Talk:Tariff

Archives (Index)

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2022

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

De-industrialization, salary deflation and debt crisis

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)

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

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)

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)

Isnt that the point of wikioedeia 69.141.175.253 (talk) 21:52, 7 April 2025 (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)

NPOV Issues

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)

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)

Article requires significant updates.

Due to the largest tariff implementations in modern history by United States President Donald Trump against Canada and Mexico, as well as China and the European Union(potentially), this article will need to be updated significantly over the coming days, weeks and months. Particularly in the History and Modern Tariff practices sections. As events are still rapidly unfolding, I do not think it is fair for people to be working on this right away, particularly with concerns to political bias and obvious tensions created. However, significant editing and additions must be made. Thank you. 2604:3D08:A287:A400:9C1C:D237:E57B:EBDD (talk) 10:24, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

What specific improvements do you believe are needed to the article and why aren't you making them? Wikipedia is not a newspaper or a current affairs magazine. If the article as it stands doesn't explain the 'strategy' of the current US régime, maybe that tells you more about the strategy than it does about the article.

(NB if you do decide to contribute, please be advised that Wikipedia is founded on reliable sources, so find the evidence first then summarise it. Wikipedia is not an opinion forum.) --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 10:46, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Needs clarification of "tariff" vs. "duty"

After defining "tariff" in the first sentence, the second sentence begins, "Besides being a source of revenue, import duties...". Anyone looking for clarity now has to look for the definition of "duty" to see if there's a difference. The Wikipedia entry for "Duty" does not mention this usage of the word, so one is left to know to look for a disambiguation page (and find "Duty_(tax)"), or guess, or do a lot of additional searching to feel satisfied they know what is being claimed here.

This switch is unnecessary and needs fixing, perhaps by extending the definition:

A tariff is a tax or duty_(tax)...

But I don't know how to hide the "_(tax)" bit from the displayed text... Wayne.brehaut (talk) 23:05, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

what would duty mean in this context? I mean it is talking about jobs of tax i guess 69.141.175.253 (talk) 21:51, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Annual readership

{{tl:Annual readership}} is currently suspended but the data is available externally. To no-one's surprise, daily readership shot up from less than 5000 a day to over 60,000 on 3 April. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 10:23, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Non-tariff barriers

If anyone is feeling generous, the article non-tariff barriers to trade is sadly lacking in citations. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 13:40, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

I feel that we can merge those to, but that is beyond my powers. Sure, i will try to fix it up. 69.141.175.253 (talk) 21:12, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

sorry nevermind i could not find many refrences, and it is beyond my skillset 69.141.175.253 (talk) 21:13, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

I don't agree with merging as the 'ordinary' tariffs article is already long and would become unmanageable if NTBs were bundled in. They are each notable in their own right. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 21:26, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Import vs Export

I feel like most recent edits to this article are more trump and "tariff crisis" based. They dont cover the good side a lot. (even though there are few) I mean you should focus on all the topics of tarrifs in this situation. But very nice article other than that. I laughed when i was first breezing through and saw the trump picture staring at me. 69.141.175.253 (talk) 21:50, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Deletion of cited content

@PJ Geest, I think it would be appropriate for you to give here a specific justification for each of the deletions you made (except the peacock one, obviously). NPOV requires that we reflect both perspectives equally, even if one is rather lacking in logical rigour. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 11:43, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. I’m happy to clarify the rationale for the deletions. My aim was not to suppress any viewpoint, but to enhance neutrality, avoid undue weight, and improve encyclopedic tone and structure, in line with the following policies:

• WP:NPOV: While we reflect all significant viewpoints, we must do so in proportion to their prominence in reliable sources.
• WP:DUE: Giving a minority view disproportionate space violates due weight.
• WP:UNDUE / WP:FRINGE: Even sourced opinions can become undue if overrepresented relative to their standing in scholarly consensus.

The current text quotes predominantly Ha-Joon Chang, Bairoch and other protectionist authors, often stating their views as fact without explicit source criticism or counter-arguments. This while 95% of economists agree that “Tariffs and import quotas usually reduce general economic welfare”. (https://www.aeaweb.org/conference/2022/preliminary/paper/HBhGyFD7)

For example Bairoch, work is descriptive and historical, and does not meet contemporary empirical standards in economics.

Although his work was rich in historical data, it was not published in peer-reviewed economic journals and did not follow the modern empirical methods of quantitative economics. Although Bairoch wrote extensively on international trade, he did not do so in the form of modern empirical economic analyses, using econometric models or peer-reviewed publications in leading economic journals. His work is: more descriptive and historical than quantitative or econometric; based on historical sources and long-term statistics, rather than rigorous causal analysis.

Also Ha-Joon Chang has not published on the effects of protectionism in the form of empirical research. His work is historical and normative, not empirical-econometric.

By way of comparison: Douglas Irwin conducts peer-reviewed empirical research based on rigorous data analysis, and is frequently cited in international academic literature. Douglas Irwin is widely regarded as the most authoritative source on the history of U.S. trade policy and one of the world's leading experts on the economic effects of free trade and protectionism, based primarily on empirical research. Irwin represents the broader academic consensus view.

I think the article should be rewritten, for example based on following sources:

• Douglas Irwin interview - richmondfed
• Did Tariffs Make America Great? A Long-read Q&A with Trade Historian Douglas A. Irwin
• Annual Review of Economics - Trade Policy in American - Economic History

The current text - even after the deletions - is a massive infringment of NPOV-policy since it is primary based on a set of authors which present a very small minority in science. Minority views can be discussed, but it should be clear it is a minority view and the amount of text spend to this authors should be corresponding how small their minority is in science. So only 1 or 2 sentences for all protectionist authors combined are justified, in my opinion. Or even no space at all, because they do not publish empirical scientific papers on the causality between protectionism and wealth. So they do not represent the current scientific debate, they only represent the current public debate.

For example the current text still misrepresents for example the views of Hamilton (see [1] - question "While we are talking about history, I wanted to ask you: Alexander Hamilton, was he a protectionist?")

Furthermore, the text is excessively based on primary sources, for example "In 1896, the Republican Party platform pledged to "renew and emphasize our allegiance to the policy of protection, as the bulwark of American industrial independence ..." Secondary sources are needed to put these in perspective. Or maybe secondary sources don't find party platform important, and only find the measures important. This is why we need secondary reliable sources like Irwin.

I think the entire history section should be rewritten based on Irwin and other authors which represent the scientific consensus.

I also think the pro an con list, should be replaced with an impact section (see protectionism an Wikipedia:Pro and con lists

A massive amount of articles which are protectionism-related are written by the same French anonymous user (with different IP-adresses). All his text are a massive infringment of NPOV-policy. But his text remain present in a wide range of articles across a wide range of languages (Dutch, French, Spanish, Portugues, Italian, ...). It is a massive effort of POV-pushing. I want to fix this, but often I am reverted by the same user which does not want to stick to the Wikipedia guidelines.

I am open to discussion to what extent minority views should be included, but now the minority view is often represented as a majority view. --PJ Geest (talk) 15:37, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

That all makes sense to me, thank you. I trust that the time you spent writing it will pay dividends because it provides a useful reference if anyone tries to reinsert that material again. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 20:05, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Thank you VERY MUCH for that large explanation, I was wondering about some of your deletions also.

Can you please give more detail/info in your edit summaries? I think that would negate/reduce the need for discussions like this. I like to make deletions separately to additions, justifying each deletion, and re-organizations separately as well. That makes it easier to follow for others to follow.

I support your change of the article to remove pro/con and replace with Impact, and your intent to re-focus the article with better sources. (Minor, but political party platforms are only good for intentions and usually include too much propaganda phrasing and so I think should be removed entirely.)

Thanks for your work here!!! ---Avatar317^(talk) 00:00, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestions. I will try to make the rationale behind the rewriting of the article clearer, either in the edit summary or on the talk page. I also plan to work on a full rewrite of the U.S. history section, as the current text relies heavily on sources from heterodox economists, who represent only a small minority within the field. Moreover, the section still contains a considerable amount of undue pro-protectionist rhetoric. I intend to base the new version primarily on the work of Douglas Irwin, who is widely recognized as the leading academic authority on this topic. --PJ Geest (talk) 12:44, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Alternative text for Arguments favouring and against tariffs

I drafted an alternative text for the current two sections "Arguments favouring tariffs" and "Arguments against tariffs": User:PJ Geest/sandbox

The current text relies heavily on heterodox sources, many of which represent only a small minority of economists and are not grounded in empirical research. Their claims are often based on correlations, without demonstrating causality. In my proposed version, I prioritized conclusions from empirical studies, which offer more robust evidence on the actual effects of tariffs. I’ve still included common arguments used by proponents of tariffs — such as infant industry protection, national defense, and environmental dumping — but I’ve clarified how these arguments are viewed in the mainstream economic literature. I’ve only included such arguments when a reliable source also provides that broader context.

For balance, I’ve also included a well-researched minority perspective (e.g., Topalova’s study on India), which, although not widely supported, is based on high-quality empirical research and has been published in respected outlets. Similarly, where there is broad consensus among economists in favour of a specific form of tariff (e.g., environmental border adjustments), I have reflected that as well.

In short, my aim is to bring the section more in line with the mainstream economic consensus, while still fairly representing alternative viewpoints that are well-sourced and relevant. I’d be happy to hear your suggestions or concerns about this proposal. PJ Geest (talk) 13:14, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

• Strong support for this approach but, I'm sorry to say, IMO it needs some work to make it more accessible to a general audience. The style and density is rather too academic. Wikipedia generally aims for the intellectual level of second quartile senior highschool students. This seems pitched at junior undergraduate economics majors. I really want this to work because I agree with your analysis of the need to replace what we currently have.

𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 15:47, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

• Strong support - I read the whole thing, and mostly GREAT but I agree with JMF that SOME sections could be re-written to be more easily understandable for the layperson, but not that much of your text is that way (in my opinion, maybe 20% ).

Would it be ok with you if I edited your sandbox draft with my suggested changes? (I don't know Wikipedia rules here, am I allowed to edit your Sandbox or instead should you move it to a "Drafts" location instead of Sandbox?) I think that would be easier than me trying to detail each one on a Talk page; I'll give explanations in my edit summaries, and if my re-phrasing makes any statement inaccurate then please fix it, or you can revert my changes and re-write it just using my edit as a suggestion. ---Avatar317^(talk) 20:46, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Hi, thanks again for your suggestions! I’ve now rewritten most of the Impact section in simpler language, as this was the part that seemed most academic to me. Since I guess the three of us agree that the new version is an improvement over the current text, and I’ve already made a first step in improving the text by using simpler language, I’m thinking of inserting the draft into the article. That way, your additional improvements can build directly on the live version and be documented in the article’s edit history. Let me know if there are any sections you still find too academic. --PJ Geest (talk) 13:18, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Those improvements you made were good, thanks! I realize in hindsight that my criticism was rather vague and not particularly helpful, I should have been more specific. But you did address most of the specifics I would have pointed to, so I support you just adding that into the article. Thanks again!! ---Avatar317^(talk) 23:14, 23 May 2025 (UTC)