This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Inflation Reduction Act article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
SPECIFICO, you recently changed the description of the Tax Foundation from fiscally conservative to conservative [1]. Looking at the Tax Foundation wiki page I'm not sure that "conservative" is a good description. The lead of the article doesn't say anything about "conservative". In the Ideology section of the article we find the only mention of "conservative"; "It is cited in the media as a nonpartisan or bipartisan organization, and is also described as business-friendly, conservative, and center-right.". It would make more sense to describe it as non-partisan etc. It does smell of "fiscally conservative" but doesn't literally say that. Since the pro-alternative energy group is called "non-partisan" perhaps that is how this one should be described. It seems the media reports agree it is non-partisan/bipartisan. I don't think it's fair to say reverting your edit was knee jerk since if we are going to summarize the organization it seems more like a group that critical of about government spending. If nothing else, per BRD I think the fiscal conservative label should stand unless we can get agreement on a new label/no label. Springee ( talk) 23:45, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
They aren't partisan but they do have preferences. Springee ( talk) 18:26, 2 November 2022 (UTC) As Springee states, they are nonpartisan, and entitled to that same description, same as the other sources. They are also not "conservative" which is irrelevant anyway considering fiscal matters is what they focus on, their social views do not matter whatsoever. Bill Williams 12:39, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
It is cited in the media as a nonpartisan or bipartisan organization, and is also described as business-friendly, conservative, and center-right.That works for me. But we need both/all descriptors. Andre 🚐 19:50, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
Experts mostly agree the bill wont impact inflation. Can you provide me a reliable source that states the opposite? Everything NPR states throughout the article is that experts believe the bill will only have a modest impact or none at all. It isn't NPOV to state that when that was the bill's proposed purpose and is literally the title of the bill. Bill Williams 01:36, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Will the law reduce inflation, as the name implies? Probably not much. Several measures in the law, such as narrowing the deficit, lowering drug prices and making the U.S. less vulnerable to energy price spikes, should all help reduce inflation somewhat2nd source is a Forbes opinion contributor. The AP piece also has a much more nuanced view.
the White House has trumpeted a letter signed by more than 120 economists, including several Novel Prize winners and former Treasury secretaries, that asserts that the law’s reduction in the government’s budget deficit — by an estimated $300 billion over the next decade, according to the CBO — would put “downward pressure on inflation.” In theory, lower deficits can reduce inflation. That’s because reduced government spending or higher taxes, both of which help shrink the deficit, drive down demand in the economy, thereby easing pressure on companies to raise prices. Jason Furman, a Harvard economist who served as a top economic adviser in the Obama administration, wrote in an opinion column for The Wall Street Journal: “Deficit reduction is almost always inflation-reducing.”Andre 🚐 02:09, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
The second source isn't from a forbes contributor or the top would literally say "forbes constributor," while "not much" is the same as "no significant impact" and that is exactly what they all say. I don't care what some random opinions were, every source states that economists/experts generally agree the effect will NOT be significant. Vox states it will "not be particularly significant," Forbes Advisor (not contributors) says it "won't do much to pull down the inflation rate," The Conversation states "probably not much," the AP article is literally titled "may have little impact on inflation" and states "the likely answer is no [significant impact]" and that "the impact will likely be limited." I am not misconstruing anything, the dispute is whether the effect will be a SMALL positive or negative in the long term, but still agreeing that it will be small i.e. not significant regardless of whether the impact is positive or negative. Please provide a single reliable source claiming economists generally believe it will have a significant impact, because every one of my sources says the impact will not be significant. Bill Williams 03:15, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Some experts and economists think that the bill will have a small effect on inflation, while others do not believe it willAndre 🚐 19:39, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
The recent edit by Philip Samuel should be reverted per WP:COMMONNAME. This also removes the description "a fiscally conservative think tank" which does not have consensus for removal. Andre 🚐 22:16, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
Most Definitely. The edit warring by Philip Samuel must stop as well. CrazyPredictor ( talk) 00:11, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
I have moved the article to remove the "of 2022" so as to reflect the commonly-used name. It should not have been marked as a minor edit. int21h ( talk · contribs · email) 01:58, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
I have 2 propositions:
1. Change the name of the section "Impact" to "Projected impacts".
2. Move all the content in this section regarding implementation and results to the section "Implementation and results".
Explanation:
As for now, this is the biggest climate law in the world so people are interested in it... They are interested mostly in real results. The more time it is implemented the more results appear. Of course it is also interesting what impacts was projected but even then mostly for compare to what was really achieved. The information about results and implementation is now dispersed trough the page, partly hidden between the information about projections and therfore difficult to find quickly.
In my opinion it is important to concentrate the information about real results and implementation in one section maybe divide it to subsections "Climate change" "Drug price" Inflation" and of course add more sub sections about impact on different states and territories. So people could quickly find the information about real results that they want to find.
If you agree, you can do it by yourself or write that you agree and I will do it. If I will not see any reaction at all, I will understand that there is no objection and will do it.
Best wishes. Alexander Sauda/אלכסנדר סעודה ( talk) 13:55, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 6 September 2023 and 14 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): ChrisMisu ( article contribs).
— Assignment last updated by ChrisMisu ( talk) 20:51, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
There should be some explanation of the name of the Act, for its primary purpose does not seem to be to reduce inflation. How did the name come about? Was the bill originally more about inflation? LastDodo ( talk) 11:24, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Inflation Reduction Act article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
SPECIFICO, you recently changed the description of the Tax Foundation from fiscally conservative to conservative [1]. Looking at the Tax Foundation wiki page I'm not sure that "conservative" is a good description. The lead of the article doesn't say anything about "conservative". In the Ideology section of the article we find the only mention of "conservative"; "It is cited in the media as a nonpartisan or bipartisan organization, and is also described as business-friendly, conservative, and center-right.". It would make more sense to describe it as non-partisan etc. It does smell of "fiscally conservative" but doesn't literally say that. Since the pro-alternative energy group is called "non-partisan" perhaps that is how this one should be described. It seems the media reports agree it is non-partisan/bipartisan. I don't think it's fair to say reverting your edit was knee jerk since if we are going to summarize the organization it seems more like a group that critical of about government spending. If nothing else, per BRD I think the fiscal conservative label should stand unless we can get agreement on a new label/no label. Springee ( talk) 23:45, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
They aren't partisan but they do have preferences. Springee ( talk) 18:26, 2 November 2022 (UTC) As Springee states, they are nonpartisan, and entitled to that same description, same as the other sources. They are also not "conservative" which is irrelevant anyway considering fiscal matters is what they focus on, their social views do not matter whatsoever. Bill Williams 12:39, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
It is cited in the media as a nonpartisan or bipartisan organization, and is also described as business-friendly, conservative, and center-right.That works for me. But we need both/all descriptors. Andre 🚐 19:50, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
Experts mostly agree the bill wont impact inflation. Can you provide me a reliable source that states the opposite? Everything NPR states throughout the article is that experts believe the bill will only have a modest impact or none at all. It isn't NPOV to state that when that was the bill's proposed purpose and is literally the title of the bill. Bill Williams 01:36, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Will the law reduce inflation, as the name implies? Probably not much. Several measures in the law, such as narrowing the deficit, lowering drug prices and making the U.S. less vulnerable to energy price spikes, should all help reduce inflation somewhat2nd source is a Forbes opinion contributor. The AP piece also has a much more nuanced view.
the White House has trumpeted a letter signed by more than 120 economists, including several Novel Prize winners and former Treasury secretaries, that asserts that the law’s reduction in the government’s budget deficit — by an estimated $300 billion over the next decade, according to the CBO — would put “downward pressure on inflation.” In theory, lower deficits can reduce inflation. That’s because reduced government spending or higher taxes, both of which help shrink the deficit, drive down demand in the economy, thereby easing pressure on companies to raise prices. Jason Furman, a Harvard economist who served as a top economic adviser in the Obama administration, wrote in an opinion column for The Wall Street Journal: “Deficit reduction is almost always inflation-reducing.”Andre 🚐 02:09, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
The second source isn't from a forbes contributor or the top would literally say "forbes constributor," while "not much" is the same as "no significant impact" and that is exactly what they all say. I don't care what some random opinions were, every source states that economists/experts generally agree the effect will NOT be significant. Vox states it will "not be particularly significant," Forbes Advisor (not contributors) says it "won't do much to pull down the inflation rate," The Conversation states "probably not much," the AP article is literally titled "may have little impact on inflation" and states "the likely answer is no [significant impact]" and that "the impact will likely be limited." I am not misconstruing anything, the dispute is whether the effect will be a SMALL positive or negative in the long term, but still agreeing that it will be small i.e. not significant regardless of whether the impact is positive or negative. Please provide a single reliable source claiming economists generally believe it will have a significant impact, because every one of my sources says the impact will not be significant. Bill Williams 03:15, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Some experts and economists think that the bill will have a small effect on inflation, while others do not believe it willAndre 🚐 19:39, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
The recent edit by Philip Samuel should be reverted per WP:COMMONNAME. This also removes the description "a fiscally conservative think tank" which does not have consensus for removal. Andre 🚐 22:16, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
Most Definitely. The edit warring by Philip Samuel must stop as well. CrazyPredictor ( talk) 00:11, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
I have moved the article to remove the "of 2022" so as to reflect the commonly-used name. It should not have been marked as a minor edit. int21h ( talk · contribs · email) 01:58, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
I have 2 propositions:
1. Change the name of the section "Impact" to "Projected impacts".
2. Move all the content in this section regarding implementation and results to the section "Implementation and results".
Explanation:
As for now, this is the biggest climate law in the world so people are interested in it... They are interested mostly in real results. The more time it is implemented the more results appear. Of course it is also interesting what impacts was projected but even then mostly for compare to what was really achieved. The information about results and implementation is now dispersed trough the page, partly hidden between the information about projections and therfore difficult to find quickly.
In my opinion it is important to concentrate the information about real results and implementation in one section maybe divide it to subsections "Climate change" "Drug price" Inflation" and of course add more sub sections about impact on different states and territories. So people could quickly find the information about real results that they want to find.
If you agree, you can do it by yourself or write that you agree and I will do it. If I will not see any reaction at all, I will understand that there is no objection and will do it.
Best wishes. Alexander Sauda/אלכסנדר סעודה ( talk) 13:55, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 6 September 2023 and 14 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): ChrisMisu ( article contribs).
— Assignment last updated by ChrisMisu ( talk) 20:51, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
There should be some explanation of the name of the Act, for its primary purpose does not seem to be to reduce inflation. How did the name come about? Was the bill originally more about inflation? LastDodo ( talk) 11:24, 29 May 2024 (UTC)