Talk:Free trade

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Economics (Rated C-Class, High-priority)
Economic-surpluses.svg
Business and economics portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-priority on the project's priority scale.
WikiProject Libertarianism (Rated C-Class, High-importance)
Nancy Reagan reopens Statue of Liberty 1986.jpg
Libertarianism portal
Free trade is within the scope of WikiProject Libertarianism, an open collaborative effort to coordinate work for and sustain comprehensive coverage of Libertarianism and related subjects in the Wikipedia.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Politics (Rated C-Class, High-importance)
Vote-1-.svg
Politics portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject International relations (Rated C-Class, High-importance)
Terra.png
United Nations portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia.
If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Version 1.0 Editorial Team     (Rated C-Class)
This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
ButtonGreen.svg This article has been selected for Version 0.7 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.

Archives

Contents

[edit] Tariff Graph

I do not know enough about the graphing engine to fix this myself, but someone please correct the tariff graph. The triangle to the left of government revenue is a transfer payment from consumers to producers of product inputs (they are part of the producer's costs), not deadweight loss. If you'd like a slightly fuller explanation as to why this is so, please see my lecture notes. [1]

David Youngberg (talk) 02:28, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I see your point, that triangle represents increased producers costs, but it still signifies welfare loss as well. I don't think it's correct to call it a transfer payment. If demand were completely inelastic, the deadweight loss triangle on the right would have zero area. In this case, does the tariff still generate inefficiency? Yes. The most easy way to see this is because we are switching some production from the most efficient source (foreign) to comparatively inefficient domestic sources.
Example. If (1) it cost $1,000 (and 100 hours of labor) to produce a hat in the U.S (2) it cost $1 (and 30 minutes of labor) to produce the same hat in China (3) One and only one person in the U.S. wants to purchase exactly one hat (completely inelastic demand) and (4) the U.S. imposes a $1,000 tariff on Chinese hats, switching production of this one hat from China to the U.S., collecting 0 tax revenue. The deadweight loss triangle on the right has zero area, but does this tariff create inefficiency? Yes. This loss is represented by the triangle on the left. Mgunn (talk) 01:12, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Marx did not oppose free trade

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/free-trade/index.htm

This seems like bad misinformation, since not only did Marx support free trade, socialist tend to support it as well.

http://mailstar.net/classwar.html

http://www.rationalrevolution.net/war/marxism.htm

[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.

A lurking variable the above fails to address is the fact that although a smaller portion of what was produced was kept, it could be possible that they produced more overall, and their standards of living could have still increased. Comparative Advantage states that when countries freely trade, they specialize to become more efficient and gain advantage. (Not arguing with the point, just saying that this is something to take into account.)71.196.136.67 (talk) 23:51, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Where's the consumer price deflation? Free Trade does not lower the price of consumer goods made in cheap foreign labor countries. In fact we've had nothing but consumer price inflation.98.165.6.225 (talk) 22:52, 5 May 2009 (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] trade near the zambize river

[edit] "History" section unsourced, biased

Many items such as bananas, pineapples, melons, corn, and tomatoes exported to Australia, are laced with over 3000 times the permitted level of pesticides, herbicides and chemicals. Such items are being rejected by the public in Australia. What's more the locally grown Bananas and pineapples are unable to compete in the sales prices from imported stocks (R Sperring) [Material moves to RFC below...]

[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

I removed this bit "In the 1930s, the US adopted the protectionist Hawley-Smoot Tariff Act which raised rates to all time highs beyond the Lincoln levels, which many economists believe exacerbated the Great Depression. Europe, which had less protectionism at the time, had largely come out of the depression while the US remained mired in the depression. Franklin D. Roosevelt resorted to Hamilton's earlier formula of tariff Reciprocity coupled with subsidy to industry which went unbroken until the 1970s when protectionism was reduced after the Kennedy Round of trade talks in the late sixties."

It is unsourced and very wrong about the historic level of the Hawley-Smoot Tariff. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.118.24.3 (talk) 07:50, 7 December 2009 (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)
Regardless of your opinion on the theory of comparative advantage (which you misrepresented/straw manned, so I'm not sure if you understand the concept in the first place), it is the most accepted argument for free trade by economists. Economists, as you should understand, know the economy far more than both you and I. It definitely deserves a good part in the article, and if you can find a few credible economists that dismiss the theory of comparative advantage (read: economists, not journalists; journalists' opinions are as meager as ours), then by Wikipedia's policy of NPOV, I say that what those economists say is more than accepted. --68.239.234.57 (talk) 19:31, 23 August 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)

Actually everything has experienced inflation, sometimes more (housing), sometimes less (cars), sometimes absurd (oil). The only thing which has been produced CHEAPER since the era of suicidal free trade has been microchips, and those are invented and built in the good old USA or other 1st world countries. And now you free traitors want to outsource chip manufacturing to China. You slave-driving jerks.98.165.6.225 (talk) 13:38, 4 September 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)

This is a general response to many of the above comments/replies, so forgive me if I am addressing problems that have since been solved. First of all, I will fully disclose my free trade sentiments--I am an advocate of free trade in its purest form--but I will try to remain objective. Secondly, the reference to Comparative Advantage as "mysticism" is more of an admittance of ignorance about the theory itself than an opinion of actual strengths and weaknesses of the concept. It is an oversimplification (straw-man is the hackneyed term). Thirdly, the reference to Samuelson's theory that jobs that replace the outsourced jobs pay lower wages, but that is not true in the slightest. In fact, just the opposite occurs. I'm old school, and prefer the classical economists, such as Adam Smith. In The Wealth of Nations he demonstrates that the quality of wages is determined not by the particular job or the wealth of the country, but by the rate of growth in the industry. The faster an industry grows, the better it pays, because it is competing for more labor as it expands. If uncompetitive industries are allowed to die, others will be more competitive, and grow, thus paying better wages. Of course, this is open to the argument that the surplus of labor from the now-dead industry makes the laborers compete for the jobs, driving wages down. This does not hold up either, simply because that countries more open to free trade generally go through periods of growth, increasing wages.71.196.136.67 (talk) 00:15, 22 March 2009 (UTC) i wouldnt call comparative advantage "mysticism" but i do agree their are many fallacies in the theory. and to say you cant find economists who dismiss free trade means you simply havent read the opposing views. wikipedia is about nuetrality so if you are truly interested in keeping the integrity of this article you should read others views instead of making up straw man arguments that make detractors look moronic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.71.236.124 (talk) 04:52, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Claiming a job will magically open up in one area if a job is destroyed in another is not reality. It sounds more like the Conservation of Energy, a concept in physics. Maybe economists should stick to economics, and physicists stick to physics. A person who loses his/her job will "look" for another job or else that person will starve, not cause a job magically opens up somewhere else.98.165.6.225 (talk) 02:18, 3 August 2009 (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)

Slave labor? Anyway...its cheaper to make a Tshirt in China than in USA. That's what it means by lower cost to consumer. Also, its cheaper to make a Ferrari in Italy than in China. 170.65.188.1 (talk) 04:34, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Bull. T-shirts are more expensive in 2008 then they were in 2000 or 1995 or 1990 or 1985 or 1980. The claim is that T-shirts made in China are cheaper TO THE CONSUMER! Not cheaper TO MAKE so some rich investor who can make more $$$$$$ off of quasi-slave labor. That's how slavery works, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.98.165.6.225 (talk) 20:17, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
There is a major flaw in your assumptions. Nobody said that products do get cheaper and cheaper. What has been said is that prices are cheaper than they WOULD BE if a product - T-shirts for instance- was produced in the US for example. BTW, in 1985, T-shirts were already produced in foreign countries. So if you compare those prices, it is quite obvious that they've increased over the last 20 years as average income has risen as well. If companies would price their products at an inappropriate level, it would be easy for a competitor to increase it's market share by lowering the price. Why is nobody doing it? Because they can't. Prices are NOT artificial high. If you still think they are, why not importing goods from China and sell them for a lower price. You're free to do so... --94.193.120.203 (talk) 21:30, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Slavery is illegal worldwide. The biggest proof of mutual-benefit that free trade brings to rich countries and poor countries is the growth of the rich countries' economies and salaries as well as the growth of the economies and salaries of the countries they trade with. Singapore went from poor to rich, so did Taiwan, Korea, Japan, Hong Kong, etc. while USA, UK, Germany became even richer by trading with these former-poor countries. Some goods are cheaper to make in Germany (rich country) than any other country in the world: Such as very high quality glass(Schott), very good drills (Bosch), and BMWs etc. which were exported to these asian countries and Germany became richer. While the poor countries used german drills and trucks to build factories to produce cheap goods to export to Germany. Mutually benefitial. 202.92.43.51 (talk) 15:01, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Wrong, widgets made in cheap foreign labor countries are not cheaper to the consumer, and I could care less about the welfare of foreign citizens. Why do you concern yourself with the welfare of foreign citizens while ignoring the welfare of your own citizens?98.165.6.225 (talk) 22:42, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Lookup the law of supply and demand. If you shift the supply curve down (eg. due to cheaper inputs such as labor), then price decreases (and quantity increases), unless there is a completely inelastic supply. Mgunn (talk) 00:18, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Look up reality. There has been inflation on everything (except computer hardware produced in the 1st world), there is no price deflation which you free traders claimed would happen. You said there would be cheaper consumer items. There has not been cheaper consumer items. The only thing we got in the US was a shrinking middle class, socialism and inflation.98.165.6.225 (talk) 02:23, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] model / regime / condition / theory / system ?

Right up top, the first sentence reads, "Free trade is a X in which the trade of goods and services between or within countries flows unhindered by government-imposed restrictions". How do we fill in the X? Here's my argument: Free trade is a condition of the real world--there can be arguments about how precisely the real world matches an ideal definition, but it's used to describe a system which actually exists or a system which could really potentially exist. So

  • It's not a model. Models are used to analyze it, but "free trade" is about something real models are abstract simplifications.
  • Likewise, it's not a theory, which is tied tightly to "model".

So, I'd go for something along the lines of regime, condition, system, or ...? Possibly the sentence would be better phased differently along the lines of, "A system of trade is said to be free trade if..."? Cretog8 (talk) 16:59, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Thinking about this is a little more, this is a lot more then difficult then I thought. We have the theory of free trade and then we have the policy idea of free trade. I think the theory is covered rather well in the introduction, so I think system makes the most sense, since you hear system far more in economics then regime or condition. --Patrick (talk) 17:28, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
What's wrong with "model"? Wikipedia has an article on Model (economics), and the literature is filled with references to economic models. Google it and you get tons of references. But I'll grant that some people use the term as if it was an existing system - mistakenly IMO. PhilLiberty (talk) 20:26, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
I have nothing against economic models. I think that those who use the term "free trade" as an economic model are the vast minority, even amongst economists. "Free trade" is used to describe regimes (the best word, in my opinion except that it's a bit high-falutin') of actual government policies towards trade. Naturally economists use models to study it. But this article is full of things like, "the colonies which became the United States generally supported free trade". That means they had something practical in mind, they weren't arguing in favor of a model. Cretog8 (talk) 21:27, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
I've never heard regime described in the same context as free trade. But I agree that model is not the best word to use since this article discuss free trade policy and theory. --Patrick (talk) 02:21, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Google searches are always suspect as proof, but still [2]. This is using "regime" in the way an economist or political scientist would use it, as "condition"/"set of rules and conditions", things like that. It's a very good word, but probably misleading to many who aren't used to the word being used that way. Cretog8 (talk) 03:59, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm convinced that "model" is not correct, since as Cretog8 points out, this has to do with practice. "System" sounds good to me. As Patrick points out, "regime" is likely to be misunderstood. PhilLiberty (talk) 17:40, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Right on. The article remains a bit scattered, but that helps. Thanks Cretog8 (talk) 18:28, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
WOO-HOO! I love Wikipedia! My check's in the mail! I checked out WP's Free Trade entry after reading a challenging editorial by a University of London Professor of History, Frank Trentmann. I was so happy to see that the "Neutrality of the article" was in dispute. Yeah! I hope the neutrality is always in dispute, haha. And, it's a credit to Wikipedia's brilliance that the discussion has moved to the pro/con entry. Just for the record, I'm in favor of "regime." Hahaha. Countless thanks to all of the Wikipedians who helped make this entry, and this discussion, what it is. Peace. Torchpratt (talk) 14:44, 20 November 2008 (UTC)HI!!!!!!!!!!!! ;P
This whole pedantic discussion on nomenclature (model, regime etc...) is not enlightening. I would argue for, "Free trade is trade in the absence of tariffs, quotas, or other government imposed barriers." Mgunn (talk) 00:42, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] poor article

This is a really poor article. Can someone with a bit of expertise and some time please fix it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.237.131.17 (talk) 06:05, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Atkin paper

A reference to a paper by David Atkin, "Trade, Tastes and Nutrition in India" has been added to the article. This is Atkin's job market paper, but isn't published. Regardless of how much scrutiny it's received, we're not in a good position to give it the OK that a good academic journal can. If it's considered good now, then odds are a version will be published fairly soon, and then it can be referenced. CRETOG8(t/c) 20:55, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Also, the way the reference is added is really awkward. It's been put in the lead, but the lead is supposed to summarize the article. Adding material on recent empirical work on free trade, possibly including this paper, would improve the article. CRETOG8(t/c) 20:58, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Current status

I started a "current status" section with some maps, but there is still a lot of information missing. For example, what is the average tariff paid on international goods and services? It would be interesting to have this broken down by country or industry. -- Beland (talk) 15:00, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Correct definition?

Is the definition in the article correct? It is currently "a system of trade policy that allows traders to act and transact without interference from government", which seems overly libertarian. The definition I have heard instead emphasizes that imported sales and domestic sales are treated the same by the government in a way that preserves the economics (comparative advantage, etc.), not just "without interference". The subtlety arises with proposals like cap-and-trade. —AySz88\^-^ 14:45, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Free_trade"