The United States is facing what experts describe as a potential financial crisis as the Supreme Court reviews the legality of President Donald Trump’s wide-reaching emergency tariffs.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett called this scenario ‘a mess’, warning that the government could face an administrative crisis of unprecedented scale.

Trade lawyers say the impact could be overwhelming. Many of President Trump’s tariffs changed multiple times, and shipments often contained goods subject to different rates. The result is years of tangled customs data

  • glimse@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    29
    ·
    6 hours ago

    This article is missing something huge.

    MOST of the refunds wouldn’t go back to the businesses that paid them - they’d go to companies like the investment firm Howard Lutnik’s son runs that bought up as much of the debt as possible for a fraction of its value.

    Keep the tariffs and continue to fuck everyone over, cancel the tariffs and it’s a windfall for the son of the SEC.

    Almost like this was the plan from the start.

    • catbum@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      2 hours ago

      Holy f u c k .

      All of what follows from me here is completely speculative based on the article summary and your very, very insightful, horrifying addition.

      The “Supreme Court” doing a “good thing” in frankly both maga and non-maga groups’ eyes would basically be them attempting to placate the masses with a contrived hope for relief and, perhaps, a false sense of governmental integrity.

      Maybe the SEC now maintains a way sharper grip on publicly trading companies for some reason, idk like some weird fasc-on-fasc rank enforcement shit. Or maybe taxes. Probably bribes. Anyway the corps are possibly being “urged” to steady their prices, giving us folks a wee break in this economical trainwreck, as “proof” that “returning” the tariffs helped in some way.

      I mean, with the number of companies bending the goddamn knee in the stupidest ways, you have to wonder if they weren’t, ahem, “targeted,” in some additional way. I’ll bet in some way, the corps ran the numbers and figured they’d stand to lose less money shedding DEI supporters than whatever they’ve been told they stood, or still stand, to lose.

      Honestly at this point I think all these rich and/or bought mfers in top fed positions are just creating their golden parachutes, like any good CEO would really, before the bottom drops out. Before the country’s company’s brain, ineffective and tripping on its own chemicals, finally dies, and is quickly liquified, the body already robbed for spare parts. Whatever heart that entity (theoretically) may have had, it shut down a long time ago.

      murica

  • Mio@feddit.nu
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    4 hours ago

    Not correct with tariffs. But making any changes retroative would be hard. Now, if he loses, I am sure the president would not get any kind of punishment…

  • mr_account@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    31
    ·
    9 hours ago

    If this happens, president shitstain will have increased the national deficit by close to $3 trillion in under 1 year. Jfc

    • Fedizen@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      edit-2
      9 hours ago

      This is the “corporations are people supreme court” vs “guy they all like to think doesn’t suck bill clinton’s dick”

      The real question is how much do they love corporations. I fully expect them to say something like “Trump can’t change the tariffs but the government doesn’t have to return anything”

      • N0t_5ure@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        9 hours ago

        I fully expect them to say something like “Trump can’t change the tariffs but the government doesn’t have to return anything”

        I think that’s where this will end up. I doubt they’ll say straight out say that Trump’s unconstitutional tariffs have created a ridiculous mess that would be a nightmare to untangle, but that is what will be behind the ruling.

    • TrickDacy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      9 hours ago

      I mean he has lost a few things. They occasionally rule against him just to pretend they aren’t in his pocket

    • Frezik@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      9 hours ago

      From the comments during the trial, he may very well lose this one.

      The trouble is that conservatives hate taxes, and the old ones are just smart enough to know that tariffs are just another way of taxing things. If you go back through Project 2025, you’ll find two opinions on them. One took the libertarian view that tariffs are bad, period. The other took the protectionism view that some tariffs were necessary in order to beat China. Neither wanted such gigantic, across the board tariffs.

      The old conservatives on the court were making some very skeptical questions of the Administration lawyers, and didn’t seem to be buying the answers. We’ll see what happens when the ruling comes out, but that sort of thing is a pretty reliable signal of where they’re going to land.

      All that said, what’s going to happen is that after prices to average people rose due to tariffs, the payback will go to the companies that imported things, and they’ll pocket the money.

  • pyria@kbin.melroy.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    9 hours ago

    Yes, a mess indeed, Amy. What the fuck is this stupid good at that doesn’t constitute a mess? He’s a legal nightmare, I’m having a hard time figuring out a single thing him and his administration has done that didn’t immediately or later, break some kind of law.

  • ChicoSuave@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    8 hours ago

    Trump and the right will rebrand the checks as some kind of graceful income injection, like the COVID checks. And MAGA will fall for it.