Talk:Non-market economics

Fair use rationale for Image:Pyat rublei 1997.jpg
Image:Pyat rublei 1997.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 11:31, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Non-Market Economies
Non-Market Economies status is a controversial issue in trade debates. When countries that have that NME status like China, Vietnam,... involve in a trade dispute, such as a dumping case, trading partner can refer to prices in a third country to calculate dumping margin rather than using prices in such countries due to NME status reason.

1betterworld (talk) 16:25, 24 February 2011 (UTC)1betterworld

The article has formerly stated that "non-market economies" have been criticized as primitive by proponents of the free market. This is entirely inaccurate, as much of the non-market systems have been criticized for their lower efficiency. Until some work can be cited, preferably academic, I have removed the questionable statement.


 * Not worth it, because the statement above is just bizarre, as it endorses the statement in question. Also, responding to removals by unsigned users makes no sense. (The reference would be J.G. Backhaus' edited volume on Bücher, for instance.) Clossius 06:20, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Added citations and links
Expanded some information and added a reference section with a couple citations and also an external links section with a couple related links. skip sievert (talk) 13:53, 23 June 2008 (UTC)