The consumer side of global trade agreements

[Yavin4]

It's strange that no one seems to mention nor consider the consumer side of global trade agreements. That computer you're typing on. That smart phone in your pocket. Your shirt, pants, shoes that you're wearing. That flat screen in your living room. That Prius, Toyota, Honda, Hyundai that you drive.

All of these things and more are made more affordable courtesy of global trade agreements. Consumers, on a collective level, demanded lower prices for goods and services, and the market has responded to your requests.

Imposing protectionist policies means higher prices for those goods and services which will bring less overall demand and consequently less jobs.

For example, Carrier moved its plant because it has to keep their prices in line with their competitors who can make the same unit at lower costs. If Carrier doesn't move, they won't be able to compete and will go out of business.

If you want high quality, cutting edge goods, and services at low costs, then you have to be open to global competition.

With globalization, many air conditioning manufacturers are expanding and merging to become big corporations that give them an edge over their competitors. Competition in the manufacturing of HVAC equipment have forced these companies to reduce their manufacturing cost, procurement of parts, services and hence bringing profit to the shareholders.

Carrier Corporation, a U.S. company named after Willis Carrier is still the top HVAC company. It is a $13.5 billion manufacturing company and has over 43,000 employees in 170 countries. The Japanese companies such as Daikin, Mitsubishi, Panasonic, Toshiba and Sanyo are also global companies. LG and Samsung from South Korea are aggressive in making competitively priced unitary products. The Chinese companies Haier, Midea and GREE produces 50% of the world HVAC & Refrigeration products.

http://www.airconditioning-systems.com/air-conditioning-manufacturers.html

[Hoyt]

1. Excellent post, sure to draw wrath. Truth often does. Good luck.

[Democrats_win]

2. Consumer impact is part of the equation on trade. So is cheating.

True, the consumer idea is sometimes left out. However, another part of the equation is cheating. Many at DU knew in the early 2000s that China was cheating by manipulating their currency to entice American companies to move production to China. If China had allowed their currency to reach an equilibrium level, American-made products would have been much more competitive as China's currency rose relative to the dollar. Americans wouldn't have lost their jobs.

Why isn't Trump telling us that W. Bush let America down by doing absolutely nothing to curb Chinese cheating? Ten years later, the jobs are gone and China has stopped cheating. Trump's comments on fighting China's currency manipulation are irrelevant! Democrats and Republicans sat on their asses and did nothing because their Fraud-street masters were making a killing.

Indeed, it is tempting to suggest that those responsible for this should face severe consequences--it's nearly treason that our politicians did nothing! Now China is even a greater military threat to America and Fraud-street made it happen with the help of our politicians. Guillotine the politicians, tell the truth about China, punish China and then let's try to move on without disrupting the global economy.

[The2ndWheel]

3. My guess would be that it leads to fighting against yourself

People should have high paying jobs, but we want more for less. Are you as an individual more worried about the money someone else is making, or more worried about what's in your pocket? Everybody, in every sphere of life, wants more for less. Why would labor be the one aspect that differs from that?

Business has access to people all around the globe. The same way white men aren't as needed as they used to be, Americans in general aren't as needed as they used to be. Whatever you do can probably be done anywhere, by anyone. Then of course there's automation, which will further reduce the need of everyone everywhere. Then people have to specialize in something, but A) not everyone can, and B), the more people specialize in X, the less valuable your knowledge and skills in X becomes.

We're not going back to the 1950's socially, and we're not going back to the 50's economically either. Whatever comes next will probably work for some people, and not work for others. Basically how things have gone since the planet formed.