The Trump administration’s tariff scheme appears less and less likely to bring manufacturing jobs back to U.S. shores.

Businesses across the country are crunching the numbers and realizing that, despite Donald Trump’s insistence, they can’t balance out his tariff hikes across the supply chain.

“Some manufacturers who had plans to open factories in the country say the new duties are only adding to the significant obstacles they already faced,” Bloomberg reported Friday.

That’s because the supply chain to produce those goods in the United States simply isn’t there, requiring companies to import raw materials and factory equipment—which Trump’s tariffs have made unaffordable—from abroad.

  • Xanza@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    14 hours ago

    He’s working very hard to meet his campaign promises. They were too grandeur. The government needs a massive increase in revenue to be able to meet the promises he’s made. If you sit down and think about it, this is the easiest way for the federal government to increase revenue without directly increasing taxes. Then he does wild deportations to distract everyone from what he’s doing.

    All to keep the top 1%'s share of total adjusted gross income to share of total income paid at 26.3% and 45.8%. Crazy to me that the top 1% of earners cry so hard about contributing a proportional amount in taxes.

    • SaltSong@startrek.website
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      12 hours ago

      If you sit down and think about it, this is the easiest way for the federal government to increase revenue without directly increasing taxes.

      Except that when tariffs are this high, they discourage imports and purchasing. It’s self-defeating.

    • ricecake@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      14 hours ago

      I honestly can’t think of promises that would require more money.
      And the simplest way to do it is to just spend the money. The government isn’t required to have money in order to spend it.

      The richest make more money when they sell more and the stock market does better. The tariffs hurt them more than a tax increase would because they can’t dodge revenue loss and market devaluation.

      He’s not running a grand plan. He’s not a mastermind. He’s doing exactly what he said he would. He had to get back into power to avoid consequences. He did so by putting all the awful people with irrational agendas into positions of power so they would support him. He doesn’t give a shit about the 1% unless they’re helping him, and he doesn’t give a shit about the 99% unless they’re voting for people who can help him.
      All the “distractions” are him letting the people who got him into power do what they want, because it doesn’t hurt him and he doesn’t care.
      The deportations aren’t a distraction, they’re the point for the racists who directly helped him.

      It’s not about who in society it helps, rich or not. It’s about who in his cabinet it helps. Everyone else can go fuck themselves.

      • Xanza@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        14 hours ago

        I honestly can’t think of promises that would require more money.

        There are quite literally dozens. Bringing manufacturing back to the US, eliminating income tax, eliminating tax on overtime/per diem, cut “energy prices” in half in 12 months (max of 18 months), end the Russia/Ukraine war, make in vitro fert free, end birthright citizenship, cut corporate tax rate from 21% to 15%, eliminate tax on social security, car loan interest tax deductible… The list goes on. All of this will cost quite literally trillions of dollars and none of that has anything even tangentially related to his trillion dollar plan for mass deportations.

        We’re looking at the largest increase in federal spending in the history of the United States here. More than any war ever. You have to pay for it somehow.

        • ricecake@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          12 hours ago

          Only one of those is actually something that would cost money. The rest either don’t cost money (how does ending birthright citizenship require revenue increases?), or they’re plans to reduce revenue.
          One doesn’t typically count a plan for reducing revenue as the reason for increasing revenue.

          Again, the government doesn’t need to match spending with revenue. When you control the money supply you can just spend what you need. There’s an impact to doing so to much, but that probably won’t come to a head for a few years.

          It’s not a grand scheme. It’s surface level opportunism.

          • AA5B@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            3 hours ago

            the government doesn’t need to match spending with revenue.

            Governments can spend at a deficit, but there’s a limit to how much debt they can accumulate. Other countries have found that out. US was in a special position in the economy as the largest economy, a strong position in international trade and a lot of dollar investment or dollar based trading. We could get away it’s more, but at some point it still hits a limit and falls apart.

            We’re already at a point where debt payments are one of the biggest pieces of the federal budget, blocking out better uses for that money. We keep stealing from the future and eventually we’ll get there to find everything gone.

            And that’s before you have an incompetent leader destroying all that dollar influence, everything that made that special economic situation possible. We’re fucking around with that special economic position and will come out of this subject to the same deficit limits as any other country. Well find out our accumulated debt is beyond prudence for a “normal” economy and we’re no longer special enough to ignore that

            We were in a counterintuitive position where spending more money for things like infrastructure and chips act was ok because of our special economic situation plus it’s an investment in the future that should have paid off. Whereas the orange fools approach to spending less money just risks our special economic situation that lets us get away with fucking around, plus points to a future of despair: it turns into losing more money in the future

            • ricecake@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              3 hours ago

              Yup, that was the “can’t do it too much” part. :)

              Any of it would be relevant if I thought trump or the Republican party cared about those consequences.