Talk:Trade

Improvement Drive

AlMac [1] offered [2] these ideas:--Fenice 3 July 2005 19:03 (UTC)
I agree this article is both worth while and could stand some help.

• Gov agencies that support / promote trade
• Global organizations that manage disputes
  • WTO
• Recent growth
  • Bans on some products / services / content / standards
    • some of this due to protectionism
  • Areas of major change in recent years
    • Customs and Cross-Border Complexity
      • Anti-Terrorism efforts increased this
      • Example of before ... language of shipper, recipient, territory that shipment crosses needs to have paperwork understandable to their officials
    • Globalization
    • Free Trade and Free Trade Zones
    • Tax Challenges
      • e.g. nation with VAT trades with nation that has a different system of taxation (not VAT)
    • Outsourcing
    • Missionary work with human rights
    • Culture clashes for Multi-Nationals

AlMac More

• Some day I will learn how to do redirects so that people, who I pointed to url of where I used to have stuff, will end up where I have since moved the stuff, some of it several times.
• Look at what links to the main Trade article, then check next 50 ... note that the links are not in any kind of meaningful sequence after the first page. AlMac 4 July 2005 21:06 (UTC)
• I added some more topic ideas on my [3] Talk Page AlMac 3 July 2005 19:33 (UTC)
• I moved my thoughts on Trade to a separate AlMac/Trade page which I then grew from about 4 pages of some 20 sub-topics to about 7 pages of some 33 sub-topics. I added some stub topics with most of the expansion in my sense of what's important in the History of trade AlMac 4 July 2005 22:24 (UTC)
• I placed brackets around topics that I thought might already exist. Some may not have right upper lower case or plural spelling, but hopefully my thoughts also give ideas to others to explore further.
• See this explanation of Graphics on Steroids to help navigate some topic.

AlMac 3 July 2005 20:05 (UTC)

History

Aren't the two history sections redundant? — RJH 5 July 2005 22:17 (UTC)

Thanks, you quite right. I fixed that, in my above thoughts what might belong in the Trade article. AlMac 5 July 2005 22:37 (UTC)

Your are right, one history section would be enough.--Fenice 6 July 2005 04:46 (UTC)

• Looks better now, thanks. — RJH 9 July 2005 17:37 (UTC)

Structure Thoughts

In the main Trade article

• Do various references / see also belone one place, near end of whole article?
  • or is it appropriate to have such stuff within various branches of the general outline ... I thinking some entries would end up duplicated ... more clarity if merge at end
• Should History of Trade be positioned before International Trade?
• Should History within International be merged into the overall History?
• Should Organization (spelling vs Organisation?) of Trade be a sub-section of History of Trade (after Money Development)? AlMac 6 July 2005 05:15 (UTC)

References usually go at the end, above external links. Notes section before references. I think we should start the outline with the history section. The two history sections should be merged. Concerning the spelling: I am neutral. The official policy is that if an article concerns the UK it is in British English, if it is an American subject, then American spelling is applicable. Since this is neither, I am not sure.--Fenice 6 July 2005 18:10 (UTC)

Growing Expertise

AlMac/Growing Expertise is another of my ideas. I am thinking in the Reference section at the end, not just where to go for more info, but where to go for self-education in this subject. AlMac 6 July 2005 18:37 (UTC)

Sometimes articles have another section, after references: further reading, that is pretty much what you are describing.--Fenice 6 July 2005 18:56 (UTC)

I could use some help with improvements

The article currently repeats the mythology of barter leading to trade, which anthropologists have never found evidence for. It’s a story Adam Smith made up to work out an economic theory from first principles. The history/prehistory section is kind of a jumbled mess. Since this is an introductory article that links to other more detailed and better sourced articles, there’d be some benefit to improving the quality of this one by backporting synthesis of the improved linked articles. Lot 49a^talk 12:56, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Prehistory

The Danube river is only in a very broad view part of the Mediterranean . . . as it flows toward the Black Sea. Ciao Pentaclebreaker (talk) 08:03, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Origins of trade

The moment people lived in seperated "clans/families", there must have occured a trade of people . . . any person in the age of reproduction was a valuable "trade good". And "clans/families" were surely aware of this fact and must had a idea of an abstract price for the person. There is no difference whether males or females were "traded", the giving clan/family was expecting a compensation for the reduced number of clan/family members in form of a bridewealth. So there was an imediate need for trading goods. Clans/families were aware about the price of a person. Even in primitive societies of gatherers and hunters, were hardly any "special" (things that were valuable and not readily anvailable) goods existed, some means of "peoiple trade" must have been in use to prevent incest and facilitate the survival of the giving clan/family and on the long run also for the receiving clan/family. ciao Pentaclebreaker (talk) 12:23, 10 April 2024 (UTC).

Out of place and illogical sentences.

"Though some economists characterize barter (i.e. trading things without the use of money) as an early form of trade, money was invented before written history began. Consequently, any story of how money first developed is mostly based on conjecture and logical inference."

The above is an excerpt from paragraph number two of the Trade article. I have two problems with it, as mentioned in the title, 1) they seem out of place, and 2) The sentences themselves are illogical.

Talking about 1), I do not see how the argument "any story of how money first developed is mostly based on conjecture and logical inference" fits in the second paragraph of an article on trade.

Talking about 2), 'though' is used to signify contrast or contradiction between two clauses. I do not see any contrast or contradiction between economists characterising 'barter' as an early form of trade and money being invented before written history began. TheCosmos999 (talk) 00:22, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

World Bank $ Bank for International Settlements

"... later divided into the World Bank $ Bank for International Settlements ..." - is it supposed to be &, not $? Merlin.anthwares (talk) 10:41, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Doubts about "EC was transformed into the European Union ..."

I have doubts about the following item:

"EC was transformed into the European Union, which accomplished the Economic and Monetary Union (EMU) in 2002 ..."

Not sure what EC stands for? European Community? If this is the came, why this item goes after the previous line (1995) and references events in 2002 and 2007? European Community was transformed into European Union in 1992-1993? Merlin.anthwares (talk) 10:08, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Tin?

I find it astounding that this article mentions tin just once. The Bronze Age obviously relied on tin and copper, but these metals were not found in the same places. Therefore trade was essential for bronze tools and weapons to be made. There is a current isotope analysis project on Bronze Age artefacts to determine where tin was mined which should provide a lot of detail on the trade routes used for this metal. We already know a lot about the trade in tin from the ingots found especially in Mediterranean and Black Sea shipwrecks. ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 20:31, 16 October 2024 (UTC)