User talk:Ericbalkan/temp

Fair Trade

Main article: Fair Trade

Fair trade is an organized social movement which promotes standards for international labor, environmentalism, and social policy in areas related to production of Fairtrade labeled and unlabeled goods.

Actually this seems perfectly legitimate for inclusion. I see no reason to exclude it as an alternate. Thus, I've added it back in. --Northmeister 01:43, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.

I'm bothered by this statement at the beginning of the Free Trade article:

"Furthermore, the advantages of free trade according to classic economic theory are substantiated in Ricardo’s comparative advantage analysis, according with which free trade achieves maximum economic efficiency and overall productivity gains."

The word "substantiated" means "establish by proof or evidence". Ricardo didn't offer any evidence -- his approach was strictly theoretical. It's also an odd statement to begin with, because "classic economic theory" regarding free trade = Ricardo's Theory of Comparative Advantage. So the words "substantiated in" should probably be replaced by "expressed by", and the word "Futhermore" dropped. This is not a nitpick.

The article correctly states that free trade is a market model. But I don't see where the assumptions underlying this model are mentioned. I think that's important. The basic assumption being made here is that society should strive for economic efficiency as its primary goal, rather than societal well-being. (E.g., Goods being produced more efficiently is assumed to be more important than rises in unemployment. I did make a remark originally that the free trader's goal was "better shopping", but that can be viewed as provocative and we can leave that out.)

Regarding above. I suggest you make the first edit you propose changing the word and then stating why your doing so on talk in a clear manner. Any other improvements to 'assumptions' can be tried. Be careful to include souces for your material and leave out any opinions or arugmentative langauge like the 'better shopping' oberservation. You can help to balance the article but be sure to include your sources when you add material and be precise and pithy. --Northmeister 01:21, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see an edit button for that first section of the article. Where would I put the change? Ericbalkan 12:48, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Click on "Edit this page" at the top of the article. This will bring up the entire page including the section you wish to edit. Make your changes and then submit the changes as a whole article. --Northmeister 12:56, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This edit needs sources

Despite the consensus among modern mainstream US economists in favor of free trade -- and laissez-faire style deregulation in general -- economists outside of the neo-classical tradition say that empirical data shows the theory is faulty. E.g., ecological economist Herman E. Daly* notes that David Ricardo's Theory of Comparative Advantage depends on money not flowing from one country to another. While that was true in Ricardo's time, today, factories can simply move to wherever investors decide to build them, which is often the country with the cheaper labor supply. This not only negates the concept that one country has natural advantages over another, but has the side effect of reducing wages on a global basis, as countries compete with each other to produce goods the cheapest.

Source is The Case Against the Global Economy, edited by Manders and Goldsmith.

For countries that have been required to adopt free trade to get World Bank loans, there may not actually be any natural advantage in that country, nor investors willing to create one. The country may then go from being self-sufficient in food to being dependent on food imports, as native farmers find their produce underpriced -- as Jamaica did.

Source is the documentary (available on DVD) "Life and Debt", director Stephanie Black. A similiar statement was made recently by writer Chris Hedges on the website Common Dreams: http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/09/17/3898/ in regards to 2 million Mexican farming jobs lost between 1993 and 2002, which he attributes primarily to NAFTA. I can add that to my comment if you think the source is OK. (Hedges is a well-known writer -- see the Wiki article about him.)

Anti-globalization advocates note that even if The Theory of Comparative Advantage was assumed to be true, which neo-classical economists do assume, it could result in countries becoming single or limited product economies. This not only reduces employment opportunities in that country, but can result in a major problem if demand for that product slows, or there's a problem with production.

Source again is the Manders-Goldsmith book. I'll have to find the particular essay. (The book is a collection of essays by different writers.)

Progressive economists also note that free (unregulated) trade allows products to enter a country that would violate the laws of that country if the goods had been produced there. E.g., child labor laws, environmental laws, occupational safety laws, product safety laws, etc. The concept of "fair trade" has been offered as an alternative. --Northmeister 01:43, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does this need a source? Newspaper accounts report that poison toothpaste and lead painted toys have entered the US recently from China. Under free trade theory, this is acceptable. Under this kind of libertarian economic analysis, the consumer affected by such items should sue the supplier -- as opposed to the government taking any action to restrict these products from entering the country.

Somewhere in the article it should be mentioned that the US has never had free trade, and still doesn't. It's a long article and hard to discover this point, which seems important.

- Eric

Eric, use the tilds to sign your name. Add your sources where they belong in your material, and repost the material below for review by us. When you add them to an edit use "<" then "ref" then ">" followed by your source then "<" "/" "ref" ">" (without the " and without any spaces). This will put it properly in notes. SOURCE=Your link to the source or the book used for the source. We'll start with this revision to add sources and then deal with the sources themsellves and any improvements that might need to be made. As far as the - lead from China stuff, best to leave that out - and yes, any idea that is likely to be controversial needs a source (and a reliable one - academic if possible) to back it up - otherwise others who oppose the material will tag it or remove it - which is common. It's also better for Wikipedia to have well sourced material. You might want to comment on the RFC now taking place at the article about the American History section I added long ago and offer your skills in helping to reshape it if necessary. --Northmeister 01:04, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll look into adding sources. In the meantime, I had clarified a sentence in the existing article but my clarification was removed. "In a 2006 survey of economists, "87.5% agree that the U.S. should eliminate remaining tariffs and other barriers to trade" and "90.1% disagree with the suggestion that the U.S. should restrict employers from outsourcing work to foreign countries." If you look in the reference that this statement is based upon, it turns out that this statement is based on responses from 83 members of a particular group. Given that there are probably tens of thousands of economists in the US, it doesn't seem possible that 83 would be a statistically significant number. The statement should be clarified or removed, I think. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ericbalkan (talk • contribs) 21:04, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did you check the source for it? Who conducted the survey and are they reliable? 83 is a very small sample indeed. If the source is from a controversial website; this is a problem. If there is no source. You should tag it as needing one. If the source is from a reputable survey group (Zogby for example) and referenced - then its ok. Depends on what this is based upon. --Northmeister 23:03, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The survey was conducted by an economist, of members of a reputable mainstream (i.e. neoclassical) economics organization. It can't be dismissed on that basis. But I think it's misleading to have the statement as-is without saying how small the sample size is, and also that the particular group is not unrestricted ideologically.

If I can't change this, then I'd like to at least add the following, somewhere in that first section: "This neoclassical trade theory focuses on one dimension, i.e., the price at which a commodity can be delivered and is extremely narrow in cutting off a large number of other considerations about impacts on employment in different parts of the world, about environmental impacts and on culture." Peter Soderbaum, Malardalen University, Sweden, in Post-Autistic Economics Review, Sept 2007.

What d'ya think? Ericbalkan 15:38, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Placing the size of the sample and its author wouldn't be bad if done right. Per your suggested addtional sentence - I don't see a problem as long as it is referenced properly and fits into the context of the paragraph or section you wish to place it. Is the above a quote? If so, then summarize it in your own words with the reference. If it is your own words - then just reference it. --Northmeister 15:42, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]