• 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
Kandahar said:
Laws that bar slavery are a good thing, as slavery distorts the market.
Click to expand...

How does allowing companies to out source to communist and 3rd world countries and allowing companies to hire illegals not do the same thing?
 
UtahBill said:
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.
Click to expand...

Yeah that's true, but when you talk about goods, "inferior" doesn't mean "lowly" or "worse than something else." It all has to do with income level.

The definition of "inferior" changes in this situation, just the way "normal" does.

Don't get me wrong, I would actually prefer a Hyundai over a Lambo, regardless of my income.
 
Last edited:
jamesrage said:
How does allowing companies to out source to communist and 3rd world countries
Click to expand...

Because in the vast majority of cases, people in those countries choose where they work. If they are unsatisfied with their wages, they can look elsewhere. Supply and demand.

jamesrage said:
and allowing companies to hire illegals not do the same thing?
Click to expand...

Same thing. If the illegals are unsatisfied with their wages, they can look elsewhere. Supply and demand.

What gives you the right to demand a ridiculously high wage, if someone else is willing to do the same job for a fraction of the price? You have no one to blame but yourself if you didn't get an education or acquire any useful skills to remain competitive in a global marketplace. It is not the fault of The Brown Man or The Yellow Man.
 
Last edited:
Quote
(Originally Posted by obvious Child View Post
Americans should be forced to purchase inferior goods at higher prices.

Agree or disagree?)

Quote
(you are holding your anti-stupid gun backwards.....)

With regard to the above sentence, PULL THE TRIGGER, that way you will relieve humanity of a stupid person.
 
Kandahar said:
Because in the vast majority of cases, people in those countries choose where they work. If they are unsatisfied with their wages, they can look elsewhere.
.
Click to expand...

If they are in a 3rd would country jobs might be extremely scarce(those people are not poor because of a overabundance of jobs) they do not have a choice. I can't really imagine someone communist country actually having a choice to demand a fair wage.So it is idiotic to say oh they can just go work somewhere else if they do not like the wages.


Supply and demand.
Click to expand...

Supply and demand is a two way street. IF companies have a hard time finding legal workers then they must compete with other companies for legal workers not try to import an illegal workforce.

Same thing. If the illegals are unsatisfied with their wages, they can look elsewhere. Supply and demand.
Click to expand...

If they are here illegally then they do not have a choice in what wage they can take.They are here illegally they are not in a room to demand ****.


What gives you the right to demand a ridiculously high wage

if someone else is willing to do the same job for a fraction of the price?
Click to expand...

The same right you have to ask for a ridiculously high wage.I am pretty sure there is someone in a 3rd world country who can replace you.


So if we found someone in a 3rd world dirt poor country and smuggled him over here to do your job for a fraction of what you were paid you wouldn't have a problem?

You have no one to blame but yourself if you didn't get an education or acquire any useful skills to remain competitive in a global marketplace.
Click to expand...

Last time I checked America has borders, so we are not competing in a global market place for jobs, were are competing in American for jobs.

It is not the fault of The Brown Man or The Yellow Man
Click to expand...

It is the fault of the traitors in office who tossed the salad of anti-American businesses trying to increase their profit margin.
 
Cephus said:
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?
Click to expand...

Simple. When there is no trade with the rest of the world, domestic product quality decreases and cost goes up. We've seen this time and time again. The last major example was Bush's tariffs that resulted in American steel imperfections rising per ton and prices rising. Americans bought inferior goods at higher prices due to restrictions on trade. When you are barred either legally or through tariffs from purchasing foreign goods that you need, you are forced to purchase domestic goods to get the materials you need to do whatever you need to do. Everyone who supports isolationism from free trade (which by the way is Marxist despite rage's rantings) supports forcing Americans to buy inferior goods at higher prices.
 
jamesrage said:
How does allowing companies to out source to communist and 3rd world countries and allowing companies to hire illegals not do the same thing?
Click to expand...

I realize you have no idea who Marx is, but Marx specifically noted that a Communist country would isolate itself from free trade. Calling countries that are focusing on the export orientation in the free trade world of the Asian Tigers "Communist" is like calling Franco's Spain a representative Democracy. It makes no sense.
 
Cilogy said:
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.
Click to expand...

What if you have no choice?

Imported high quality steel has been tariffed to the sky making it unaffordable while inferior quality American steel costs more than pre-tariff, and you need steel but are on a budget for your construction project. You end up paying more than you would before the tariff for inferior goods. This is percisely what happened when Bush allowed the steel tariffs. American steel went south in quality and north in price while foreign steel which was cheaper AND of higher quality was tariffed out of most budgets. Americans were forced to pay more for inferior products.
 
UtahBill said:
you are holding your anti-stupid gun backwards.....:2razz:
Click to expand...

On the contrary, only a few people can read between the lines. I may need to be more direct in such statements. However, given the polling results, people seem to agree with me that we shouldn't. So maybe I'm not holding the gun backwards?

Not to mention that every time I discuss how protectionism for the most part is bad stuff, those who disagree with me flee.
 
obvious Child said:
Simple. When there is no trade with the rest of the world, domestic product quality decreases and cost goes up. We've seen this time and time again. The last major example was Bush's tariffs that resulted in American steel imperfections rising per ton and prices rising. Americans bought inferior goods at higher prices due to restrictions on trade. When you are barred either legally or through tariffs from purchasing foreign goods that you need, you are forced to purchase domestic goods to get the materials you need to do whatever you need to do. Everyone who supports isolationism from free trade (which by the way is Marxist despite rage's rantings) supports forcing Americans to buy inferior goods at higher prices.
Click to expand...

I suppose you have proof that american steel became inferior, more imperfections, etc. ?
 
obvious Child said:
On the contrary, only a few people can read between the lines. I may need to be more direct in such statements. However, given the polling results, people seem to agree with me that we shouldn't. So maybe I'm not holding the gun backwards?

Not to mention that every time I discuss how protectionism for the most part is bad stuff, those who disagree with me flee.
Click to expand...

I fleed? No, I just had more important things to do for awhile, but I get back from time to time.. Nothing l like more than arguing with a child....:2razz:

I haven't heard the reports about inferior american made steel, unless we include the bad steel coming out of Mexico, which is part of North America...
 
UtahBill said:
I suppose you have proof that american steel became inferior, more imperfections, etc. ?
Click to expand...

USATODAY.com - Steel tariffs catch some in middle

Gaskin is one of more than 50 people who testified in Washington, D.C. on June 19-20 to express critical concerns about the tariffs, including loss of jobs, steel unavailability, poor quality of raw material, a rising cost of steel, declining profitability and loss of work to foreign competition.
Click to expand...

PMA Calls for End to 201 Steel Tariffs During ITC 332 Hearings (6/26) - Today's News Updates (view all) - Appliance Design

"Since the imposition of the tariffs, we have been struggling with shortages of material, skyrocketing prices and poor quality steel…it's putting us further and further behind." When shipments arrive late, Janes has had to send employees home, and then pay overtime when material finally does arrive - a "tremendous burden," he states.
Click to expand...

Wisconsin-Area Companies To Rep. Ryan: Steel Tariffs Threaten Local Economy

And it makes sense. With a severe reduction in competition, there's little push to ensure quality controls. Classic outcome of interference in markets.
 
obvious Child said:
Simple. When there is no trade with the rest of the world, domestic product quality decreases and cost goes up.
Click to expand...

But that assumes, wrongly, that you have a right to buy things that are not for sale. You don't. You can only choose to purchase things that are legally for sale where you are buying them. If something isn't for sale, then it's not an option for you to purchase them. Ford isn't selling that diesel car in the United States. I am not "forced" to purchase an inferior product because Ford chooses not to sell it here.

Sounds like you've got a major entitlement issue.
 
Cephus said:
But that assumes, wrongly, that you have a right to buy things that are not for sale. You don't. You can only choose to purchase things that are legally for sale where you are buying them. If something isn't for sale, then it's not an option for you to purchase them. Ford isn't selling that diesel car in the United States. I am not "forced" to purchase an inferior product because Ford chooses not to sell it here.

Sounds like you've got a major entitlement issue.
Click to expand...

Huh?

I'm not quite sure how you got there from my post. My argument is that isolationism from the trading world results in inferior products at higher prices. That superior products are priced out of competition by protectionism resulting in Americans have little choice if any in the market place. What is left in their price ranges are inferior products that have had their own prices raised. Thus, to purchase things we need, we are forced to buy inferior goods at higher prices.

The obvious solution is to reject protectionist crap that forces us into such a situation.
 
Cephus said:
But that assumes, wrongly, that you have a right to buy things that are not for sale. You don't. You can only choose to purchase things that are legally for sale where you are buying them. If something isn't for sale, then it's not an option for you to purchase them.
Click to expand...

As somebody who buys imported items infrequently, I'm confused by the proceeding statement.
 
Kandahar said:
Laws that bar slavery are a good thing, as slavery distorts the market.
Click to expand...
Markets do not exist outside of a particular society and social relationships and institutions. To talk of them in so pre-social terms is silly.

I'm no solid protectionist per se but this basically fundamentalist talk of some free traders about immaculately concieved markets and the gains of free trade thought of in terms only of very narrow economic gains are hardly the most persuasive.
 
Travelsonic said:
As somebody who buys imported items infrequently, I'm confused by the proceeding statement.
Click to expand...

It was in response to a claim that somehow, not having things for sale domestically somehow limits American's "right" to buy "quality". That's like saying the inability to flap your arms and fly somehow limits your "right" to travel.
 
Cephus said:
It was in response to a claim that somehow, not having things for sale domestically somehow limits American's "right" to buy "quality". That's like saying the inability to flap your arms and fly somehow limits your "right" to travel.
Click to expand...

Let's put it this way:

Liberal Bush imposed a protectionist tariff on steel imported into the US to foolishly protect the domestic goonion steel companies.

That in turn made ALL products made with steel more expensive, thereby reducing the ability of Americans to buy everything, because they had less money available to buy things.


Taken to the extreme, Socialist Obama might "rescue" goonion ruined GM by so raising tariffs on "foreign" brand cars that it becomes impossible to buy them, especially in light of all the damage he's going to do to the economy in the next few years. If a person could buy a car, but the government does something, and then it's impossible for that person to buy the car, it's correct to say the government prevented the person from buying that car.
 
When I read the words "goonion", Liberal, Socialist, I remove all credibility from the writer....I'd consider him to be "full of it".
We must , at least try to keep things in balance..
I think the steel tariffs were the right thing at the time..

I do agree that many union men are over paid.. but then, ball players and executives are also excessively compensated....
These situations have finally come to light with the huge and undeserved bonuses .....and GM's ex-CEO Wagoner and his 23 million dollar golden parachute...
The way to correct this is a police state with an absolute dictatorship...
This, I do NOT want....
What we need is a higher quality of people..
Everyone should have a parachute, but NOT golden...Wagoner is NOT worth ten times what I am..
My "parachute" has holes in it, thank God for social security..
 
earthworm said:
When I read the words "goonion", Liberal, Socialist, I remove all credibility from the writer....I'd consider him to be "full of it".
Click to expand...

Exactly, if you can't make an argument without using childish names, then you don't have an argument worth making. That's pretty much been the standard with the poster, therefore I pretty much ignore everything he has to say.

I think the steel tariffs were the right thing at the time..
Click to expand...

They were necessary at the time, I don't think they were the right thing. The right thing would have been to eliminate the high union contracts and actually let the steel industry compete on equal ground. Unfortunately, the unions are largely bankrupting this country, they demand more and more and more, but don't take competition and supply and demand into account.

These situations have finally come to light with the huge and undeserved bonuses .....and GM's ex-CEO Wagoner and his 23 million dollar golden parachute...
Click to expand...

While I do, to some degree, support the right of execs to write whatever contracts they can best negotiate, a lot of these have been utter highway robbery. Wagoner left, not because he was moving on to bigger and better things, but because he FAILED! He was fired and thrown out the door. What's worse, his company is being supported almost entirely with taxpayer money, that, as far as I'm concerned, invalidates any contract he might have had with GM. They're no longer running the show, the American taxpayer is. We never agreed to pay him a dime.
 
Cephus said:
It was in response to a claim that somehow, not having things for sale domestically somehow limits American's "right" to buy "quality".
Click to expand...

How does it not limit quality? Less competition leads to inferior products. Less competition leads to artificial price hikes. By supporting protectionist agendas, you directly limit Americans' capacity to buy high quality goods at low prices and force them into choices between inferior goods at high prices.
 
obvious Child said:
How does it not limit quality? Less competition leads to inferior products. Less competition leads to artificial price hikes. By supporting protectionist agendas, you directly limit Americans' capacity to buy high quality goods at low prices and force them into choices between inferior goods at high prices.
Click to expand...
I think you are assuming to much. Most cheap stuff made in China or Vietnam is hardly known for its quality.

It is almost certain that at least a modest amount of free trade will decrease prices and probably increase quality but this fundamentalist style doctrine that seems to suggest free trade is always the best because it allows "natural" market forces to be unleashed and seems to measure benefits only in very strict and narrow economic terms is hardly the most convincing of arguments.

One should also not overlook the history of protectionism and free trade which seem to show that most great powers like Britain, Germany and the USA became great economic powers under quite protectionist and/or state interventionist regimes.

I'm not saying protectionism or state interventionism a good idea, simply that simplistic assertions are unhelpful.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom