Talk:Free trade debate

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)

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)

New section needed for article

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)

Moral Arguments Against Free Trade

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)

WTF happened to this page?

I was just here yesterday and now it's totally different...no arguments against Free Trade, which totally sucks given that I have to do a debate on this tomorrow morning...

Someone PLEASE fix this!

Indeed. It has been completely changed. I don't know if the "citation police" did it, or lobbyists.

Dubious statement

"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)

What happenned to this page?!?!?

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)

Thanks! That's better.

hmm...

the article seemed somewhat one sided. Numerous sources for free-trade, not as many against. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.189.197.188 (talk) 13:47, 19 December 2006 (UTC).

One of the biggest criticisms of free trade is that the term itself is biased and trade practises always favor one or more groups over others. This article clouds the differences between free trade theory and trade practices, none of which are "free" of governmental or corporate influence. The introductory paragragh has economists "settled" on free trade, even though there really is no such thing in practice. Very dubious. 66.57.225.77 06:27, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

trade practises always favor one or more groups over others

Completely incorrect. Both partners making the trade obviously benefit, and economic theory shows that the monetary gains to the people making the trade is larger than losses of those sidelined by the trade. See free trade.Mgunn 08:16, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, it is a fact that almost all economists believe free trade is beneficial. There are a few slam dunk cases in economics, and this is one of them. Political opposition to free trade comes from the fact that many people benefit a little from free trade, while free trade can hurt a very small few quite a lot. Imagine free trade makes 1000 consumers $1 richer but makes one sock producer $200 poorer. The 1000 consumers aren't going to get mobilized over a $1 benefit, but the sock producer will phone his congressman because free trade is losing him $200.... however the net effect is a positive $800. Also, if you aggregate imports of socks, shoes, vcrs, cars, microwaves, fruit, exports of medical equipment, software, computers, financial services, media, etc... the positive effects across the whole economy are huge. Mgunn 08:20, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

suggestion for this article

Instead of splitting into criticism and support, which is kind of divisive and not as informative, why not divide the article by issues and within each issue raise the arguments made by various people. Surely there's not just two opinions on the issue, and surely the many opinions that exist can be discussed on their merits alongside each other.--Urthogie 06:01, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

An interesting idea that I think could work, but I think there are a few main objections:

(1) It would be a tremendous amount of work (and I don't think this article has active editors).

(2) Issue based stuff on wikipedia can end up with a back and forth between different viewpoints that ends up in a jumbled mess. At least with pro & con, each side gets to present its own logical argument without constant interruption.

Just my thoughts! Mgunn 06:44, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

As for number 1, I think if we mapped it out on the talk page or even on a subpage in advance it would be easier to plan. As for number 2, abortion debate is a good example of where this is done right. They key to avoiding a back and forth dialectic is to continuously split elements of a given issue as the arguments get more complex. I think it's achievable and abortion debate did it quite well.--Urthogie 07:17, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

can someone put on the opposing side a paragraph discussing free trade's affect on immigration.

removed "see also" economists

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)

McDonalds critique

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)

That McDonald's thing has been uncited for a long time. I gather it comes from Thomas Friedman's book, The Lexus and the Olive Tree. I don't have the book, can someone look it up and reference it, and clarify which part comes from Friedman and which parts are post-Friedman? For that matter, the notion is all over WP: Golden arches theory, Golden arches theory. And it looks as though it's way more rhetorical than real, in which case it might well not belong in this article. Cretog8 (talk) 04:01, 2 July 2008 (UTC)