Talk:China trade

-- This article needs to be written. It's redirecting to Economy of China, which isn't at all wht the directing articles are referring to. SchmuckyTheCat 19:00, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Untitled

 * The articles linking to China trade seems to be talking about the Chinese economy in history. &mdash; Instantnood 19:25, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for that extra clarification. That article doesn't exist, though other countries do have such articles. However, that is why I am not fixing the redirects from this page, when this article DOES get written, those articles will point to what they mean to. SchmuckyTheCat 19:53, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

China's trade vs. China trade
I think we have a syntax problem here; "China trade" in normal English is not the way we might refer to the Chinese economy, or to the History of the Chinese Economy; the closest that we might use is "China's trade" which refers to international imports/exports; "China's internal trade" if we're speaking in terms of the domestic economy, presumably between provinces/cities etc. But "China trade" to me has always meant the age of maritime shipping, and implicitly the shipping of porcelain but also all else associated with the growth in trade spurred on by that in silk, opium (ahem), tea, and whatever else; if "so-and-so was in the China trade", they were either in it in a business capacity, as an investor or merchant in the Home Country (the UK) or another colony/dominion, or as a sea captain or maritime magnate or, as most of them at some point had to be by default of being in the business, on-site capitalists (or, if you prefer, capitalist running-dog lackey imperialists, as indeed they mostly were, and I'm not even a Marxist...). Domestically in the UK, being "in the China trade" might also mean a dealer in Chinese imports, typically porcelains, which in its US incarnation is where dinnerware became known as "china" (in England preserved for the teapots and nicely-made/decorated fancy stuff, not ordinary dinnerware). Anway, it could very well be that in Asian English idiomatic usages that "China trade" is equivalent to the Economy of China. But in the sense of "China's trade", it would mean something that might be better titled as China and international trade or China and the international economy or China and the global economy now (although that last one is very post-90s in flavour/context); but such an article isn't about the global economy or international trade today; it's about the development of trade between China and the West, (and the West's empires); but again, while interesting, that's still not "the china trade". And as for the current Old China Trade article, I'm the one who placed the globalize tag on it; it's an awkward title to start with but it's also a standard part of British/imperial English and not just American in nature, or in history; I don't know enough about the British Orient to write anything adequately, but I know it's a broader subject, and more politically important historically as well as much longer in time frame, than the history of trade between the US and China. The world may be bipolar now; it didn't always used to be.....(that's meant as a joke, don't take my head off for it).Skookum1 09:07, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

"Trade of China" move improper and incorrect
The English idiom this page disambiguates is "China trade", NOT "Trade of China", which is an artificial and awkward phrasing and obviously a second-language person's idea. Should be reversed, I just tried, but the "undo" didn't work. This move should have been discussed first (and rejected).Skookum1 (talk) 14:12, 20 March 2010 (UTC)