@altschmerz some, here’s a list of made in America products. Unfortunately when it gets to the stage when the average American cannot afford products made by themselves business is bound to change how it treats them.

[clark.com]

I try and buy ethically, it seems expensive sometimes; but when you look at the real, ‘cost’ of buying cheaply...it’s better to have less and pay more from my point of view!

@girlwithsmiles Doesn't look like any of those brands are ones I've seen in stores around here. I'm probably too poor to afford them anyway.

@TomMcGiverin yes it’s similar with the UK made stuff for me:

[madeingreatbritain.uk]

@altschmerz trade agreements leave products of various types dissected among countries for a "fair" share of distribution and benefits. Automobiles are a prime example. As the one article girlwithsmiles posted, so are Harleys I believe. Canada and Mexico are our most relevant countries benefitting from this within the NAFTA agreement. Various aspects of autos are assembled in these countries, along with things like wiring harnesses and others sub assembled parts.

Tariffs can also also dictate whether a company may move some operations overseas. Indian is presently weighing moving some operations to Poland due to EU tariffs as Harley did in the past with their productions. In this aspect of globalization countries can force/dictate a companies move within an ability to raise production cost. {"The recent EU retaliatory tariffs have required us to expend time, energy and resources to evaluate mitigation plans, including the possibility of moving production of Indian Motorcycles destined for Europe from Iowa to our facility in Poland,"}

Claiming all Indian's sold in the US will remain to be built in the US though. In other words, as a whole. They are being forced into the capitalist way of running a dysfunctional world strategically that doesn't benefit all of society. I'm all for globalization. Just not one built on the back of citizens within an economic trade war that raises cost for us. As Marx teaches us, means of production such as all resources, means to produce, and jobs created, should be equally distributed across the globe to reduce waste and pollution towards even distribution accordingly.

[thedrive.com]

@William_Mary Once met an Aussie whose choice was going offshore for some aspects and keep running a business or totally closing as not being able to compete. He decided not to shut down and kept some people employed, although choosing hurt him emotionally.

@girlwithsmiles within the present globalization structure as it is, it purposely benefits only the top major corporations. Unless a company has a direct relationship with one of those corporations, such as a company making brake shoes for an auto industry for example, most smaller companies can't compete long term under this structure. Now if one of these smaller companies have a product that is or becomes beneficial to a top corporation, largely in the technology sector today, they are often bought out, face a hostile takeover if on the market, or get pressured out of business due to cost. Much in the same regard that everywhere a trade agreement takes place in a new country, the small farming communities are the first victims to be squashed under the foot of the developed country. Then comes the forcing of engineered seed used for any farmer remaining.

@William_Mary agreed. However once people are aware of this it’s their choice, while we still have one and if they can afford the options, whether to buy from ethical companies/ monopolies/ or smaller companies that have to charge more.

Often paying more for products gives value in ways that is not imminently obvious.