Talk:Free trade/Archive 2

This article needs a lot of work

Larrytheordinarydragon (talk) 11:28, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I currently see tons of problems here with bad writing, POV material, poor sourcing, etc. This is an important article and I think it deserves more attention from the community,Larrytheordinarydragon (talk) 11:22, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of the views/research of Sonali Deraniyagala and Ben Fine

I've gone ahead and done this, but I can see it being contentious, so thought I would outline my thinking here. The section used to read:

"In an assessment of the literature on the theory and empirical research relating to the benefits of free trade, Sonali Deraniyagala and Ben Fine found that much of the work was flawed, and concluded that the extent to which free trade benefits economic development is unknown. Theoretical arguments are largely dependent upon specific empirical assumptions which may or may not hold true. In the empirical literature, many studies suggest the relationship is ambiguous, and the data and econometrics underlying a set of empirical papers showing positive results have been critiqued. The best of these papers use a simplified model, and the worst involve the regression of an index of economic performance on an index of openness to trade, with a mix of these two approaches common. In some cases, Deraniyagala and Fine claim, these indexes of openness actually reflect trade volume rather than policy orientation. They also observe that it is difficult to disentangle the effects of reverse causality and numerous exogenous variables."

My thinking was firstly that it was a view of dissenting economists to the mainstream, and given it was in the 'views of economists' section, it made sense to include the minority view as well. However, for several reasons, I don't think this particular paragraph is the best way to do so. Firstly, the reference given is to a book, not a peer-reviewed article. Given that it claims most econometrics on this issue of being wrong or misleading, I'd suggest a journal article, or at least views given by a more well-known economist, might be more appropriate. Secondly, the section at present does not include the individual research of any one economist. This makes sense, as if we were to just allow it to become a collection of different studies, it would become clunky and confusing to the casual reader. Far better to speak in broad terms about the views of broad sections of the profession, rather than one particular study. And thirdly, I'm a little suspicious of the fact that the first thing mentioned could be leveled at any economic modelling, or indeed any modelling at all (find me a model that doesn't use 'specific empirical assumptions'). Some of the other objections to current empirical research seem more reasonable (just - I mean, of course modelling is difficult, that's not really a criticism of it), but the way the section is written doesn't really do them justice. In my view, we need to find a reputable peer-reviewed source outlining the reasons 7% or whatever percent it was of economists don't believe free trade raises living standards, and not make poorly-backed claims about two economists 'finding' that the work of most other economists is flawed. --TurquoiseThreads (talk) 13:13, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

References

Dispute tag on "trade diversion"

Why the dispute tag? Is there a source that says otherwise? bobrayner (talk) 18:15, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I put the dispute section because the paragraph is based on the assumption that "free trade benefits society". I checked the link to which this statement is made and nowhere in the "mainstream economics" wiki page does it say this. Demosfoni (talk) 05:17, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I think it's definitely the mainstream economics consensus that free trade benefits society, at least on a macro level (and that's mentioned and referenced at other parts within the free trade article). However, that wasn't the point of the paragraph as I saw it, the point being to explain the trade diversion effects of some free trade agreements. So, how about we amend the paragraph to merely state:

"According to mainstream economic theory, global free trade is a net benefit to society, but the selective application of free trade agreements to some countries and tariffs on others can sometimes lead to economic inefficiency through the process of trade diversion. It is economically efficient for a good to be produced by the country which is the lowest cost producer, but this..."

Would this meet everyone's approval?--TurquoiseThreads (talk) 05:35, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Looks good. I would only ask that we omit the "sometimes" too. "Can" is already conditional, we don't need a second conditional. :-) bobrayner (talk) 10:20, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Having sound knowledge about this matter, I agree with the proposed amendment, and will go ahead and make the change. Ratibgreat (talk) 12:31, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Conflicts in Article

For example, the section here has two subseciton,s advantages and disadvantages of tariffs. These two sections seem to contradict each other. From advantages: "In this case, the higher price would not cause domestic production to increase from QS1 to QS2, since it has already been assumed in our example that Japan produces the same amount of widgets for price Ptariff as the world economy does for price Pworld." The from disadvantages: "The higher price causes domestic production to increase from QS1 to QS2 and causes domestic consumption to decline from QC1 to QC2." Since both sections are directly referring to the chart at right, this is very confusing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.71.29.40 (talk) 18:21, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Also, "The economic theory of David Ricardo" does not appear to belong in the Opposition portion of the article.--Ski67dOO (talk) 03:39, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

The United States and free trade

Article II of the 1833 Siamese-American Treaty of Amity and Commerce is a free-trade clause; Articles IV and X contain most favored nation clauses. --Pawyilee (talk) 12:04, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Disadvantages of tariffs

This a flawed economic model that is being presented as fact. It says nothing about the impacts of free trade on the negotiating leverage that employers have over employees when setting wages on both sides of the border, nor does it address the ability of a nation to tax it's larger corporations at the same rate it taxes its small businesses when tariffs are low. For a more complete picture, look at the following link on Mexico post-NAFTA.

http://www.cepr.net/documents/nafta-20-years-2014-02.pdf

I think the growth rates, 98% growth from 1960-1980 vs just 18.6% growth from 1992 - 2012 says what you really need to know.

http://tommylofgrenstatistics.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/gdp_growth_mexico1.png

The only two new sizable first world countries over the last Century I am aware of are also the only two that took an early stand against unrestrained free trade near the beginning of their growth spurts. I refer to Japan and South Korea, of course, both stories of taking a pragmatic mixture of capitalism, mercantilism, and public ownership where it makes sense. You can buy a Kia or Toyota in just about any city in the world today but not so cars that were being made in Brazil well before South Korea even got its start.

Does it really matter how logical the "cost of tariffs" argument in the article seems if it predicts that Mexico should be in its golden age post NAFTA, while South Korea should be stuck trying to play catch-up to "wiser" countries like Indonesia? I, for one, am not interested in hearing logical arguments on why the Sky absolutely must be red.2601:0:C80:68A:E8F7:1186:AE83:7F72 (talk) 08:26, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

This Page Is Complete Kochified Neoliberal SHIT!

It should be ILLEGAL for any paid ideologist to leave their crayon marks all over Wikipedia. I want to know the real history and origin of 'free trade' in the modern era. What do I get? Richard Ricardo. Ideological dogmatic BULLSHIT like " economic protectionism took hold in the United States, particularly as a result of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act which prolonged and spread the Great Depression.[20]:33 " The depression was prolonged because the Republicans diverted FDR from his policies, and predictably the economy fell back. Also, the definition of 'free trade' as "Free trade is a policy in international markets in which governments do not restrict imports or exports." is highly ideological. 'Free Trade' is a euphemism, it means that governments lose their sovereignty to transnational corporations, which are not restricted in the size and scope of their ownership of everything. There is no free trade between corporations, only market capture by the best financed and best positioned, which means monopoly formation and with it the end of competition. Which is the end of what any reasonable person would call 'free trade'.MrSativa (talk) 10:04, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

This is no place for conspiracy theories. Stop. bobrayner (talk) 20:19, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Is the graph backwards?

I may just be being stupid, but shouldn't price increase as demand increases, and decrease as supply increases? Not the other way around as is shown on the graph in this article? Timmy the tortoise (talk) 10:16, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

They would, but in this graph the price is the thing being varied: demand falls as price rises and supply rises as price rises. However that is unclear from the graph so maybe it would be worth adding an explanatory note. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 10:21, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Deletion of section "The underlying economics depends upon dubious assumptions"

The section "The underlying economics depends upon dubious assumptions" was deleted on the grounds that the book it cited was not written by an economics PhD.

This is not a valid reason to delete something, because:

1. Unless a section depends upon one single source, its source is not a valid argument against it. Many other sources could have been cited instead.

2. The ideas in the section have been expressed by many other economists in other places.

3. Lack of an economics PhD does not prove an economic idea is false. Are only PhD's in Political Science allowed to express opinions about politics?

Furthermore, the section that was deleted was arguing one side of a controversial topic, and its deletion seems to be an attempt at furthering one side of the debate, not providing a decent Wikipedia article covering all sides.Ianfletcher (talk) 23:39, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

The section makes several claims as to what the underlying assumptions of free trade are and what the theory of comparative advantage claims. Those need to be supported by academic references, not wikipedia editors citing their self-published books. If the ideas expressed in the section come from economists or other academics of note, cite those sources. The problem with the source is there is nothing about it that suggests that it is by an expert who has studied and published extensive research on the issue, or that the source has undergone extensive peer-review. As for your third point, I would expect critiques of Duverger's Law or statements about the state of coup d'etat research to be by Poli Sci PhDs or published in academic journals/presses. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:54, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. Too much of the proposed edit is based on Ianfletcher's own views. WP does not publish the opinions of individual editors. We rely on reliable sources, and we use WP:SUMMARY STYLE to present them. – S. Rich (talk) 00:30, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Response: 1) My book Free Trade Doesn't Work was not self-published. The first edition was published by the U.S. Business & Industry Council, and the second by the Coalition for a Prosperous America, as you may verify on Amazon.com. These are both reputable and long-standing Washington organizations. 2) Why shouldn't a Wikipedia editor cite their own work? If someone is an authority on a certain topic, it's entirely natural that they would have published works on the subject, and entirely natural that these references should be closest to hand. 3) The points made in this section do not depend on the citation anyway. They are broad-brush conceptual arguments that can be found in literally thousands of published books and articles. I only cited my own work because they are conveniently distilled and listed there, with explanations, in one easy-to-find place. 4) If you don't like the reference for this section, rather than its content, you should replace it with similar content with a different reference. Otherwise, you are just using this as an excuse to delete one side of the argument on a controversial topic.Ianfletcher (talk) 21:16, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Regarding point 2, please see WP:SELFCITE. With this guideline in mind, the other points are moot until other editors pick up on your suggested edits. – S. Rich (talk) 22:49, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Response: If you look at Wikipedia's rules on self-citation, which read "Using material you have written or published is allowed within reason, but only if it is relevant, conforms to the content policies, including WP:SELFPUB, and is not excessive," you will see that I am not in violation of them.Ianfletcher (talk) 23:45, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Response: If the other points are "moot until other editors pick up on...," then so is your deletion of my section. You can't just assume the burden of proof falls on your opponent.Ianfletcher (talk) 23:47, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

You are being less than objective in this. You omit "When in doubt, defer to the community's opinion." There is doubt expressed by other editors, therefore you are stuck with at least two editors from the community who do not think your self-citing is appropriate. – S. Rich (talk) 01:48, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Dr. Gawande's comment on this article

Dr. Gawande has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:

I would rate this as an average to less than average article (but may be because of how much time I've spent on such issues!).

The opening para has "Free trade is exemplified by the European Economic Area and the North American Free Trade Agreement, which have established open markets.". This is not true, because they are preferential trade agreements that actually prevent other countries (non-partners) from accessing these markets freely and equally.

The figure is a textbook figure but the confused description will educate no one. Best to start with a world where exporter has no market power (flat export supply). Then tariffs cause welfare loss and the fact that free trade increases welfare is clear. Sure, there are winners and losers, and that is clear too. the figure the author uses is an argument for an "optimal tariff" not free trade, since both countries have market power. The figure could be better explained and then segue into WTO and its formation (as an institution that finds a way around a possibly highly protected world riddled with optimal tariffs).

The historical accounts are interesting, but I would much prefer reading economic historians like Kevin O'Rourke on this.

Looks like the author is Mr. Ha-Joon Chang who I;ve never heard of. Figures.

We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.

Dr. Gawande has published scholarly research which seems to be relevant to this Wikipedia article:

• Reference : Gawande, Kishore & Hoekman, Bernard, 2006. "Lobbying and agricultural trade policy in the United States," Policy Research Working Paper Series 3819, The World Bank.

ExpertIdeasBot (talk) 15:36, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Dr. Anderson's comment on this article

Dr. Anderson has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:

"Free trade is a policy followed by some international markets in which countries' governments do not restrict imports from, or exports to, other countries. Free trade is exemplified by the European Economic Area and the North American Free Trade Agreement, which have established open markets. Most nations are today members of the World Trade Organization (WTO) multilateral trade agreements. However, most governments still impose some protectionist policies that are intended to support local employment, such as applying tariffs to imports or subsidies to exports. Governments may also restrict free trade to limit exports of natural resources. Other barriers that may hinder trade include import quotas, taxes, and non-tariff barriers, such as regulatory legislation."

This paragraph should clarify that free trade is an ideal or aspiration. Free Trade Agreements typically allow some restriction on imports with most goods being free between the partners. Multilateral trade agreements allow restrictions everywhere but bound by agreements with partners to reciprocally lower tariffs and reduce other nontariff barriers to trade.

The article that follows is a horrible mashup that can only confuse readers. Many bits are more or less OK on their own but distract from what should be the main line of instruction. The section headed Economic Models starts with a first paragraph that promises 2 important pieces of economic analysis. The next two paragraphs are totally off the line of instruction of the first paragraph and should be deleted. Then we begin the analysis taking the second piece of analysis first. That is OK but the first paragraph should reverse the order to be consistent with the remainder of the text. The section headed "Disadvantages of Tariffs" should be headed "The Economics of Tariffs". We should then get Ricardo's comparative advantage section, which though promised is never really explained. The "Trade Diversion" section is a distraction at best, should be deleted. Then there is a long set of paragraphs on "Opinions of Economists" and "History". These have a bit of interest but should be in separate essays.

We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.

Dr. Anderson has published scholarly research which seems to be relevant to this Wikipedia article:

• Reference : James E. Anderson & Yoto V. Yotov, 2011. "Terms of Trade and Global Efficiency Effects of Free Trade Agreements, 1990-2002," Boston College Working Papers in Economics 780, Boston College Department of Economics, revised 11 Oct 2011.

ExpertIdeasBot (talk) 17:57, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Dr. Takeuchi's comment on this article

Dr. Takeuchi has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:

I think this is well written although some citations are missing.

We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.

We believe Dr. Takeuchi has expertise on the topic of this article, since he has published relevant scholarly research:

• Reference : Takeshi Iida & Kenji Takeuchi, 2009. "Environmental Technology Transfer via Free Trade," Discussion Papers 0904, Graduate School of Economics, Kobe University.

ExpertIdeasBot (talk) 20:38, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

CSM series

The basic problem with this entry is that it's too abstract. It reads like the answer to a final exam. (It probably violates WP:OR). I think there's a particular problem with the critics of free trade policies. One of the big problems is that if you talk to all these economists you quote, and then talk to the actual workers, the workers' experiences are not always what the economists predict. The application of free trade in the U.S., as opposed to its theory, is very selective and benefits some people more than others. In Canada, the workers benefit much more from free trade, according to news stories in the Wall Street Journal. There are other critics besides Karl Marx, some of whom have the benefit of knowing what happened after 1848 when Marx wrote those words.

I tried to add some stories from columnists and news stories from major newspapers like the New York Times and Wall Street Journal. They gave specific examples of workers who have been harmed by free trade, and didn't get the benefits that theory predicted. For example, the Swingline company whose owner claimed free trade would enable him to increase exports to the benefit of his workers, but instead moved his plant to Mexico, closed his New York operation, and fired all his American workers. Unfortunately the editors here didn't want any criticism and deleted it. They also didn't want any specific examples of how actual industries and actual workers were affected.

So let's try again. Here's a good series from the Christian Science Monitor which gives the pros and cons of American free trade policies, with examples like the Canadian vs. US paper industry, and interviews individual workers to see how it actually affected them.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2016/0628/The-harsh-downside-of-free-trade-and-the-glimmer-of-hope
The harsh downside of free trade – and the glimmer of hope
Free trade has delivered huge benefits to Asian workers and US consumers. But it has hurt many US workers longer and harder than expected and has roiled American politics. Part 1 of a five-part series.
By Patrik Jonsson, Staff writer June 28, 2016

Part 1: The harsh downside of free trade – and the glimmer of hope

Part 2: The surprising truth about American manufacturing

Part 3: What 'good' free trade looks like

Part 4: Why, this time, free trade has hit American workers so hard

Part 5: What can be done about free trade's 'victims'

--Nbauman (talk) 15:08, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

The notion that economists are unfamiliar with the displacement and distribution effects of free trade and/or are uninterested in empirical research on the effects of free trade is ludicrously false. It strongly suggests that you are not at all familiar with economics research. There is absolutely no need to drop research on free trade and replace it with newspaper anecdotes and 'feels'. If you want to add more critiques of free trade, do so with reliable academic sources. The field of economics is full of lauded economists and widely cited papers who have looked at the downsides of free trade. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:31, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Addition of comments to "Degree of free trade policies"

Torygreen84 I think you may have forgotten to include a source for the content you added. You added "Note that China,India and all the Newly industrialized country not in this." without providing a source or an explanation. Indeed if you click on the source, then you can see that China and India both feature further down the list. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 12:46, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

The section "Opposition" should be re-named "Politics of free trade"

The section should then delve into the debate over free trade and the political consequences of free trade. I don't have time to do it right now, but I think it's something we should strive for. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:17, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Free trade. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070122032127/http://www.hoover.org/publications/digest/3550727.html to http://www.hoover.org/publications/digest/3550727.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:45, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

American vs foreign opinion

I would like to point out that several countries don't apply free trade and consider the trade balance as an important factor:

Some have said that China pursues a mercantilist economic policy. https://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/12/31/macroeconomic-effects-of-chinese-mercantilism/ http://www.industryweek.com/public-policy/chinas-economic-mercantilism http://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-usa-business/u-s-tech-group-urges-global-action-against-chinese-mercantilism-idUSKBN16N0YJ

while, Russia pursues a policy based on protectionism http://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/protectionism.asp according to which international trade is not a "win-win" game but a zero-sum game: surplus countries get richer at the expense of deficit countries. http://www.reuters.com/article/us-trade-protectionism/russia-was-most-protectionist-nation-in-2013-study-idUSBRE9BT0GP20131230 http://russia-insider.com/en/politics/study-russia-insulated-further-sanctions-import-substitution-success/ri20491 https://www.rbth.com/business/2017/02/09/food-import-substitution-turns-out-to-be-extremely-profitable_699158 https://thebarentsobserver.com/en/arctic/2017/03/made-russia-made-arctic https://www.ft.com/content/422a8252-2443-11e7-8691-d5f7e0cd0a16?mhq5j=e7

So, I would argue that the sentence:"There is a broad consensus among economists that protectionism has a negative effect on economic growth and economic welfare, while free trade and the reduction of trade barriers has a positive effect on economic growth"

could be reworded as:"In United States, There is a broad consensus ..."

Furthermore, leading economists advise European country to implement protectionist measures:

Joseph Stiglitz advises the country of the euro zone to set up import licences (a protectionist measure) to fight against their trade deficits with Germany, which he says destroy their economies. http://lahcenbounadereconomics.blogspot.fr/2016/12/a-critical-issue-adressed-to-joseph.html https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2010/may/05/reform-euro-or-bin-it-greece-germany https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/21/books/review/euro-joseph-e-stiglitz.html?_r=0

Maurice Allais denounces free trade or the deregulation of competition in the global labor market and thinks reasoned protectionism between countries with very different incomes is necessary. http://www.liberation.fr/futurs/2010/10/11/deces-de-maurice-allais-prix-nobel-liberal-et-protectionniste_685598 http://www.soyons-lucides.fr/documents/maurice_allais-contre_les_tabous_indiscutes.pdf

Shharp (talk) 18:05, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Neither the existing sources in the article nor the sources that you bring to bear above contradict that there is a broad consensus among economists (American or otherwise). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:08, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't change the sentence about "economists" but I quote the rest of the text that is sourced

Shharp (talk) 19:41, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

You have no right to arbitrarily suppress the work of others without consensus.This flies in the face of the RS .

Shharp (talk) 12:38, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

the text is properly written, well sourced, and in the right section

Shharp (talk) 05:17, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Free trade. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141227164913/http://www.ustr.gov/tpp to http://www.ustr.gov/tpp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:04, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Balance?

The article is not very balanced as it stands. It tries to give the impression that the 'broad consensus' of economists support unfettered free trade under all circumstances and between all countries, which is not true. On top of that, parts of the article which were added relatively recently are quite poorly written. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.220.125.72 (talk) 06:47, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree that the article is unbalanced. While I am ready to accept that economists generally agree on free trade, per the discussion at Talk:Rent regulation, this article should avoid the appearance of bias as well as actual bias. Also, the lead section should discuss sociopolitical effects in addition to economic effects; although the § Politics section does this, it is very disorganized. Qzekrom (talk) 00:41, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, but there's no imbalance here. Support for free trade is practically universal among professional economists, and enjoys nearly 100% support from economists who actually specialize in trade research. Protectionism has been debunked for over 200 years, since the days of Ricardo. If you want to edit this section, you'll have to find a reliable source that says a significant number of economists are opposed to free and open trade. Good luck with that.Jonathan f1 (talk) 11:46, 20 October 2019 (UTC)