Global Trade and Finance 8: Tariffs, OPEC+, EU Trade, Inflation
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/11/21
Michael Ashley Schulman, CFA, is Chief Investment Officer and a founding partner of Running Point Capital Advisors, a multifamily office delivering integrated investment, planning, tax, insurance, and estate services, based in Los Angeles, California. He oversees global macro research, asset allocation, and public- and private-markets strategies, including impact mandates. Schulman is a widely quoted commentator, frequently providing analysis to Reuters and other outlets on technology, energy, trade, and market structure. His work centers on translating macroeconomic trends, U.S. fiscal policy, and the global tech landscape into actionable guidance for families and entrepreneurs.
In this interview with Scott Douglas Jacobsen, Schulman assesses a pivotal U.S. Supreme Court tariff case testing IEEPA and executive authority, with implications for de minimis rules and refunds. He reads markets as skittish amid higher Treasury yields, AI retrenchment, and shutdown uncertainty. OPEC+ plans a small December increase, then a pause through early 2026, anchoring pump prices. EU FTAs aided diversification, yet EU–Indo-Pacific trade cooled after 2022; Brussels probes Chinese tires. APEC advanced paperless trade standards, but uptake will be slow. OECD inflation steadies at 4.2%, with energy up, food high; wage dynamics remain decisive. Schulman expects a shutdown resolution and resilient year-end.
Interview conducted November 8, 2025.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What’s at stake in the U.S. Supreme Court tariff case (Nov 5)?
Michael Ashley Schulman: The Supreme Court of the United States showdown is less about whether tariffs are good or bad and more about who gets to call the shots on U.S. trade policy. Can the executive branch, can it via the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), impose sweeping tariffs without explicit congressional authority? Does President Trump have the power of the tariff pen? That’s the question.
If the Court curtails that power, Congress reclaims some muscle. If the Court okay’s the sweeping authority to enact unilateral tariffs, trade policy remains as easy to shift as a sports or March Madness bracket where a dark horse can suddenly turn the tide.
From a consumer perspective, this could either mean a return to pre-Trump import pricing on some goods, more potential cost spikes, or a continuation of surprises as other loopholes are explored. Significantly, it could pause or unwind parts of the China de minimis suspension, meaning that imported packages under $800 could requalify for the de minimis exemption.
Between you and me, and everyone else I guess, I’m not overanalyzing this, but rather waiting on SCOTUS to see if they declare something binary or some middle of the road ruling with exemptions and flexibility, which may be the biggest surprise for most legal observers. Also to be seen is what this might mean regarding potential tariff refunds on tens of billions collected.
Jacobsen: How did markets digest the week’s macro jitters with wobbly risk assets?
Schulman: Markets reacted like the supporting characters in an eerie horror‑movie house; one minute all clear, next minute something creaks. I’m reading The Haunting of Hill House by Shirley Jackson this week, so between that and Halloween just past, that analogy is top of mind.
Rising U.S. Treasury yields spooked tech and small‑cap investors pushing risk assets lower. And although I thought the government shutdown might shake markets in late October, it seems I was slightly premature, and the tremors are hitting investors now in early November, especially as airline flights get curtailed.
Also the AI train hit a steep incline and started backsliding; we could see more retrenchment or correction before enough people start chanting, “I think I can, I think I can.” As I mentioned tongue-in-cheek to our family office clients a month or so ago, investors are so eager to buy the dip, they are sometimes doling it before there is even a decline. Now we are seeing a decline in some of the most desired names, and I feel we may see dip buyers come in this month believing that U.S equity markets will be higher by year end.
Clarity on tariffs and an end to the U.S. government shutdown should help.
But funny how market jitters this week coincided with the additional upsetting news of a second pushback in the release of Grand Theft Auto 6 by Rockstar Games and Take-Two Interactive to November 2026. Correlation, causation, or mere coincidence, tough to tell?
Jacobsen: What signal did OPEC+ send on oil supply in the last week?
Schulman: OPEC+ agreed to a modest rise in output for December but said they’d pause increases through the first quarter of 2026, so as not to create a supply glut. Oils stocks may get a mild tail‑wind from this. Beijing recently came through with some better than expected growth numbers, but fear of a slowing China helps motivate OPEC to not fully open their spigots and crash prices.
For us, this signals a baseline for somewhat stable or range bound pump prices (which is good) but potential oil price shocks are never fully behind us and can create an iffy situation for inflation since oil is a major manufacturing and transportation input for most goods and services.
Bigger picture, there is a fun balance happening behind the scenes here. Saudi Arabia helped Trump by increasing oil supplies and lowering prices on Liberation Day which reduced inflationary pressures, and Trump for his part has curtailed Federal EV incentives in the U.S. and made cheap Chinese EVs here a non-starter thereby assuring continued oil demand.
Jacobsen: Did EU trade policy show tangible results? Please pair it with Indo‑Pacific trade tallies.
Schulman: Tangible but maybe not stellar! A European Commission report indicated that EU free‑trade agreements (FTAs) boosted export diversification and resilience, or better phrased as resilience via diversification. However, since you asked about it, I interpret Eurostat data on the Indo‑Pacific region as a mixed bag. After record growth in 2021 and 2022, total EU–Indo-Pacific trade declined in 2023 and edged down more in 2024, so peak activity along with the highest trade imbalance was around 2022. The good news is that 2024 growth was less bad than in 2023. So at least that’s something.
Jacobsen: What’s the latest EU trade‑defence move against China (e.g., anti‑subsidy investigation on tyres)?
Schulman: What goes around comes around, especially with tires; sorry, couldn’t resist. You can edit that out if you like. It is the beginnings of a defense for the EU. Brussels opened new anti-subsidy probe into Chinese tires on top of an already ongoing anti-dumping investigation from earlier this year. I think the EU has seen surging imports and suspects state support, Chinese state support. I suspect they’ll, I mean the EU will levy duties or tariffs on car and truck tires.
Jacobsen: What did Asia‑Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) just lock in about rules of the road? Many post‑ministerial statements underscored digital or paperless trade.
Schulman: That’s a niche question. I think most people either barely noticed this or considered it a snoozer of a ruling; but yes, at APEC’s latest meeting the focus was on digital or paperless trade and customs procedures as you indicated. This is simple e-commerce modernization without invoking the blockchain; the type of infrastructure‑style changes like e-bills of lading that should be helpful for corporate margins and global trade efficiency and that I’m guessing most people would be surprised that this hasn’t happened yet. But, and it’s a big “but”, APEC statements aren’t binding edicts. Each economy has to change rules, digitize their systems, and create mutual-recognition deals. Realistically, this is maybe complete by the end of the decade. So, like I indicated a minute ago, I’m hitting the snooze button on this one.
Jacobsen: OECD CPI notes inflation stable at 4.2%. Any fresh inflation thoughts worth flagging?
Schulman: The Organization for Economic Co‑operation and Development reported headline inflation or CPI as stable at 4.2 % year‑on‑year in September across member countries, with energy inflation ticking up to around 3.1 % and food holding at a high 5.0 %.
Two notes worth flagging as you say. First, stability isn’t the same as low! We’re well above the 2 % comfort zone of central banks. Second, energy is creeping up again with ginormous demand which could in turn rekindle upward moving inflation.
My thought for our family and wealth management clients is that wage pressures are the sleeper melodies on the charts to watch out for. The labor market keeps feeding into services inflation, even with unemployment rising to 4.3% in August. We need to watch how much of inflation slowing is true disinflation versus just the math of base effects. For the average American, the cost of living is still a popular topic. Until wage growth consistently outstrips inflation, the feeling of financial squeeze won’t ease. Wage gains matter!
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Michael.
Schulman: Thank you, Scott. I’d just like to summarize that as we enter the final tenth of the year, we’re not in panic territory, but the 2025 ecosystem feels much more like the season finale of a drama rather than a romance. OPEC+ is pushing on its string, Europe is rearming while also busy building its own trade firewall against Beijing, and Russia is the enigma it always has been. Domestically, we’ve got the judiciary playing referee on executive trade power, tariff questions are still headline news, AI capital expenditures keep growing, and with the U.S. government shutdown, domestic markets are moving on narrative and earnings more than on official data. I initially thought the shutdown would last at least several weeks and now that it is over 40 days long I suspect it will be resolved soon or at least by Thanksgiving; and if resolved I expect record holiday season sales. With our positive bent, we continue to seek the right opportunities and structures on behalf of our clients.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
In-Sight Publishing 