Talk:Free trade debate

message: This article, when I googled it, revealed that it had been copied from somewhere.  But it was so many sites, and a couple were from wikipedia, so I wasn't sure if parts were copy-vios, or whether it was redundant info.  REgardless, these issues should probably be addressed.--Esprit15d 20:15, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This page is a moved part of the free trade topic, as it became too long (about 50kb) on that page. Mjolnir1984 20:24, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: 2005 Comments

message: The article fails to acknowledge the controversy surrounding the use of the term "free trade" to describe NAFTA, CAFTA, GAT and similar trade agreements. Some economists such as Dean Baker of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, argue that these agreements are actually special interest trade agreements, which favor protectionism in some areas while opposing it in other areas. I know that the main article entitled "free trade" has a one sentence recognition of this point, but it them refers readers to this article. How about a section dealing with this portion of the controversy? Kmorford 19:37, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New section needed for article

message: The article does not present moral arguments against free trade, while it presents arguments in favor of same.
128.151.161.49 Iain Marcuson
: Don't know why, but morality seems to be integrated into arguments against free trade. Though I might be wrong. 128.195.178.119 18:50, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Moral Arguments Against Free Trade

message: "Free trade is supposed to "level the playing field" for all producers, but it assumes there is equality of some sort between nations in terms of their land, labourand capital."
This needs a source, or perhaps it should be removed. I think it's debatable that "free trade is supposed to level the playing field." And the requirement of equality seems very dubious. How, exactly, is the playing field not level if land, labor and capital are unequal? In terms of relative political power? In terms of the distribution of the benefits of trade? What would this mean for, say, trade between the US and Japan, where there is clearly not parity in terms of land? So I see two problems with this statement: it lacks a source, and it is far too vague. Jbelleisle 01:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Dubious statement

message: How did practically everything of substance in this article get deleted?  I reverted to an initial version that actually said something. Mgunn 10:54, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: What happenned to this page?!?!?

message: I cut the "see also" links to economists. Ravi Batra was already linked in the text of the article, so that's no problem. These three aren't mentioned in the article:
*Paul Craig Roberts
*Jerry Mander (OK, maybe not an economist, but anyway...)
*Alan Blinder
Cretog8 (talk) 17:10, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  removed "see also" economists 

message: Regarding the McDonalds-war bit, and this edit, it seems like that's a critique which (instead of coming from you) could come from a cited reference.Cretog8 (talk) 16:48, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I looked it up, it really comes from Friedman's book.  However, there is no mention of 122 countries with McDonald's franchise as far as I could see. -- Vision  Thing -- 11:17, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Good enough, thanks. I got rid of the 122, since it doesn't match List_of_countries_with_McDonalds_franchises. Cretog8 (talk) 12:02, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  McDonalds critique 

message: I noticed that there's no citation for the fact that the vast majority of economists (99%) agree that the complete abolition of tariffs, subsidies and quotas would be beneficial. Could someone please add this: http://ideas.repec.org/p/hhs/sofiwp/2006_006.html
It's a link to a paper by Daniel Klein and Charlotta Stern where they survey the American Economic Association (the world's premier professional economics association). This is the working paper version but another version was also published in the peer-reviewed American Journal of Economics and Sociology. Mookrit (talk) 15:17, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Most economists agree Free Trade is good (a citation) 

message: What worries me about this page is that while essentially 99% of all economists are in favour of Free Trade (whether absolute or relative, or progressing toward Free Trade) this page still presents the debate as though it is still contentious. It has been established long ago that Free Trade is beneficial, and yet we still pretend to be politically "correct" and have almost the same amount of content for both sides. 
Come on. Facts over political correctness please - if economics students come to this page and after an hour of reading this page they still have to ask their teachers whether Free Trade is beneficial, then this page is really not serving its purpose. I know that it was already said "Almost all economists are in favour of Free Trade", but the sheer number of arguments against it could put some doubts in readers. I suggest that the benefits of Free Trade be emphasized and made explicit rather than implicit.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.238.88.119 (talk) 11:56, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  What worries me 

message: I don't understand why there is not a comprehensive section on free trade's role in dumping. 
Transnational corporations have major sway over prices in regards to agriculture, they have economies of scale on their side and so they overproduce and reduce world commodity prices to next to nothing.  With loans and promises of access to foreign markets, the World Bank, IMF, etc. grant to developing countries.  In return the developing countries grant unrestricted access (removal of tariffs, quotas, etc.) to its markets and must import foreign goods.   However developed nations massively subsidize (and guarantee floor prices for domestics) their agricultural and manufacturing industries particularily TNCs, which encourage overproduction which then leads to lower world prices.  So when these cheap goods flood the developing nations, the local industries cannot compete price-wise and are forced into poverty or leaving farming.  
And those developing farmers are forced to export their crops, of course there is little help from their governments (who dont have the subsidizing power that the USA or Europe has), and they sell at the world prices.  Again they lose.
And all we hear in Western media is that China is the only "dumping" culprit. 
^Um... you do realize that agricultural dumping backed by US/EU subsidies is NOT FREE TRADE? Subsidies are actually a protectionist tool. Hence dumping is not a downside of free trade, if there was truly free trade, dumping would not exist. Go and bother the US Govt and their lobbyists for it.
source:  The Rise and Predictable Fall of Globalized Industrial Agriculture.  By Debbie Barker.  Publisher:  The International Forum on Globalization.  (a excellent article that you can find online that offers overview of issues and possible solutions; i just scratched the surface in my summary)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rabbithair (talk • contribs) 01:32, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  What about free trade and dumping's impacts on developing nations?? 

message: "The academic debate among economists is currently settled in favor of free trade, with a consensus having existed since at least the 1960s, based on theories dating to the 18th century."
This paragraph has for reference Milton Friedman, a staunch free trade enthusiast. I bet if we used Paul Krugman as a reference, he'd say the opposite. If no one objects, I'll remove this biased statement. Pikolas (talk) 16:37, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead paragraph POV 

message: For example under 'Increasing commerce makes war less likely' 
"Political resources being a function of wealth, the result is that states within the liberal system, are greatly in influenced by wealthy, and political able actors to not screw anything up with a way. I would take care in attempting to apply the economics of the past to fit the phenomena we have now as a result of information technology. There are few countries that can claim self-sufficiency."
146.115.129.15 (talk) 00:44, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewrite needed 

message: those graphs are terrible because they have indifference curves with positive slopes in parts. indifference curves CAN NEVER have positively sloping parts! 
196.210.195.53 (talk) 23:11, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  indifference curve graphs invalid 

message: This section was deleted on the grounds that it cited someone who a) doesn't have a PhD in economics and b) doesn't publish economic research.
Contention b) is simply false: Google "ian fletcher" "real world economics review" or check in Google Scholar citations. 
Contention a) is irrelevant.  Are only political scientists permitted to express opinions about politics?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ianfletcher (talk • contribs) 21:23, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion of Section on Dubious Assumptions of Free-Trade Economic Theory