The issues with using AI to drive dynamic pricing
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Winnipeg Free Press
28 minutes ago
- Winnipeg Free Press
As Trump's trade deal deadline approaches, his tariffs face legal pushback in court
WASHINGTON – Donald Trump's plan to realign global trade faces its latest legal barrier this week in a federal appeals court — and Canada is bracing for the U.S. president to follow through on his threat to impose higher tariffs. While Trump set an Aug. 1 deadline for countries to make trade deals with the United States, the president's ultimatum has so far resulted in only a handful of frameworks for trade agreements. Deals have been announced for Japan, Vietnam, Indonesia, the Philippines and the United Kingdom — but Trump indicated last week that an agreement with Canada is far from complete. 'We don't have a deal with Canada, we haven't been focused on it,' Trump told reporters Friday. Trump sent a letter to Prime Minister Mark Carney threatening to impose 35 per cent tariffs if Canada doesn't make a trade deal by the deadline. The White House has said those duties would not apply to goods compliant with the Canada-U.S.-Mexico Agreement on trade. Canadian officials have also downplayed expectations of a new economic and security agreement materializing by Friday. 'We'll use all the time that's necessary,' Carney said last week. Countries around the world will also be watching as Trump's use of a national security statute to hit nations with tariffs faces scrutiny in the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The U.S. Court of International Trade ruled in May that Trump does not have the authority to wield tariffs on nearly every country through the use of the International Economic Emergency Powers Act of 1977. The act, usually referred to by the acronym IEEPA, gives the U.S. president authority to control economic transactions after declaring an emergency. No previous president had ever used it for tariffs and the U.S. Constitution gives power over taxes and tariffs to Congress. The Trump administration quickly appealed the lower court's ruling on the so-called 'Liberation Day' and fentanyl-related tariffs and arguments are set to be heard in the appeal court on Thursday. The hearing combines two different cases that were pushing against Trump's tariffs. One involves five American small businesses arguing specifically against Trump's worldwide tariffs, and the other came from 12 states pushing back on both the 'Liberation Day' duties and the fentanyl-related tariffs. George Mason University law professor Ilya Somin called Trump's tariff actions a 'massive power grab.' Somin, along with the Liberty Justice Center, is representing the American small businesses. 'We are hopeful — we can't know for sure obviously — we are hopeful that we will continue to prevail in court,' Somin said. Somin said they are arguing that IEEPA does not 'give the president the power to impose any tariff he wants, on any nation, for any reason, for as long as he wants, whenever he feels like it.' He added that 'the law also says there must be an emergency and an unusual and extraordinary threat to American security or the economy' — and neither the flow of fentanyl from Canada nor a trade deficit meet that definition. U.S. government data shows a minuscule volume of fentanyl is seized at the northern border. The White House has said the Trump administration is legally using powers granted to the executive branch by the Constitution and Congress to address America's 'national emergencies of persistent goods trade deficits and drug trafficking.' There have been 18 amicus briefs — a legal submission from a group that's not party to the action — filed in support of the small businesses and states pushing against Trump's tariffs. Two were filed in support of the Trump administration's actions. Brent Skorup, a legal fellow at the Washington-based Cato Institute, said the Trump administration is taking a vague statute and claiming powers never deployed by a president before. The Cato Institute submitted a brief that argued 'the Constitution specifies that Congress has the power to set tariffs and duties.' Skorup said there are serious issues with the Trump administration's interpretation of IEEPA. 'We don't want power consolidated into a single king or president,' he said. Monday Mornings The latest local business news and a lookahead to the coming week. It's expected the appeals court will expedite its ruling. Even if it rules against the duties, however, they may not be immediately lifted. White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt has said the Supreme Court should 'put an end to this.' There are at least eight lawsuits challenging the tariffs. Canada is also being hit with tariffs on steel, aluminum and automobiles. Trump used different powers under the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 to enact those duties. This report by The Canadian Press was first published July 27, 2025.
National Post
28 minutes ago
- National Post
Michael Taube: No, Globe and Mail, Mark Carney isn't the second coming of Brian Mulroney
Mark Carney has been prime minister of Canada since March. He's been called many things by many people in this short time period. It never came to mind that he would be described as a 'progressive conservative' along the lines of Brian Mulroney. Article content This, in a nutshell, is the nonsense that the Globe and Mail's editorial board is currently peddling. Article content Article content 'That Mr. Carney was going to drag the Liberal Party back to the centre after years of an NDP-lite government under Mr. Trudeau was to be expected,' a June 28 Globe editorial noted. 'But more than mannerisms have changed. Since April, the Prime Minister has cut personal income taxes, boosted defence spending dramatically, pledged to cut the cost of the federal bureaucracy, tightened immigration rules, eliminated federal barriers to internal trade, created a framework for breaking the stasis on big national projects and signaled that he will dismiss underperforming top bureaucrats,' they wrote. Article content Article content The Globe's editorial board suggested 'that's an agenda that Brian Mulroney could have endorsed.' Article content Article content This analysis likely raised a few eyebrows, and not just in the Mulroney household. Alas, the editorial writers then flipped their collective wig with this bizarre assessment. 'In fact, it overlaps a good deal with the actual governing record of his Progressive Conservatives. Mr. Carney is a Liberal but, in the early going, he looks to be governing much like a Red Tory — a progressive kind of conservative.' Article content We shouldn't be surprised by the Globe's over-the-top analysis of Carney's leadership. It's become the raison d'être of this once-venerable publication to carry water for this particular prime minister. Article content Nevertheless, let's be serious about our national leader. Carney is certainly a progressive, but he's no 'progressive conservative' in any way, shape or form. Article content Left-leaning progressive conservatives, or Red Tories, generally combine two ideological components: classical conservative sensibilities (espoused by High Tories like philosopher Edmund Burke and former U.K. prime minister Benjamin Disraeli) and socialist-type policies such as government intrusion and developing a social safety net. Article content Article content As Gad Horowitz, a professor emeritus at the University of Toronto, wrote in the May-June 1965 issue of the defunct left-wing magazine Canadian Dimension, 'socialism has more in common with Toryism than with liberalism, for liberalism is possessive individualism, while socialism and Toryism are variants of collectivism.' Article content Article content Modern conservatism has little in common with classical conservatism. The former has largely incorporated classical liberal and libertarian ideals into its main ideology, while maintaining a smattering of social conservative principles related to individuals and families. That's why modern conservatives typically champion small government, lower taxes, free markets, private enterprise, greater individual rights and freedoms and so forth. Article content Carney doesn't fit into these conservative-leaning parameters. His progressive values do fit within the context of the modern Liberal Party of Canada. While he's not exactly the same as Trudeau, I pointed out in a March 16 National Post column that they're 'remarkably similar.' How so? In my estimation, 'they're both left-wing, pro-government intervention, distrust privatization and free markets, favour wealth redistribution, champion radical environmentalist policies, support woke ideology and political correctness — and more.' That's what today's Liberals basically stand for, and Carney's personal and political record fits like a glove.
National Post
28 minutes ago
- National Post
Andrew Richter: Keeping supply management is economic suicide
Article content Thus a question worth considering is what accounts for this support. No doubt part of the explanation is the power of several key domestic interest groups. Both the Dairy Famers of Canada and the Egg Farmers of Canada spend heavily on ads promoting it, and they have succeeded in persuading many Canadians that supply management results in safer products and more consistent supply. Article content In addition, supply management has strong support from most of Canada's media. The Toronto Star and the CBC go apoplectic at the mere mention of changes to it, and the generally centrist Globe and Mail is also quite supportive, in spite of its (supposed) commitment to free markets. Only National Post offers consistent criticism. Article content And lastly, supporters have succeeded in persuading Canadians that the program's demise would decimate our dairy sector, as they argue that domestic producers could not possibly compete with larger international players. Article content That last argument is particularly questionable, as there is little reason to doubt that in the absence of state-controlled quotas and prices, Canadian dairy farmers would become more efficient and innovative. Article content Article content Indeed, a similar argument was made decades ago with regards to wine. For years Canada's wine market was carefully regulated and foreign wines were heavily tariffed. Canadian producers argued that without such taxes the industry would be destroyed, as it could not possibly compete with French, Italian, and Spanish wines. Article content In fact, the opposite occurred. With the opening of the market, Canadian producers were suddenly forced to offer a better product, and the result has been an explosion in both the number of domestic producers (now approaching 1,000) and the quality of our wines. Indeed, Canadian wines now routinely win international competitions, something that would have been unthinkable 40 or 50 years ago (when something called Baby Duck seemed to be the best we could do!). Article content In sum, the Canada-U.S. trade talks have entered their final phase. But a familiar obstacle remains. The Canadian government seems totally committed to supply management, even if this support comes at the cost of killing a potential agreement. Such an outcome would be catastrophic, as Ottawa would literally be committing economic suicide. And yet this result is very much in play, and might be unavoidable if the U.S. decides that there will be no agreement unless Canada agrees to make dramatic changes to the program. Article content
