This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
This is not consistent with the economic consensus:
"However, although trade liberalization can sometimes result in large and unequally distributed losses and gains, and can, in the short run, cause significant economic dislocation of workers in import-competing sectors,[11] free trade has advantages of lowering costs of goods and services for both producers and consumers.[12]"
This is not now economists think about free trade. This makes it sound as if the only advantage to free trade is the reduction in costs, while the downside is "significant" job loss. Like anything else, there is some displacement that occurs from open trade, but the idea that it is "significant" is a misconception that stems from the fact that this issue is perpetually politicized.
Here is some recent research that discusses this phenomenon:
https://www.piie.com/system/files/documents/pb16-5.pdf
Economic dislocation occurs, but it isn't significant. Also, the gains from trade are widely dispersed at all levels of society.
I suggest this be removed from the lead. If there are no objections I'll do it myself. Jonathan f1 ( talk) 09:28, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
I fixed the US section here: [ [1]] so it starts with policies and theories at the founding of the country, Hamilton, first Sec of Treasury, lays out the history through WWII period, then goes into some of the debate about the wisdom, or lack thereof, of high tariffs. This was deleted without justification. -- NYCJosh ( talk) 17:42, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
Snooganssnoogans --you fail to respond here on the talk page, and then you revert my contribution by asserting that the US section should start with a "peer reviewed" article. The section currently starts with a book review in The Economist! What peer reviewed article do you have in mind? Your edits and unresponsiveness are unhelpful.-- NYCJosh ( talk) 06:37, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
This is not consistent with the economic consensus:
"However, although trade liberalization can sometimes result in large and unequally distributed losses and gains, and can, in the short run, cause significant economic dislocation of workers in import-competing sectors,[11] free trade has advantages of lowering costs of goods and services for both producers and consumers.[12]"
This is not now economists think about free trade. This makes it sound as if the only advantage to free trade is the reduction in costs, while the downside is "significant" job loss. Like anything else, there is some displacement that occurs from open trade, but the idea that it is "significant" is a misconception that stems from the fact that this issue is perpetually politicized.
Here is some recent research that discusses this phenomenon:
https://www.piie.com/system/files/documents/pb16-5.pdf
Economic dislocation occurs, but it isn't significant. Also, the gains from trade are widely dispersed at all levels of society.
I suggest this be removed from the lead. If there are no objections I'll do it myself. Jonathan f1 ( talk) 09:28, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
I fixed the US section here: [ [1]] so it starts with policies and theories at the founding of the country, Hamilton, first Sec of Treasury, lays out the history through WWII period, then goes into some of the debate about the wisdom, or lack thereof, of high tariffs. This was deleted without justification. -- NYCJosh ( talk) 17:42, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
Snooganssnoogans --you fail to respond here on the talk page, and then you revert my contribution by asserting that the US section should start with a "peer reviewed" article. The section currently starts with a book review in The Economist! What peer reviewed article do you have in mind? Your edits and unresponsiveness are unhelpful.-- NYCJosh ( talk) 06:37, 17 June 2020 (UTC)