DiabloWags said:

---

Notice that the Trump tariffs have absolutely nothing to do anymore with FENTANYL coming into the country.

You're narrative is tired and old.
Time to educate yourself and get up to speed.

I would suggest reading up on the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977.

---

According to who? A tariff can serve multiple goals - revenue, giving native businesses a chance, reducing the small-scale fentanyl traffic. Duh.

Does she know?!? pic.twitter.com/PTrxYB5q3U

— @amuse (@amuse) August 30, 2025

MAGA / MAHA.

sycasey said:

---

oski003 said:

---

movielover said:

---

DiabloWags said:

---

Notice that the Trump tariffs have absolutely nothing to do anymore with FENTANYL coming into the country.

You're narrative is tired and old.
Time to educate yourself and get up to speed.

I would suggest reading up on the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977.

---

According to who? A tariff can serve multiple goals - revenue, giving native businesses a chance, teducing the small-scale fentanyl traffic. Duh.

---

Yes, these were the reasons given:

WH "Declares National Emergency to Increase our Competitive Edge, Protect our Sovereignty, and Strengthen our National and Economic Security"

Some folks have trouble processing new info.

---

Which is bull***t. It's not an emergency.

---

Yup.

According to Trump (and Oski) there is a TOY EMERGENCY.

Lmfao.

https://www.wsj.com/economy/trade/tariffs-toy-company-impact-4ec0ae28?wsj_native_webview=android&ace_environment=androidphone%2Cwebview&ace_config=%7B%22wsj%22%3A%7B%22djcmp%22%3A%7B%22propertyHref%22%3A%22https%3A%2F%2Fwsj.android.app%22%7D%7D%7D&article_is_saved=n

REPLIED to my post in 3-minutes on a 3-Day Weekend.
Youre living the DREAM.

Lmfao.

OWNED.

DiabloWags said:

---

Chump hits India with 50% tariffs.

Trump hits India with punishing 50% tariff, among the highest the US charges | CNN Business

---

BREAKING: President Trump says India has offered to cut their tariffs on the US to 0%. pic.twitter.com/PpRGPCfffv

— The Kobeissi Letter (@KobeissiLetter) September 1, 2025

Very cool.

movielover said:

---

Very cool.

---

Cool story, bro.

PAC-10-BEAR said:

---

movielover said:

---

Very cool.

---

Cool story, bro.

---

SCOTUS announced early this afternoon that they will FAST TRACK a challenge to the legality of Trump's tariffs.
SCOTUS said they will hear arguments in early November, which is an unusually aggressive schedule.

A decision striking down the levies would cut the current average effective tariff rate of 16.3% in half and would force BILLIONS of DOLLARS to be refunded by the U.S.

This is breaking news as of 1:50 PM Pacific.

DiabloWags said:

---

SCOTUS announced early this afternoon that they will FAST TRACK a challenge to the legality of Trump's tariffs.
SCOTUS said they will hear arguments in early November, which is an unusually aggressive schedule.

A decision striking down the levies would cut the current average effective tariff rate of 16.3% in half and would force BILLIONS of DOLLARS to be refunded by the U.S.

This is breaking news as of 1:50 PM Pacific.

---

The general thinking at least with this NPR article is that the court could strike down some, all or none of the tariffs, and could force refunds or force business to sue separately for their refunds, when applicable. Moreover,, to the degree SCOTUS does shoot certain tariffs down, Trump will be able to achieve tariffs by other means, such as though tariffs on specific industries. if you believe the experts, then this case really is about refunding already existing tariffs.

The Supreme Court said on Tuesday that it will examine whether President Trump acted lawfully when he used emergency powers to apply sweeping tariffs to a broad range of countries, a centerpiece of his economic agenda.
Earlier this year, a federal trade court and a federal appeals court found that some of Trump's tariffs violated the law. The White House appealed to the Supreme Court, and now the high court has agreed to examine theappeal.
The court said it would hold arguments in the first week of November.

Which tariffs are at issue?
This case is about tariffs imposed using emergency powers under a law called the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA. That law gives the president a range of economic powers, including over imports and exports, "to deal with any unusual and extraordinary threat, which has its source in whole or substantial part outside the United States, to the national security, foreign policy, or economy of the United States, if the President declares a national emergency with respect to such threat."

What could the court decide?
The court could find that IEEPA authorizes these tariffs in which case, they could stay in place, and Trump could keep using IEEPA to impose more tariffs. Or, the court could find that the tariffs are entirely unlawful, and end them. But there are a range of other possibilities. It could rule that some of Trump's tariffs are legal and some are illegal. Or it could more specifically determine what types of tariffs if any are permitted under IEEPA.
"The Supreme Court could say these particular type of tariffs are not permitted, but other IEEPA tariffs are permitted," said Kathleen Claussen, professor of law at Georgetown University. "So there's a question of scope here."

What happens if the court finds the tariffs are unlawful?
Experts say Trump could find other ways to use tariffs. "He wouldn't be able to replicate the broad across-the-board nature of the tariffs that he's imposed," said Doug Irwin, professor of economics at Dartmouth College. "But he would be able to hit a lot of different countries and hit a lot of industries with tariffs using different parts of the tariff code."
For example, the Section 232 tariffs on particular goods would remain in place, and there are other laws Trump could use. Not all of those laws would allow Trump to impose tariffs as quickly or as broadly as he has done under IEEPA, however. Some limit how high tariffs can be, or how long they can be imposed.

What would happen to the tariff revenue already collected?
The Trump administration has collected billions of dollars in IEEPA tariffs, raising the question of whether that money would have to be returned if the tariffs are ruled unlawful.Trump's tariff revenue has skyrocketed. But how big is it, really? If the court addresses the issue of refunds, it's not clear how narrow or broad its remedy might be, according to Claussen. For example, they might only address refunds for the handful of businesses involved in this case. In that case, it's possible other businesses would have to go through their own legal processes to get refunds, which could be logistically difficult, given the volume of money and businesses involved.
Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has said that the government would pay back tariff money if the court orders it to do so

cal83dls79 said:

---

Well played. Source NYT.

John Deere, a U.S. Icon, Is Undermined by Tariffs and Struggling Farmers
The tractor maker said that sales were down and that higher metal tariffs would cost it $600 million, while American farmers face dwindling overseas demand for some crops.

---

John Deere is also getting hammered in international markets by cheaper Chinese tractors.

https://www.reddit.com/r/argentina/comments/1lmmx50/llega_una_invasi%C3%B3n_china_con_tractores_que_valen/?tl=en

Deere is also suffering from a consumer backlash due to its more complex newer equipment being only serviceable and repairable by the dealer.



There is also a food production glut and the US is a high cost producer. This was a problem even before the trade war that closed the Chinese import market kicked in.

All these factors don't seem to have been fully discounted into the JD stock price, that might be a good stock to short if you can handle the risk.