citizen.org...). Hardly much of a success story. In conclusion, PRO provides no real point of contention between economic freedom and economic equity. Instead, evidence and logic indicate that freedom and equity are both values that achieve ends such as economic growth.