Talk:Free trade

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Free trade is a far more important core term than international trade 2 How far would one go? 3 Effects on wages 4 A clarification 5 Removed list 6 What about agricultural policy and agricultural subsidies? 7 Will someone check out "history of free trade"? 8 Article seriously needs to be reworked 9 Removed paragraph 10 trade near the zambize river 11 Infection point 12 Some explaination please. 13 Anti-Arguments seem either wrong or demagogic 14 Clean-up? 15 Meaning of externality 16 External links 17 What in the world? 18 Removed merge tag 19 Edits 20 idealised market 21 propaganda and lies 22 "shown tendencies" 23 What the hell happened to this article? 24 Delete intellectual property and free trade section to "history of free trade" ?

[edit] Free trade is a far more important core term than international trade

International trade is about all types of trade between countries. Free trade is about allowing buyers and sellers to negotiate without government interference in the price arrived at. To combine articles so that free trade is nothing but a sub-part of international trade would be a huge disservice to people studying economics using wikipedia articles, because free trade is a much bigger and more focused term within the field. (field of what? Rusl)

Combining them the other way does not make much sense, either. Having an article about free trade with a big section about international trade in general would be nonsensical because international trade includes such ideas as protectionism, government regulation and reporting, economic forecasting, ambassadorship, and all kinds of other regulations that are not mere opposites of free trade. Here are some (editable) suggestions about what makes up each topic:

Some ideas do belong in both articles, such as protectionism, anti-protectionism, free market price, tariffs, treaties, and free-trade alliances. The way I suggest that is handled is as in any other encyclopedic article, by focusing each article, and mentioning the ideas only the level necessary for that topic (referring the articles to each other where necessary). Other ideas, such as some mentioned above, belong more fittingly in only one of the two articles. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.162.103.106 (talk • contribs) 09:20, 21 May 2006.

I second the above. --Northmeister 17:43, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm Tamfang and I approve this message. —Tamfang 17:43, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] How far would one go?

How far would one go to define something as a barrier against free trade? I am thinking about non-tariff regulations. Inside the EU many argue that any concern for the environment can be considered as trade barrier and thus should have lower priority than (free) trade. Does this imply that free trade means trade without responsibility or trade with freedom from responsibility?

The discussion of supply demand price curves does not add up if one consider a concientiuos (how do I spell that?) consumer that are willing to look not only on the price tag but also look for added values such as a fair trade label and/or a ecolabel, does it? In this context the added value does not necessarily lie in the quality of the commodity.

If free trade means freedom from responsibility (of the trader) I can not see why any democratic state would want to promote free trade. After all, that would imply the abandonment of human rights etc etc.

It is stated that isolationism will lead to lower rate of economic growth. You forgot lack of competition. I know no reason why anyone would doubt that but please add a reference or at least an example. It would make a stronger point. I think the history of steel industry in the US would be a good example but I am not well versed in the details.

When and if there is race to the bottom it is not caused by the companies that move their business but rather the national legislation that is lowered or already low compared to the "original" country. Or?

//Bedrupsbaneman

There are many cases involving so-called sanitary and phytosanitary regulations that have gone to negotiation and dispute-resolution within the W.T.O. These regulations are said to be "trade-neutral" if they're based upon sound science. How "sound" is defined is often left up to an obscure organization known as the codex alimentarius, headquartered in Rome. Their recommendations have often been used in dispute tribunals at the W.T.O. Sometimes, though, these tribunals are forced to go out on a limb and issue reports on a case-by-case basis. This occurred in the French asbestos case in which a Canadian manufacturer of asbestos argued against the French import ban. The dispute was resolved in Canada's favor, but was overturned on appeal after an E.U.-wide spasm of outrage. So, sound science still has political overtones. Economists in perfectly-competitive models as presented here assume that consumers are sovereign agents. They are only interested in the commodity and its ability to provide utility; they're not interested in that commodity's particular supply chain. I'm not familiar with models that sufficiently relax this assumption. There are many free-traders, like myself, who argue that it's one of greatest liberators of mankind ever witnessed in our shared history. Why? Because it liberates the abjectly poor from the ultimate form of human rights abuse and that is poverty. Look only to China and India today. Since economic reforms began (1978 in China and 1991 in India) hundreds of millions of peasants have been provided opportunities to improve their lot and join the global economy. I don't think the steel industry would be a good example simply because the loss of employment there has been more a consequence of automation than offshoring of production. Indeed, steel output has grown over the last several decades. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.209.131.44 (talk • contribs) 19:20, 20 June 2005.

[edit] Effects on wages

I think there needs to be a discussion of free trade's affects on wages throughout the world. --Muhgcee 09:03, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] A clarification

"The 19th century anti-patent cause failed largely because the recession of 1874 discredited the free trade movement"

Should this be taken out? I don't think this gives a NPOV because free trade is hardly "discredited", it's well accepted among many economists. It might be possible this person is confusing free trade with classical or laissez faire economics, but that's not the same as free trade.--User:Damnedkingdom

But was it discredited at the time? That's what the article suggests. Evercat 20:48 27 May 2003 (UTC)

To be honest I can't tell if it's meant in the temporary or permanent sense. --Damnedkingdom

I've been bold and clarified it. :-) Evercat 20:57 27 May 2003 (UTC)

Yeah, I think that is correct. The impression I got from Machlup & Penroses' article is that, during the 1870s, free trade advocates who had previously held positions of influence were discredited in much the same way that investment bankers were discredited in the 1930s. One can have a POV argument about whether this was deserved :)

Oh, btw, I'm not sure if it's completely correct to place anti-WTO protestors at the opposite end of a "free trade" dichotomy. Most of these protests are not anti "globalisation" --- some of them are anti capitalist, some of them argue for "fair trade" (I'm not sure if those overlap :).

As the IP section of the article explains, the WTO is about enforcing all sorts of rules which are not necessarily about freeing up trade. Many critics of the contemporary "free trade" movement emphasise that despite the Uruguay round, Europe and the US still have closed agricultural markets. Thus "fair trade" is not necessarily very different from (Platonic) free trade -- Pde 23:46 27 May 2003 (UTC)

Good job Evercat I like the change. --Damnedkingdom

[edit] Removed list

Any comprehensive list of opponents and proponents of free trade would be huge (the current list only includes US examples). Such a list also doesn't take into account the variety of views out there (I don't think anyone is completely, 100% pro- or anti-free trade) - so any such lable would be subjective and NPOV on our part.

Long story short, I deleted the list. If someone has a better idea by all means bring it back (maybe a list of groups taking a strong position on free trade). -- stewacide 05:28, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)

[edit] What about agricultural policy and agricultural subsidies?

For latin american and african countries, this is the biggest issue in the free trade.

I barely see the word agricultural.

The topic 'agricultural subsidies' is included as an issue in the topic fair trade.

But even in that topic, the fact that agricultural subsidies create an unfair competition is not mentioned.

I hope you like my contributions PedroPerez 06:46, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Will someone check out "history of free trade"?

There is an article there that is almost a stub... doesn't make much sense. Maybe someone should merge or connect it with the much better history in this free trade article

• Given the time this merge has been suggested (appears to have gone up on the article to be merged in on Nov 5th 2005 without objection, I will perform the merge now. The reason the source article existed seems to be that it did have a lot more content (a chronology of free trade), but this has been absorbed into the more general History of international trade. Nige 14:15, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I have recently been reading Henry Mayhew's London Labour and the London Poor. Was it common in the 1840s and 1850s for "Free Trade" to be also seen as free within a country? He was the founder of a number of journals and he felt free to reprint other people's work and yet he deplored the effects of a free labour economy writing about the ensuing poverty.DonBarton 11:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article seriously needs to be reworked

I know it is difficult to work several hundred pages of an economic textbook into an article, but this one has quite a few fundamental flaws. The "Argument for Free Trade" section is basically wholly incorrect. It is in fact the argument against tariffs, but does not recognise that tariffs can be selectively used to result in a net transfer of wealth *into* the country. The arguments presented against free trade are all specious, simplistic arguments that have long been refuted and are not even remotely NPOV.

Actually, I read the rest of the article and it is essentially a ridiculously biased exponent for the "case against free trade". I'm not getting into a wikipedia pissing match with some biased pundits, but I suggest the author, who references Paul Krugman himself, actually read some of Krugman's textbooks. The author will note, after having done so, that most of the so-called "arguments against free trade" are addressed deep into "International Economics" (6th Ed), on page 23, under the heading "Misconceptions About Comparative Advantage"

sigh

• • re-work is now in progress. I rearranged the content into more coherent sections (splitting arguments for/against into their own sections... moving content about applicability of theory in modern world to its own section, etc. Will do more work later on. Also tried to wiki link more of the terms. Feco 02:53, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

did some more work on it. If anyone can provide help on the graphics (look at the article and you'll know what I mean, please let me know on my talk page. I'll gladly send you the original Excel file used to generate the graphs. Feco 06:49, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

ix-nay on the request for graph help. The ugly, first-draft graphs have been banished. Hopefully the new ones are prettier. Feco 18:11, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

-- The fact that most common arguments for or against Free Trade are specious & ideological doesn't mean that they aren't important. I'm not sure if this is why the "article seriously needs to be reworked", but I think it has to be better organized, because there are many points that should be covered. (Even if those points have been refuted in Krugman's excellent books, few agree with the academic approach to economics - as he ruefully discusses.) Anyway, I've tried to organize the arguments against free trade into sub-sections, but there was one part I couldn't really save:

" In this view it is unfair to greatly disrupt a smaller set of individuals in order to provide small benefits to a larger set (in the form of cheaper goods and services). Free trade may optimize the total benefits, but may cause heavy suffering for those at the "ends" of the curve. One illustrative analogy is giving 99 non-starving people extra bread but chopping off the leg of one person to compensate for the extra bread. Economists allegedly are down-playing the suffering by using a "flat" scale rather than one that prevents extremes. A psychological case can perhaps be made to weigh extremes heavier in terms of "social impact" because extreme changes impact a person's psychology more than subtler changes. For example, a small "pop" may merely cause one to look around, but a large "bang" can trigger heart-attacks, anxiety disorders, etc."

I mentioned Welfare economics but its hard to keep a NPOV tone if you compare trade to involuntary amputation or surprise heart attacks, so I've not included this in the re-organization of this section. Any thoughts?

The main thing is; we musn't ignore simplistic, refuted arguments, because they are:

• Noteworthy.
• Commonly believed.
• Entertaining to mock.

By the way, why didn't the original poster change the main page (with annotations explaining the mainstream point of view) rather than add comments here? Aren't we supposed to change the article? Is it preferable to make Talk Page criticisms? I think that Feco's re-organization is proceeding on the right lines, would it be better to leave it to him?

Wragge 13:28, 2005 Apr 28 (UTC)

The article is definitely making progress. Per wiki's "Be Bold", I tried to re-organize the content without removing anything. In general, if you see a clear problem with the article, make the change if it's likely to be uncontroversial. The TALK page is more to address revert conflicts and content decisions. Be bold (and then wait for other users to validate your boldness). I made changes like splitting the for/against arguments into their own sections... fairly obvious stuff. From there, Wragge has done a lot of work flushing out sections of the article. I'm sure it's only a matter of time before someone flags NPOV because the pro arguments have grown much larger than the anti arguments. This condition is not NPOV! If you think the article is weak in the anti perspective, add things (within the usual wiki guidelines). Feco 18:11, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I split up the criticisms section into economic and sociopolitical criticisms; I think that this reflects the divide in arguments against free trade. I also added a number of sociopolitical arguments against free trade, though I think that a similar section for sociopolitical arguments in favor of free trade should be added. I might get on that when I have time. Adam Faanes 06:24, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

I think Adam's subdivision into economic/sociopolitical arguments is a step forward, but when I open this page all I see is a massive Table Of Contents (mostly my fault, but it doesn't make the page very welcoming). This is such a big topic it almost has to be split across multiple articles, doesn't it? Questions:

1. How big should we allow the page to get before splitting it?
2. Maybe the qualitative arguments should be split away from the mathematical or graphical arguments whilst keeping pro and anti free trade together?
3. If we create an "Arguments against free trade" definition article, can this still be NPOV if: (a) it isn't on the main "free trade" page, and/or (b) it contains counter-arguments?
4. Should we separate those arguments confined to academic "economic" circles from the points made in popular debate?
5. Regarding Feco's point about equal space to arguments for and against, does a diagram count as 1000 words? What is the best metric for balance in an article?

My Rhetorical answers:

1. This page should be attractive as welll as rigorous, that means it needs more 'generic' pictures of markets and tankers and mono-cultured agriculture which will draw in the eye, and be a readable size - recommended by Wikipedia as 32Kb, I believe. That size seems about right to me, so there is already far too much text here.
2. I think there should be a Ricardian argument for Free Trade page with the history of David Ricardo's development of the concept, the prevailing views at the time, the impact of the theory, and then the graphs, equations, and possibly some responses. I don't think that the lay (non-economist) reader will want to scan through graphs or equations even of the simplest kind, even though they might be interested enough to reach this page.
3. I don't think we should break down the page into "pro" and "anti" positions, that doesn't seem a very natural grouping to me. I think it would be better to split it into "historical arguments", "technical arguments", "political arguments", and maybe even "specious arguments".
4. Yes.
5. I think accurate reportage is a better measure of balance than the amount of space given to a particular position. What are the main points of the various arguments? How many people are for and against them? Who, and why?

Wragge 10:00, 2005 May 6 (UTC)

re #2 above... there's somewhat of an overview at Comparative advantage... the more detailed analysis I'm working on is much more technical. Does Comparative advantage sort of fit what you're looking for? Feco 20:08, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Yes - the comparative advantage Northland trading with Southland example covers the Ricardian sheme, infact I made some minor edits to this page earlier today. I have thought a bit more about this; I think my main point is that we don't have enough space to give a textbook demonstration of each point in a single article. That probably means that anything single argument taking more than a couple of pages needs its own article, doesn't it? Wragge 20:43, 2005 May 6 (UTC) My opinion: Comparative advantage is a good article, but probably shouldn't be overburdened with the discussions from this page (Free trade).

I think the article is more or less sound. The graphical analysis related to "why tariffs are bad" needs to be tightened up. This is elementary trade theory - the kind undergraduates are forced to learn and then forget. Most tariffs permit imports of some quantity or another, so include them in the core of your analysis. Since quotas are so important in trade policy today, you need to discuss tariffication of them and other related issues. By the way, your indifference curves aren't convex to the origin. With the same consumption of one good, the consumer is indifferent between the consumption of two quantities of the other good. Yeah, these are technical issues, but the analysis is simpler with them than without them. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.209.131.44 (talk • contribs) 22:44, 20 June 2005.

This page needs a serious editing job. It is way too long. Focus on basic theory, some empirical data, and basic arguments for and against. There are many satellite internal links to flesh out the details. Remember: a student not knowing anything at all about free trade doesn't need all the angles, just those that are most important - the pillars of a basic understanding of free trade. Myself, I'd cut about half the material and then insert another sixth or so (Overall cut: one-third or so). That would be far less intimidating. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by FLetch (talk • contribs) 22:27, 23 June 2005.

None of you seem to know what free trade IS, free trade WOULD mean no subsidies or trade barriers from the developing world. It's not free trade thats the enemy here it's unbalanced one way unfair trade. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.70.239.172 (talk • contribs) 06:41, 30 July 2005.

From Peter Johnson (05:46, 9 November 2005 (UTC)) Regarding the criticisms above about the article becoming too long: What use is Wikipedia as an encyclopedia if the articles aren’t... well... encyclopedic (comprehensive)?

[edit] Removed paragraph

I removed most of this paragraph:

Developed nations sometimes demand that developing nations open their markets to agricultural goods, but then refuse to open their own markets to developing nations. Some argue also that trade barriers such as quotas and agricultural subsidies prevent farmers in developing nations from competing in local and global markets. Free trade supports the movement of goods and capital, not labor. This offers more freedom to people in developed countries than developing nations. Developed nations own more corporations and buy more imports. Often the only asset of the poor is their labor, which they are unable to trade. See Immigration.

The first sentence is irrelevant: it deals with negotiations concerning agricultural subsidies, not with a condition of free trade. "Free trade supports the movement of goods and capital, not labor" is misleading: as "free trade is normally used", it has nothing to do with labour movement one way or the other. "This offers more freedom to people in developed countries than developing nations" is opinion and it doesn't make a lot of sense; free trade gives both parties the freedom to exchange goods with each other. "Often the only asset of the poor is their labor, which they are unable to trade" ... huh? Is the author here assuming a country with no labour markets? - Nat Krause 18:12, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] trade near the zambize river

[edit] Infection point

It writes: "The first two images above assume a state of autarky, which means no trade occurs between the two countries. If free trade is possible, the green line is the production possibilities frontier for the entire world. The world PPF is made up by combining the two countries' PPFs. Linear PPFs will always combine to form a shape with an inflection point, as shown at right."

According to my background in maths, that's not an inflection point. Can somebody check it?

PATT. --PBS27

The paragraph isnt quite clear in its wording, but equilibrium in this economy doen not occur at an inflection point, as per the definition of the term. The social indifference curve with trade will touch the outer point of the green PPF (as this would yield maximum utility for the economy), but it is not possible to calculate this point with calculus as it is not a point of tangency (and thus not an inflection point), but it is the point of equilibrium... and such equilibriums are usually assosiated with inflection points. Updating the picture, incorporating the worlds indifference curves with trade, would be good as it will show how this curve yields greater utility than the worlds indifference curve under auturky. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]]).

As I understand it, an inflection point is where the curvature changes sign: a zero in the second derivative. The distinctive point in the graph shown is an extreme in the second derivative (sometimes called an elbow?), which would be a zero in the third derivative if the curve were smoother. —Tamfang 18:25, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I also have one more point. Refering to the two pictures below:

In these two pictures we see a couple of indifference curves that are incorrectly shaped. Such curves break the assumptions of the model and need to be fixed. The curves need to be shaped like those in the picture below:

I am computer illiterate and have tried to fix the problems, but cant get a set of curves to look so neat. Someone elses help would be appreciated.

Dupz 14:35, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Thx for the reply. Why are they(the indifference curves) incorrectly shaped Dupz?

--PBS27 21:13, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Sorry I've taken so long PBS27, but I have finally found time to give you an answer. The problem with these curves is that they show that a person is indifferent between having 5 rice, and 4 meat, or 5 rice and 6 meat. This goes against the assumption of "non-satiation" or that "more is better than less". As you'd see if we increase consumption of meat beyond 6 we see that this would fall on an indifference curve that is less than the present one. Again, it would be incorrect to assume that having more of a good thing would make you worse off.

Dupz 09:18, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Thx Dupz. You are right with "non-satiation". However, I believe this assumption can be relaxed. We can plot an indifference curve for a person that does not follow this assumption. I was looking for a support of this idea and I found this Talk:Indifference_curve#67.42.28.222.27s_Assumptions. Maybe you can take a look.

The definition says: indifference curve represents combinations of two goods to which an economic agent is indifferent. IMHO: when creating models economist often add the "non-satiation" principle to make the analysis straightforward.

As a bottom line, I agree that it's more appropriate to use the traditional shape in this article, as you have suggested. :-)

--PBS27 12:22, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, please correct the graphs. Thanks, --Niku 00:17, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Some explaination please.

"Obfuscation of corporate accounts (possibly legal)"

Why is it "possibly legal"? Could anyone explain?

Shushinla 17:34, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Anti-Arguments seem either wrong or demagogic

Full Disclosure: I am libertarian. "If food is purchased from the local farm it requires very little energy and possible no fuel to transport to the table. Delivering food produced on the other side of the world to a supermarket has an environmental impact because it requires a heavier use of fossil fuel in delivery from overseas. The organic food movement claims that there are other downsides to the globalization of the food market (for instance, that preserved food has an inferior taste)."

That is not true if the "local" farm is less productive. The local farm will then use MORE resources, whether its chemical fertilizer, or labor, which is a function of consuming other commodities or whatever. It's not so clear that one way is more pro environment than the other, though I would think that higher productivity yields less energy consumption, and so free trade actually makes better use of resources. Also, the inferior taste criticism is completely fallacious. If consumers want superior food, they will pay for it, and thus a market will meet that demand. Environmentalists' arguments only make sense when they think that basically "we dont want people to get richer, because that means they consume more. Yes, we want people to live destitute lives so that the rainforest remains pristine." Of course, they will rarely say that explicitly, but imply it in such notions as the innate value of nature separate from humans.

--BULL. Productive at what? Product? Math? Factory output? Productivity is always used by economists along with the word "efficiency." LIARS! What do you mean efficient? Productivity is meaningless without an object to act upon or an agreed upon goal. Efficient to what end? Money? What is that? Nothing but abstract power quantified... Therefore: Politics. The Lie is this: Use of a Math term, a Logic Term, to denote a political ideology.

You are ASSUMING an endgoal that you are hiding. You assume I won't agree with your endgoal thus you hide it by saying "productive" or "efficient". War is efficient dotcha know, it kills. Also it is efficient at spreading poverty and raising the birth rate. Lots of life. Lots of new technology. I don't agree with your goals. I don't like these words toyed around in these cliche arguments that tell me you know better because you use logic and I don't because you have a math to your... murder? War is OK in your efficiency and I call that killing, deliberate.

So lets not mince words of nonsense. You know little about farming. Local farming DOES use less energy, a lot less. That is actually LESS productive. Remember!? The formula of the economists is that money exchange = good, even if it is trading guns, even if it is poison or genocide [especially if]. So when I burn less gas and less pollution on my local farm I am BAD for the economy because I am not spending MORE. That is all. Economics is dead easy to understand. The statistical math is complex but the underLYING principles are dead easy, so easy they are frequently hidden because the politics is reprehensible. Superior products in terms of price? In terms of wholesomeness? Organic foods are more productive only because they cost more. Seriously.

-Cheers

Full Disclosure, I'm a Libertarian Socialist, or maybe a trickster. I speak with passion but don't fear me, I am never serious because seriousness isn't serious enough for life and death. Rusl

"Free trade favors developed nations Some argue also that trade barriers such as quotas and agricultural subsidies prevent farmers in developing nations from competing in local and global markets." This is not so much an issue of free trade but nefarious government intervention. This criticism is also totally fallacious. Said trade barriers are a lack of, not an excess of, free trade. This clause amounts to a defense of free trade.

Also, the "race to the bottom" argument assumes that A)labour and environmental protections are inherently good B)The more restrictive the better. Many would argue that enforcement of contract and simple common laws like contract at will are the only necessary labour laws, and anything more is destructive. See Germany, and generally Europe's, stagnation. Those stringent labour and environmental laws have made them mighty prosperous. But the point is that there IS an argument, and that you cannot treat the assumptions as true, whether they are or not. Also, globally harmonized wages would utterly destroy developing countries. Developed countries workers are more productive, and so, if one must employ developed or developing workers at the same rate, then the rational choice is workers from the developed countries. Poor countries could not then utilize their comparative advantage, their lower wage rates. It is like an employer's choice to hire an experienced or inexperienced worker. The former may be more productive, but the latter requires less wages, so an employer must choose. Those arguing for "harmony" are doing so out of self interest. Union members in developed countries come to mind.

Much of the argument is dressed up as criticism of free trade but really is critical of the market economy system. I refer to the "Free trade causes dislocation and pain" argument. Yes, there is "creative destruction." But there is in any market economy, where production is decided by consumers and not the state. A sudden increase in popularity in bookshelves may thrust others into working as artisans. Besides, this function is essential to maintaining and enhancing productivity. The oft quoted example is the fact that the vast majority of Americans were farmers, and now only 2%, and yet our capacity has increased tremendously. No rational person would argue that the country should have kept the vast majority of citizens as farmers.

I have not finished. But most or all of the arguments posited are just what antiglobalizers parrot. No effort was made to verify or falsify these claims. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.106.110.148 (talk • contribs) 21:42, 20 October 2005.

Edit: Yes, the claims should be kept up. But Wikipedians, with consensus approval, should write whether they are valid concerns or not. I think that the topics I addressed are misleading or invalid. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.106.110.148 (talk • contribs) 21:54, 20 October 2005.

I think a lot of these anti-free trade arguments might be more convincing to pro-free traders if they were put into the market failure terms that economists use, like asymmetric information, externalities, or imperfect competition, which are mathematically defensible. Contenders on free trade arguments tend to shout past each other in the language they use. But you're right - the basic argument of free trade, comparative advantage, is nothing but the optimism that people always do what's in their interest anyway, which is just as essential to laissez-faire capitalism, so criticisms of free trade are basically arguments against laissez-faire capitalism and its universal optimism about the consequences of free choice. If you think that markets are perfectly competitive, then there aren't many reasons left to oppose free trade. Adam Faanes 10:33, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Clean-up?

Wouldn't it be better to move the arguments sections to a new page (Free Trade Controversy or Free Trade Debate) and expand/create on the same time "history of free trade", "free trade in theory" (the theory of free trade), and "(free) trade in reality" (for instance the free trade in industrial products, but not in the agricultural products, the real free trade agreements and zones, the role of the WTO and the IMF, etc.). Mjolnir1984 11:24, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Meaning of externality

In the section "Free trade causes dislocation and pain" the following two sentences appeared: "Problems associated with economic adaptation are generally not factored into the calculation of free trades' effects. In economist's jargon these issues are externalities." I deleted the 2nd sentence. The reason is that in economics, an externality means a side-effect ignored by somebody in the market because it does not affect them directly (e.g. somebody might pollute, hurting other people but not themselves, if polluting is the cheapest way to dispose of their waste and they don’t face any legal consequences). Externality does not mean something ignored by an economist. As written, the deleted sentence wrongly implied that an externality is to an economist as collateral damage is to a general. It is possible for an economist to take into consideration factors such as "problems associated with economic adaptation", and some economists do, although such factors may be difficult to quantify. If on the other hand a wiki editor does want to allege that economists tend to ignore such hard-to-measure social effects, they can go ahead and do so and cite sources, but should avoid confusion over the meaning of externality. --Niku 00:36, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] External links

I can understand the need to have links balancing both arguments, but that is not justification for having the excessive number of external links that there are now. Wikipedia is not a repository for links, and everyone linked to has their own article, or should have one. If someone wants to convert them to internal links - great, otherwise I will go through them with a blunt rake. Please see WP:EL for guidance. Thanks. -- Linkspamremover 08:45, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What in the world?

What is this nonsense?

"The major controversy about free trade arises from the fact that the primary discussions have little to do with freedom or trade, but rather who gets to control who wins and who loses. Thus, rather than being an objective discussion about how to make trade truly free, the discussion devolves into a political war of words with each government entity, non governmental organization and special interest group trying to get the upper hand.

Some people believe the term free trade is a prejudicial term and so its use is increasingly discouraged. 'Free' is a strong, effective word. The evidence is all around: all the shopping centres; example: 'buy one, get one free.' Simple, yet effective enough to be popular with retailers - behaviour and opinion changing, a strong word. 'Free Trade' of course, is the favoured term of those who advocate unregulated trade or deregulated trade and prefer the term 'Free Trade' in the same way retailers offer, 'buy one, get one free'"

I'm fixing it. Salvor Hardin 12:09, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removed merge tag

Removed the merge tag applied awhile ago, since 'international trade' would cover all forms of trade whether mercantilistic trade systems or imperial trade systems or protectionist trade systems or free trade systems etc. This article is specifically about free trade a different topic. Consensus has not formed to merge it, so I removed the tag. I do propose merging History of international trade here, as it speaks of Free trade history not international trade history. --Northmeister 01:51, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edits

I included this section, and tidyed up the list. I know youre relatively new here, but its considered incivil to simply revert all changes in whole rather than make edits to particular parts.

In international trade, free trade is an idealised market model wherin trade of goods and services between countries flows unhindered by government-imposed artificial costs. The term is given to economic policies, as well as political parties that support increases in such trade.

-Ste|vertigo 18:36, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

After reconsideration, I now approve of your edits thus far here - wasn't trying to be "incivil" - just making sure that changes are not political or idealogical as 'free trade' material is very much driven by false notions and assumptions of 'truth' - even among economists - without taking into consideration actual history (most ignore the whole history of the USA until 1932) - which is more important. --Northmeister 01:29, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Not seeking to quarrel, but — Most of whom ignore the whole history of the USA until 1932? Lots of people do seem to think everything before Saint FDR was "unbridled capitalism", is that what you mean? —Tamfang 04:30, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Nope. Not in the least. Prior to FDR America generally with limited exceptions embraced the Hamiltonian system of capitalism driven by government policies to encourage: manufacturing growth - agricultural growth - and commercial growth in a "Harmony of Interest" as leading economists spoke of in the 19th century - including Henry C. Carey, Daniel Raymond, Friedrich List among others. Essentially what is forgotten is HOW America became the "Land of Opportunity" and the "Arsenal of Democracy" in the first place. It wasn't socialism and it wasn't idealized free-market capitalism either. Japan and Germany learned this; and copied with slight variance our original system for their modern economies - the German's had a history already under Bismarck - and the Japanese as well to work on. Social Market and Japanese Miracle are rooted in the old American System that was once the envy of the world - the sleeping giant that Japan feared - a national market driven to success by National banking, national infrastructure improvements by government, and a successful tariff policy to both raise revenue and prevent foreign take-over of the economy and thus control thereof. --Northmeister 12:48, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] idealised market

What is an idealized market? Intangible 02:05, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] propaganda and lies

I really have problems with this article. I think that just because a lot of people repeat something doesn't make it right. This article paint a picture of "FREE TRADE" as this kind of neutral economic concept.

However, it is one of the most important propaganda words of our time. Even using the economic criteria many "free trade" agreements are nothing of the sort. This word is used in the public debate and the economics is not really there when it is used, it is not meant to be economics. The economics is used as a way to mystify the public, to pretend the emperor has clothes on.

However the champions of that narrow obsequious cause have taken over writing this article. In the name of being pedantic?

This article violates NPOV heavily by telling only an idealised picture of a word by the proponents who claim to own it.

We the non-economist public have a right to own and define this word differently because we are bludgeoned in the media(s) with this nonsense fuzzy nice sounding term that usually means nothing simple except a clear decrease in freedom. I suppose it rests on a neoliberal defintion of freedom. Freedom of wealth or freedom of people. I think that NPOV and the purpose of wikipedia dictates that we ought to side with freedom of people, how people are impacted. And not this nonsense propaganda about imaginary invisible hands of god freeing the market to help those who help themselves. [The American border was 'free traded' and yet it is more closed than ever. The EU border allows movement of people AND goods... etc, real information, not intangible excuses]

I suggest that the format of this be changed. The POV of the economist ideologues should be quarunteened to be it's own subsection and the focus of the rest of the article should be on usuage by everyday people effected by the word.

I think that disparaging references that blame environmentalists and unions as "special interests" should be removed.

Hey, History lesson: "Free Trade" the modern concept is pretty old, like more than a century. And yes it was discredited when people in England starved. Starving masses means your theory is a stupid one. Environmentalism is from the 70s. Protectionism was kind of an obsolete concept in the era when the environment started getting noticed. It's a nice straw man but what is it here in wikipedia 40 years later still? rusl

[edit] "shown tendencies"

User:Stevertigo wrote (July 25):

It is opposed by anti-globalization and labour due to shown tendencies for abuse by wealthier states when given an "equal" playing field.

What, no response to that in almost two weeks? For one thing, what does it mean? If the assertion is that states generally favor politically-connected domestic industry in spite of talking a free-trade game, the language could be clearer. If the opposition is grounded in the notion of zero-sum competition, there's a POV problem, which could be reduced with some such phrase as "in the belief that". —Tamfang 23:38, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

This article needs to be more balanced.

[edit] What the hell happened to this article?

Looking back at the history, virtually the entire article was deleted in a "minor edit" by Mjolnir1984 on December 16, 2005. Is no one watching this article?!?! I'm tempted to revert the whole article or at least reinstate all previously deleted material. Mgunn 10:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

A bit more snooping by me shows that a bunch of material was moved by Mjolnir into an article on free trade debate, and that someone subsequently wiped everything out of that article. I guess not many unbiased observors are actively watching these articles.Mgunn 10:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Delete intellectual property and free trade section to "history of free trade" ?

That paragraph is more focussed on IP and less on free trade..... its really quite off topic imho. Is anyone really tied to it? Is anyone going to scream if I delete it? Mgunn 12:23, 13 December 2006 (UTC)