There is a catch. The following is taken as a given:

quote:

---

An increasingly large body of research demonstrates a positive relationship between economic freedom and prosperity.

---

The following is up for debate:

quote:

---

What are the determining factors in this relationship?

Is economic freedom the most effective way to pull a nation out of extreme poverty?

---

"Positive relationship" is another way of saying "positive correlation" - meaning when one goes up, the other goes up and when one goes down the other goes down. In other words, one must accept the premise that reducing economic freedom will also reduce prosperity. Likewise, that increasing economic freedom increases prosperity - and it does - until the bubble bursts.

"Determining factors" means basically which types of economic freedoms are most essential for increasing prosperity (they don't specify for who). One can argue that the economic freedom to shut down plants in Canada and the US and open up plants in Mexico or China will lead to increased prosperity for bosses (though not for workers).

quote:

---

Is economic freedom the most effective way to pull a nation out of extreme poverty?

---

I can see you getting away with saying "no" only if you argue that tax cuts are more effective in pulling a nation out of extreme poverty but that deregulation would be effective preserving the gains - or something similar.

=================

I think that when I used to be intelligent that I read something in psych about the very act of writing a paper on a position opposite to your own softens one's opposition to the position presented in your paper.

Also, it seems that the Fraser Institute is seeking out new ideas for counterarguments because they fear people using the present economic crisis as an argument to increase regulation - especially since we are told that our more heavily regulated and risk aversive banks are the only thing keeping Canada from going the way of the States and Iceland. In other words, the Fraser Institute is looking for a way of rewording their old ideas so as to best win the war on public opinion.

[ 29 October 2008: Message edited by: Mojoroad1 ]