Talk:Economy of the United States

List of large equity holders in the USA by beneficial owners
This list is also missing (i.e. list of top beneficial owners by nationality). Forbes' List of high net worth individuals/billionaires helps but this is different. I suspect however some TRILLIONAIRES/families are missing (if they exist). 47.17.16.137 (talk)

US public debt
World factbook cites 73.6% of GDP (2015 est.) and US treasury department "102% of GDP".

Historical and proposed tax rates
Regarding, the original source of those graphs is Emmanuel Saez and Gabriel Zucman, who are renowned authorities on the topic, from their book The Triumph of Injustice: How the rich dodge taxes and how to make them pay. Do you think they are inaccurate or misleading, or otherwise unworthy of inclusion in the Taxation section? Δπ (talk) 03:18, 7 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Yes. The problem with them is that they are not unbiased scientists who are describing the tax policies, both of them are advocates for certain types of taxation policies, as should be completely obvious from the title of their book. Their think-tanks/advocacy organizations are not valid sources: Note that at WP:RSP there are no think-tanks listed; that's because they fall under Self-Published Sources WP:SPS. Biased sources like think-tanks are NOT academic sources. Their goal is to advocate for their policy positions, and they do this by generating and publishing "research" which supports their positions. They don't objectively report on a situation; they publish only information/research which supports their position(s); they'll never publish research which runs contrary to their policy position; using such sources DIRECTLY risks UNDUEly WP:UNDUE representing their positions in OPINION situations, rather than taking their position in proper balance with others as presented by Independent Sources WP:IS. And they are practically never valid for statements of fact about causes they advocate for or against; it doesn't matter what political lean they have, this is true for conservative as well as liberal think-tanks. --- Avatar317 (talk) 21:56, 7 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Do you at least agree that the charts present nothing other than historical data? Of course the authors have a point of view, and I agree the specific data from the first of the two charts could be construed as supporting their position. WP:RS states, "scholarly monographs ... are usually the most reliable sources. However, some scholarly material may be ... controversial within the relevant field...." Is there any reason that this specific data itself is controversial? Have there been any other instances of historical graphs excluded because of the political opinions of the scholars who produced them? The charts are the work of the professors themselves, and weren't produced by any think-tank. Δπ (talk) 22:31, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
 * No. (to your first question) As I tried to say above but maybe didn't, the same data can be made to "say" different things or support opposing views depending on how you present it. The standard idea of how to lie with statistics. (Why not go back to 1930 when the top tier rate was 90%?  How about pre federal income tax when the top tax rate was obviously 0%).
 * If you want a graph of tax rates, the US Federal Reserve System has many publications and would be a much more neutral source for this info. --- Avatar317 (talk) 00:19, 8 February 2023 (UTC)


 * I'm sure you mean something like, which while better than nothing, omits the effect of state and local taxes on the poor, and doesn't show how the upper-middle class is the fulcrum around which cuts for the rich are paid for by hikes on the poor. And it can't illustrate the politicians' proposals or how they all tilt their trade-offs around the 97th percentile. I agree that data can be made to say different things, but are you claiming that the data on the two charts is in fact actually biased in such a way? Δπ (talk) 02:08, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Use most recent estimate, or slightly older actual figure?
I notice that across our "Economy of..." articles, in the infobox, we tend to use the IMF's GDP estimates for 2022, as opposed to the actual figure for 2021. We don't even mark the figure as an estimate, and IMO it seems more encyclopedic to use actual figures even if slightly older. I've reviewed the archives and seen no previous discussion of this, but one may have taken place on another page that I've missed.

In the infobox, for the GDP figures, what should we do?

DFlhb (talk) 08:23, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
 * 1) List only the most recent year's estimate
 * 2) List only the latest actual figure
 * 3) List both, and designate the estimate as an estimate


 * I'll note that these forecasts aren't that accurate., even for current-year estimates. DFlhb (talk) 09:14, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I !vote for 3 - both; the more info we provide to the reader the better, IMO. I think many people are familiar with the news of "previous estimate of X quarter growth restated" so they will understand the inaccuracy, even though +/- 's  aren't included in the estimates. --- Avatar317 (talk) 19:46, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Making The Article Semi-Protected
This page keeps getting vandalized and I am tired of doing cleanup. It should be semi-protected. Wlong243 (talk) 17:45, 27 August 2023 (UTC)


 * I've requested it to be semi-protected and it has been! Thanks for the heads up! Plainfield95 (talk) 03:14, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
 * It should be fully protected Usydydjwhxyxhx (talk) 12:50, 30 March 2024 (UTC)