Talk:Free trade

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Politics / Liberalism (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Liberalism task force.
 
WikiProject Economics (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon 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-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Libertarianism (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon 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 International relations (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
 
WikiProject Trade (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trade, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Trade 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.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team / v0.7 (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality scale.
Checklist icon
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
 
Note icon
This article is within of subsequent release version of Social sciences and society.
Taskforce icon
This article has been selected for Version 0.7 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.

Is the graph backwards?[edit]

I may just be being stupid, but shouldn't price increase as demand increases, and decrease as supply increases? Not the other way around as is shown on the graph in this article? Timmy the tortoise (talk) 10:16, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

They would, but in this graph the price is the thing being varied: demand falls as price rises and supply rises as price rises. However that is unclear from the graph so maybe it would be worth adding an explanatory note. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 10:21, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Deletion of section "The underlying economics depends upon dubious assumptions"[edit]

The section "The underlying economics depends upon dubious assumptions" was deleted on the grounds that the book it cited was not written by an economics PhD.

This is not a valid reason to delete something, because:

1. Unless a section depends upon one single source, its source is not a valid argument against it. Many other sources could have been cited instead.

2. The ideas in the section have been expressed by many other economists in other places.

3. Lack of an economics PhD does not prove an economic idea is false. Are only PhD's in Political Science allowed to express opinions about politics?

Furthermore, the section that was deleted was arguing one side of a controversial topic, and its deletion seems to be an attempt at furthering one side of the debate, not providing a decent Wikipedia article covering all sides.Ianfletcher (talk) 23:39, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

The section makes several claims as to what the underlying assumptions of free trade are and what the theory of comparative advantage claims. Those need to be supported by academic references, not wikipedia editors citing their self-published books. If the ideas expressed in the section come from economists or other academics of note, cite those sources. The problem with the source is there is nothing about it that suggests that it is by an expert who has studied and published extensive research on the issue, or that the source has undergone extensive peer-review. As for your third point, I would expect critiques of Duverger's Law or statements about the state of coup d'etat research to be by Poli Sci PhDs or published in academic journals/presses. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:54, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Agreed. Too much of the proposed edit is based on Ianfletcher's own views. WP does not publish the opinions of individual editors. We rely on reliable sources, and we use WP:SUMMARY STYLE to present them. – S. Rich (talk) 00:30, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
Response: 1) My book Free Trade Doesn't Work was not self-published. The first edition was published by the U.S. Business & Industry Council, and the second by the Coalition for a Prosperous America, as you may verify on Amazon.com. These are both reputable and long-standing Washington organizations. 2) Why shouldn't a Wikipedia editor cite their own work? If someone is an authority on a certain topic, it's entirely natural that they would have published works on the subject, and entirely natural that these references should be closest to hand. 3) The points made in this section do not depend on the citation anyway. They are broad-brush conceptual arguments that can be found in literally thousands of published books and articles. I only cited my own work because they are conveniently distilled and listed there, with explanations, in one easy-to-find place. 4) If you don't like the reference for this section, rather than its content, you should replace it with similar content with a different reference. Otherwise, you are just using this as an excuse to delete one side of the argument on a controversial topic.Ianfletcher (talk) 21:16, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
Regarding point 2, please see WP:SELFCITE. With this guideline in mind, the other points are moot until other editors pick up on your suggested edits. – S. Rich (talk) 22:49, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
Response: If you look at Wikipedia's rules on self-citation, which read "Using material you have written or published is allowed within reason, but only if it is relevant, conforms to the content policies, including WP:SELFPUB, and is not excessive," you will see that I am not in violation of them.Ianfletcher (talk) 23:45, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
Response: If the other points are "moot until other editors pick up on...," then so is your deletion of my section. You can't just assume the burden of proof falls on your opponent.Ianfletcher (talk) 23:47, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
You are being less than objective in this. You omit "When in doubt, defer to the community's opinion." There is doubt expressed by other editors, therefore you are stuck with at least two editors from the community who do not think your self-citing is appropriate. – S. Rich (talk) 01:48, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Dr. Gawande's comment on this article[edit]

Dr. Gawande has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:


I would rate this as an average to less than average article (but may be because of how much time I've spent on such issues!).

The opening para has "Free trade is exemplified by the European Economic Area and the North American Free Trade Agreement, which have established open markets.". This is not true, because they are preferential trade agreements that actually prevent other countries (non-partners) from accessing these markets freely and equally.

The figure is a textbook figure but the confused description will educate no one. Best to start with a world where exporter has no market power (flat export supply). Then tariffs cause welfare loss and the fact that free trade increases welfare is clear. Sure, there are winners and losers, and that is clear too. the figure the author uses is an argument for an "optimal tariff" not free trade, since both countries have market power. The figure could be better explained and then segue into WTO and its formation (as an institution that finds a way around a possibly highly protected world riddled with optimal tariffs).

The historical accounts are interesting, but I would much prefer reading economic historians like Kevin O'Rourke on this.

Looks like the author is Mr. Ha-Joon Chang who I;ve never heard of. Figures.


We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.

Dr. Gawande has published scholarly research which seems to be relevant to this Wikipedia article:


  • Reference : Gawande, Kishore & Hoekman, Bernard, 2006. "Lobbying and agricultural trade policy in the United States," Policy Research Working Paper Series 3819, The World Bank.

ExpertIdeasBot (talk) 15:36, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Dr. Anderson's comment on this article[edit]

Dr. Anderson has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:


"Free trade is a policy followed by some international markets in which countries' governments do not restrict imports from, or exports to, other countries. Free trade is exemplified by the European Economic Area and the North American Free Trade Agreement, which have established open markets. Most nations are today members of the World Trade Organization (WTO) multilateral trade agreements. However, most governments still impose some protectionist policies that are intended to support local employment, such as applying tariffs to imports or subsidies to exports. Governments may also restrict free trade to limit exports of natural resources. Other barriers that may hinder trade include import quotas, taxes, and non-tariff barriers, such as regulatory legislation."

This paragraph should clarify that free trade is an ideal or aspiration. Free Trade Agreements typically allow some restriction on imports with most goods being free between the partners. Multilateral trade agreements allow restrictions everywhere but bound by agreements with partners to reciprocally lower tariffs and reduce other nontariff barriers to trade.

The article that follows is a horrible mashup that can only confuse readers. Many bits are more or less OK on their own but distract from what should be the main line of instruction. The section headed Economic Models starts with a first paragraph that promises 2 important pieces of economic analysis. The next two paragraphs are totally off the line of instruction of the first paragraph and should be deleted. Then we begin the analysis taking the second piece of analysis first. That is OK but the first paragraph should reverse the order to be consistent with the remainder of the text. The section headed "Disadvantages of Tariffs" should be headed "The Economics of Tariffs". We should then get Ricardo's comparative advantage section, which though promised is never really explained. The "Trade Diversion" section is a distraction at best, should be deleted. Then there is a long set of paragraphs on "Opinions of Economists" and "History". These have a bit of interest but should be in separate essays.


We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.

Dr. Anderson has published scholarly research which seems to be relevant to this Wikipedia article:


  • Reference : James E. Anderson & Yoto V. Yotov, 2011. "Terms of Trade and Global Efficiency Effects of Free Trade Agreements, 1990-2002," Boston College Working Papers in Economics 780, Boston College Department of Economics, revised 11 Oct 2011.

ExpertIdeasBot (talk) 17:57, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Dr. Takeuchi's comment on this article[edit]

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.

ExpertIdeasBot (talk) 20:38, 1 July 2016 (UTC)