Economic Equity should be valued over Free Trade

I will begin by saying that it is a very noble cause to promote equity amongst nations to improve the prosperity of countries - but the best way in which this is to be done is through free trade rather than placing tariffs and providing subsidies to select or favoured industries. As such implementing policies that promote equity at a national level can be counterproductive and are not as effective as free trade. The polarisation of wealth distribution within developing countries is oftenmore than that witnessed in developed countries (1). As a result, the owners of capital receive the lion"s share of the benefit in relation to tariffs levied on competing products. Alternatively, every man and woman in the street is forced to pay higher prices for their day to day living or as inputs into their own businesses. International equity policies thus can have a detrimental effect on problems of equity within a country. My opponent has shown the influence large multinational corporations can have, and this is also the case within their domiciled countries. Large industries with considerable political clout and nuance are able to lobby the government for protectionist outcomes that favour themselves, but to the detriment of all other citizens as they are forced to pay higher prices for goods and services. These costs then flow through to other products being produced, making them also more uncompetitive on the world stage. Providing certain industries with favoured treatment, whilst committing the populous to pay higher prices is the truly undemocratic feature of protectionist policies. Tariffs and subsidies reward the inefficient and distort markets by creating price signals that are not there. This can be seen with first world agricultural producers bringing to market goods that have been grown based on incentives from their governments rather than from a pressing global need. Over thirty per cent of the EU budget is used to provide financial support for agricultural producers, limiting international competition in this area. (2) Rather than free trade being a negative force for third world countries, it is actually the restrictive trade practices of first world countries in relation to primary production that causes much of the harm. Developing countries are urged to lower tariffs and the like on manufactured goods, but the favour is often not reciprocated when it comes to the agricultural goods they have a comparative advantage in producing. (4) Farmers in developed countries are very vocal in attempting to restrict the flow of imported goods. Not a year goes by without French farmers driving their 250,000 Euro tractors into Paris to decry the importation of food stuffs. (5) Food that is more expensive than it needs be affects those on the lowest income the most as they spend a greater proportion of their income on the bare essentials. You cannot lead your country to prosperity by making your citizens pay more for goods and services, or taxing the majority and passing on these funds as subsidies to poorly performing industries. When it comes to protectionism, one country's tariff and subsidy measures to protect their self-interest is another country's obstacle in fairly selling their goods and services. Free Trade is more important than poorly veiled self-interest as it is the way in which equity will be better achieved. (1). http://www.cgdev.org... (2). http://ec.europa.eu... (3). http://en.wikipedia.org... (4). http://www.oecd.org... (5). http://english.cri.cn...