Trump's global tariffs struck down by US Supreme Court

Post by tombert » Fri, Feb 20, 2026, 5:24 PM UTC

Windchaser wrote: post #335

tombert wrote: post #298

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What an odd thing to say. The businesses in the other countries are, you know, businesses. Even if it were Chinese companies that were paying the tariffs, that will be baked into the cost of the good. This is literally first-day economics. No such thing as a free lunch. The cost of the item that the end user pays should reflect all costs associated with production and distribution to that end user. I have no idea how…

> The cost of the item that the end user pays should reflect all costs associated with production and distribution to that end user. Eh, standard business school logic these days is that if you want to maximize profits, you should charge what the market will bear, not your costs + some fixed profit. So if you're already charging what the market will bear, there may be more wiggle room to absorb some of the hit of tar…

Post by doka_smoka » Fri, Feb 20, 2026, 5:24 PM UTC

andsoitis wrote: post #101

munk-a wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The majority of American voters can be as dumb as they want - the two big failures here are the legislature and the judiciary. The judiciary let an obviously illegal thing sit for far too long while the legislature is too partisan to actually take actions against the administration (except in the case of the Epstein files which has been surprisingly admirable and a rare ray of light in the last year). If the majority…

Are you arguing voters in a democracy are not even a little responsible for the outcomes of their vote?

Post by conartist6 » Fri, Feb 20, 2026, 5:25 PM UTC

singpolyma3 wrote: post #258

edot wrote: post #40

Howard Lutnick and his sons are surely happy about this. It’s almost like Howard Lutnick, the Secretary of Commerce , knew this would happen. His sons, at their firm Cantor Fitzgerald, have been offering a tariff refund product wherein they pay companies who are struggling with paying tariffs 20-30% of a potential refund, and if (as they did today) they get struck down, they pocket the 100% refund. https://www.financ…

Is a refund even likely? Seems more likely the administration orders everyone to ignore the court.

Post by toomuchtodo » Fri, Feb 20, 2026, 5:25 PM UTC

anjel wrote: post #265

vlovich123 wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s a tax on the US economy. A tax levied by individuals rather than the government itself. An ingenious scheme. Evil, but ingenious.

Refunds to business, but unless they have to refund to consumers it's free capital to importers

Post by sgerenser » Fri, Feb 20, 2026, 5:26 PM UTC

lumost wrote: post #333

somenameforme wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

An even more interesting one is that Ford was the first president to go on paid speaking tours after office. It's not like the 37 other presidents couldn't have also cashed in on the office in a similar fashion, but it was felt that such a thing would impugn the integrity of the office and also undermine the perception of somebody working as a genuine servant of the state. There has most certainly been a major declin…

Curious if part of this was the overall decline in government compensation relative to the private sector. The president makes roughly what the typical SV engineer makes after 5 years in big tech or as a fresh grad from a top PhD program. Meanwhile the people the president deals with have become unfathomably wealthy. In 1909, the US president made 75k - roughly 2.76 Million in today's dollars. This is in comparison t…