The Tariff Talk

[Boghie]

For the most part, small businesses are service - they won't be hit by tariffs.
If they are resellers, they will be more nimble than big business and will resource quicker.
If they are stuck - like perhaps a store that sells plastic models - their customers are also stuck.

Tariffs suck. I don't like them, but they are not the end of the world. Tariffs are inflationary, other forces are deflationary. And, the tariffs will be jiggered when the target countries change their policies. We kinda have to wait and see.

 

[nasa1974]

Unleaded Regular (Raleigh, NC):

Aug 2024	$3.34/gal
Aug 2025	$2.95/gal
Deflation:	11.7%

No impact, no idea where that Speedway jacked prices by $0.77. Must have been something local.

That $2.95/gal is higher than I have seen it for a while. It was $2.85/gal in July. That is why the FED doesn't include fuel in it's preferred inflation gauge - but a 40 cent decline YoY is pretty good.

Not sure what is going on but gas at Speedway is back to $2.72/gal. It was definitely $3.49 on the marquee yesterday. We also pay almost $0.60/gal in federal and state taxes.

 

[James48843]

Court strikes down tariff authority

Big Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruling on Trump's IEEPA tariffs. The Federal Appeals Court has struck down most of Trump's tariffs and has given the President till October to appeal.

Some of the takeaways from the ruling.

It was a 7-4 decision. The majority ruled that IEEPA does not authorize either Trump's reciprocal/universal tariffs (the ones he has used to impose tariffs on most countries and to strike his trade deals), OR his "fentanyl trafficking" tariffs on Canada/Mexico/China. The IEEPA tariffs on Brazil over Bolsonaro and the tariffs on India over Russian oil were not at issue in the case and not part of the ruling.

The majority seemed skeptical of any IEEPA tariffs, noting that the words Congress commonly uses when giving the President tariff authority ("duty," "tariff," etc.) are not in IEEPA and that Congress typically requires the President to adhere to various procedural and substantive requirements in tariff statutes.

The majority also remanded to the lower court on the question of how broad the injunctive relief should be. E.g., should Trump be allowed to keep collecting tariffs from parties that have not themselves sued. This is in light of the Supreme Court's CASA decision earlier this summer.

The case now will go to the Supreme Court, and in doing so might challenge what the president can enforce in the way of trade


More: https://apnews.com/article/trump-tariffs-appeals-court-b714cfc8dff51289b1d5291f46d71f3f

 

[tsptalk]

Interesting. I wonder how the market will react. The tariffs remain intact, but that could change.

 

[James48843]

They are saying Trump can keep collecting until at least October, to give them time to file appeal to the US Supreme Court.

I can see this ramification: if tariffs are going away on October 1, if I were a factory here, I’d cease production and lay everybody off until October 1.

Stop taking in supplies and delivering product until it can go tax free. That could suddenly grind everything to a stop until a decision is made.

I feel a disturbance in the force.

 

[nasa1974]

The tariff pinch is about to begin with the removal of the duty free on packages $800 or less.

 

[Boghie]

If a business has already re-shored it's production it won't quickly reset it back to China or whatever.

I always thought it was a bit sus to impose tariffs because fentanyl and things like that. I don't know why he keeps yammering about that. Just organize them and impose them. If a bi-lateral trade agreement is made than adjust or remove them. Simple.

 

[nasa1974]

I bought this last year to do some small flower beds in the yard. This same tiller/cultivator is now $100 more than what I paid for it last year at this time. Corporate greed or tariffs?

 

[James48843]

If a business has already re-shored it's production it won't quickly reset it back to China or whatever.

I always thought it was a bit sus to impose tariffs because fentanyl and things like that. I don't know why he keeps yammering about that. Just organize them and impose them. If a bi-lateral trade agreement is made than adjust or remove them. Simple.

That’s not legal. He can’t just make up a number, and impose it.

The Constitution says Congress has the power to lay taxes. Not the President.

If he created a uniform system of tariffs, with specific criteria connected to legal data, he COULD get Congress to pass it for a year. That is the only real way for it to be legal.