Darth Wong wrote:What the fuck is the moral difference between taking their money and forcing them to pay higher prices for your goods?
They get your goods in return, instead of nothing at all? I should stress that I'm not saying that forcing/encouraging people to buy from you at a higher price because you think they owe you for a favour you believe you did them is a good thing. I'm just saying that it's not quite as bad as simply demanding money from them as payment for the favour.
You aren't getting it.
If we force Iraq to buy US goods, and those goods have higher prices for the same quantity/quality products -- reasonable, considering we're talking about a commodity like rice -- then the net effect is to steal money from them. Observe:
Case 1: Purchase for the best price on the market. Get 1 million units of rice for, say, $1 million.
Case 2: Purchase from the US. Get 1 million units of rice for $1.2 million.
In case 2, Iraq would have purchased one million units of rice and spent an extra $0.2 million for no obvious benefit. This has effectively been stolen from them if they are compelled to buy from the US. Some customers may choose to purchase from the US instead of the least expensive alternative for various reasons. They may prefer something about it which may not be easily quantifiable, but is of value to the customer. That's fine, it's how the market is supposed to work, but only if they have the choice.
73% of all statistics are made up, including this one.
I'm waiting as fast as I can.