Talk:Free trade

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
WikiProject iconVital articles C‑class(Level 5)
WikiProject iconFree trade has been listed as a level-5 vital article in Society. If you can improve it, please do.
CThis article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
WikiProject iconWikipedia 1.0: v0.7 C‑class
WikiProject iconThis article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
CThis article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
B checklist
 ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article has been selected for Version 0.7 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.
Note icon
This article is within of subsequent release version of Social sciences and society.

"Net gain for society"[edit]

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 💬 theythem 04:05, 28 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't think you had any grounds to modify that wording. Free trade being a "large and unambiguous net gain for society" is worded in a way that's completely consistent with the opinions of the vast majority of economists.Jonathan f1 (talk) 11:54, 20 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]


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[reply]


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

"colonialism" in Ireland[edit]

It's one small line in the article, but the wording is problematic and shouldn't become a habit on here. In the Colonialism section it says,

"Free-trade debates and associated matters involving the colonial administration of Ireland.."

Describing Ireland's status in the 19th and early 20th Century as "colonial" or "postcolonial" is controversial, hotly debated and disputed by a significant number of scholars in and outside of Ireland. The reliable sources saying as much are numerous[1][2][3].

This line needs to be rewritten in more neutral wording consistent with the encyclopedia's standards.Jonathan f1 (talk) 02:13, 5 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Of both is there a "loser" and a "winner"[edit]

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


I changed the Category:Conservatism to the Category:Conservatism in the United States. Free trade is by no means the primary value of conservatism. Rather, most conservatives around the world, except the United States, are often less friendly to free trade than liberals. Mureungdowon (talk) 07:34, 5 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]