I believe SCOTUS will actually shoot down a lot of the tariffs based on the lack of an actual emergency. However, as the article points out the administration will simply shift to other mechanisms by which they can impose tariffs. Those will be more difficult to challenge, but have limits of 15% or 50% and in some cases restrict the ability to impose tariffs on individual nations. They will be challenged, but will take longer to move through the courts than the current tariffs, so will essentially remain for the rest of this administration. We were never going to see the ridiculous tariffs these grifters formulated via AI, but there is a good chance we will see 15% tariffs on many goods, and higher tariffs on selected goods. It will be enough to cause a great deal of inflation and stagnation. The stock market, bond market, and Fed expectations seems to be pricing in significant reversal of the tariffs, so we could see a substantial correction in bonds and equities. The stock market isn’t the economy, but as we have seen in most corrections, falling stock prices lead to lower investment and more layoffs. Along with the carnage from the tariffs, things don’t look very rosy for the next decade.
random20190826 on
So, they are blatantly saying that the Supreme Court (highest level of the judicial branch) will not do anything about the President (highest level of the executive branch) blatantly violating the Constitution by letting him impose tariffs without Congress (legislative branch), when taxing power is given to Congress based on Article 1, Section 8. If true, the United States has descended into authoritarianism.
econheads on
The constant layering of duties is twisting the way businesses make decisions. Firms are not just paying more. They are overstocking, hedging, and moving suppliers in ways that feel inefficient. Some absorb the extra costs to keep prices steady. That shrinks margins and slows down investment. Others pass the costs to customers, which nudges inflation up and changes demand in unpredictable ways.
The real effect is that tariffs are driving choices that the market would normally decide. Companies are producing domestically not because it is cheaper or better, but to avoid duties. Smaller firms are hit first because they cannot negotiate or absorb surprises. Over time, this could make supply chains less resilient and reduce competition.
At the same time, the government is collecting billions in tariff revenue. That makes rolling back duties politically harder. The very policies meant to protect business and jobs are creating incentives to keep them in place even when the costs are high.
In the bigger picture, these tariffs are changing the signals businesses rely on. They are reshaping where companies invest, how they manage risk, and how consumers experience prices. The Supreme Court ruling is one part of the story. The part that matters more is how permanent this approach may become in the way companies plan and act.
3 Comments
I believe SCOTUS will actually shoot down a lot of the tariffs based on the lack of an actual emergency. However, as the article points out the administration will simply shift to other mechanisms by which they can impose tariffs. Those will be more difficult to challenge, but have limits of 15% or 50% and in some cases restrict the ability to impose tariffs on individual nations. They will be challenged, but will take longer to move through the courts than the current tariffs, so will essentially remain for the rest of this administration. We were never going to see the ridiculous tariffs these grifters formulated via AI, but there is a good chance we will see 15% tariffs on many goods, and higher tariffs on selected goods. It will be enough to cause a great deal of inflation and stagnation. The stock market, bond market, and Fed expectations seems to be pricing in significant reversal of the tariffs, so we could see a substantial correction in bonds and equities. The stock market isn’t the economy, but as we have seen in most corrections, falling stock prices lead to lower investment and more layoffs. Along with the carnage from the tariffs, things don’t look very rosy for the next decade.
So, they are blatantly saying that the Supreme Court (highest level of the judicial branch) will not do anything about the President (highest level of the executive branch) blatantly violating the Constitution by letting him impose tariffs without Congress (legislative branch), when taxing power is given to Congress based on Article 1, Section 8. If true, the United States has descended into authoritarianism.
The constant layering of duties is twisting the way businesses make decisions. Firms are not just paying more. They are overstocking, hedging, and moving suppliers in ways that feel inefficient. Some absorb the extra costs to keep prices steady. That shrinks margins and slows down investment. Others pass the costs to customers, which nudges inflation up and changes demand in unpredictable ways.
The real effect is that tariffs are driving choices that the market would normally decide. Companies are producing domestically not because it is cheaper or better, but to avoid duties. Smaller firms are hit first because they cannot negotiate or absorb surprises. Over time, this could make supply chains less resilient and reduce competition.
At the same time, the government is collecting billions in tariff revenue. That makes rolling back duties politically harder. The very policies meant to protect business and jobs are creating incentives to keep them in place even when the costs are high.
In the bigger picture, these tariffs are changing the signals businesses rely on. They are reshaping where companies invest, how they manage risk, and how consumers experience prices. The Supreme Court ruling is one part of the story. The part that matters more is how permanent this approach may become in the way companies plan and act.