.
Fair play. The world is complicated.

As to what we CAN control, we can only control what we are making and selling here.

If a company — Caterpillar — can only manufacture in a market in which they sell, then that is another problem but there are a million workers in the Maquiladoras who are working on manufacturing good that are coming back into the US.

The issue of A/C is an interesting one. Since 2010, R-22 (Freon) has been banned though there is still plenty of it out there.

R410A — non-ozone depleting — is a good system but it requires much higher pressures. This requires physical changes to equipment. This fluid is way more efficient than R-22 which means equipment can run at lower temps which prolongs the life of equipment.

There is also the issue of lubricating oil which works better with R-410A (polyol ester oil) than R-22 and mineral oil.

In the end, while I think much of the hysteria about ozone depletion is pure hokem, the design of A/C systems is also driven by efficiency and longevity. A new unit today is much, much better than even one from 5 years ago.

Two stage compressors and variable speed fans and humidity control.

I used to expect to get 7 years from a 75% top of the line A/C system. Now I expect to get almost twice a long from a slightly higher quality system but at a substantial energy savings.

The sale of domestic A/C units is driven by building codes and utility rebates. In many instances, it costs nothing — due to the rebates — to incorporate all the new bells and whistles.

It is not a simple issue but I come down on the side of thinking Carrier is just tapping into cheap labor. They have clearly announced they intend to sell product into the US. The exact same product they make and sell here right now.

Thank you for an insightful and interesting comment.

BRC
http://www.themusingsofthebigredcar.com

Right, not to pay for the wall. But, as I heard it, the Trump 35% was an import tariff to let US manufacturers compete on price with foreign ones.

In this case, and with my hypothetical example, Trump would be saying that US manufacturers can’t make the shoes for $4 but can for the $5.40. Hmm.

.
Does not need to be anywhere near 35%. Read this.

http://themusingsofthebigredcar.com/financing-donald-trumps-wall/

BRC
http://www.themusingsofthebigredcar.com

But, for a 20,000 foot view, maybe there is some good news: A Trump tariff of, as he commonly mentions, 35% will be 35% of WHAT? Well, likely the value of the product as imported. So, that’s the factory cost likely plus transportation to a US port of entry. Okay. But often US retail costs are much more. E.g., import running shoes for maybe $4 a pair and sell them for, what, $40 a pair? Much more for Nike? Why? Ad costs. What leading athletes get.

But the Trump tariff would be the 35% on the $4, not the $40. So the $35% would be $1.40, and that shouldn’t empty the wallet of the usual buyer of running shoes.

I don’t know how general this hypothetical example is. As I mentioned, I’d like more data.

But I also am learning that next to no one would pay attention to the numbers, and the effect on the election would be next to zip, zilch, and zero. So, I don’t expect to see such numbers.

Next big question: What the heck are the international macro economic forces that have an hour of work in the US usually worth $20+ and in many Asian countries less than $0.50? Why the heck is the US dollar so valuable? How can the US expect to export US products to countries where the workers are making less than $0.50 an hour?

http://themusingsofthebigredcar.com/fair-trade-free-trade-trump-trade/

BRC
http://www.themusingsofthebigredcar.com