Talk:Free trade

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Business and economics Portal This article is within the scope of the Business and Economics WikiProject.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received an importance rating on the assessment scale.

	This article is within the scope of the Economics WikiProject, an effort to create, expand, organize, and improve economics-related articles..
B	rated as B-Class on the assessment scale
High	rated as High-importance on the importance scale

	This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
	This article has been selected for Version 0.7 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.
Additional information: B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale. Feel free to make short comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. ??? This article has not yet received an importance rating on the assessment scale.

Archives

1

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 What about agricultural policy and agricultural subsidies? 6 Removed paragraph 7 trade near the zambize river 8 Anti-Arguments seem either wrong or demagogic 9 idealised market 10 propaganda and lies 11 Nonsensical claim 12 Environment 13 Pro-Free Trade Bias? 14 NPOV against fair trade 15 Conservative Opposition to Free Trade 16 On Marx 17 "History" section unsourced, biased 18 This article needs some work 19 This doesn't matter 20 "Alternatives to free trade." 21 NAFTA and other edits 22 Objectivity problems 23 China 24 Britain 25 Peloponnesian War? 26 Lower cost to consumer 27 Establish auto-archive

[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. —Preceding unsigned comment 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)

I disagree. Free trade assumes perfect markets, perfect competition, perfect information which does not exist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.133.206.190 (talk) 16:14, 1 March 2008 (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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.209.131.44 (talk • contribs) 19:20, 20 June 2005

[edit] Effects on wages

The President's Economic Report to Congress, a publication of the President's Council of Economic Advisors, reports that in 1971 (the year generally considered the beginning of the "free trade" era in the United States) the average weekly wage was $133.58. There were 75,972,000 workers and a United States population of 207,661,000. GDP in 1971 was $1.1271 trillion. Using these figures, in 1971 36.6% of Americans worked and they earned 46.8% of what they produced. These figures are provided in 2006 dollars.

By 2006, 47.4% of Americans were working, and bringing home only 31.3% of what they produced.

In economic theory, workers suffer the disutility of labor in order to obtain the necessaries of life. In the free trade era, in the United States, more people earning a smaller portion of their production are required to work in order to supply the aggregate with the necessaries of life.

[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] 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)

Agriculture subsidies belong in either the 'Protectionist' wiki article or the 'Corrupt politicians' wiki article.98.165.6.225 (talk) 09:32, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

[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)

'"Free trade is normally used", it has nothing to do with labour movement one way or the other,' you blatantly contradict yourself, first saying that free trade has nothing to do with labor but then there are labor markets where labor is "traded." Yes, labor is also traded, which can be witnessed by the movement of labor from Mexico to the U.S. Just because it is more commonly called immigration, does not mean it is not trade. We can obviously see what Mexico gains from this trade, capital. Money sent to families in Mexico from U.S. Migrant workers is at about 2% of it's national income. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.7.77.141 (talk) 23:12, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] trade near the zambize river

[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. —Preceding unsigned comment 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. —Preceding unsigned comment 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)

Gee, I always had the impression that the Libertarianite Free-traders were Demagogic. Playing on the fears (recession), passions (greed), and prejudices (Socialist politics) of the people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.106.248.211 (talk) 13:34, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] idealised market

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

A place for fools to mentally masturbate.98.165.6.225 (talk) 17:42, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Please stop trying to make Wikipedia your political soapbox. Brianreading (talk) 20:05, 13 April 2008 (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

My opinion is that the above post is pretty much on target. I've tried adding a few things into it to make it more balanced, but it's pretty hopeless. The author doesn't seem to realize, or maybe he's just being disinguous, that economics is not a hard science but rather a collection of opposing points of view.

I've actually written a 3400-word essay on the free trade debate on my blog, http://ibrakefortrees.wordpress.com. I won't repeat that here, but I do think this article, because it's an article about a market model, absolutely needs to specify what the assumptions of that model are. E.g., that it describes a closed system, that it sets economic efficiency as a society's primary goal, that it requires specifying a monetary value even for what can't be quantified (like the effects of unemployment), that it doesn't distinguish between internal costs and external costs....

Not to mention the absolutely ludicrous statement that free trade is based on both theory and empirical evidence. The empirical evidence is very heavily against free trade. In a misguided attempt to implement the Washington Consensus in "underdeveloped" countries, the World Bank has both damaged those economies (e.g. Jamaica) and the environment (e.g. Mexico). Even if ecological damage is disregarded, economic success and free trade seem inversely related. The #2 and #3 countries in GDP -- China and Japan -- have both manipulated their currencies to maintain their export edge. On top of which, Japan has always been protectionist, and most of China's largest companies are 50% owned by the government and so set whatever prices the government decides to set, regardless of cost. Ericbalkan 22:31, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

The biggest lie perpetuated by the self-serving gluttons is that free-trade lowers the price of goods Americans buy. When a slave owner sells his cotton to a cotton mill, he marks the price of his cotton up to just under his competition's price. Not a massive drop in price, a miniscule drop in price not worth the loss of jobs in America. Eventually the slave master's competition will have to employ slaves himself to stay competative. This is the race to the bottom everyone talks about.

The second biggest lie is "Comparative Advantage." No 'people' are genetically better or worse at manufacturing certain goods. Blacks aren't genetically engineered to pick cotton, and the Japanese aren't genetically engineered to make electrons. Only in RAW MATERIALS, such as OIL and COPPER, is a country better then another. Or farming; Brazil is better at sugar cane then Wyoming. This has nothing to do with increasing labor efficiency, as "Comparative Advantage" presumes.68.106.248.211 (talk) 06:34, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nonsensical claim

"The Constitution of the United States explicitly prohibits state governments from enacting barriers to trade between citizens and firms of the various 50 states, making the United States the largest empirical example of free trade in the world." The U.S. is one sovereign state, so it means nothing that there are no internal tariffs. You could use the same silly reasoning to argue that the USSR was "the largest empirical example of free trade in the world" while it existed. --HonourableSchoolboy 15:41, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

No, because the Soviet Union did not have free trade. Goods and services were distributed according to Gosplan. -- Mgunn 17:25, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Internal tarriffs have been the norm and not the exception throughout history. The US is the most successful economic sovereign entity in world history and as such is an example in both its use of free trade but also its tailoring of trade policy as needed for nationalistic purposes. Trade policy that is most useful when a nation is lacking industry or intellectual property is different from trade policy that is most useful when a nation has industry and intellectual property and US national economic policy over the last 200 years is a roadmap for any nation seeking emperical guidance. 4.250.132.20 20:19, 11 February 2007 (UTC) (WAS 4.250)

First of all the Constitution doesn't guarantee interstate free-trade, the commerce clause allows Congress to regulate interstate trade. To regulate is giving broad powers to Congress, not giving you free-trade slaveocrats a free hand. Second of all, the United States is one nation, one people, under one federal juristiction. If jobs goes down for Americans in one state (because the state is run by a Socialist), and the same jobs go to Americans in another state (run by a fiscal Conservative), the gross change for all Americans remains zero. International trade is the same thing, if jobs are lost in America and moved to Mexico, then Americans get screwed. Traitors. You slaveocrats lost the civil war, are you itching for more death and destruction?68.106.248.211 19:41, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I have modified the text to reflect the wording of the constitution. 1) The constitution does not bar the states from enacting barriers to trade; it delegates powers to regulate inter-state trade to the federal level (Congress) - authority which it also has for foreign trade. The subtle distinction is that this is a case where a party has the power to impose on other parties what rules apply (parallels to EU are welcome). 2) It was not at all clear it would lead to "free trade", either immediately or even a hundred and some years later, as the history shows, and it's almost certain not all the signatories were advocating unfettered trade - just that there would be a referee that wasn't in London. In practice it has been very broadly applied, even to events that some consider "internal" to the states. 3) While saying (as in the opening comment here) that the U.S. is one sovereign state sounds reasonable, it doesn't do justice to the difficult history of commerce within the U.S. At the time of the signing of the constitution, the dispute at the time of its adoption (see the Federalist Papers, Hamilton, Madison, etc) was whether or not these were sovereign states (full stop) entering into a loose confederation or states giving up a measure of sovereignty to create a new one. (Wasn't there a war on some of these issues?) At any rate, I hope that this contribution is neither jingoistic nor overly loaded. And any actual constitutional scholars or historians can now get involved in this little tempest in a teapot. ;) --Gregalton 23:43, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

MGunn: you edited this to read "The Constitution of the United States explicitly empowers the U.S. Congress the authority "to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes" in the Commerce Clause, and therefore individual states do not have that authority." (My emphasis) To me this is a tautology, but perhaps others can comment. I think the article at Commerce Clause also gives substantial support to the language about "increasingly broad interpretations": at one point, things like navigation, meatpacking, labor unions, etc., were not considered to be covered.--Gregalton 00:30, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Thats right, no state cannot devalue their currency, no state can impose tariffs on other states, no state can throw up import quotas, no state can become an oligarchy and directly lower the standard of living of its citizens to make labor investment more attractive... These free-traders are completely incapable of discriminating between interstate trade and international trade, they are fundamentally stupid.68.106.248.211 (talk) 06:49, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

In some areas the federal government has exclusive authority, in others the states have exclusive authority, and in others they have concurrent authority (state authority unless federal law preempts). The concept of the dormant commerce clause means that not only is the commerce clause a grant of authority to the federal government, but it's also a removal of authority from the states. I don't think this is obvious. -- Mgunn 08:43, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

On the issue of "increasingly broad interpretation" .... I'm just not sure that's an uncontroversial statement. It might be qualitatively right, but what's the magnitude? The Dormant Commerce Clause has been a concept since the 1820s. The language "increasingly broad" implies large change, and I'm just not sure that's right. -- Mgunn 08:43, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. I don't necessarily agree that "increasingly broad" implies large change, but rather that the breadth of interpretation has been increasing (and it was perhaps not narrow to begin with). But that's just a quibble.--Gregalton 13:37, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Environment

This article needs an independent section on how free trade mitigates environmental standards by outsourcing business to countries with less harsh laws. A similar section could be made on human rights (ie, child labor, etc) or could be incorporated into the same section.

[edit] Pro-Free Trade Bias?

This is the description of the "Balanced Trade" model:

"Many economists would call balanced trade a modern day form of mercantilism. Though it is has intuitive appeal, there is absolutely no economic reason why a trade deficit is automatically bad. For example, if a country is running a trade deficit, this automatically implies it is running an investment surplus.[citation needed] If this investment increases the capital stock, sparks new innovation, and increases productivity, there is absolutely no reason why a trade deficit would cause a problem. Empirically this also appears to be true as a number of countries, such as the U.S., have run large trade deficits for years with no discernible adverse impact."

First of all, this is not only not a NPOV -- "Though it is has intuitive appeal, there is absolutely no economic reason why a trade deficit is automatically bad.", but it also sounds like it was written by a 5-year-old.

Secondly, it's wrong. "If this investment increases the capital stock, sparks new innovation, and increases productivity, there is absolutely no reason why a trade deficit would cause a problem. Empirically this also appears to be true as a number of countries, such as the U.S., have run large trade deficits for years with no discernible adverse impact." I'm from Michigan -- you tell me that there has been "no discernable impact"? Are you fucking nuts? Half the state has lost their good-paying manufacturing union jobs to cheap Chinese labor. This is a result -- directly -- of the trade imbalance with China. This is beyond non-NPOV, this is blatantly ignorant. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jjmtim (talk • contribs) 22:59, 14 April 2007 (UTC).

Yeah the Libertarians and Rinos are just as good as Democrats when it comes to lying, manipulation of statistics, and conveniently left out information. I hope there is a special place in hell for them.68.106.248.211 13:36, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

"there is absolutely no economic reason why a trade deficit is automatically bad." ...other then oil hyperinflation. When the economists theorized a weak dollar they were thinking about, "oh a Toyota would be expensive," or "oh imported clothes would be more expensive." Nobody thought about oil, even Pat Buchanan didn't think about oil. It is worse then even Pat Buchanan imagined it would be. 98.165.6.225 (talk) 09:14, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV against fair trade

"Free Trade can be contrasted with so-called Fair Trade (trade restricted in a way that serves the narrow interests of the group advocating state intervention)." This seems very POV to me - while "fair trade" may not necessarily be fair, "so-called implies that it isn't, and fair trade is described in what seems to me a very POV way. Soaringgoldeneagle 16:54, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Not only do I agree this is a NPOV issue - I also believe there is some kind of misunderstanding on what IS fair trade.

"Fair trade is an organized social movement which promotes standards for international labour, environmentalism, and social policy in areas related to production of Fairtrade labeled and unlabelled goods. The movement focuses in particular on exports from developing countries to developed countries."

Fair trade proponents do not oppose free trade: most in fact embrace the concept but believe some of the current market failures must be addressed via a well-established system of minimum prices and producer support mechanisms.

I could understand a misunderstanding with the trade justice movement. After all both are closely linked: the trade justice movement demands the end of unfair trade barriers and subsidies (i.e. cotton subsidies in the US) set up by governments in the North. See http://www.maketradefair.com/en/index.htm for more info.

I'm going to change the reference to fair trade to protectionism, a concept which I think is closer to the contrast the previous author wanted to highlight on the free trade page.Vincentl 02:56, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair trade is something you anarcho-capitalists should embrace. And embrace it quickly. If not, you will soon see harsh protectionist measures and socialism. An aweful backlash on current trade policies has gained more momentum then the anarcho-capitalists can handle. The pendulum swings.68.106.248.211 (talk) 06:56, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Conservative Opposition to Free Trade

The JBS is not opposed to free trade per se, they are opposed to managed trade institutes like the WTO, which they believe infringe upon U.S. sovereignty. Being against managed trade institutes is not the same as being against free trade. Josh 02:56, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Josh,

ALL free trade agreements will include managed trade institutes (world government) because, as defined by free trade theorist Von Mises in Human Action, the free market economy is only established when a single, coersive government is established over the entire free market area. (for the "cliff's notes", check out Percy Greaves' glossary to Human Action at www.mises.org and look for the four part definition of a free market economy.

As such, if JBS or any other group are opposed to managed trade institutions, they are against free trade. Free trade is the economic means to achieve an interdependent world (Bastiat in his letters to Cobden really goes into this a lot; saying he desired free trade to establish the "single, ecumenical, indissolubule union of the peoples of the world"). Protectionism, of course, was established for the exact opposite political purpose, to prevent the merging of nations into a single system. - Kanzai

Kanzai is mistaken when he writes, "as defined by free trade theorist Von Mises in Human Action, the free market economy is only established when a single, coersive government is established over the entire free market area." Free trade is trade without any government or coercive intervention. He also seems to misunderstand what is meant by "managed trade organizations." These are cartels of governments interfering in free trade, and thus incompatable with free trade. If a state wants free trade, it needs no agreements - it simply repeals all laws creating barriers to trade, i.e. all subsidies, quotas, tariffs, etc. This can be done unilaterally, and requires no pacts or agreements with other states. "Free trade agreements" are shams; they are actually mutual protectionist agreements between state rulers. PhilLiberty 08:00, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

PhilLiberty et. al,

Please review Human Action by Von Mises and you'll see clearly that a single coersive government is required for a market economic system. Von Mises was perhaps the most strident and respected defender of free trade, and his work is foundational on this topic in our modern, global economic system.

Phil, from where I'm sitting, your statements about the free trade agreements (which destroy tariffs) being "shams" show an anarchist bias on your part. Save that sort of thing for a blog, not an encyclopedia. Trade agreements that reduce or eliminate barriers to trade are called free trade agreements. You do not have the right to redefine terms to fit your agenda.

Here's the link to review the simple definition of a free market economy.

[1] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kanzei (talk • contribs) 03:15, August 20, 2007 (UTC).

Mises (or rather, his interpreter) is not talking about policy in the passage you cite. He is discussing a theoretical model ("an imaginary construction"). Furthermore, he uses "government" in the Jeffersonian/Nockian sense to mean organized defense of rights, and not to mean state. IOW in his model he assumes that there exists some arrangement for protecting property rights - a purely defensive function. "Coercion" should not be confused with "aggression." It means retaliatory force (e.g. against thieves) in this context. Bottom line: You are totally misunderstanding Mises if you think he supported world government (a world state), or thought that it was a requirement for international free trade. Perhaps you should read some writings of his student, Murray Rothbard, to get a more explict idea of the anti-statism inherent in Austrian economics.

Regarding free trade agreements and managed trade cartels of states - you seem to think that quid pro quo agreements on what quotas, tariffs, and barriers to allow are examples of free trade. In fact, these agreements maintain and legitimize abrogations of free trade - rulers agreeing on sustainable plunder rates. As already noted, free trade doesn't require such collusion - it could be done unilaterally. PhilLiberty 15:30, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Phil,

Again, your anti-statism/anarchist bias is clouding your objectivity. You have no basis to suggest that Austrians are anarchists or anti-statists. I'm particularly interested in your assertion that Jefferson, a President of the United States who became quite the Federalist during his term of office as he describes in his letters to Adams, would somehow be included in an anti-state understanding of government. Your argument is truly bizarre.

From Percy Greaves, whose glossary to Human Action I will again refer; the definition of a government for Von Mises (and thus Austrian Economics): Government. The social apparatus established for the monopolistic exercise of the compulsion and coercion which, because of man's imperfection, is necessary for the prevention of actions detrimental to the peaceful inter-human cooperation of a definite system of social organization. Because men are not faultless, government (the police power) is an indispensable and beneficial institution, as without it no lasting social cooperation or civilization could be developed or preserved. A durable system of government must rest on the might of an ideology acknowledged by the majority. The concept of a perfect system of government is both fallacious and self-contradictory, since this institution of men is based on the very imperfection of men. From the liberal (q.v.) viewpoint, the task of government consists solely and exclusively in guaranteeing the protection of life, health, liberty and private property against violent attacks. As far as the government confines the exercise of its violence to the suppression and prevention of antisocial actions, there prevails what reasonably and meaningfully can be called liberty. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kanzei (talk • contribs).

The Republican Party was founded by hard core protectionists. If something isn't done soon, that conservative party will fracture again, and probably not recover. Too bad, the Republican Party had a good run. Oh and Duncan Hunter 2008 hahaha 68.106.248.211 13:29, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

September 2007, by a 2:1 margin likely Republican primary voters no longer believe in the religion of free trade. http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/WSJ-POLL-20071003.pdf 68.106.248.211 (talk) 11:06, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] On Marx

The current statement that Marx opposed free trade is not true.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/01/09ft.htm#marx

Marx supported free trade because it would, in his view, further depress wages, destroy nationalism, and bring about the revolution that he thought would occur. He felt that free trade would create a rising up of the proletariat.

However, he also did not favor protectionism, because he was opposed to the "free trade within a nation" that a PROTECTED free market establishes (which is of course what the United States was when he was writing; a free market economy with tariffs to protect the system from external interferences)

I'd like to hear some thoughts before editing this section, but please review the speech he gave in Brussels in 1848 linked above.

I read it. In summary Marx actually believes in free-trade, for the very same reason Libertarians believe in free trade. He also believes it destroys national identity and promotes class antagonisms, and "for this reason alone I am for free trade," says Marx. It should also be noted that Marx and Engels ran a cotton mill in Manchester England, and Marx was a cheerleader for the south during the American Civil War. Marx and Engels lost money as Union Republican Armies marched through the south, cutting cotton imports to England, creating a scare in cotton stocks.68.106.248.211 (talk) 07:06, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "History" section unsourced, biased

[Material moves to RFC below...]

[edit] This article needs some work

It seems the ideologues really got to this thing and had their way. Free-trade is an economic concept and is fairly well understood by the economic profession. It seems the article is mostly about politics and not about economics. A good place to start is with The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics. Hopefully that will put you guys on the right track. --Jayson Virissimo 19:29, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Yup. "Free Trade" has become a political cliche. An article on "Tarrif" would be more accurate and nonbiased.68.106.248.211 19:48, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Not to stick my head in the oven, but this entire article seems to have originally been written by free trade advocates that were trying to use econo-talk to biasedly promote it. Then got hacked away by anti-free traders, then the econo's sited refferences from other econo's. Why not let McDonalds and Burger King write the definitions of "hamburger" and "fast-food" or Pope John Paul write about the crucifixion. Wiki is supposed to be a moderate explanation of a topic (isn't it?). It's one thing for someone to mention the debate, it's another for an economist to write words not far from 'some people don't think free trade is going to solve all the worlds problems, but their not economists now are they?"

To mention a dispute outside of its article, someone had said something to the extent of "Most economists agree on free trade" and then someone asked for a refference to prove that most do. Thats completely beside the point. You may as well ask the Bush administration how the war on terror is going. The majority of religious leaders will tell you 'Christ is King!' but that doesn't mean you can rely on them for a realistic opinion.

As a free trade critic, I would love to fill this article with every refference from anti-FT's that I could find, complete with links and PHD's. They would be real people with real educations and I could probably even find some that weren't being bribed at the time. But that would be propaganda and not reality, although I wouldn't expect an economist to understand the difference between what they say and what they live in.

To redeem myself for using wiki to bash economists (at least i didn't edit) I propose to limit this article to quantifiable paramiters i.e. focus on definition and usage through history. Mention that pre 1920's America was a protectivist nation and now they're FT. Don't say "American's used to think free trade was unamerican" because thats just propaganda from a different centrury.

It used to be more profitable for the US to be protectivist and now its more profitable to be FT, at least to the people that count the money. That was the old product they were selling, this is the new one.

BlindfoldedNinja Nov 29 2007

[edit] This doesn't matter

I removed this argument which doesn't speak to the central issue of whether third parties (eg., a fledgeling industry) are harmed more than the two individuals who decide to trade are helped: "The theory is that any voluntary trade must benefit both parties, otherwise it would not be made. More precisely, for a trade to occur both parties must expect a benefit (ex ante.)" La la ooh November 2007

[edit] "Alternatives to free trade."

LOL FREE TRADE IS FOR NOOBS —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.247.115.11 (talk) 20:32, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I see protectionism, balanced trade, and a whole bunch of alternatives in the "Alternatives to free trade" section. I don't see "Import Maximization".

All free-trade/anarcho-capitalist/libertarian literature I have ever read wants to maximize imports and minimize exports. In their mind a perfect country would export nothing and import everything, the citizens of this ideal country would enjoy the fruits of others' labor while sitting back and drinking fine tea. This should be advertised as the secret agenda of the free-traders so potential voters can recoil in horror, and laugh at their galactic stupidity.68.106.248.211 (talk) 10:43, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

68.106.248.211 Needs to take an economic course or just needs to attempt to rub both brain cells together and spark an intelligent thought before typing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.133.129.54 (talk) 21:43, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

 You free-traitors are responsible for the 6 trillion dollar trade deficit.  I hope your proud of the economic destruction of the United States.68.106.248.15 (talk) 06:42, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

This section requires more distinction between the alternative methods and Free Trade. Specifically, it needs to say, for each alternative method, what exactly the difference is between that method and Free Trade, and who is for or against it for what reasons. Otherwise it is irrelevant. Rudy Breteler (talk) 22:34, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] NAFTA and other edits

1. Editorial comment. Nabauma writes "Many American workers and unions oppose free trade because they believe it forces them to compete with low-paid workers in less developed parts of the world who earn as much in a day as union workers earn in an hour. In those countries, worker safety and environmental regulations are not enforced or nonexistent. Even economists and corporate managers who supported NAFTA now admit that it will produce losers as well as winners, and cost Americans high-wage jobs." No quotes, his opinion. If this is not an editorial comment, I don't know what is one. 2. NAFTA We can go on and one with arguments in favour of NAFTA and against NAFTA. This is not the place for such discussion. Please take it to the NAFTA page. This article is about the economic theory of Free Trade. Bakersville (talk) 15:34, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

As I said in the comment, the quotes above are summaries of the attributed statements from the WSJ, Rick MacArthur, and Business Week. The quotes are all below in the subsection.

If you are going to delete opinion that is not attributed, then I'll apply your own standard and delete all the opinion in this article which is not attributed -- since that's a violation of WP:NPOV and WP:RS anyway.

The subject of this article is "Free trade". If you want to write about "The economic theory of free trade," then rename the article or write a new one.

I'm going to put the MacArthur quotes back, and if you delete it again, I'm going to take it to arbitration. This is WP:CENSOR. You're deleting objections to free trade because you don't agree with them. This is a POV article. I'm willing to let you get away with that -- even though it violates WP rules -- but you have to follow WP rules and include other viewpoints in the article, when they are as significant as the author of a major book who has been interviewed repeatedly and reviewed by major media. Nbauman (talk) 16:43, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Objectivity problems

Does anyone else besides me think that this article is biased in favor of a particular formulation of free trade, and that editors are deleting everything that tries to present dissenting viewpoints?

I think for example Paul Samuelson is a competent economist, and his views on free trade belong in an encyclopedia that purports to give all notable viewpoints. Nbauman (talk) 23:56, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I have not been following this that closely. What Samuelson viewpoint are you referring to?

On the opponents/defenders of free trade: I think it is clear that "opponents" of free trade often advocate for protection of specific industries, and I'm not clear what your objection to this is. Best,--Gregalton (talk) 08:12, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

You need better glasses if it is "pretty clear to you" that protectionists propose protection of specific targeted industries. Exploitation of cheap foreign labor (slavery) knows no particular sector of the economy.68.106.248.15 (talk) 06:46, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

An encyclopedia entry should give all of the arguments in favor of free trade by notable economists, and all of the arguments against free trade by notable economists. This entry claims as a fact that there is an overwhelming consensus among economists that the gains of the winners always outweigh the losses of the losers, and that it is a fact. There is not an overwhelming consensus, and it is an opinion, not a fact. Paul Samuelson, for example, disagrees. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/09/business/worldbusiness/09outsource.html Joseph Stiglitz also disagrees. This article ignores those notable dissenting opinions.

My specific problem with the article now is the section entitled "Opponents of free trade." This section violates Wikipedia rules in many ways. It sets up a straw man of "domestic industries" that oppose free trade, without actually naming specific industries or individuals, and without giving any of their actual arguments. Their supporting evidence is general economic textbooks, which simply assert generic arguments. Since Alan Blinder's textbook was published, Blinder has admitted, in the Wall Street Journal, that he was wrong about the harmful effect on jobs.

The section says, "Economics says that consumers would necessarily gain more than producers would lose." This is POV and wrong -- "economics" doesn't say that. That's the writers' opinion.

Specifically, free trade advocates in the U.S. have claimed that free trade would create more jobs than it would cost. If you look at the facts as documented by Rick MacArthur for example, this has turned out to be untrue -- as people like Blinder have since admitted.

I keep trying to include these facts, and Bakersville keeps deleting them. He doesn't meaningfully discuss it in Talk, he doesn't give his objections in Talk, he doesn't respond to my questions in Talk, and he doesn't try to reach consensus in Talk. Instead, he inserts his personal opinions in the entry, as if they were fact.

I think Paul Samuelson understands economics at least as well as Bakersville, and I don't think Bakersville should brush aside the opponents of free trade as self-interested "domestic industries".

Bakersville wants to have an entry which discusses only the theory of free trade, without any facts, even when the facts contradict his theory. I think we should have an entry that discusses the theory and also the facts, to see whether the facts agree with his theory.

Bakersville wants to have an entry which discusses only one perspective on the theory of free trade. I think that, under WP:WEIGHT, we should have other perspectives, including Nobel laureates who disagree with Bakersville. Nbauman (talk) 19:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I have no problems with including relevant and sourced quotes from Samuelson or Stiglitz in the opposition paragraph. My issues with your edits were: 1) Your criticism of NAFTA that belongs in NAFTA if it does in any place 2) Your change of a title to a new one that didn't reflect the content of the paragraph. Best. Bakersville (talk) 21:52, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Why does my quote from Rick MacArthur belong in NAFTA and not in Free Trade? A quote can be relevant to the subject of more than one article. The proponents of free trade claimed that free trade would not reduce jobs. The facts are that free trade reduced jobs. The facts contradict the theory of free trade. Why do you object to refering to the facts that challenge this theory of free trade in the article about free trade? Nbauman (talk) 22:32, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Bakersville, for the record, you have no response to my argument in the paragraph above, is that correct? Nbauman (talk) 01:44, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

1. Discussing the effects of free trade in employment is like discussing the effects of technology in employment. Pretty much irrelevant. The theory is based on the issue of comparative advantages not on full employment. 2. NAFTA is a trade treaty between to countries; it does not establish free trade in the US or in Mexico. Bakersville (talk) 12:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Any movement towards lowering of trade barriers and/or lowering of duties is a move towards free-trade. NAFTA does exactly that, and you cannot disown NAFTA because it has been an economic disaster. Man up and take the blame.98.165.6.225 (talk) 17:29, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Bakersville, I assume you agree that many stories in the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times quote economic experts who say that one of the negative effects of free trade is on employment.

You don't challenge or disagree with that, do you? Nbauman (talk) 19:12, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Free trade may have positive or negative impact in employment. The problem is that if you bring a particular example in a particular industry in a particular country, you can pretty much prove any point. If free trade is established in a previously protected industry, jobs will be lost in that industry in that country, nobody will negate that. But new jobs will be open in another industry with comparative advantages, and output will increase benefiting the economy. Obviously in real life if I loose my job I would be pretty pissed off, but that is beside the point. Bakersville (talk) 03:00, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

OH God he said "Comparative Advantage". That has got to be the dumbest economic theory I have ever heard. Who are YOU to say that if jobs are lost in one industry that by the powers of the Yin-Yang, a job will magically open up in another industry? This is beyond absurd, its mysticism.98.165.6.225 (talk) 17:33, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

You say,

If free trade is established in a previously protected industry, jobs will be lost in that industry in that country ... But new jobs will be open in another industry with comparative advantages, and output will increase benefiting the economy.

Some economists, including Samuelson, believe that the new jobs will pay much less than the old, and that the final result will be more poverty and greater unemployment. Do you acknowledge that possiblility? Nbauman (talk) 17:33, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Personaly -full disclosure- I think that the argument doesn't hold. New goods would probably be cheaper and more abundant, and resources allocated to other industries. In any case, Samuelson point of view is in the article, and so is Blinder's. So what's your point? Bakersville (talk) 18:27, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

…I think Free Trade in an Executive Postion is "Time Consuming" just like if i set a price for my Puzzels at the Swap Meat Market somewhere in the United States, that i could actually invest my time to see what a value i will get in different erea's or just see what the hole picture is about my value of that set price. I had got this recomendation towards the investment of a Paregraph here in this column;as when a trade is worth a value,as something of Purchase and not just a trade without the value of Money and or Currency. It is a true meaning that Money is a form of Trade and without it ,a formational System just will not work. Formational meaning that Money and or a Form of Currency exsists in that System. Though i do beleave that if a value of something is in the same representation of another then that Currency is of same or value,and now has to have a value upon it's value to become an ongoing Trade. In exsistance Trade comes before anything else;we traded ower ideas and came up with a new one wich then could be an invention. Nothing is Capitalised as a trade,for i will invest my fortune in this venture insured that it will become of something,though in reality the venture is a sure progress,and now leaves Nothing to a positive, invention and investment almost have the same carrectors and could be a considered trade. Trade now is a diversity it exsists in the oportunity of investment and the combining of an idea.3:48 P.M. E.S.T.David George DeLancey (talk) 20:48, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] China

I don't know whether we want it added to this page, but China has just signed its first ever free trade agreement with a developed country, namely New Zealand. It's received wide coverage in the international media, being referred to as a "historic first" [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10]... Aridd (talk) 08:20, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Britain

Free trade was used by Peel and helped the British Empire become powerful, but was also one of the reasons Britains power declined under Disraeli in the 1870's could something like that be put in the historical bit? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.152.228.190 (talk) 18:34, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the history bit is lacking a lot of information. There's just general stuff and then history in the US. A paragraph about Britain is needed.--86.198.56.115 (talk) 14:45, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Peloponnesian War?

It says in the historical section that the Peloponnesian war was fought for free trade. Now that's not quite true. It was against Athens's general domination, trade being just one aspect of it. --86.198.56.115 (talk) 14:50, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lower cost to consumer

Where is the proof that moving factories to a cheap labor country lowers the price for the consumer? Last time I checked, well before oil hyperinflation recently, generally all items have experienced normal (whatever normal is) single digit inflation. Only a few things experienced deflation like computer chips, and computer chips aren't made with cheap foreign slave labor. So where is the proof free traders? Also the crashing dollar isn't exactly great if you are concerned about the "cost to the consumer".98.165.6.225 (talk) 08:57, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Establish auto-archive

I am being bold and establishing an auto-archiver here as the page is getting long. Objections/comments can be registered here.--Gregalton (talk) 12:11, 13 June 2008 (UTC)