|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Free trade article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
|Archives: 1, 2|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team / v0.7||(Rated C-class)|
|Threads older than 3 months may be archived by.|
Dr. Takeuchi's comment on this article
Dr. Takeuchi has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:
I think this is well written although some citations are missing.
We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.
We believe Dr. Takeuchi has expertise on the topic of this article, since he has published relevant scholarly research:
- Reference : Takeshi Iida & Kenji Takeuchi, 2009. "Environmental Technology Transfer via Free Trade," Discussion Papers 0904, Graduate School of Economics, Kobe University.
The basic problem with this entry is that it's too abstract. It reads like the answer to a final exam. (It probably violates WP:OR). I think there's a particular problem with the critics of free trade policies. One of the big problems is that if you talk to all these economists you quote, and then talk to the actual workers, the workers' experiences are not always what the economists predict. The application of free trade in the U.S., as opposed to its theory, is very selective and benefits some people more than others. In Canada, the workers benefit much more from free trade, according to news stories in the Wall Street Journal. There are other critics besides Karl Marx, some of whom have the benefit of knowing what happened after 1848 when Marx wrote those words.
I tried to add some stories from columnists and news stories from major newspapers like the New York Times and Wall Street Journal. They gave specific examples of workers who have been harmed by free trade, and didn't get the benefits that theory predicted. For example, the Swingline company whose owner claimed free trade would enable him to increase exports to the benefit of his workers, but instead moved his plant to Mexico, closed his New York operation, and fired all his American workers. Unfortunately the editors here didn't want any criticism and deleted it. They also didn't want any specific examples of how actual industries and actual workers were affected.
So let's try again. Here's a good series from the Christian Science Monitor which gives the pros and cons of American free trade policies, with examples like the Canadian vs. US paper industry, and interviews individual workers to see how it actually affected them.
The harsh downside of free trade – and the glimmer of hope
Free trade has delivered huge benefits to Asian workers and US consumers. But it has hurt many US workers longer and harder than expected and has roiled American politics. Part 1 of a five-part series.
By Patrik Jonsson, Staff writer June 28, 2016
Part 1: The harsh downside of free trade – and the glimmer of hope
Part 2: The surprising truth about American manufacturing
Part 3: What 'good' free trade looks like
Part 4: Why, this time, free trade has hit American workers so hard
Part 5: What can be done about free trade's 'victims'
- The notion that economists are unfamiliar with the displacement and distribution effects of free trade and/or are uninterested in empirical research on the effects of free trade is ludicrously false. It strongly suggests that you are not at all familiar with economics research. There is absolutely no need to drop research on free trade and replace it with newspaper anecdotes and 'feels'. If you want to add more critiques of free trade, do so with reliable academic sources. The field of economics is full of lauded economists and widely cited papers who have looked at the downsides of free trade. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:31, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
Addition of comments to "Degree of free trade policies"
Torygreen84 I think you may have forgotten to include a source for the content you added. You added "Note that China,India and all the Newly industrialized country not in this." without providing a source or an explanation. Indeed if you click on the source, then you can see that China and India both feature further down the list. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 12:46, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
The section "Opposition" should be re-named "Politics of free trade"
The section should then delve into the debate over free trade and the political consequences of free trade. I don't have time to do it right now, but I think it's something we should strive for. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:17, 28 June 2017 (UTC)