Tariff Man and his tariff plan cause market plunges

[HDGristle]

Welcome back, Lusty

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by HDGristle

Welcome back, Lusty

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by HDGristle

We covered this awhile back. The Fed's tools can tackle employment or inflation. They chose employment and are temporarily accepting higher inflation. That doesn't mean they're not worried about inflation.

Originally Posted by txdot-guy

That’s because anyone with a clue knows that our economy runs on consumption and not production. If people don’t have salaries they can’t buy goods and services.

Except monetary policy is NOT a good tool for stimulating the economy. It works better as a brake than a gas pedal.

Ever heard of the expression "pushing on a string"? The main thing quantitative easing succeeded at is blowing up the Fed's balance sheet.

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by HDGristle

Neither I nor Tx took the position that all tariffs are bad...

Would it be unfair to say you both take the position that all TRUMP tariffs are bad?

[HDGristle]

Originally Posted by lustylad

Would it be unfair to say you both take the position that all TRUMP tariffs are bad?

Yes. I was fine with the tariff schedule tied to the USMCA, except for the parts where he pretended he made massive changes when he didn't since it was mostly the same as NAFTA.

We can call his minor updates Trump tariffs

Here's a good resource for you to mine
https://www.tradecomplianceresourceh...ariff-tracker/

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by HDGristle

If the Supremes rule as they should, and knock down the illegal tariffs they'll actually do him a favor.

What exactly is "illegal" about the tariffs? Congress has passed numerous bills over the years delegating tariff authority to the executive Branch. Including the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, the Trade Act of 1974, and the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977. The US Trade Representative is appointed by the President, not by Congress. (The Senate merely confirms the nominee.)

It makes no sense to think the 535 members of the US Congress would be able to negotiate coherently in one voice over details of what duties, quotas or other limits should be imposed on tens of thousands of imported items from 180+ different trading partners. If you think Trump's tariff negotiations are a mess, try asking Congress to take over.

But then, perhaps it does make "sense" if one's real motive is to take satisfaction from seeing the SCOTUS rule against Trump, right or wrong.

[HDGristle]

Delegating some tariff authority. The executive has constraints on what it can do... but you know this

I'd strongly suggest you read both rulings. There's a reason he stopped using IEEPA as the basis for his tariffs after the lawsuit and went back to ordering studies and his 232 authority

[Devo]

42,400 ish to 46,300 ish, for this year to date, almost 4K in a rise.

So far, I don't understand what you are talking about anymore, things have gotten BETTER under Trump this year, I don't understand how that can be, and that its problematic?

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by HDGristle

Delegating some tariff authority. The executive has constraints on what it can do... but you know this

I'd strongly suggest you read both rulings.

Non-answer. Exactly what constraints has the executive exceeded? Just tell us, don't cite some unidentified "rulings".

If Congress wanted to take back its authority in this area, they would pass new legislation to do so. But even they know putting the 535 Solons on Capitol Hill in charge of every detail of our trade & tariff policies would be a disaster.

[HDGristle]

It's an answer, you just don't seem to understand the difference between his 232 authority and IEEPA or whst they permit. Or what's required for either to be invoked. Or what the "emergency" was.

Read the briefs and the rulings. They're quite informative. If those are too densely packed with legalese, there are plenty of summaries from trade attorneys that do a great job of making this more accessible.

Separate from the lawsuit, it would be delightful if you could help the administration craft some logic for the national security concerns related to kitchen cabinets and upholstered furniture

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by HDGristle

It's an answer, you just don't seem to understand the difference between his 232 authority and IEEPA or what they permit. Or what's required for either to be invoked. Or what the "emergency" was.

Read the briefs and the rulings. They're quite informative. If those are too densely packed with legalese, there are plenty of summaries from trade attorneys that do a great job of making this more accessible.

Separate from the lawsuit, it would be delightful if you could help the administration craft some logic for the national security concerns related to kitchen cabinets and upholstered furniture

Curb your condescension. Based on my work history, I know more about trade and tariffs than you do. If you're trying to argue that the executive is falsely invoking an "emergency" or expanding the definition of "national security" in a scheme to exceed its delegated authority, then go ahead and make your case. You don't get to call the tariffs "illegal" when the issue is still being litigated. Pre-judge much?

[eyecu2]

Originally Posted by lustylad

Curb your condescension. Based on my work history, I know more about trade and tariffs than you do. If you're trying to argue that the executive is falsely invoking an "emergency" or expanding the definition of "national security" in a scheme to exceed its delegated authority, then go ahead and make your case. You don't get to call the tariffs "illegal" when the issue is still being litigated. Pre-judge much?

Whom does the constitution say can enact Tariffs? Sorry but it's not an ambiguous power, but they muddled the idea of foreign policy and Tariffs along the way. Congress is the party to enact them, vs and they need to get feedback or input from the executive branch ..allowed, but the executive branch isn't allowed to enact them without Congress.

[Devo]

Originally Posted by eyecu2

Whom does the constitution say can enact Tariffs? Sorry but it's not an ambiguous power, but they muddled the idea of foreign policy and Tariffs along the way. Congress is the party to enact them, vs and they need to get feedback or input from the executive branch ..allowed, but the executive branch isn't allowed to enact them without Congress.

Look at this shit.

We got John Adams here.

[Devo]

Originally Posted by Devo

Look at this shit.

We got John Adams here.

And for the record that is a compliment.

[HDGristle]

Originally Posted by lustylad

Curb your condescension. Based on my work history, I know more about trade and tariffs than you do. If you're trying to argue that the executive is falsely invoking an "emergency" or expanding the definition of "national security" in a scheme to exceed its delegated authority, then go ahead and make your case. You don't get to call the tariffs "illegal" when the issue is still being litigated. Pre-judge much?

Counselor, I do get to call them illegal thanks to two court rulings where plaintiffs made those arguments before judges and prevailed against Tariffman. It's not pre-judging at this point. They've had about at least a dozen judges judge thus far at minimum. Plus, the questions before the Supremes will be narrow.