Economic News Thread | 3Q Annual GDP 2.8%

  • Thread starter Thread starter nycfan
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 552
  • Views: 11K
  • Politics 
Calheel said:
I don't think Trump has the power to unilaterally enact the kind of tariffs he is proposing:
Click to expand...
Check out the Trade Act of 1974. That would be the statute he would use, I think. So many of the terms in that statute are vague and subject to interpretation, and it basically trusts the executive branch to follow the rules. Probably because we haven't had a pro-tariff president in a very long time and Congress probably thought no president would ever try to abuse the authority in favor of tariffs. There's more concern about the president reducing tariffs too far, IIRC.

I very, very, very much doubt the Supreme Court would interfere. I think they would very likely designate it as a political question; and if they didn't, they would not entertain any challenge for want of a right of action; and if all else fails, they will resort to the inherent power of the presidency. In a vacuum, I think I would probably agree with that, if there was any chance they would be there on principle.
 
superrific said:
Check out the Trade Act of 1974. That would be the statute he would use, I think. So many of the terms in that statute are vague and subject to interpretation, and it basically trusts the executive branch to follow the rules. Probably because we haven't had a pro-tariff president in a very long time and Congress probably thought no president would ever try to abuse the authority in favor of tariffs. There's more concern about the president reducing tariffs too far, IIRC.

I very, very, very much doubt the Supreme Court would interfere. I think they would very likely designate it as a political question; and if they didn't, they would not entertain any challenge for want of a right of action; and if all else fails, they will resort to the inherent power of the presidency. In a vacuum, I think I would probably agree with that, if there was any chance they would be there on principle.
Click to expand...
Well, let's hope we never have to find out because Kamala wins in four days.
I am concerned that if Trump does win, he could also get the Senate and House. In fact, I think that is the most likely outcome if Trump does win.
 
The Economis
heelinhell said:
for those thinking Trump will improve their pocketbooks...

www.rawstory.com

'I did not see this coming': MSNBC hosts stunned by 'powerful' new Harris endorsement

A "powerful" endorsement of Vice President Kamala Harris from a fiscally conservative publication has stunned the host and guest of MSNBC's "Morning Joe."New York Times financial columnist Andrew Ross Sorkin and anchor Mika Brzezinski both expressed surprise Thursday morning that the Economist...
www.rawstory.com www.rawstory.com
Click to expand...
The Economist is about free markets, but it's also about stability and rationality and world order (all things necessary to make free markets work!). The thought that they'd endorse an agent of chaos (who supports tariffs) just because he's a "business man" is kookiness. This endorsement isn't really a surprise at all.
 
Calheel said:
Well, let's hope we never have to find out because Kamala wins in four days.
I am concerned that if Trump does win, he could also get the Senate and House. In fact, I think that is the most likely outcome if Trump does win.
Click to expand...
If Trump wins he will almost certainly have the Senate. In fact, it seems uncomfortably likely that the GOP will get the Senate anyway.

The House -- maybe. If he does win, the House is at least a 50/50 chance for the GOP and perhaps higher.
 
WBroylesH said:
The Economis

The Economist is about free markets, but it's also about stability and rationality and world order (all things necessary to make free markets work!). The thought that they'd endorse an agent of chaos (who supports tariffs) just because he's a "business man" is kookiness. This endorsement isn't really a surprise at all.
Click to expand...
They know that, but they are trying to make it newsworthy, hoping that people will pay more attention if it's shocking.

Also, it's called "The Economist." Most Americans don't know what that magazine actually is, but it sounds like it's about economics and if it's endorsing Kamala . . .
 
Of course still got my 401K, but I have been pulling out of the market with my personal investments the past 2-3 weeks. Largely because I anticipate a shit show no matter the outcome of the election. If Trump wins, then he'll eventually tank the economy. But mostly because, if he loses, he'll try to incite another insurrection and/or civil violence. Either outcome not good for the markets.

I didn't have a lot invested. Was down quite a bit until the rate cut when my uranium stocks surged. Came out ahead in the aggregate, so figured I'd get out while the getting good. I'll wait till at least a couple months after the inauguration of whoever to determine when and if I get back in.
 
CFordUNC said:
Click to expand...

Don't worry - if Trump wins, his supporters will all be convinced that high inflation, high gas prices, and high unemployment persisted for the entire Biden term and immediately reversed the second Trump came back into power. Just like they all now believe that Biden was in office in 2020.
 
Last edited:
In November 1984, it was “Morning in America.” Reagan won re-election with 545 Electoral Votes to Mondale’s 49; the popular vote was Reagan 58.8% to 40.6% Mondale.

In November 1984, unemployment was 7.1%, inflation was 4.3%, and the federal reserve discount loan rate was 9.0%. In November 2024, unemployment is 4.1%, inflation is 2.1%, and the Fed’s Discount rate is 5.0%. Republicans were anointing Reagan as the GOAT.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top