Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by HonourableSchoolboy (talk | contribs) at 04:30, 24 January 2007 (→NPOV Part 2 (RfC)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Free trade is a far more important core term than international trade

International trade is about all types of trade between countries. Free trade is about allowing buyers and sellers to negotiate without government interference in the price arrived at. To combine articles so that free trade is nothing but a sub-part of international trade would be a huge disservice to people studying economics using wikipedia articles, because free trade is a much bigger and more focused term within the field. (field of what? Rusl)

Combining them the other way does not make much sense, either. Having an article about free trade with a big section about international trade in general would be nonsensical because international trade includes such ideas as protectionism, government regulation and reporting, economic forecasting, ambassadorship, and all kinds of other regulations that are not mere opposites of free trade. Here are some (editable) suggestions about what makes up each topic:

Some ideas do belong in both articles, such as protectionism, anti-protectionism, free market price, tariffs, treaties, and free-trade alliances. The way I suggest that is handled is as in any other encyclopedic article, by focusing each article, and mentioning the ideas only the level necessary for that topic (referring the articles to each other where necessary). Other ideas, such as some mentioned above, belong more fittingly in only one of the two articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.162.103.106 (talk • contribs) 09:20, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I second the above. --Northmeister 17:43, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm Tamfang and I approve this message. —Tamfang 17:43, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

How far would one go?

How far would one go to define something as a barrier against free trade? I am thinking about non-tariff regulations. Inside the EU many argue that any concern for the environment can be considered as trade barrier and thus should have lower priority than (free) trade. Does this imply that free trade means trade without responsibility or trade with freedom from responsibility?

The discussion of supply demand price curves does not add up if one consider a concientiuos (how do I spell that?) consumer that are willing to look not only on the price tag but also look for added values such as a fair trade label and/or a ecolabel, does it? In this context the added value does not necessarily lie in the quality of the commodity.

If free trade means freedom from responsibility (of the trader) I can not see why any democratic state would want to promote free trade. After all, that would imply the abandonment of human rights etc etc.

It is stated that isolationism will lead to lower rate of economic growth. You forgot lack of competition. I know no reason why anyone would doubt that but please add a reference or at least an example. It would make a stronger point. I think the history of steel industry in the US would be a good example but I am not well versed in the details.

When and if there is race to the bottom it is not caused by the companies that move their business but rather the national legislation that is lowered or already low compared to the "original" country. Or?

//Bedrupsbaneman

There are many cases involving so-called sanitary and phytosanitary regulations that have gone to negotiation and dispute-resolution within the W.T.O. These regulations are said to be "trade-neutral" if they're based upon sound science. How "sound" is defined is often left up to an obscure organization known as the codex alimentarius, headquartered in Rome. Their recommendations have often been used in dispute tribunals at the W.T.O. Sometimes, though, these tribunals are forced to go out on a limb and issue reports on a case-by-case basis. This occurred in the French asbestos case in which a Canadian manufacturer of asbestos argued against the French import ban. The dispute was resolved in Canada's favor, but was overturned on appeal after an E.U.-wide spasm of outrage. So, sound science still has political overtones. Economists in perfectly-competitive models as presented here assume that consumers are sovereign agents. They are only interested in the commodity and its ability to provide utility; they're not interested in that commodity's particular supply chain. I'm not familiar with models that sufficiently relax this assumption. There are many free-traders, like myself, who argue that it's one of greatest liberators of mankind ever witnessed in our shared history. Why? Because it liberates the abjectly poor from the ultimate form of human rights abuse and that is poverty. Look only to China and India today. Since economic reforms began (1978 in China and 1991 in India) hundreds of millions of peasants have been provided opportunities to improve their lot and join the global economy. I don't think the steel industry would be a good example simply because the loss of employment there has been more a consequence of automation than offshoring of production. Indeed, steel output has grown over the last several decades. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.209.131.44 (talk • contribs) 19:20, 20 June 2005 (UTC)

Effects on wages

I think there needs to be a discussion of free trade's affects on wages throughout the world. --Muhgcee 09:03, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

A clarification

"The 19th century anti-patent cause failed largely because the recession of 1874 discredited the free trade movement"

Should this be taken out? I don't think this gives a NPOV because free trade is hardly "discredited", it's well accepted among many economists. It might be possible this person is confusing free trade with classical or laissez faire economics, but that's not the same as free trade.--User:Damnedkingdom

But was it discredited at the time? That's what the article suggests. Evercat 20:48 27 May 2003 (UTC)

To be honest I can't tell if it's meant in the temporary or permanent sense. --Damnedkingdom

I've been bold and clarified it. :-) Evercat 20:57 27 May 2003 (UTC)

Yeah, I think that is correct. The impression I got from Machlup & Penroses' article is that, during the 1870s, free trade advocates who had previously held positions of influence were discredited in much the same way that investment bankers were discredited in the 1930s. One can have a POV argument about whether this was deserved :)

Oh, btw, I'm not sure if it's completely correct to place anti-WTO protestors at the opposite end of a "free trade" dichotomy. Most of these protests are not anti "globalisation" --- some of them are anti capitalist, some of them argue for "fair trade" (I'm not sure if those overlap :).

As the IP section of the article explains, the WTO is about enforcing all sorts of rules which are not necessarily about freeing up trade. Many critics of the contemporary "free trade" movement emphasise that despite the Uruguay round, Europe and the US still have closed agricultural markets. Thus "fair trade" is not necessarily very different from (Platonic) free trade -- Pde 23:46 27 May 2003 (UTC)

Good job Evercat I like the change. --Damnedkingdom

Removed list

Any comprehensive list of opponents and proponents of free trade would be huge (the current list only includes US examples). Such a list also doesn't take into account the variety of views out there (I don't think anyone is completely, 100% pro- or anti-free trade) - so any such lable would be subjective and NPOV on our part.

Long story short, I deleted the list. If someone has a better idea by all means bring it back (maybe a list of groups taking a strong position on free trade). -- stewacide 05:28, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)

What about agricultural policy and agricultural subsidies?

For latin american and african countries, this is the biggest issue in the free trade.

I barely see the word agricultural.

The topic 'agricultural subsidies' is included as an issue in the topic fair trade.

But even in that topic, the fact that agricultural subsidies create an unfair competition is not mentioned.

I hope you like my contributions PedroPerez 06:46, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Will someone check out "history of free trade"?

There is an article there that is almost a stub... doesn't make much sense. Maybe someone should merge or connect it with the much better history in this free trade article

• Given the time this merge has been suggested (appears to have gone up on the article to be merged in on Nov 5th 2005 without objection, I will perform the merge now. The reason the source article existed seems to be that it did have a lot more content (a chronology of free trade), but this has been absorbed into the more general History of international trade. Nige 14:15, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I have recently been reading Henry Mayhew's London Labour and the London Poor. Was it common in the 1840s and 1850s for "Free Trade" to be also seen as free within a country? He was the founder of a number of journals and he felt free to reprint other people's work and yet he deplored the effects of a free labour economy writing about the ensuing poverty.DonBarton 11:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Article seriously needs to be reworked

I know it is difficult to work several hundred pages of an economic textbook into an article, but this one has quite a few fundamental flaws. The "Argument for Free Trade" section is basically wholly incorrect. It is in fact the argument against tariffs, but does not recognise that tariffs can be selectively used to result in a net transfer of wealth *into* the country. The arguments presented against free trade are all specious, simplistic arguments that have long been refuted and are not even remotely NPOV.

Actually, I read the rest of the article and it is essentially a ridiculously biased exponent for the "case against free trade". I'm not getting into a wikipedia pissing match with some biased pundits, but I suggest the author, who references Paul Krugman himself, actually read some of Krugman's textbooks. The author will note, after having done so, that most of the so-called "arguments against free trade" are addressed deep into "International Economics" (6th Ed), on page 23, under the heading "Misconceptions About Comparative Advantage"

sigh

• • re-work is now in progress. I rearranged the content into more coherent sections (splitting arguments for/against into their own sections... moving content about applicability of theory in modern world to its own section, etc. Will do more work later on. Also tried to wiki link more of the terms. Feco 02:53, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

did some more work on it. If anyone can provide help on the graphics (look at the article and you'll know what I mean, please let me know on my talk page. I'll gladly send you the original Excel file used to generate the graphs. Feco 06:49, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

ix-nay on the request for graph help. The ugly, first-draft graphs have been banished. Hopefully the new ones are prettier. Feco 18:11, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

-- The fact that most common arguments for or against Free Trade are specious & ideological doesn't mean that they aren't important. I'm not sure if this is why the "article seriously needs to be reworked", but I think it has to be better organized, because there are many points that should be covered. (Even if those points have been refuted in Krugman's excellent books, few agree with the academic approach to economics - as he ruefully discusses.) Anyway, I've tried to organize the arguments against free trade into sub-sections, but there was one part I couldn't really save:

" In this view it is unfair to greatly disrupt a smaller set of individuals in order to provide small benefits to a larger set (in the form of cheaper goods and services). Free trade may optimize the total benefits, but may cause heavy suffering for those at the "ends" of the curve. One illustrative analogy is giving 99 non-starving people extra bread but chopping off the leg of one person to compensate for the extra bread. Economists allegedly are down-playing the suffering by using a "flat" scale rather than one that prevents extremes. A psychological case can perhaps be made to weigh extremes heavier in terms of "social impact" because extreme changes impact a person's psychology more than subtler changes. For example, a small "pop" may merely cause one to look around, but a large "bang" can trigger heart-attacks, anxiety disorders, etc."

I mentioned Welfare economics but its hard to keep a NPOV tone if you compare trade to involuntary amputation or surprise heart attacks, so I've not included this in the re-organization of this section. Any thoughts?

The main thing is; we musn't ignore simplistic, refuted arguments, because they are:

• Noteworthy.
• Commonly believed.
• Entertaining to mock.

By the way, why didn't the original poster change the main page (with annotations explaining the mainstream point of view) rather than add comments here? Aren't we supposed to change the article? Is it preferable to make Talk Page criticisms? I think that Feco's re-organization is proceeding on the right lines, would it be better to leave it to him?

Wragge 13:28, 2005 Apr 28 (UTC)

The article is definitely making progress. Per wiki's "Be Bold", I tried to re-organize the content without removing anything. In general, if you see a clear problem with the article, make the change if it's likely to be uncontroversial. The TALK page is more to address revert conflicts and content decisions. Be bold (and then wait for other users to validate your boldness). I made changes like splitting the for/against arguments into their own sections... fairly obvious stuff. From there, Wragge has done a lot of work flushing out sections of the article. I'm sure it's only a matter of time before someone flags NPOV because the pro arguments have grown much larger than the anti arguments. This condition is not NPOV! If you think the article is weak in the anti perspective, add things (within the usual wiki guidelines). Feco 18:11, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I split up the criticisms section into economic and sociopolitical criticisms; I think that this reflects the divide in arguments against free trade. I also added a number of sociopolitical arguments against free trade, though I think that a similar section for sociopolitical arguments in favor of free trade should be added. I might get on that when I have time. Adam Faanes 06:24, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

I think Adam's subdivision into economic/sociopolitical arguments is a step forward, but when I open this page all I see is a massive Table Of Contents (mostly my fault, but it doesn't make the page very welcoming). This is such a big topic it almost has to be split across multiple articles, doesn't it? Questions:

1. How big should we allow the page to get before splitting it?
2. Maybe the qualitative arguments should be split away from the mathematical or graphical arguments whilst keeping pro and anti free trade together?
3. If we create an "Arguments against free trade" definition article, can this still be NPOV if: (a) it isn't on the main "free trade" page, and/or (b) it contains counter-arguments?
4. Should we separate those arguments confined to academic "economic" circles from the points made in popular debate?
5. Regarding Feco's point about equal space to arguments for and against, does a diagram count as 1000 words? What is the best metric for balance in an article?

My Rhetorical answers:

1. This page should be attractive as welll as rigorous, that means it needs more 'generic' pictures of markets and tankers and mono-cultured agriculture which will draw in the eye, and be a readable size - recommended by Misplaced Pages as 32Kb, I believe. That size seems about right to me, so there is already far too much text here.
2. I think there should be a Ricardian argument for Free Trade page with the history of David Ricardo's development of the concept, the prevailing views at the time, the impact of the theory, and then the graphs, equations, and possibly some responses. I don't think that the lay (non-economist) reader will want to scan through graphs or equations even of the simplest kind, even though they might be interested enough to reach this page.
3. I don't think we should break down the page into "pro" and "anti" positions, that doesn't seem a very natural grouping to me. I think it would be better to split it into "historical arguments", "technical arguments", "political arguments", and maybe even "specious arguments".
4. Yes.
5. I think accurate reportage is a better measure of balance than the amount of space given to a particular position. What are the main points of the various arguments? How many people are for and against them? Who, and why?

Wragge 10:00, 2005 May 6 (UTC)

re #2 above... there's somewhat of an overview at Comparative advantage... the more detailed analysis I'm working on is much more technical. Does Comparative advantage sort of fit what you're looking for? Feco 20:08, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Yes - the comparative advantage Northland trading with Southland example covers the Ricardian sheme, infact I made some minor edits to this page earlier today. I have thought a bit more about this; I think my main point is that we don't have enough space to give a textbook demonstration of each point in a single article. That probably means that anything single argument taking more than a couple of pages needs its own article, doesn't it? Wragge 20:43, 2005 May 6 (UTC) My opinion: Comparative advantage is a good article, but probably shouldn't be overburdened with the discussions from this page (Free trade).

I think the article is more or less sound. The graphical analysis related to "why tariffs are bad" needs to be tightened up. This is elementary trade theory - the kind undergraduates are forced to learn and then forget. Most tariffs permit imports of some quantity or another, so include them in the core of your analysis. Since quotas are so important in trade policy today, you need to discuss tariffication of them and other related issues. By the way, your indifference curves aren't convex to the origin. With the same consumption of one good, the consumer is indifferent between the consumption of two quantities of the other good. Yeah, these are technical issues, but the analysis is simpler with them than without them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.209.131.44 (talk • contribs) 22:44, 20 June 2005 (UTC)

This page needs a serious editing job. It is way too long. Focus on basic theory, some empirical data, and basic arguments for and against. There are many satellite internal links to flesh out the details. Remember: a student not knowing anything at all about free trade doesn't need all the angles, just those that are most important - the pillars of a basic understanding of free trade. Myself, I'd cut about half the material and then insert another sixth or so (Overall cut: one-third or so). That would be far less intimidating. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FLetch (talk • contribs) 22:27, 23 June 2005 (UTC)

None of you seem to know what free trade IS, free trade WOULD mean no subsidies or trade barriers from the developing world. It's not free trade thats the enemy here it's unbalanced one way unfair trade. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.70.239.172 (talk • contribs) 06:41, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

From Peter Johnson (05:46, 9 November 2005 (UTC)) Regarding the criticisms above about the article becoming too long: What use is Misplaced Pages as an encyclopedia if the articles aren’t... well... encyclopedic (comprehensive)?

Removed paragraph

I removed most of this paragraph:

Developed nations sometimes demand that developing nations open their markets to agricultural goods, but then refuse to open their own markets to developing nations. Some argue also that trade barriers such as quotas and agricultural subsidies prevent farmers in developing nations from competing in local and global markets. Free trade supports the movement of goods and capital, not labor. This offers more freedom to people in developed countries than developing nations. Developed nations own more corporations and buy more imports. Often the only asset of the poor is their labor, which they are unable to trade. See Immigration.

The first sentence is irrelevant: it deals with negotiations concerning agricultural subsidies, not with a condition of free trade. "Free trade supports the movement of goods and capital, not labor" is misleading: as "free trade is normally used", it has nothing to do with labour movement one way or the other. "This offers more freedom to people in developed countries than developing nations" is opinion and it doesn't make a lot of sense; free trade gives both parties the freedom to exchange goods with each other. "Often the only asset of the poor is their labor, which they are unable to trade" ... huh? Is the author here assuming a country with no labour markets? - Nat Krause 18:12, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

trade near the zambize river

Infection point

It writes: "The first two images above assume a state of autarky, which means no trade occurs between the two countries. If free trade is possible, the green line is the production possibilities frontier for the entire world. The world PPF is made up by combining the two countries' PPFs. Linear PPFs will always combine to form a shape with an inflection point, as shown at right."

According to my background in maths, that's not an inflection point. Can somebody check it?

PATT. --PBS27

The paragraph isnt quite clear in its wording, but equilibrium in this economy doen not occur at an inflection point, as per the definition of the term. The social indifference curve with trade will touch the outer point of the green PPF (as this would yield maximum utility for the economy), but it is not possible to calculate this point with calculus as it is not a point of tangency (and thus not an inflection point), but it is the point of equilibrium... and such equilibriums are usually assosiated with inflection points. Updating the picture, incorporating the worlds indifference curves with trade, would be good as it will show how this curve yields greater utility than the worlds indifference curve under auturky. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ] (] • ])

As I understand it, an inflection point is where the curvature changes sign: a zero in the second derivative. The distinctive point in the graph shown is an extreme in the second derivative (sometimes called an elbow?), which would be a zero in the third derivative if the curve were smoother. —Tamfang 18:25, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I also have one more point. Refering to the two pictures below:

In these two pictures we see a couple of indifference curves that are incorrectly shaped. Such curves break the assumptions of the model and need to be fixed. The curves need to be shaped like those in the picture below:

I am computer illiterate and have tried to fix the problems, but cant get a set of curves to look so neat. Someone elses help would be appreciated.

Dupz 14:35, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Thx for the reply. Why are they(the indifference curves) incorrectly shaped Dupz?

--PBS27 21:13, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Sorry I've taken so long PBS27, but I have finally found time to give you an answer. The problem with these curves is that they show that a person is indifferent between having 5 rice, and 4 meat, or 5 rice and 6 meat. This goes against the assumption of "non-satiation" or that "more is better than less". As you'd see if we increase consumption of meat beyond 6 we see that this would fall on an indifference curve that is less than the present one. Again, it would be incorrect to assume that having more of a good thing would make you worse off.

Dupz 09:18, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Thx Dupz. You are right with "non-satiation". However, I believe this assumption can be relaxed. We can plot an indifference curve for a person that does not follow this assumption. I was looking for a support of this idea and I found this Talk:Indifference_curve#67.42.28.222.27s_Assumptions. Maybe you can take a look.

The definition says: indifference curve represents combinations of two goods to which an economic agent is indifferent. IMHO: when creating models economist often add the "non-satiation" principle to make the analysis straightforward.

As a bottom line, I agree that it's more appropriate to use the traditional shape in this article, as you have suggested. :-)

--PBS27 12:22, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, please correct the graphs. Thanks, --Niku 00:17, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Some explaination please.

"Obfuscation of corporate accounts (possibly legal)"

Why is it "possibly legal"? Could anyone explain?

Shushinla 17:34, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Anti-Arguments seem either wrong or demagogic

Full Disclosure: I am libertarian. "If food is purchased from the local farm it requires very little energy and possible no fuel to transport to the table. Delivering food produced on the other side of the world to a supermarket has an environmental impact because it requires a heavier use of fossil fuel in delivery from overseas. The organic food movement claims that there are other downsides to the globalization of the food market (for instance, that preserved food has an inferior taste)."

That is not true if the "local" farm is less productive. The local farm will then use MORE resources, whether its chemical fertilizer, or labor, which is a function of consuming other commodities or whatever. It's not so clear that one way is more pro environment than the other, though I would think that higher productivity yields less energy consumption, and so free trade actually makes better use of resources. Also, the inferior taste criticism is completely fallacious. If consumers want superior food, they will pay for it, and thus a market will meet that demand. Environmentalists' arguments only make sense when they think that basically "we dont want people to get richer, because that means they consume more. Yes, we want people to live destitute lives so that the rainforest remains pristine." Of course, they will rarely say that explicitly, but imply it in such notions as the innate value of nature separate from humans.

--BULL. Productive at what? Product? Math? Factory output? Productivity is always used by economists along with the word "efficiency." LIARS! What do you mean efficient? Productivity is meaningless without an object to act upon or an agreed upon goal. Efficient to what end? Money? What is that? Nothing but abstract power quantified... Therefore: Politics. The Lie is this: Use of a Math term, a Logic Term, to denote a political ideology.

You are ASSUMING an endgoal that you are hiding. You assume I won't agree with your endgoal thus you hide it by saying "productive" or "efficient". War is efficient dotcha know, it kills. Also it is efficient at spreading poverty and raising the birth rate. Lots of life. Lots of new technology. I don't agree with your goals. I don't like these words toyed around in these cliche arguments that tell me you know better because you use logic and I don't because you have a math to your... murder? War is OK in your efficiency and I call that killing, deliberate.

So lets not mince words of nonsense. You know little about farming. Local farming DOES use less energy, a lot less. That is actually LESS productive. Remember!? The formula of the economists is that money exchange = good, even if it is trading guns, even if it is poison or genocide . So when I burn less gas and less pollution on my local farm I am BAD for the economy because I am not spending MORE. That is all. Economics is dead easy to understand. The statistical math is complex but the underLYING principles are dead easy, so easy they are frequently hidden because the politics is reprehensible. Superior products in terms of price? In terms of wholesomeness? Organic foods are more productive only because they cost more. Seriously.

-Cheers

Full Disclosure, I'm a Libertarian Socialist, or maybe a trickster. I speak with passion but don't fear me, I am never serious because seriousness isn't serious enough for life and death. Rusl

"Free trade favors developed nations Some argue also that trade barriers such as quotas and agricultural subsidies prevent farmers in developing nations from competing in local and global markets." This is not so much an issue of free trade but nefarious government intervention. This criticism is also totally fallacious. Said trade barriers are a lack of, not an excess of, free trade. This clause amounts to a defense of free trade.

Also, the "race to the bottom" argument assumes that A)labour and environmental protections are inherently good B)The more restrictive the better. Many would argue that enforcement of contract and simple common laws like contract at will are the only necessary labour laws, and anything more is destructive. See Germany, and generally Europe's, stagnation. Those stringent labour and environmental laws have made them mighty prosperous. But the point is that there IS an argument, and that you cannot treat the assumptions as true, whether they are or not. Also, globally harmonized wages would utterly destroy developing countries. Developed countries workers are more productive, and so, if one must employ developed or developing workers at the same rate, then the rational choice is workers from the developed countries. Poor countries could not then utilize their comparative advantage, their lower wage rates. It is like an employer's choice to hire an experienced or inexperienced worker. The former may be more productive, but the latter requires less wages, so an employer must choose. Those arguing for "harmony" are doing so out of self interest. Union members in developed countries come to mind.

Much of the argument is dressed up as criticism of free trade but really is critical of the market economy system. I refer to the "Free trade causes dislocation and pain" argument. Yes, there is "creative destruction." But there is in any market economy, where production is decided by consumers and not the state. A sudden increase in popularity in bookshelves may thrust others into working as artisans. Besides, this function is essential to maintaining and enhancing productivity. The oft quoted example is the fact that the vast majority of Americans were farmers, and now only 2%, and yet our capacity has increased tremendously. No rational person would argue that the country should have kept the vast majority of citizens as farmers.

I have not finished. But most or all of the arguments posited are just what antiglobalizers parrot. No effort was made to verify or falsify these claims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.106.110.148 (talk • contribs) 21:42, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Edit: Yes, the claims should be kept up. But Wikipedians, with consensus approval, should write whether they are valid concerns or not. I think that the topics I addressed are misleading or invalid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.106.110.148 (talk • contribs) 21:54, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

I think a lot of these anti-free trade arguments might be more convincing to pro-free traders if they were put into the market failure terms that economists use, like asymmetric information, externalities, or imperfect competition, which are mathematically defensible. Contenders on free trade arguments tend to shout past each other in the language they use. But you're right - the basic argument of free trade, comparative advantage, is nothing but the optimism that people always do what's in their interest anyway, which is just as essential to laissez-faire capitalism, so criticisms of free trade are basically arguments against laissez-faire capitalism and its universal optimism about the consequences of free choice. If you think that markets are perfectly competitive, then there aren't many reasons left to oppose free trade. Adam Faanes 10:33, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Clean-up?

Wouldn't it be better to move the arguments sections to a new page (Free Trade Controversy or Free Trade Debate) and expand/create on the same time "history of free trade", "free trade in theory" (the theory of free trade), and "(free) trade in reality" (for instance the free trade in industrial products, but not in the agricultural products, the real free trade agreements and zones, the role of the WTO and the IMF, etc.). Mjolnir1984 11:24, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Meaning of externality

In the section "Free trade causes dislocation and pain" the following two sentences appeared: "Problems associated with economic adaptation are generally not factored into the calculation of free trades' effects. In economist's jargon these issues are externalities." I deleted the 2nd sentence. The reason is that in economics, an externality means a side-effect ignored by somebody in the market because it does not affect them directly (e.g. somebody might pollute, hurting other people but not themselves, if polluting is the cheapest way to dispose of their waste and they don’t face any legal consequences). Externality does not mean something ignored by an economist. As written, the deleted sentence wrongly implied that an externality is to an economist as collateral damage is to a general. It is possible for an economist to take into consideration factors such as "problems associated with economic adaptation", and some economists do, although such factors may be difficult to quantify. If on the other hand a wiki editor does want to allege that economists tend to ignore such hard-to-measure social effects, they can go ahead and do so and cite sources, but should avoid confusion over the meaning of externality. --Niku 00:36, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

External links

I can understand the need to have links balancing both arguments, but that is not justification for having the excessive number of external links that there are now. Misplaced Pages is not a repository for links, and everyone linked to has their own article, or should have one. If someone wants to convert them to internal links - great, otherwise I will go through them with a blunt rake. Please see WP:EL for guidance. Thanks. -- Linkspamremover 08:45, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

What in the world?

What is this nonsense?

"The major controversy about free trade arises from the fact that the primary discussions have little to do with freedom or trade, but rather who gets to control who wins and who loses. Thus, rather than being an objective discussion about how to make trade truly free, the discussion devolves into a political war of words with each government entity, non governmental organization and special interest group trying to get the upper hand.

Some people believe the term free trade is a prejudicial term and so its use is increasingly discouraged. 'Free' is a strong, effective word. The evidence is all around: all the shopping centres; example: 'buy one, get one free.' Simple, yet effective enough to be popular with retailers - behaviour and opinion changing, a strong word. 'Free Trade' of course, is the favoured term of those who advocate unregulated trade or deregulated trade and prefer the term 'Free Trade' in the same way retailers offer, 'buy one, get one free'"

I'm fixing it. Salvor Hardin 12:09, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Removed merge tag

Removed the merge tag applied awhile ago, since 'international trade' would cover all forms of trade whether mercantilistic trade systems or imperial trade systems or protectionist trade systems or free trade systems etc. This article is specifically about free trade a different topic. Consensus has not formed to merge it, so I removed the tag. I do propose merging History of international trade here, as it speaks of Free trade history not international trade history. --Northmeister 01:51, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Edits

I included this section, and tidyed up the list. I know youre relatively new here, but its considered incivil to simply revert all changes in whole rather than make edits to particular parts.

In international trade, free trade is an idealised market model wherin trade of goods and services between countries flows unhindered by government-imposed artificial costs. The term is given to economic policies, as well as political parties that support increases in such trade.

-Ste|vertigo 18:36, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

After reconsideration, I now approve of your edits thus far here - wasn't trying to be "incivil" - just making sure that changes are not political or idealogical as 'free trade' material is very much driven by false notions and assumptions of 'truth' - even among economists - without taking into consideration actual history (most ignore the whole history of the USA until 1932) - which is more important. --Northmeister 01:29, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Not seeking to quarrel, but — Most of whom ignore the whole history of the USA until 1932? Lots of people do seem to think everything before Saint FDR was "unbridled capitalism", is that what you mean? —Tamfang 04:30, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Nope. Not in the least. Prior to FDR America generally with limited exceptions embraced the Hamiltonian system of capitalism driven by government policies to encourage: manufacturing growth - agricultural growth - and commercial growth in a "Harmony of Interest" as leading economists spoke of in the 19th century - including Henry C. Carey, Daniel Raymond, Friedrich List among others. Essentially what is forgotten is HOW America became the "Land of Opportunity" and the "Arsenal of Democracy" in the first place. It wasn't socialism and it wasn't idealized free-market capitalism either. Japan and Germany learned this; and copied with slight variance our original system for their modern economies - the German's had a history already under Bismarck - and the Japanese as well to work on. Social Market and Japanese Miracle are rooted in the old American System that was once the envy of the world - the sleeping giant that Japan feared - a national market driven to success by National banking, national infrastructure improvements by government, and a successful tariff policy to both raise revenue and prevent foreign take-over of the economy and thus control thereof. --Northmeister 12:48, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

idealised market

What is an idealized market? Intangible 02:05, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

propaganda and lies

I really have problems with this article. I think that just because a lot of people repeat something doesn't make it right. This article paint a picture of "FREE TRADE" as this kind of neutral economic concept.

However, it is one of the most important propaganda words of our time. Even using the economic criteria many "free trade" agreements are nothing of the sort. This word is used in the public debate and the economics is not really there when it is used, it is not meant to be economics. The economics is used as a way to mystify the public, to pretend the emperor has clothes on.

However the champions of that narrow obsequious cause have taken over writing this article. In the name of being pedantic?

This article violates NPOV heavily by telling only an idealised picture of a word by the proponents who claim to own it.

We the non-economist public have a right to own and define this word differently because we are bludgeoned in the media(s) with this nonsense fuzzy nice sounding term that usually means nothing simple except a clear decrease in freedom. I suppose it rests on a neoliberal defintion of freedom. Freedom of wealth or freedom of people. I think that NPOV and the purpose of wikipedia dictates that we ought to side with freedom of people, how people are impacted. And not this nonsense propaganda about imaginary invisible hands of god freeing the market to help those who help themselves.

I suggest that the format of this be changed. The POV of the economist ideologues should be quarunteened to be it's own subsection and the focus of the rest of the article should be on usuage by everyday people effected by the word.

I think that disparaging references that blame environmentalists and unions as "special interests" should be removed.

Hey, History lesson: "Free Trade" the modern concept is pretty old, like more than a century. And yes it was discredited when people in England starved. Starving masses means your theory is a stupid one. Environmentalism is from the 70s. Protectionism was kind of an obsolete concept in the era when the environment started getting noticed. It's a nice straw man but what is it here in wikipedia 40 years later still? rusl

"shown tendencies"

User:Stevertigo wrote (July 25):

It is opposed by anti-globalization and labour due to shown tendencies for abuse by wealthier states when given an "equal" playing field.

What, no response to that in almost two weeks? For one thing, what does it mean? If the assertion is that states generally favor politically-connected domestic industry in spite of talking a free-trade game, the language could be clearer. If the opposition is grounded in the notion of zero-sum competition, there's a POV problem, which could be reduced with some such phrase as "in the belief that". —Tamfang 23:38, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

This article needs to be more balanced.

What the hell happened to this article?

Looking back at the history, virtually the entire article was deleted in a "minor edit" by Mjolnir1984 on December 16, 2005. Is no one watching this article?!?! I'm tempted to revert the whole article or at least reinstate all previously deleted material. Mgunn 10:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

A bit more snooping by me shows that a bunch of material was moved by Mjolnir into an article on free trade debate, and that someone subsequently wiped everything out of that article. I guess not many unbiased observors are actively watching these articles.Mgunn 10:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete intellectual property and free trade section to "history of free trade" ?

That paragraph is more focussed on IP and less on free trade..... its really quite off topic imho. Is anyone really tied to it? Is anyone going to scream if I delete it? Mgunn 12:23, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete orange farmer analogy?

The little story about the orange farmer is misleading by way of being over-simplified. It would be more useful to use actual historical examples of where a particular sector of the economy either benefitted or suffered due to free trade policies. --HonourableSchoolboy 00:18, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

No, it is not more useful to use examples "of where a particular sector of the economy either benefitted or suffered." Removal of tariffs etc... will, depending on the circumstances (1) do nothing (2) hurt consumers and benefit producers (3) benefit consumers and hurt producers. Economic theory says that in cases (2) and (3), the benefits will outweight the losses. For example, discussing a sugar tariff and just discussing impact on US sugar farmers misses over half the story. What matters is not the effect on particular sectors, but on the whole economy. Mgunn 05:58, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

This is what I mean by over-simplified. You omit other possibilities that would produce (4), hurt consumers and hurt producers. Here's a hypothetical example: an international cartel of sugar traders introduces sugar into the US at far below the US cost of production, producing a temporary benefit to consumers while wiping out domestic producers. Then, they hike the sugar price up higher than it was before, producing net harm to consumers (see Dumping (pricing policy).) --HonourableSchoolboy 15:59, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

NPOV

With sentences like this: "Economically, global free trade is an unambiguous good" -- this article is not a neutral article, it is an advocacy article. I put the neutrality banner up accordingly. --HonourableSchoolboy 00:24, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

In the public sphere, there is a significant debate about whether free trade is good for society, but among economists, it is basically a settled question in favor of free trade (that is why the sentence begins with "Economically"). This isn't my ideological view, this is just fact. For example, a survey of approximately 300 economists stated the proposition that "Tariffs and import quotas usually reduce the general welfare of society" and asked those surveys if they agree, disagree, or agree with provisos. 72.5% agreed, 20.1% agreed with provisos, and 6% disagreed. This question showed some of the strongest consensus of ANY question they asked. If economists agree on any issue, they agree on free trade. (Note: that the word "usually" is the correct one to use because of the issue of trade diversion.) I don't dispute that MANY PEOPLE criticize free trade, but almost none are economists and almost none are tenured economics professors. I challenge you to show any evidence to the contrary. Mgunn 05:39, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

As I understand Misplaced Pages policy, the onus is on those who make assertions, particularly very sweeping assertions, to provide a reliable source for those assertions. My view in this case is that the article would be better off without the sweeping assertions; they are not necessary and they compromise the neutrality of the article. --HonourableSchoolboy 16:01, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with HonourableSchoolboy on this one; the burden of proof lies on the asserter (and not just on Misplaced Pages, but in other cases as well). Otherwise, I could assert that, say, I have a dragon living under my house and challenge you to show any evidence to the contrary. Veinor 17:11, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I have provided multiple reliable sources that justify my edits. For example, I've provided 1 survey of 300 economists, the introductory sentence provides another reference to another survey. If you start going down the list of prominent economists you'll find them in favor of free trade. For example, Paul Krugman, a major economist associated with the Democratic party these days is for free trade... Nobel prize winners Gary Becker, Edward Prescott, and Milton Friedman are in favor of free trade (I can keep listing, but that would not be useful.) I also invite you to read a speech by the President of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis available at http://stlouisfed.org/news/speeches/2004/06_15_04.html#fn All these justify the sweeping assertion that economists are almost universally in favor of free trade. There is overwhelming evidence to support my edits, and the challenge by HonourableSchoolboy has 0 references and 0 facts to support him. That's all I was saying. (In fact, I'm not aware of any prominent economist that isn't in favor of free trade.) Economists DO agree on some things, and free trade is one of them. I'm not saying free trade is not controversial, but I am saying it is not controversial among economists. Mgunn 23:21, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Please let me reiterate, Mgunn, that it is my understanding that an NPOV tag may not be simply removed by an editor who disagrees with it. Misplaced Pages policy says, "In general, if you find yourself having an ongoing dispute about whether a dispute exists, there's a good chance one does, and you should therefore leave the NPOV tag up until there is a consensus that it should be removed." I ask you to follow the policy.

There is a lot of stuff in this article that is not sourced, and possibly OR. The comparison of free trade to technological progress seems specious to me, because technological progress raises the overall productivity of the world economy, while policies like outsourcing lower it. Whether or not the analogy is correct, it is completely unsourced. Either the editor came up with it himself, in which case it should be deleted as OR (same goes for the orange farmer analogy,) or it should be cited to a reliable source. --HonourableSchoolboy 01:58, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll help get some resources because the assertion is accurate according to economists. Free trade is one of those rare events were economists no longer debate it, so there is plenty of research on it. Give me a few days. (your assertion that outsourcing decrease the global economy is incorrect, in fact it is one the leading ways to RAISE the global economy) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Drewwiki (talk • contribs) 12:04, 22 January 2007 (UTC).

Please re-read my post. I said that it lowers the productivity of the global economy, by constantly replacing more productive labor (which requires eduation, technology and infrastructure) with less productive labor that is more or less consumed like a raw material - no health benefits, high mortality rates, etc. The outsourcing also adds a lot of unnecessary overhead costs (shipping your shirt all the way from Bangladesh to the Walmart probably costs more than the shirt.) --HonourableSchoolboy 14:59, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about mis-reading your comment but it appears as if you are mis-informed about the definition of productivity. Economic productivity is output/cost. There are a few ways to look at this, one way would be to just take the cost of the labor and put that under the good produced. In that case, the case which the US economic producitivity number is computed, then absolutly outsourced goods lead to HIGHER productivity. Lower cost labor that produces the same good defines higher productivity. the numerator stays the same while the denominator goes down, thus the number is higher. --DrewWiki 19:55, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

(First, there are various different producivity concepts... labor productivity is different from total factor productivity etc...) I'll agree that free trade could lower average global labor productivity in certain circumstances, but I disagree that it is automatic and I have substantial doubt it is even close to the norm. (First remember that many good things, such as reducing unemployment among high school dropouts reduces average labor producitivty...) Let's say an auto plant moves from Ohio to China, and we'll also fairly assume that the China plant is more labor intensive. This on its own would lower average labor productivity, but this misses what the Chinese workers were doing and what the US workers will be doing. If the Chinese workers were previously engaged in extremely inefficient farming practices, average global labor productivity would be increased. Also, if the productivity of US autoworkers is below the average labor producitivty of US workers as a whole, then eliminating their jobs increases average producitivity as long as they don't find work or find more productive work. (Average producitivity would be much higher if everyone without a PHD lost their job.) In any case, on its own, the impact on "average global labor producitivity" is not a terribly useful metric for analyzing whether a policy is beneficial or not. -- Mgunn 20:32, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, as recently pointed out in an Economist article on "Ethical Food," most fuel consumption related to buying foreign grown food comes from the consumer driving to and from the grocery store and NOT from transporting the food from Brazil/wherever to the grocery store (this is because transport to the grocery store is done in bulk). For this and other reasons, the buying local argument breaks down upon analysis. If it were actually more efficient to buy local, then that would be reflected in the price. -- Mgunn 20:32, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

The comparison to technology is more of a loose high level comparison (obviously there are differences), and I'm open to debate on its inclusion. (I've read the comparison in several places such as The Economist magazine, the CATO institute, and several others). The point is that if you have some supernew glass company that undercuts your competition by 50%, the effect will in many ways be similar if the lower cost comes from (1) Some new fangled technological machine or (2) the "technology" of low price foreign labor. Much opposition to free trade is because of the impact on domestic workers, which would be the same in both cases. I'll admit, in the review of material I've done this morning, this isn't a comparison that is regularly brought to the forefront. For now I'll take it out and remove the NPOV tag unless you have any more complaints. -- Mgunn 20:32, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I adjusted the statement to match the question posed in the AEA poll, and specified that we are dealing with American economists -- I doubt that you would get a similar result by asking, for example, South Korean economists. I took out Milton Friedman because he is something of an extremist on this topic, and I would not assume his views, or his claims of a consensus, to represent an actual consensus. But I have no problem citing the AEA study as it stands. --HonourableSchoolboy 22:06, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Milton Friedman is a Nobel Prize winning Economist, it is mis-representing the truth if you take him out becuase you deem him "an extremest" I will put him back into the article —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Drewwiki (talk • contribs) 22:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC).

I'm sorry, but I think you just lost all credibility HonourableSchoolboy by calling possibly the most influential and highly regarded economists of the 20th century an "extremist." I don't think anyone with even a modicum of economics training would make such a charge. Please stick to editting topics that you are familiar with and stop POV pushing. -- Mgunn 22:30, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

NPOV Part 2 (RfC)

How can it be proven that "almost all" economists agree rather than "most" If the burden of proof is on those who believe it is "almost all" wouldn't we have to come up with a total list of all economists and then list all those who do not believe this. We can agree this is impossible. How about we take a look at prominant economists respected by thier peers and see what thier thoughts on this are. This can be done by looking at peer reviewed economic journals

--DrewWiki 22:58, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually I've met that burden by citing multiple surveys along with statements on a number of economists in the field that are familiar with the modern state of the field. The evidence is overwhelming, and HonourableSchoolboy is misrepresenting reality by reclassifying 93% from "nearly all" to "most." Other edits just made were amateur insertions of material found elsewhere on Misplaced Pages for, I believe, the intent of advancing anti-free trade POV. Please discuss on talk page HonourableSchoolboy before making any additional changes. I've assumed good faith, but WP is not a soapbox and please do not edit articles if you are not familiar with the material. My job isn't to be your HonorableSchoolboy's personal teacher explaining in depth why each edit is correct or incorrect. If he's not willing or able to be constructive, then I see no choice but to seek administrative mediation. Mgunn 23:13, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Mgunn, please read Misplaced Pages:Edit_summary#Recommendations. You deleted, without explanation, references to Carey and List, which makes it look like you are trying to re-write history. Also, adopting a patronizing tone does not lend your argument more credibility. The fact of the matter is, under the Misplaced Pages:NPOV policy, it is generally better to present a topic neutrally, rather than making claims like "almost all economists support free trade," or "the broad consensus of the economics profession is that free trade is a large and unambiguous net gain for society." Note that you are citing polls that are taken among American economists, and leaving the reader to assume that this holds true for the entire world. It is not necessary to make such grand claims in order to inform the reader about free trade, and it turns the article into advocacy. --HonourableSchoolboy 00:54, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I now have cited 3 separate surveys, a nobel prize winning economist, and the former head of the President's Council of Economics Advisors who all testify that the broad concensus of the economics profession is that free trade is a clear net benefit to society. Mgunn 05:35, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Btw, you (honorableschoolboy) previously said, "I doubt that you would get a similar result by asking, for example, South Korean economists." Just to let you know, the US and South Korea are currently negotiating a bilateral free trade agreement. At least the economists in South Korea with influence believe in free trade. I think you should concede that you are simply wrong here hschoolboy and not particularly well informed on the subject matter. Mgunn 06:17, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Good points Mgunn

--DrewWiki 12:09, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I notice that this nonsensical statement has been restored: "The Constitution of the United States explicitly prohibits state governments from enacting barriers to trade between citizens and firms of the various 50 states, making the United States the largest empirical example of free trade in the world." The US is one sovereign state, not a collection of 50.

In addition to the material deleted by Mgunn about Henry Carey and Friedrich List, I think it would be appropriate to include, in the History section, this quote from Congressman (later President) William McKinley in 1882: "Free trade may be suitable to Great Britain and its peculiar social and political structure, but it has no place in this republic, where classes are unknown, and where caste has long since been banished; where equality is a rule; where labor is dignified and honorable; where education and improvement are the individual striving of every citizen, no matter what may be the accident of his birth, or the poverty of his early surroundings. Here the mechanic of today is the manufacturer of a few years hence. Under such conditions, free trade can have no abiding place here." My impression is that free trade advocates which to suppress the fact that in earlier phases of American History, free trade was considered unamerican.

I have posted a request for comment to get some outside input on this dispute. --HonourableSchoolboy 16:00, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't dispute that the US historically has had tariffs, and that a number of early economists believed in tariffs (others such as Adam Smith did not). If you want to build up the history of free trade in balanced way, feel free to go ahead. -- Mgunn 18:13, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

All right, I will. If you don't like what I add, please make your objections specific. --HonourableSchoolboy 04:30, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

On the topic of "The Constitution of the United States explicitly prohibits state governments from enacting barriers to trade between citizens and firms of the various 50 states, making the United States the largest empirical example of free trade in the world." It wasn't automatic that the US had to be a free trade area, but the dormant commerce clause has blocked trade restrictions imposed by individual states. Even in the past 20 years, several restrictions have been struck down by the Supreme Court involving wine and trucking because of the dormant commerce clause. -- Mgunn 18:13, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

My comment about the issue of economists and their beliefs about free trade. I'm not sure that the reference to the proportion of economists that endorse free trade is usefully located in the article lead. This ultimately boils down to a positive vs. normative discussion. What does it mean anyway to "support" free trade. Some economist's might argue that free trade is a laudable policy goal, but that because of political opposition, actual trade policy will, at best, approach the ideal of free trade slowly.

I would take the tack that the article lead should seek to describe what is meant by free trade in economics (as well as other disciplines), and then to reserve a section or other place for a description of the question of support for free trade as a policy (rather than theoretical proposition). From a scientific viewpoint, it does not matter how many members of a discipline support an idea or theory: what matters is what can the theory explain. From a political perspective of course the issue of how many economists "support" free tade does matter (by the way I am a strong proponent of free trade and a member of the discipline). I do think that it would be relevant in the article lead to briefly mention the issue of efficiency vs distributional effects of free trade.

One can legitimately believe that free trade is efficient (which in this case would mean those that lose, could be hypothetically compensated by the winners), but that the distributional consequences of free trade is such that as a policy it should be managed by the government. Doing something along these lines would go a long way to establishing NPOV

Joel Kincaid 18:18, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Understanding why economists support free trade is is inherent to understanding what free trade is. Understanding why physicists believe in gravity is important to understanding what gravity is, and understanding why biologists believe in evolution is important to understanding what evolution is. To be balanced, the lead states both who support it and who oppose it, and this in no way violates NPOV. -- Mgunn 18:34, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

The same argument being advanced here to remove references to economists would be equally applicable to the evolution article to remove this line, "With its enormous explanatory and predictive power, this theory has become the central organizing principle of modern biology, providing a unifying explanation for the diversity of life on Earth." Nearly all biologists will subscribe to that statement, but the religious right will take issue with it. Does it violate NPOV? Of course not. It is a factual statement about the state of the biology field. The line about economists is a factual statement about the state of the economics field and should likewise remain. -- Mgunn 18:34, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Having just reread the NPOV policy again, I agree with you that at the current point in time, the language does conform to NPOV. Specifically, I would consider this to be a "fact about an opinions". So consider the last sentence of my previous post retracted. Having said that, I still feel that the issue of support should be in the article but not in the article lead.

Please note the text that you cite from the evolution page actually supports my earlier contention that what matters is not how many people believe a theory, but rather what can be explained by the theory (i.e. explanatory and predictive power).

I am not advancing an argument to remove references for economists -- but rather to clean up the aricles lead. I am suggesting that a section on free trade policy or something similar be created to house those discussions.

Joel Kincaid 18:58, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

It's kind of a peculiar situation with these mixed political/scientific topics. Following WP:LEAD, "the lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article..." To explain free trade, I think you have to explain what free trade does (creates winners & losers, but wins are bigger). The complication is that among the economists, it isn't controversial what free trade does, but among the general population, it is. -- Mgunn 19:57, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

One possible approach would be to say something like, "According to economists, (blahblahblahblah)" Or if you wanted to qualify it more, "According to nearly all economists, (blahblahblahblah)" And then you could have some counterpoint saying "Labor and anti-globalization say (bblahblahblah)" That said, I think the sentence in question, "Intellectually, this arrangement is supported by microeconomic analysis and nearly all economists, who argue that the benefit of trade is a net gain to both trading partners and that the gains from trade outweigh the losses" is accurate and quite reasonable. I actually think changing it probably introduces more problems. If you remove "nearly all" then someone is going to come in and add "some" (which is wrong/misleading) because a lot of random editors can't fathom that there actually is agreement on this subject. If you remove "and nearly all economists," then random editors will come in and say, "POV!! Is there really agreement on this?!?!?" I really think the most honest thing to do is to have a structure that briefly states "Nearly all economists think X"... cite it, and have "Free trade critics in labor etc... think Y". just on a side note, when i first came across this article several months ago, it had been totally vandalized and ransacked by non-sensical anti-free trade POV edits, and no one was watching it. (Gogo Misplaced Pages *sigh*) -- Mgunn 19:57, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I took out the word "support" maybe this is a bit better... -- Mgunn 20:04, 23 January 2007 (UTC)