• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Americans should be forced to purchase inferior goods at higher prices

Americans should be forced to purchase inferior goods at higher prices


  • Total voters
    18
Define "inferior"
 
How would anyone force them to purchase inferior goods to begin with? At gunpoint? :roll:
 
I think you left out one important element in this poll......THE POINT!!
 
How would anyone force them to purchase inferior goods to begin with? At gunpoint? :roll:

Through tariffs, quotas, agricultural subsidies, and various other protectionist nonsense.
 
Why should they be forced to purchase inferior goods? And what do you mean, "inferior" O_O?
 
Already done. We purchased a leader of the free world but received a snake oil salesman Chicago politician community organizer. Fed owned star struck media forced it down. Refund!
 
Last edited:
Not enough info to go on... sorry OC.
 
Through tariffs, quotas, agricultural subsidies, and various other protectionist nonsense.

But of course, they're still not forced to purchase anything, they can simply not buy it.

So again, I ask, how are Americans being FORCED (your word) to purchase inferior goods?
 
Through tariffs, quotas, agricultural subsidies, and various other protectionist nonsense.

You also forgot laws that bar US employers from hiring illegals and trade barriers against certain countries ran by brutal dictatorships and laws that bar slavery. Because imagine how much money we could save if only we would allow manufactures to exploit illegals and starving North Koreans, Cubans and other people living in brutal dictatorships with dirt cheap wages.We let companies go to China,why should Cuba,North Korea or any other similar places be different? I bet if slavery was legal I bet those businesses would pass the savings onto the consumer instead of pocketing the extra profit margin. The slaves wouldn't technically be working for free I am sure the companies would give them decent food,clothes,roof over their head and perhaps some medical care as well.
 
Last edited:
Because imagine how much money we could save if only we would allow manufactures to exploit illegals and starving North Koreans, Cubans and other people living in brutal dictatorships with dirt cheap wages.
You think Cubans would be cheaper than the third world sweatshop labor we already rely on? I doubt it.
The slaves wouldn't technically be working for free I am sure the companies would give them decent food,clothes,roof over their head and perhaps some medical care as well.
That would be a huge increase in expenditures over the current slaves.
 
But of course, they're still not forced to purchase anything, they can simply not buy it.

So again, I ask, how are Americans being FORCED (your word) to purchase inferior goods?

Well, it wasn't MY word as it isn't my thread...
It's more accurate to say that they're unable to purchase the best product at a competitive price...which really amounts to the same thing.
 
You also forgot laws that bar US employers from hiring illegals and trade barriers against certain countries ran by brutal dictatorships and laws that bar slavery.

Laws that bar slavery are a good thing, as slavery distorts the market. Laws that ban hiring illegals, and trade barriers against entire systems of government are a bad thing, as these policies themselves distort the market.

jamesrage said:
Because imagine how much money we could save if only we would allow manufactures to exploit illegals and starving North Koreans, Cubans and other people living in brutal dictatorships with dirt cheap wages.We let companies go to China,why should Cuba,North Korea or any other similar places be different?

They shouldn't. We should trade with ALL countries. The only exceptions I would make are for the weapons trade, as it's probably not a good idea to be arming our enemies.

jamesrage said:
I bet if slavery was legal I bet those businesses would pass the savings onto the consumer instead of pocketing the extra profit margin. The slaves wouldn't technically be working for free I am sure the companies would give them decent food,clothes,roof over their head and perhaps some medical care as well.

The overwhelming majority of people in Southeast Asia who work in sweatshops for cheap wages are not slaves. They are making a free choice to succeed, and in the process they are growing the economies of their countries. One day they will be just as prosperous as the last wave of countries to get rich, such as Taiwan, South Korea, and Singapore.

I'm not going to say that slavery doesn't happen at all, but it's certainly not common enough to build a trade policy around it. Hell, it happens in this country occasionally.
 
In plain economic terms:

"Normal goods" are goods which people buy more of when their income is higher or increasing.

"Inferior goods" are goods which people buy more of when income is lower or decreasing.

For example, if a normal good were to be a Lamborghini, an inferior good would be a Hyundai.


In response to the question I would say no, because demand for inferior goods would go down, and then someone on some end loses something.
 
Well, it wasn't MY word as it isn't my thread...
It's more accurate to say that they're unable to purchase the best product at a competitive price...which really amounts to the same thing.

Not really. I'm unable to purchase many of the cars that are sold in Europe, some of which I consider to be excellent vehicles. Those cars could be sold in America, they simply are not. I could, if I really wanted, probably get one imported, converted to left-hand-drive (depending on the vehicle) and drive it here, it simply isn't worth it. The decision is made by the manufacturers if they want to put their product on the American market or not and that decision is almost always driven by economics. Is it worthwhile or not? It's not some government conspiracy.

In fact, staying with the car analogy, Ford came up with a very high-mileage diesel not long ago, it was extremely gas efficient, didn't cost much, etc. but they decided not to sell it in America because they thought Americans wouldn't buy a diesel. It's for sale in Europe, where they have been driving diesel cars for decades.
 
In plain economic terms:

"Normal goods" are goods which people buy more of when their income is higher or increasing.

"Inferior goods" are goods which people buy more of when income is lower or decreasing.

For example, if a normal good were to be a Lamborghini, an inferior good would be a Hyundai.


In response to the question I would say no, because demand for inferior goods would go down, and then someone on some end loses something.
But BOTH cars will get you to work, so how is either of them inferior? One is a luxury car, the other is a more than adequate functional car.
 
But BOTH cars will get you to work, so how is either of them inferior? One is a luxury car, the other is a more than adequate functional car.
In the context he's referencing, he's using "inferior" as synonymous with "substitute", articulating a set of buying preferences that render a Hyundai an imperfect substitute good for the Ferrari.

Extending the reasoning you apply above, you might consider the Hyundai to be a perfect substitute good to the Ferrari.

substitute goods definition
 
But BOTH cars will get you to work, so how is either of them inferior? One is a luxury car, the other is a more than adequate functional car.

Normal goods are called as such based on their quality, and the demand for them. A modern corvette will cost more money because it takes more resources to make, is higher quality, and there are few of them to go around... yet everyone wants one. Thus higher price.

An inferior good like a hyundai would get people around just fine, but the question is: should people pay higher prices for inferior goods? This method is a way of giving more money to the economy, even though quality suffers. It would be like paying for a hyundai at the price of a corvette, in order to reduce input cost (the value of the resources used to manufacture the car) but maximize profit.

In turn, the taxes collected on the corporate revenues from this artificially higher priced system would pay off national debt and provide more stimulus.

Inferior goods, more often than not, are the most cheaply priced because they are made overseas where labour wages are much lowered (i.e. China), so the output cost (the end cost of the product) is less. Because the Obama Administration wants to implement the "buy American" policy, the same inferior goods would be made available through the domestic market ONLY... and even though it would be the same product as China could make, the domestic price would be higher. Thus... higher prices for inferior goods.
 
In the context he's referencing, he's using "inferior" as synonymous with "substitute", articulating a set of buying preferences that render a Hyundai an imperfect substitute good for the Ferrari.

Extending the reasoning you apply above, you might consider the Hyundai to be a perfect substitute good to the Ferrari.

substitute goods definition

I can easily afford a Hyundai, wouldn't buy one, but I can afford one. I can even afford a corvette, wouldn't buy one, but I can afford it.
I cannot afford any ultra performance car, like lamborghini or a ferrari, and most of us cannot. So the comparison sucks.
I can afford some luxury cars.
I would prefer to buy a jaguar, if I was to go for a luxury car.
It is the only modern luxury car that I consider having style.
As for what is inferior, if it serves my purpose at a reasonable cost, then it cannot be considered inferior just because it isn't a luxury or high performance car.
Inferior is what makes them fall apart in the first 100K miles, and I have never had a car that did that.
 
Back
Top Bottom