Core Viewpoint - Swiss businesses are actively engaging in negotiations with the U.S. to reach a tariff agreement, potentially lowering tariffs to 15%, aligning with the EU's tariff rates [1][2][4] Group 1: Swiss Business Engagement - Swiss business leaders have shifted from behind-the-scenes lobbying to direct engagement with the Trump administration, aiming to break months of negotiation deadlock [2][3] - The Swiss delegation, led by Federal President Keller-Sutter, was initially shocked by the U.S. imposing a 39% tariff on Swiss goods, which is the highest among developed economies [2][4] Group 2: Economic Impact and Trade Relations - The U.S. trade deficit with Switzerland is approximately $39 billion, with the U.S. imposing high tariffs as a response to this imbalance [2][6] - Swiss exports account for over 70% of its GDP, with key products including watches, chocolate, and machinery, making the U.S. a crucial market [4][6] Group 3: Negotiation Dynamics - High-profile Swiss executives, including those from Partners Group and Rolex, have met with Trump to emphasize the strong economic ties between the two nations [3][4] - The Swiss strategy in negotiations has leveraged its traditional strengths, with business leaders seen as more effective than political figures in addressing trade issues [4][5] Group 4: Future Prospects - There is speculation that a trade agreement could be announced at the World Economic Forum in Davos in January 2026, with Trump likely to attend [7] - The potential for Swiss companies to invest in the U.S. gold refining industry is being considered as a strategy to persuade the U.S. to lower tariffs [6][7]

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the potential for American citizens to receive a minimum of $2000 in tariff "dividends" as proposed by President Donald Trump, which may be realized through tax measures included in his economic policy agenda [1][6]. Group 1: Tariff Policy and Economic Impact - Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent indicated that the $2000 dividend could take various forms, potentially linked to tax measures such as exemptions on tips, overtime, and social security, as well as tax deductions for auto loans [1]. - Trump has been defending his tariff policy amid a Supreme Court case that could overturn it, which may lead to the government refunding over $100 billion in taxes [3]. - The tariffs imposed by Trump range from 10% to 50% on most imported goods, aimed at addressing the long-standing trade deficit [4]. Group 2: Revenue and Trade Balance - Trump claimed that the U.S. is generating trillions in revenue and will soon begin to pay down its substantial $37 trillion debt [6]. - Bessent emphasized that while significant revenue could be generated in the coming years, the primary goal of the tariffs is to rebalance trade and make it fairer [6]. - Chief Justice John Roberts raised questions about whether tariff revenue equates to taxation, highlighting the core power of Congress in this matter [5].

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the legal and economic implications of President Trump's use of emergency powers to impose tariffs, with former Treasury Secretary Summers criticizing this approach as problematic and not reflective of true emergencies [1][2]. Group 1: Legal Authority and Criticism - Summers argues that the circumstances cited by Trump for imposing tariffs do not equate to genuine emergencies like the 9/11 attacks or a currency collapse [1]. - Critics highlight that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) does not explicitly authorize the president to use tariffs for the situations described, emphasizing that trade issues fall under Congress's jurisdiction [1]. Group 2: Economic Measures and Solutions - Summers suggests that addressing the U.S. reliance on foreign capital should involve reducing budget deficits and increasing national savings rather than imposing tariffs [2]. - He also states that it is difficult to justify the use of emergency powers based on current economic conditions, which have not been seen in the past 25 years [2]. Group 3: Trump's Perspective - Trump claims that the Supreme Court's tariff case is crucial for the survival of the U.S., asserting that a victory would lead to significant economic and national security benefits [2]. - He emphasizes that tariffs have contributed to economic security and have facilitated favorable negotiations, linking them to the stock market's historical highs and the respect the U.S. commands globally [2].

Core Points - The U.S. business community, lawmakers, and former officials are pressuring the Supreme Court to rule against President Trump's use of emergency tariff powers, with around 40 legal briefs submitted opposing this policy [1][3] - Trump's legal team argues that stripping the president of tariff powers could push the U.S. back to economic disaster, while the U.S. Chamber of Commerce highlights the significant economic damage caused by the president's tariff policies [1][4] - The case may fundamentally impact the president's future agenda and could determine the allocation of over $50 billion in additional tariff revenue expected in 2025 [2] Group 1 - The Supreme Court justices will take several weeks to deliberate before making a final ruling, with few briefs supporting the president's position [3] - Lawmakers from both parties are signaling that the tariffs increase costs for American families and do not help in restoring lost manufacturing jobs [3] - The constitutional debate centers on the powers of Congress versus the president in imposing tariffs, a topic that has been contentious for over a century [3] Group 2 - Trump's legal team cites a Congressional Budget Office prediction that tariffs could reduce the deficit by $4 trillion over the next decade [4] - The case may challenge the legal basis for Trump's specific tariffs but will not affect existing tariffs on industries like automobiles and steel [4] - Foreign officials believe that even if the court limits the use of emergency powers, the administration will seek alternative legal avenues to impose tariffs [4]

Core Points - The U.S. Supreme Court is set to hear arguments regarding the legality of Trump's global tariffs, which are expected to persist regardless of legal authorization [1][2] - Lower courts have ruled that Trump overstepped his authority by imposing tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) [2] - The outcome of the Supreme Court's decision could significantly impact Trump's ability to impose tariffs as a means of punishing countries over non-trade political issues [2] Group 1: Tariff Legislation and Authority - The Supreme Court consists of six conservative and three liberal justices, and has previously supported Trump in major rulings [2] - If the Supreme Court rules against Trump, he may resort to other legal frameworks for imposing tariffs, such as the Trade Act of 1974 and the Tariff Act of 1930 [3] - Trump's administration views tariffs as a cornerstone of economic policy, and businesses should plan accordingly [3] Group 2: Trade Negotiations and Agreements - Trump's tariff policies have reportedly led to significant concessions from major trading partners like Japan and the EU, aimed at reducing the U.S. trade deficit [4] - The U.S. Trade Representative's office has announced final framework trade agreements with Vietnam, Malaysia, Thailand, and Cambodia, locking in tariff rates between 19% and 20% [4] - South Korea has agreed to a $350 billion investment plan in exchange for tariff reductions on automobiles and other goods [4] Group 3: Financial Implications and Revenue - As of September 7, the total import tariffs collected under IEEPA reached $89 billion, contributing to a net customs revenue increase of $118 billion for the fiscal year ending September 30 [8] - The reliance on tariff revenue poses significant political and economic risks, complicating future tariff reductions for any administration [8] - The potential need to refund over $100 billion in tariff revenue could create challenges for the U.S. Customs and Border Protection [8] Group 4: Inflation and Cost Management - Importers have largely absorbed the costs of tariffs, which has limited consumer price increases but has also reduced profit margins [9] - The Oxford Economics Institute estimates that tariffs have increased the Consumer Price Index (CPI) growth rate by 0.4 percentage points, pushing inflation above the Federal Reserve's target [9] - Companies are facing significant cost impacts, with over $35 billion in tariff-related costs disclosed ahead of the third-quarter earnings season [9]

Core Insights - Macau's total export value for the first three quarters of 2025 increased by 2.1% year-on-year to 10.31 billion MOP, with re-exports rising by 2.8% and local product exports declining by 3.7% [1] - Total import value decreased by 3.7% to 91.49 billion MOP, resulting in a trade deficit of 81.18 billion MOP [1] - In September 2025, total export value reached 1.11 billion MOP, up 11.7% year-on-year, while total imports increased by 9.3% to 11.32 billion MOP [2] Export Performance - Exports to mainland China and Hong Kong increased significantly, with values of 0.93 billion MOP (up 59.9%) and 7.35 billion MOP (up 3.2%) respectively [1] - Exports to the US and EU saw declines of 4.7%, with values of 0.22 billion MOP and 0.16 billion MOP respectively [1] - Non-textile exports rose by 3.9% to 9.28 billion MOP, while textile and garment exports fell by 11.8% to 1.03 billion MOP [1] Import Performance - Total imports from mainland China and the EU decreased by 1.8% and 5.7% respectively, while imports from Hong Kong increased by 7.0% [1] - Consumer goods imports fell by 2.2% to 66.19 billion MOP, with clothing and footwear decreasing by 6.5% to 8.71 billion MOP, while gold jewelry increased by 10.3% to 8.41 billion MOP [1] - In September 2025, imports of gold jewelry and food & beverages surged by 62.0% and 16.0% respectively, while handbags and wallets decreased by 10.9% [2] Trade Deficit - The total trade deficit for the first three quarters of 2025 was 81.18 billion MOP, with a monthly deficit of 10.21 billion MOP in September [1][2] - The trade deficit for the third quarter of 2025 was recorded at 27.59 billion MOP [2]

Core Points - The Ukrainian National Bank announced a devaluation of the hryvnia against the US dollar, adjusting the official exchange rate from 41.8970:1 to 41.9969:1, marking the second devaluation in October and the lowest rate in nearly a year [1][6][12] - The devaluation is seen as a necessary step to secure new financing from the International Monetary Fund (IMF), which has made exchange rate adjustments a prerequisite for new loans [6][8] - The economic situation in Ukraine is dire, with inflation pressures leading to increased costs of living, particularly for essential goods, and a significant portion of the population relying on humanitarian aid [3][12][21] Economic Impact - The devaluation has resulted in a cumulative depreciation of 2.08% in October, with the hryvnia's value dropping significantly since earlier in the month [6][12] - Inflation rates have surged, with food prices increasing by 23.9% year-on-year as of August 2025, and basic items like eggs tripling in price over the past 18 months [3][17] - The unemployment rate exceeds 15%, and income disparities are stark, with average salaries in Kyiv around $983 compared to $473 in Kirovohrad [3][12] Shadow Economy - In response to economic pressures, a shadow economy has emerged, encompassing unreported cash transactions for services, which now account for 30% of GDP [4][21] Fiscal and Trade Deficits - Ukraine faces a budget deficit rate of 20% in 2025, heavily influenced by high defense spending, which constitutes 31% of GDP [12][14] - The trade deficit has reached historic levels, exacerbated by a reliance on imports for reconstruction and basic needs, while export capabilities are weakened due to ongoing conflict [14][21] Monetary Policy Challenges - The central bank has maintained a high benchmark interest rate of 15.5% to combat inflation, which remains above the target of 5% [19][21] - The balance between stimulating the economy and controlling inflation presents a significant challenge for the central bank, especially amid external pressures and market expectations of further devaluation [19][21] Conclusion - The situation in Ukraine reflects a complex interplay of currency devaluation, economic hardship, and the need for international support, with the potential for future challenges in achieving economic stability and addressing the needs of the population [21]

Core Viewpoint - A coalition of nearly 50 prominent economists, including former Federal Reserve Chairs Ben Bernanke and Janet Yellen, submitted a brief to the U.S. Supreme Court urging the overturning of most global tariffs imposed by the Trump administration, arguing that these tariffs are based on a misunderstanding of the global economy and do not address trade deficits as claimed by the government [1][3][5]. Group 1: Economic Perspectives - The economists argue that trade deficits are a normal aspect of the economy, citing the U.S. technology sector's dominance and consistent trade surpluses in services, contrasting this with the notion that trade deficits represent an "abnormal and special threat" as claimed by the Trump administration [7]. - They emphasize that tariffs do not resolve trade deficits and could have a detrimental impact on the economy, potentially costing trillions of dollars and affecting every household and state [3][5]. Group 2: Legal Context - The Supreme Court is set to hear oral arguments on November 5 regarding the legality of the tariffs, which include a 10% baseline tariff and higher tariffs on countries without trade agreements with the U.S. [5][9]. - This case represents a significant test of Trump's expansion of executive power and could influence the future of U.S. economic policy and global trade dynamics [5][9]. Group 3: Economic Impact - The effective tariff rate on imported goods is reported to be the highest since the Great Depression, significantly above the typical 2-3% rates seen in modern times, leading to an estimated annual increase of $2,400 in household expenses due to elevated prices [11]. - If the Supreme Court overturns the tariffs, it could reshape negotiation dynamics with other countries and impact ongoing trade discussions, with potential implications for U.S.-China relations [11].

Economic Policy & Trade - Nearly 50 prominent economists, including former Federal Reserve chairs, are urging the Supreme Court to overturn most of the Trump administration's global tariffs [1] - Economists argue that the Trump administration's tariff policies are based on a misunderstanding of the global economy [1] - Economists believe trade deficits are common historically and globally, not an "unusual and special" threat to US national security or economy [1] - Trade deficits are essentially the same as foreign investment surpluses and not necessarily harmful [1] - Tariffs are ineffective at addressing overall trade deficits, primarily affecting trade flows rather than the deficit itself, which is determined by macroeconomic factors like national savings and domestic investment [1] - The scale of these generally applicable tariffs could trigger the "major questions principle," requiring clear authorization from Congress, which the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) does not provide [1]

Core Viewpoint - Nearly 50 prominent economists, including two former Federal Reserve chairs, are urging the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn most of the global tariffs imposed by former President Trump, arguing that the tariffs are based on a misunderstanding of the global economy [1][3]. Group 1: Economists' Arguments - The economists' brief states that the trade deficit between the U.S. and other countries is a normal phenomenon and not an "extraordinary and unusual" threat as claimed by the Trump administration [1]. - They argue that tariffs will not bridge the trade deficit and could negatively impact the U.S. economy by trillions of dollars, affecting every household and state [1]. - The economists emphasize that imposing tariffs based on an unbalanced trade deficit is fundamentally flawed, citing that trade deficits can exist in certain sectors, such as the banana trade due to climate limitations [3]. Group 2: Legal Challenges - Small businesses, including Learning Resources, have filed briefs claiming that Trump's tariffs effectively constitute an illegal $3 trillion tax on Americans, to be distributed over the next decade [3][4]. - Another group of small businesses argues that Trump's tariffs contradict the original intent of Congress to control taxation, asserting that the President should not have unilateral power to impose tariffs based on declared national emergencies [4]. Group 3: Government's Position - The Trump administration maintains that the tariffs are necessary to correct what it describes as a "deadly trade deficit," framing the issue as a stark choice between being a wealthy or poor nation [5]. - The Supreme Court is set to determine whether Trump legally imposed tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), which grants the President certain financial tools to address national security and economic emergencies [5]. - Previous court rulings have been unfavorable to Trump regarding these tariffs, and the administration has downplayed the potential impact of the lawsuits, suggesting that many tariffs could still be imposed through other legal avenues [5].