Talk:International trade

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

See Also section, purpose[edit]

I disagree with the recent elimination of the link, here, to the Bhagwati article. The reason given was,

"See also - This person is not relevant enough for this list, perhaps a list of thinkers or academics in the areas of trade would be a better category."

But that is the purpose of See Also, as I understand it: to suggest other paths a user might pursue, to broaden & deepen. The int trade article as it stands now is very good, but it is very limited: limited to people who both enjoy and are able to read generalities. It appeals mostly, I would guess, to people who already know a great deal about the economics of international trade.

The int trade subject covers more than just economics, though. It is a major political and social and cultural talking-point in all conversations now -- daily headlines, newsbites, etc. -- concerned very little with, and perhaps innocent of, economics. A Wikipedia user coming in from that non-econ perspective finds little of use in the current article, I think: references to "the Heckscher-Ohlin model" won't satisfy someone wildly excited about "outsourcing & offshoring & Enron & China", etc.

I don't think it's sufficient simply to drive people away from "international trade", and toward other less-academic sources which they might find here about their particular interest in the subject. I'd rather see a broader discussion, in the article, than currently is presented. At least, however, links to the other angles of the subject ought to be provided: "personalities" very much included, in this... People unfamiliar with international trade economic theory -- and that's most of us -- are able to grasp something unfamiliar, very often, by exploring its history or by seeing it through the eyes of personalities who popularize it. Viz. People Magazine, and television, and Time Magazine, and SciAm, and yes Wikipedia...

So let us have a list of "people who do international trade", and/or links to them, on this int trade page: Jagdish Bhagwati, certainly, and Amartya Sen and Stiglitz -- but also some non-economists -- Soros... If this article doesn't satisfy the average Wikipedia reader then no one will read it: and "the Heckscher-Ohlin model" doesn't satisfy -- dry as toast, that one.

My 25¢...ℚℚℚℚℚℚℚℚℚℚℚ--Kessler 00:59, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

This article is awful and could use vast expansion, with overviews of the highlights of its subsidiary articles like History of international trade.
That said, no, "Bhagwati" (any of them) is utterly unNOTABLE and mention of him on this major overview page would be ludicrously wp:biased and wp:undue, pending the creation of an overview of scholarly treatment of trade. Even there, he seems like a very minor figure in an overview that would dwell on major figures such as Adam Smith, Karl Marx, and Maynard Keynes. He certainly doesn't belong in the #See also here. — LlywelynII 20:46, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

heckscher ohlin section seems to be messed up.[edit]

Please take a look, especially if anyone knows how to fix it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.167.164.180 (talk) 00:46, 15 April 2014 (UTC)