WHERE ARE THE BISCUITS???

Trump appeals to a large swath of the disenfranchised. Mostly white (though quite a few black and latino - at least in my area), blue collar, conservative, Christian, mostly middle class. In the mid to late 00s the Democratic party had built a minority coalition with support from upper middle class white people. And it worked pretty well for about a decade. But they took it too far. I think Obama is largely to blame for this - his 2012 campaign was seen as being based entirely on denigrating middle class white people (not my words - the sense I've gotten talking to neighbors and from listening to talk radio). Then it compounded with Hillary's run in 2016. "A basket of deplorables" and so on. So all those middle class white people - they got fed up with constantly being called racist, sexist, transphobic, homophobic colonizers. They got angry. Trump was the response to all that.

The other thing you should know is that Trump is an insult comic - same beats, same tenor. You probably don't think he's funny but if you talk about him he's going to come back and insult you in the worst ways possible (which can be funny if you like insult comedy and aren't the target). Not presidential AT ALL, and most on the left don't know how to handle that. But the disenfranchised he's catering to - they are eating it up. Thus he's built an army of diehard supporters. He's saying the things they like to hear, making fun of the people who have made fun of them, coloring the landscape with the right things (a decent economy in his first term, highly patriotic themes like renaming DoD to DoW, hating on the left, etc). THEN you had the insanity of draconian and unscientific COVID responses, BLM riots, trans issues, safe spaces and micro-aggressions, and a Democrat president that was sadly and effectively a dementia patient. The response to the first Trump term by the left was not healthy. All they had to do was not go insane, but they did, and now you get him again.

All that to say that his base is going to back him up. If Trump says that there were fake electors his base is going to believe him. He could say (and has) just about anything and a large MAGA contingent will happily follow along. Not only do they feel represented by him but the left has acted so foolishly in response they feel justified in doubling down on that support.

In any case, numerically I'd imagine that 15% being made up by spending increasing by 2-3 times by the remaining 85% (from 2% previous target to 5%, or 3.5% more realistically).

Also to call Chomsky a libertarian is such a gross exaggeration that only if you squint REALLY hard at a couple of lines you might be able to be convinced.

What domestic behavior specifically?

If they're supposed to encourage industrial development at home, they've failed on that front. Building new factories requires years of commitment and billions of dollars, but the current administration has shown no interest in actually investing in that development. Meanwhile, the raw materials that would be necessary for a factory are more expensive precisely because of the tariffs, making new industry even less likely. Finally, the very dubious legal ground on which the tariffs are based means that no one is sure they'll be around to the end of this administration, much less into the next, so there's little interest in adapting long-term plans to a temporary state of affairs.

If they're supposed to encourage consumers to buy domestic, they've failed on that count too. Many goods simply are not available manufactured in the US (see above). If the tariffs were applied gradually and incrementally, maybe people would adapt, but from the consumer's mount of view, everything just gets more expensive, so what are they supposed to do? Again, applying tariffs to raw materials means that it's impossible for American businesses to undercut foreign imports even if they wanted to.

Like everything from this administration, the tariff are an impulsive decision based on poor economic understanding and incompetent execution.

In other words, they are a regressive tax --- pure and simple.

If tariffs are held strong, there will be two possible outcomes:

1) Domestic production will be increased (via American businesses as well as onshoring foreign businesses), providing jobs and ultimately lower-cost products

2) International tariffs will be decreased across the board - resulting in a more level field for American businesses to compete in foreign nations

Few realize American goods have been tariffed internationally for decades, resulting in a difficult-or-impossible business climate for American businesses.

The situation is akin to Wall Street's infamous short-term outcome favorability. Tariffs are a long-term game, and people have to be willing to trade some short-term outcomes for the long-term economic health of America and it's businesses (and jobs, wages, etc).

When has reduced competition ever resulted in lower-cost products?

Even for goods we already mass produce, companies respond to tariffs of their competitor's goods by hiking their own prices up.

That works when those countries are selectively tariffed while others are let off. Blindly applying tariffs to whatever satisfies the mood is not the way.

> or alternatively to apply pressure to a sector to bring it on shore.

For this to work, the cost of onshore production must be lower than the tariffed price. The inputs must be made cheaper and not tariffed. Again the US administration is not doing any of these strategically.

> The inputs must be made cheaper and not tariffed.

Not necessarily. It's presumably not as efficient, but you'd still expect the entire chain to head in the desired direction eventually.

I have talked to some purchasing people at my company and it seems it's going exactly the other way. The company is moving as much production as possible away from the US to serve the international market without paying for tariffs.

Good point.

The purpose of a thing is what is does. If a tariff can be used to stop a war, then tariffs are meant as a strategic bargaining chips.

On topic of best purchases under $100, suppose you regularly boil water for coffee or pasta but don't own an electric kettle, consider investing in a cheap white plastic kettle for $5. Fast and energy efficient way to turn electrical energy into boiling water.

[1] https://www.porlex.co.jp/ [2] https://www.porlex.com.au/collections/porlex-grinders