Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The only ray of hope is that at least one investment bank is making a big bet that the supreme court will strike down nearly all these tariffs as illegal.

The appeals court starts hearing arguments on 7/31 at which point they believe fairly quickly Trump will lose again, and then this gets kicked up to the Supreme Court for final say.

Trump already decisively lost round 1, 3-0 to a panel comprised of I think a Bush, Obama and Trump 1.0 panel of judges.

Dream on! The Supreme Court has been bought and paid for.. I'm not aware of the details of the arguments that helped the other side win at the appeals court, but I would have thought Tariffs are the purview of the Executive Branch.. Correct me if I'm wrong..

Tariffs in emergency situations are the purview of the President. So, during wartime you can impose tariffs on other countries.

The problem is that the current administration has been claiming that trade deficits are emergencies...even though we have had trade deficits since the beginning of time and yet people have been doing just fine, even great. Also, hard to justify imposing 50% tariffs on Brazil where we run a trade surplus. Finally, there are countries like Nicaragua which are one of the largest suppliers of bananas and to some extent coffee, where of course we run a trade deficit because they are a poor country and the US can't grow bananas or coffee or other tropical products.

I kind of agree with you for 2 justices...but the other 4 conservatives are fairly principled and it's fairly cut-and-dry that unilaterally imposing tariffs for no reason is 1000% not a conservative principle.

Is there any law that says Tariffs cannot be imposed during non-war times or such tariffs need the approval of congress?

I know that a lot of anti-trump people (me included) are against these tariffs but what if, by the time the case comes up at the Supreme Court, Trump is able to show positive outcomes - tariff revenue, lack of inflation (or controlled inflation), employment at normal levels, robust stock market, etc.? Do you think the SC will still want to undo the tariffs and associated "benefits"?

There is no law because it seemed rather obvious that a President isn't allowed to arbitrarily implement a new tax without approval of congress...and tariffs are taxes.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who is absorbing tariffs? It seems that prices are remaining steady despite the tariffs

Prices for what? The WSJ published actual Walmart prices for products pre tariff and now and many items were increased by 30%+. These aren’t consumables so you would only know if you tried to purchase say a shovel 6 months ago vs now.

The answer is that some of the exporters are eating it, some of the businesses are eating it and then there are price increases being passed along which is why inflation has ticked up.

To this point, the fridge we bought for 4K in January now retails for 4500.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The only ray of hope is that at least one investment bank is making a big bet that the supreme court will strike down nearly all these tariffs as illegal.

The appeals court starts hearing arguments on 7/31 at which point they believe fairly quickly Trump will lose again, and then this gets kicked up to the Supreme Court for final say.

Trump already decisively lost round 1, 3-0 to a panel comprised of I think a Bush, Obama and Trump 1.0 panel of judges.

Dream on! The Supreme Court has been bought and paid for.. I'm not aware of the details of the arguments that helped the other side win at the appeals court, but I would have thought Tariffs are the purview of the Executive Branch.. Correct me if I'm wrong..

Tariffs in emergency situations are the purview of the President. So, during wartime you can impose tariffs on other countries.

The problem is that the current administration has been claiming that trade deficits are emergencies...even though we have had trade deficits since the beginning of time and yet people have been doing just fine, even great. Also, hard to justify imposing 50% tariffs on Brazil where we run a trade surplus. Finally, there are countries like Nicaragua which are one of the largest suppliers of bananas and to some extent coffee, where of course we run a trade deficit because they are a poor country and the US can't grow bananas or coffee or other tropical products.

I kind of agree with you for 2 justices...but the other 4 conservatives are fairly principled and it's fairly cut-and-dry that unilaterally imposing tariffs for no reason is 1000% not a conservative principle.

Is there any law that says Tariffs cannot be imposed during non-war times or such tariffs need the approval of congress?

I know that a lot of anti-trump people (me included) are against these tariffs but what if, by the time the case comes up at the Supreme Court, Trump is able to show positive outcomes - tariff revenue, lack of inflation (or controlled inflation), employment at normal levels, robust stock market, etc.? Do you think the SC will still want to undo the tariffs and associated "benefits"?

It's literally Article I of the Constitution. (Section 8):

"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises"

It basically comes to down to whether the president has authority Congress delegated to the Executive in previous laws, almost all of which are meant to be short term to deal with emergencies. "Because they "treated us badly" in the past" doesn't qualify under any reasonable standard as an emergency, but as you said, that's not for me to decide. Mr. Balls and Strikes will make that call and probably not explain why.

Anonymous wrote:Policy changes take awhile to show in economic figures. Today's indicators reflect events from several months ago.

My guess is around October/November we will start seeing changes. What worries most are tariffs on steel imports, especially if they cause domestic suppliers to raise prices because of less imports and more market power as a result

Let's see.

+1 Also, companies stockpiled merchandise ahead of the tariffs.



Large companies can blunt the impact by stockpiling. Smaller businesses cannot. So, these tariff policies will put more smaller business out of business.

Dem politicians are trying to exempt small businesses from these tariffs, but I doubt anything will come to pass.

https://morrison.house.gov/media/press-releases/us-reps-kelly-morrison-chris-pappas-introduce-legislation-exempt-small

I know there are many R small business owners, so this tariff is one big F U to these small business owners. MAGA/s

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The only ray of hope is that at least one investment bank is making a big bet that the supreme court will strike down nearly all these tariffs as illegal.

The appeals court starts hearing arguments on 7/31 at which point they believe fairly quickly Trump will lose again, and then this gets kicked up to the Supreme Court for final say.

Trump already decisively lost round 1, 3-0 to a panel comprised of I think a Bush, Obama and Trump 1.0 panel of judges.

Dream on! The Supreme Court has been bought and paid for.. I'm not aware of the details of the arguments that helped the other side win at the appeals court, but I would have thought Tariffs are the purview of the Executive Branch.. Correct me if I'm wrong..

Tariffs in emergency situations are the purview of the President. So, during wartime you can impose tariffs on other countries.

The problem is that the current administration has been claiming that trade deficits are emergencies...even though we have had trade deficits since the beginning of time and yet people have been doing just fine, even great. Also, hard to justify imposing 50% tariffs on Brazil where we run a trade surplus. Finally, there are countries like Nicaragua which are one of the largest suppliers of bananas and to some extent coffee, where of course we run a trade deficit because they are a poor country and the US can't grow bananas or coffee or other tropical products.

I kind of agree with you for 2 justices...but the other 4 conservatives are fairly principled and it's fairly cut-and-dry that unilaterally imposing tariffs for no reason is 1000% not a conservative principle.

Is there any law that says Tariffs cannot be imposed during non-war times or such tariffs need the approval of congress?

I know that a lot of anti-trump people (me included) are against these tariffs but what if, by the time the case comes up at the Supreme Court, Trump is able to show positive outcomes - tariff revenue, lack of inflation (or controlled inflation), employment at normal levels, robust stock market, etc.? Do you think the SC will still want to undo the tariffs and associated "benefits"?

Tariffs are just another tax the consumer will pay. However, there is not a streamlined system for collecting tariffs like there is for tax. So, it will be a mess.
Jan 20, 2029 we can see prices and trade return to normal.

Anonymous wrote:With China, Japan, and EU deals announced, who is still out there? Korea will sign too. Any big player missing?

Canada is the US's biggest individual country trading partner (although the EU as a block is bigger).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The only ray of hope is that at least one investment bank is making a big bet that the supreme court will strike down nearly all these tariffs as illegal.

The appeals court starts hearing arguments on 7/31 at which point they believe fairly quickly Trump will lose again, and then this gets kicked up to the Supreme Court for final say.

Trump already decisively lost round 1, 3-0 to a panel comprised of I think a Bush, Obama and Trump 1.0 panel of judges.

Dream on! The Supreme Court has been bought and paid for.. I'm not aware of the details of the arguments that helped the other side win at the appeals court, but I would have thought Tariffs are the purview of the Executive Branch.. Correct me if I'm wrong..

Tariffs in emergency situations are the purview of the President. So, during wartime you can impose tariffs on other countries.

The problem is that the current administration has been claiming that trade deficits are emergencies...even though we have had trade deficits since the beginning of time and yet people have been doing just fine, even great. Also, hard to justify imposing 50% tariffs on Brazil where we run a trade surplus. Finally, there are countries like Nicaragua which are one of the largest suppliers of bananas and to some extent coffee, where of course we run a trade deficit because they are a poor country and the US can't grow bananas or coffee or other tropical products.

I kind of agree with you for 2 justices...but the other 4 conservatives are fairly principled and it's fairly cut-and-dry that unilaterally imposing tariffs for no reason is 1000% not a conservative principle.

Ha ha ha I needed a good belly laugh this morning, thanks.

From Paul Krugman, the Nobel prize winning trade economist. For those who can't be bother to read, US businesses are paying for tariffs, and yes, they will pass it on to you the US consumer.
The Art of the Really Stupid Deal
Paul Krugman
In a matter of months, we’ve gone from a regime of very low trade barriers — achieved through generations of hard bargaining in international trade negotiations — to Smoot-Hawley-level tariffs. Many businesses, however, have taken comfort in the belief that extremely high tariffs were temporary, that they’d come back down as Trump began making deals with other nations.

But Japan has struck a deal — and is left facing a tariff of 15 percent, compared with an average of 1.6 percent BT (Before Trump.) Reports suggest that a similar deal may be coming with the European Union. At this point it looks as if we’re heading for a new normal in which most imports are taxed at 15 percent, while some face even higher tariffs.

Trump claims that foreigners will pay these tariffs, and Trump apologists are pointing to consumer prices, which haven’t yet shown a clear spike, as evidence that he’s right. But they’re looking at the wrong price measure. What you want to look at are import prices — the prices foreign producers are charging America, prices tracked by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

If Trump were right, we’d be seeing a large fall in import prices, offsetting the tariff hikes. It would look like this:

That is, if you look at the right price measures, foreigners don’t seem to be paying any significant share of the Trump tariffs.

Who is paying? So far, the burden seems to be falling mainly on U.S. businesses, which are definitely seeing a sharp rise in costs. Look, for example, at the Institute for Supply Management’s report on manufacturing, which asks purchasing managers whether their costs have risen. The percentage answering yes has historically been a very good predictor of inflation a few months down the pike. And we’re currently experiencing cost inflation at levels not seen since the summer of 2022:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The only ray of hope is that at least one investment bank is making a big bet that the supreme court will strike down nearly all these tariffs as illegal.

The appeals court starts hearing arguments on 7/31 at which point they believe fairly quickly Trump will lose again, and then this gets kicked up to the Supreme Court for final say.

Trump already decisively lost round 1, 3-0 to a panel comprised of I think a Bush, Obama and Trump 1.0 panel of judges.

Dream on! The Supreme Court has been bought and paid for.. I'm not aware of the details of the arguments that helped the other side win at the appeals court, but I would have thought Tariffs are the purview of the Executive Branch.. Correct me if I'm wrong..

Tariffs in emergency situations are the purview of the President. So, during wartime you can impose tariffs on other countries.

The problem is that the current administration has been claiming that trade deficits are emergencies...even though we have had trade deficits since the beginning of time and yet people have been doing just fine, even great. Also, hard to justify imposing 50% tariffs on Brazil where we run a trade surplus. Finally, there are countries like Nicaragua which are one of the largest suppliers of bananas and to some extent coffee, where of course we run a trade deficit because they are a poor country and the US can't grow bananas or coffee or other tropical products.

I kind of agree with you for 2 justices...but the other 4 conservatives are fairly principled and it's fairly cut-and-dry that unilaterally imposing tariffs for no reason is 1000% not a conservative principle.

My kid has noticed. She's been saving for a year for a Nintendo Switch. She had the amount calculated etc. Then last month she went to buy and found out she was $75 short. I wish I had thought of it, I would have bought it in January, but it wasn't on my radar that she'd actually save up the money.

Anonymous wrote:The only ray of hope is that at least one investment bank is making a big bet that the supreme court will strike down nearly all these tariffs as illegal.

The appeals court starts hearing arguments on 7/31 at which point they believe fairly quickly Trump will lose again, and then this gets kicked up to the Supreme Court for final say.

Trump already decisively lost round 1, 3-0 to a panel comprised of I think a Bush, Obama and Trump 1.0 panel of judges.

Dream on! The Supreme Court has been bought and paid for.. I'm not aware of the details of the arguments that helped the other side win at the appeals court, but I would have thought Tariffs are the purview of the Executive Branch.. Correct me if I'm wrong..

The only ray of hope is that at least one investment bank is making a big bet that the supreme court will strike down nearly all these tariffs as illegal.

The appeals court starts hearing arguments on 7/31 at which point they believe fairly quickly Trump will lose again, and then this gets kicked up to the Supreme Court for final say.

Trump already decisively lost round 1, 3-0 to a panel comprised of I think a Bush, Obama and Trump 1.0 panel of judges.

Anonymous wrote:Who is absorbing tariffs? It seems that prices are remaining steady despite the tariffs

In the short-term, it will be shared between the seller, middleman and the consumer. Long term, it will shift to the consumer. No business is going to not make as much money as possible.

What can/will we do? Nothing. Republicans will whine and moan about "inflation" when a Democrat is running the show but bendover, bring the lube, and drop their pants for Trump. Same goes the other way too but with a lot of noise..

Groceries, restaurants, clothing, and hotels!

Gas is cheap.

Construction materials for my home projects have not gone up much. I tend to think people are not remodeling/building.