You spend three paragraphs talking about cars and then attempting to use your arguments on computer mice. You don't get to do that. A car is a durable good. Durable goods are amortized by the IRS. When I buy a Mac Pro, my accountant lets me write it off on a schedule over three years. When I buy a house for investment, the number is something bizarre like 27 1/2 years. The point being that even the government recognizes that durable goods are expected to last a while.

What we're talking about is consumables. or, more specifically, the erosion of products that WERE durable goods but are NOW consumables. Note how even Wikipedia believes consumer electronics to be durable goods? Do you think Monoprice believes that?

Therein lies the argument.

You are endorsing a shift from durable goods to consumables without recognizing that there is a difference between the two. Without recognizing that those incapable of crafting durable goods are at an advantage when you settle for consumables. Without acknowledging that something that is used for ten years is always better than something that is used for one year from the simple standpoint of entropy.

The mouse is not ultimately irrelevant. The mouse is the crux of the argument. Monoprice takes my durable good and resells it to you as a consumable. As a consequence, you argue that there is no place for durable goods in your life. As a consequence, those who craft durable goods must now not only compete against those selling durable goods, they must also compete against those who sell consumables.

And they will lose. Know how many electronics manufacturers there were in the United States in 1981? Know how many there are now? Used to be "made in Japan" was crap, then "made in China" was crap then "made in Vietnam" was crap. Yet we still buy the crap. The Japanese are reaping the whirlwind right now, just as we did in the late '80s.

I think what's happening here, and what I have a problem with, is that you seem to be assigning blame in reverse.

That's all you, bubba. I'm not accusing "the consumer" of anything. I'm accusing you of short-sightedness because you see a false equivalency between your $13 consumable and my $100 durable good, and you use that false equivalency to explain away all the external costs of your choice. My beef initially started out with Monoprice - you took it on when you somehow decided that there wasn't that much difference between something designed for performance and something designed for price point. Things really got hairy when you decided to make it about those poor, poor kids who can only afford $13 gaming mice. Consumers will buy whatever they're dangled in front of them with the justification of "it's cheap." That's WalMart in a nutshell. However, it's unusual that you get an argument that it's somehow the virtuous choice because poverty. I was talking about "stuff." You're the one who brought up "service jobs."

Going back to the speakers for a moment, its like blaming the indie bands for not buying the Mackie 1202 when the Alesis is half the price. Of course they're going to buy it: its half the price and more than half the quality.

You keep asserting this. That's all it is - an assertion. You have fabricated a justification out of thin air that something that costs less must be a better value because you want to believe it to be true. You've made no arguments and presented no evidence to back up this claim.

I'm doing a few other things while typing so excuse how scatterbrained this post is getting, but I have to emphasize that the quality gained for the price does not match.

You can emphasize it all you want - you haven't justified it, you haven't defended it, you haven't explained it, you've just asserted over and over again that things that are cheap are a better value than things that are not. Considering my argument has been - from the get go - that this is not the case (with links and attribution) I feel the need to call you out on it - wanting it does not make it so. You've also swept the entire argument of externalities under the rug rather than acknowledge it beyond "but I'm poor." Let me bring it back up to the front: if we taxed the import of cheap shitty goods to cover the externalities, cheap shitty goods would suddenly become "vaguely discounted shitty goods." Do you think people would still buy them?

Now - you can try and make that me somehow blaming the poor. I'll warn you, if you do I'll cease to be nice. I have argued, am arguing and will continue to argue that the problems of cheap knock-offs are caused by externalities and that the way to deal with externalities is to internalize them. Buy recycled. Buy used. Buy less. And yes - in our consumer culture, that's not typical behavior. But then, most consumers don't think their choices through. You on the other hand are here arguing five comments deep for it. You're being held to a higher standard.

They're cheaper than their quality. My desk is actually pretty nice, but if I had to choose between buying it at even used price for $100 or buying a $20 IKEA desk, I will choose the IKEA. When I start making actual money, I will buy the nice desk and the organic food.

So we're back to "I'm poor but I like sparkly shit." Again, that's fine. I think you're an idiot - If I had the choice between an $800 new Ikea table or a $800 used Noguchi I'll go with the Noguchi every time. Fuck - a top-end Ikea office chair is $500. I paid $600 for a brand new Aeron C with leather armrests and a lifetime warranty. It happened to be made in the USA. Not only is it in the MoMA, it's 94% recyclable.

So. Tell me how the difference between the $500 Ikea chair and the $600 Herman Miller chair is more than $100 worth of value. Use numbers and links.

Because wishing won't make it so.