Talk:Tariff

This 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) [reply ]

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) [reply ]

Sorry, 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) [reply ]

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) [reply ]

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) [reply ]

This article reads like it was written by the US Chamber of Commerce and completely fails to maintain a neutral point of view. Significant changes are necessary to fix this. The section on trade deficits in particular is embarrassing. MrJ567 (talk) 02:23, 3 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Right now, that section has four sources that each support the view that most economists hold. But feel free to add counterbalancing text that cites the work of at least one respected economist. --JMF (talk) 16:43, 3 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

• B-Class level-5 vital articles
• Wikipedia level-5 vital articles in Society and social sciences
• B-Class vital articles in Society and social sciences
• B-Class Economics articles
• Mid-importance Economics articles
• WikiProject Economics articles
• B-Class International relations articles
• Mid-importance International relations articles
• WikiProject International relations articles
• B-Class politics articles
• Mid-importance politics articles
• WikiProject Politics articles
• B-Class Trade articles
• Top-importance Trade articles
• WikiProject Trade articles

• All Wikipedia vital articles
• Articles which could have free content incorporated from elsewhere