Talk:Free trade

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Free trade article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2: 3 months

Politics: Libertarianism High‑importance

	Politics portal 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.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Libertarianism portal This article is supported by WikiProject Libertarianism (assessed as High-importance).

Economics Top‑importance

	Business and economics portal 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.EconomicsWikipedia:WikiProject EconomicsTemplate:WikiProject EconomicsEconomics
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

International relations Top‑importance

	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, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Trade Top‑importance

	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.TradeWikipedia:WikiProject TradeTemplate:WikiProject TradeTrade
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

"Net gain for society"

I modified the wording about free trade being "a large and unambiguous net gain for society" because this is a value judgment that depends on the social welfare function used. The only welfare function under which a net increase in economic surplus necessarily results in a net gain for society is the Benthamite welfare function, which does not take inequality into account. Since many people believe that inequality is important, we either have to state outright that we are equating economic surplus and social welfare for the purposes of the article or avoid value-laden terms like societal loss in the economics section. Qzekrom 💬 ^they_them 04:05, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Qzekrom: Don't know if you're still active on here, but your rationale for rewording that statement is incorrect and contradicted by the source. There is no "social welfare function" to consider when making a statement about net gains from trade. The source states there's strong agreement that 1) restrictions on trade reduce welfare; and 2) income inequality in the US is not caused by global trade. (p. 382[1])

Also a reminder that the rule against OR applies on talk pages. You can't just make things up and then change wording on a hunch. The statement in question was an accurate summary of what the source says and is clearly uncontroversial in the field of international economics. Questioning whether more commerce is good for society makes no sense outside the world of special interest politics. Jonathan f1 (talk) 07:23, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, yes, I am still an active user. It's been over five years since I made the edit in question; is there an issue with the current version of the article? Qzekrom (she/her • talk) 07:51, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Economist

The world's largest free trade area took effect in Africa in July 2020. It is projected to contribute to an increase in GDP and industrial specialization.^[1]

@B. M. L. Peters: I would appreciate it if you didn't remove sourced info with no explanation. Benjamin (talk) 18:36, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ The Economist, "The African century", March 28th 2020.

Of both win...how is there a "loser" and a "winner"

The article uses those two words wildly... 2A01:E34:EC12:36C0:F18D:D656:AA78:1B1B (talk) 14:07, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Because every economic policy creates winners and losers. Changing the minimum wage, or tax code, or business regulations will create winners (people who benefit from the change) and losers (people who are hurt by it). The point about free trade is that the "losers" are concentrated while the winners are widely dispersed throughout the economy -it's a net gain for the economy. This article should be more clear about this and not act like trade is unique in its effect on employment. Most studies show no big net change in employment from trade (some jobs are lost, some are gained). Jonathan f1 (talk) 06:44, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Net gain for society"

Economist

Of both win...how is there a "loser" and a "winner"

Categories