@steveliesman
CNBC senior economics reporter. Husband, father, journalist, guitarist and fly fisherman. (The Lies-man joke has been made. It’s not fresh. It’s my father’s father’s name, bastardized at Ellis Island. Move along.)
Wasn’t the bargain that we’d give up our freedom and democracy in return for all getting rich ? Guess we got the short end of that stick.
Live: Dow futures tumble 800 points as U.S. oil tops $100 a barrel to begin the week's trading www.cnbc.com/2026/03/08/s...
Triple digits now
Oil prices hit $100 per barrel as big Middle East producers cut output amid Iran war www.cnbc.com/2026/03/08/c...
Sect. 122 has been around for years. It's never been used. So has the trade deficit and Congress has never seen fit to address it thru tariffs. So, the courts will probably give the administration latitude on the letter of the law. But it defies common sense.
It seems like the debate over the new Sect. 122 tariffs have left common sense behind. Yes, it may withstand a legal challenge. But ask this question: has there been some extraordinary development that warrants the president using extraordinary powers of taxation delegated by Congress?
It’s pretty much agreed among economists there’s no balance of payments crisis. The question is how much latitudes courts give the president for such a finding.3/3
For section 122, my reporting suggests that challenge will be if there is really a “large and serious” balance of payments problem, not whether the the president has the right to impose tariffs in that situation. This challenge may be less of a slam dunk, lawyers say.2/
The legal challenge to tariffs in IEEEPA vs Section 122 will differ on problem vs remedy. In IEEPA, the challenge wasn’t so much whether the president had the right to declare an emergency. It was his ability to use tariffs as a remedy. 1/
@steveliesman.bsky.social has to answer Joe's question daily? You need a raise man~~
Agreed. I’m just thinking of what Bessent says in an interview when asked if we’re having a bop crisis. “So you’re saying we can’t pay our bills? Foreigners are taking their money out of the country?”
It’s likely that consumers will have no legal claim on a tariff refund. They may have paid the tariffs thru higher prices (footing an estimated 60%-70% of the bill) but only the companies that actually paid the tariffs (ie, have receipts) will qualify for a refund.
It's like going to the bank, declaring you're broke and have lost your job but they should give you the loan anyway. And you can't have a balance of payments crisis when foreigners are investing "trillions" into your economy, as the president says. But consistency was never his strong suit.
I'd like to submit that declaring a balance of payments crisis to enact tariffs under Sect. 122 is not the best look for the US. We need to attract billions in capital daily. In a payments crisis, foreigners pull their money out, interest rates soar & currencies collapse. None of which is happening
@steveliesman.bsky.social knocks Trump's handling of tariffs.
"This tariff process... [is] essentially if a bureaucrat were writing laws and he was drunk and on some form of amphetamine at the same time."
JOINING US - @steveliesman.bsky.social, @kristygreenberg.bsky.social, @ramirez.house.gov, Temidayo Aganga-Williams, @repyassansari.bsky.social, Rick Woldenberg, Elora Mukherjee, John Avlon, @jamaalbowmanny.bsky.social, @peterbeinart.bsky.social, and @neildegrassetyson.com.
Of course, we knew Trump was paid off to criticize the competing bridge. Was just a matter of confirming the payment.
In a note to Larry Kotlikoff (which I confirmed) Hasset said, “I regret suggesting the authors should be disciplined for their research. Indeed, I retract that suggestion….the Fed’s independence extends to its research. It and it alone must decide what research to conduct to further its mission. 2/
Hassett apologizes for comments made on CNBC where he called for NY Fed researchers to be disciplined for their findings that 90% of tariffs are paid by the US businesses and consumers. 1/
SCOTUS hands the president a loss on tariffs, which would be a pretty quick potential win politically. Removing tariffs would show up pretty quickly in the CPI. But he doubles down and promises a new round of tariffs. Probably hit right around the election along w/ a new round of biz uncertainty.
Treas Secty Bessent says admin. will fully replace IEEPA tariffs, which have brought in $175b.
He says, "Treasury’s estimates show that the use of Section 122 authority, combined with potentially enhanced Section 232 and Section 301 tariffs will result in virtually unchanged tariff revenue in 2026."
Back of the envelope: a 10% global tariffs could mean a large increase in total tariff revenues compared with IEEPA. Would raise $433b if applied to all imports. $343b if only applied to goods. IEEPA tariffs brought in $175b in '25, though that might not have been a full year. Could be exemptions.
Yes: goods in the CPI are up 1.4... up 1.7 in PCE. (my 2% number above is for durable goods in PCE). But the story is the same: a negative number that used to put downward pressure on overall inflation is now a positive number and exerting upward pressure.
The implication of this is we can't be sure where we stand in the process of business passing along tariff price hikes. It's even more unclear now that SCOTUS has struck down IEEPA tariffs and we don't know what other tariffs the admin. will impose. All the more reason for the Fed to say on hold.
The potential impact of tariffs on inflation accelerated sharply in December. Goods prices rose 2.05% yr/yr. May not sound like much, but it's the most since the pandemic, and they were negative from June 2023 to April 25, offsetting service inflation. (Note: not all goods are subject to tariffs.)
From the very beginning, these tariffs (including the ones not covered by the IEEPA) have been hypocritical from an admin. that sells itself as business friendly and purports to want to deregulate. The tariffs are a massive regulatory imposition.
A truly business-friendly admin. would NEVER have imposed these tariffs. The amount of uncertainty it has created and will continue to create is paralyzing to businesses. As I said back when the IEEPA tariffs were imposed, admin should have gone to Congress providing certainty.
From SCOTUS Tariff decision: "Had Congress intended to convey the distinct and extraordinary power to impose tariffs, it would have done so expressly, as it consistently has in other tariff statutes."
Is today the real liberation day ?
Show me you don’t ever mean to leave office or hold free and fair elections without saying anything.
That’s what the ai says. Costs more and there are some sync issues since they want to pick up the skate sound where there would be background music.
