Talk:Tariff
 | This  level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 Category | The following sources contain public domain or freely licensed material that may be incorporated into this article:
|
 Archives (Index) |
|
This page is archived by ClueBot III.
|
Material copied from Keynes article
editAn IP editor copied a large section from the Keynes article without proper attribution, so doing on their behalf:
 | Text and/or other creative content from this version of John Maynard Keynes was copied or moved into Tariff with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
--John Maynard Friedman (talk) 14:24, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
- I saw that; I think that that edit made the section overly large and Keynes-heavy. I think that should be trimmed to be about a one or two paragraph summary of Keynes's views.---Avatar317(talk) 01:49, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
- I agree. Go ahead, make our day! :-D --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:27, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
De-industrialization, salary deflation and debt crisis
editThis new section added by an IP editor is on the edge of OpEd. It is substantially reliant on one source, the economist Jacques Sabir. The article as a whole needs to reflect a reasonable balance between the favourable and unfavourable (rational) views of the economic impact of tariffs. I suggest that this new section takes the balance too far and question whether it should stand. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 18:04, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
- It looks like a massive NPOV violation to me. Possibly it could be fixed up as a paragraph in some other section, if someone were willing to do the work, but as it stands I'd prefer just removing it. - CRGreathouse (t | c) 21:06, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
Wow, this article is really klunky
editSorry, but this article needs a lot of work. Why is there a section heading with nothing underneath it? The Optimal Tariff section is completely unintelligible. I see it was added during a mysterious period in 2018 when several months worth of revisions have disappeared. (My understanding is there are two senses: (1) where the tariff is set at the rate that maximizes revenue; and (2) when a tariff can get foreign exporters to lower their prices in response and thus in effect pay part or all of the tax revenue, increasing net welfare for the home country.)
The Keynes section should probably be cut out into a separate article. Way too long making it WP:UNDUE. The American history section is rambling and way too long, especially considering there is a separate article on that subject.
And the supply & demand chart is ugly & not properly labeled. It should be replaced with the old chart that is much easier to understand. I see it still exists in the Free Trade article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:EffectOfTariff.svg
The subsections on how tariffs are calculated nowadays is interesting & potentially useful, I guess, but why are they under the History section?
Then there's a big section on the history of Armenian tariffs since 2015 with no citations. Why?
I could go on, but you get the idea. This thing needs major surgery. Warren Platts (talk) 17:22, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
- So you know what to do. "If you want anything done properly around here, you have to do it yourself". --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 20:15, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
- Agreed - took a crack at winding back or at least flagging additions by some IP and now-blocked editors who dumped sections of other articles over here or otherwise leaned really heavily on op-eds or single sources. Lots of work still to be done but hopefully it's a bit less cumbersome to wrap one's head around Superb Owl (talk) 07:01, 1 November 2024 (UTC)