Jump to content

Talk:Inflation Reduction Act

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Tax Foundation, as conservative organization

[edit]

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)[reply]

Ping @CrazyPredictor and Toa Nidhiki05: as editors who added the content and description in early August. Springee (talk) 23:58, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Tax Foundation is not a uniformly conservative organization. It's fiscally conservative, but as far as think tanks go it's highly regarded and fairly objective. Labeling it as just "conservative" is not accurate. Toa Nidhiki05 00:01, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Springee, as I said, the article text describes it as a "conservative think tank". Whether that's in the lead or elsewhere is immaterial, and at any rate nowhere in that article is it called "fiscally conservative". That is OR. It's also just incorrect because that is a term with a specific meaning, which does not apply here. SPECIFICO talk 00:13, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Where is that description? The section I quoted didn't use that simplistic a description and "conservative" is attributed. Springee (talk) 00:29, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would be opposed to giving it a solely nonpartisan label, as it definitely makes sense to give additional context as to their general ideology and views. This is also regularly pointed out in articles by reliable sources.
As for what exactly we should call it, I am indecisive between multiple terms. Descriptions like "fiscally conservative" and "center-right" are definitely common, and we have enough sources to back up those labels. These two are what I would suggest. CrazyPredictor (talk) 18:24, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
CrazyPredictor, how would you feel about "a nonpartisan, fiscally conservative..." That would cover their fiscal opinions but also follow sources such as WashPo, NYT and WSJ that say they aren't partisan. I also think wee should probably note the other think tank is a "clean energy" our similar group.

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)[reply]

  • The Tax Foundation is a right-wing think tank[2][3] with funding from the Koch Brothers and it should not be described as nonpartisan. Andre🚐 18:53, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes and there are many other RS for that. They were founded in the Old Right's backlash against FDR and the New Deal government programs. Also, "non-partisan" is often used to denote "neither Democrat nor Republican" but not "free of ideology and advocacy". SPECIFICO talk 19:02, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I would agree they have a POV. The same is true of the pro alternative energy groups that both support and benefit from the green energy aspects of the law. Andervan, I'm not sure your sources are telling that much. MJ is far too opinionated and even that LAT article of issuing a lot of innuendo and rhetoric to support their claims. Compare that to the sources from the group's Wiki page where the NYT, WP and WSJ don't call the group "conservative" but do note the nonpartisan aspect. I think fiscally conservative is a good way to describe their perspective but I think nonpartisan should also be included since we do the same for the environmental group and because RS call them nonpartisan. Springee (talk) 19:48, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Springee, "fiscal conservative" is not the same as "conservative". Stop conflating them and arguing from one to the other based on your personal OR misunderstanding. SPECIFICO talk 19:50, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    From said article: 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)[reply]

Effect on Inflation

[edit]

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)[reply]

We just had an RFC and the outcome was to include both the experts who do think it will help inflation and those who don't, so it's not accurate or NPOV to say that experts mostly agree that it won't impact inflation. Andre🚐 01:40, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That is not at all what the RfC determined. It determined that we should place the letters of economists in the reaction section, because they were not analyses of anything. One letter by a group of economists stating it will cause inflation and one letter stating it will reduce inflation is irrelevant to the general consensus. Overall, as stated by NPR, most experts agree that the effect on inflation, positive or negative, will not be significant. That is what every independent analysis has determined, while the partisan beliefs expressed in two letters by economists is not what belongs in the lead. Bill Williams 01:44, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You can simply say that NPR stated that most experts agree the effect positive or negative, will be small. You cannot say most experts said it would not have any positive effect because that isn't true. Andre🚐 01:46, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"The proposal won't help curb inflation dramatically nor right away, experts say." NPR specifically states that experts believe the bill will not significantly impact inflation. You have zero sources claiming there is an actual dispute over whether the effect will be significant or not, because every reliable source states the effect will be negligible. All I did in my edit was add sourced content, which you removed. Bill Williams 01:48, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You're leaving out "dramatically nor right away," and implying it won't have an effect, which is not what the source says and is your original spin. Andre🚐 01:49, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Second source stating that economists agree the effect wont be significant [4] "As economists told Vox’s Li Zhou, the average American likely won’t feel the impact immediately or particularly significantly — its effect will be in a longer-term and macroeconomic sense." They disagree as to whether it will have a small positive or negative impact in the long term, but all agree that in the long term the effect will not be significant, and that in the short term it will have a negligible effect. Bill Williams 01:51, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm really confused as to what you're trying to disagree with. The bill's impact on inflation will not be significant, which is what most economists agree to. It doesn't matter if they disagree on whether it has some small impact that is positive or negative, they agree that either way it will be small. Bill Williams 01:52, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I never said it wont have an effect, can you refrain from putting words in my mouth? My edit stated "the bill will not significantly impact inflation" which is exactly what sources state. They say it will not have much of any impact in the short term, and that in the long term it might be a small negative or positive effect. Bill Williams 01:54, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What you are summarizing is totally different. It might have a long-term macroeconomic effect is very different from it will likely have no impact. Andre🚐 01:56, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
[5] [6] [7] three more sources stating the effect will not be significant. Numerous reliable sources state that economists/experts agree the long term impact will not be significant. "It might have a long term macroeconomic effect" is true, and it might be positive or negative, but the fact is that most agree the effect will NOT be significant. Can you provide me with a single reliable source claiming an agreement between economists that there WILL be a significant impact? Bill Williams 01:58, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Again, your source doesn't say what you said, fails verifications. 1st one, 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 somewhat 2nd 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)[reply]
The status quo in the lead with "The projected impact of the bill on inflation is disputed." is fair and good.
It's actually just a summary of what we have collected in this Wikipedia article over time. If you look at the "Impacts" section you will see that the projected impact is indeed disputed. The content in that section is, of course, well sourced and has been debated here before.
I concur with Andre🚐 and advocate for keeping the status quo. CrazyPredictor (talk) 23:27, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I'm still waiting for Andrevan or CrazyPredictor providing a single source to claim there is any dispute about the significance of the effect on inflation. No reliable sources show a significant effect on inflation, with all stating the effect will not be much, be minimal, be small, etc. Stating in the lead that the "effect on inflation is disputed" is misleading, because there is widespread agreement that the effect will be minor, regardless of whether it increases or decreases inflation. The nuances of that can be discussed in the body, but all readers need to know is that it wont have much of an effect. Bill Williams 19:35, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree, the sources differ as to whether there will be no effect or there will be an effect but it may be small or take time. I don't necessarily think the wording of saying it's disputed is the clearest. I'd suggest something like, Some experts and economists think that the bill will have a small effect on inflation, while others do not believe it will Andre🚐 19:39, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would disagree with this (and more strongly with Bill Williams request) as we are citing economists and for example the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget in this wikipedia article, which do project a reduction of inflation without referring to it as a "small effect" or anything comparable.
Imo this would make the lead diverge from the rest of the article too much. CrazyPredictor (talk) 20:06, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Full name/common name

[edit]

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)[reply]

Most Definitely. The edit warring by Philip Samuel must stop as well. CrazyPredictor (talk) 00:11, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have no opinion on the "fiscally conservative think tank". Moving forward, if you think WP:COMMONNAME should be the consensus for the lead, then I will defer. Phillip Samuel (talk) 00:22, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Article rename

[edit]

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)[reply]

2 propositions:

[edit]

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)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: Research Process and Methodology - FA23 - Sect 202 - Thu

[edit]

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)[reply]

Name

[edit]

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)[reply]

"landmark"?

[edit]

Calling this "landmark" legislation obviously reflects a bias. That word should be removed. WikiAlto (talk) 22:52, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Moody's and Vox analysis - proposed addition

[edit]

This addition was disputed by SPECIFICO as WP:Undue/Silly. I strongly disagree and advocate reinstating it as relevant, from a perennially reliable secondary source, and a mostly unique type of analysis that is not already included in the article: "While not expected to stem the 2021-2023 inflation crisis, she argues it will stem the impact of the next major crisis.[1] Moody's Chief Economist Mark Zandi estimates that by 2030, the IRA could save American households more than $300/year on their energy bills in today's dollars.[1]" Superb Owl (talk) 17:57, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Leber is a journalist, not an economist. Her opinion is moot. There's no reason a priori to predict a future inflationary "crisis" caused by fossil fuel prices. Neither Vox nor Moody's are high quality sources on economics. SPECIFICO talk 20:16, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree - Vox is a reputable outlet known for its reliable politics coverage. Moody's is clearly a reputable organization.
Are you also saying we should remove the Tax Foundation? Other think tanks? What is the standard of inclusion here? Superb Owl (talk) 20:57, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The opinions are verified, but the content is UNDUE. The problem is NPOV, not V. SPECIFICO talk 02:07, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I thought the Tax Foundation was removed a long time ago. It's an ideological political messaging factory. SPECIFICO talk 02:10, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes, it is gone - must have been thinking of another article Superb Owl (talk) 03:24, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ a b Leber, Rebecca (2022-08-12). "Fight climate change. End fossilflation. Here's how". Vox. Retrieved 2024-08-21. Reducing reliance on fossil fuels 'will significantly reduce its grip on inflation in the broader economy,' said Zandi. It's the reason why economists eventually expect the Inflation Reduction Act to live up to the bill's name.

inflation since passage of act Aug 2022

[edit]

inflation in the ensuing 24 months after the passage of the Inflation act is 4.3 percent source U.S Bureau of Labor Statistics, this is significantly higher than the average inflation rate for the preceding 10 years U.S Bureau of Labor Statistics. John Maynard Keynes cautioned that excessive government spending could lead too higher inflation, in which it has subsequent to passing of the Inflation act. Does anyone see the irony? fiscal responsibility and decrease in the money supply are the most proven ways too combat inflation should be noted 2601:40:C480:D2F0:C463:CAEA:E1FE:6D79 (talk) 22:36, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clarity and balance

[edit]

This article is written with so much bias one can barely read it clearly. English literates do not write “he raised $600 and at the same time spent $700,” like this article does, but rather “he lost $100.” Struggling to avoid verbiage like “loss” or “deficit” is laughable. 24.34.197.205 (talk) 09:13, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Inflation_Reduction_Act&oldid=1254293011"