[Sam the Sham]

The point which the free trade contingent is determined to avoid is their distortion of the word "expensive".

Something can be more expensive either because...

1. The price has gone up. Or...
2. I am poorer.

The free traders are deliberately confusing absolute (the price across time) and relative (what the average household can afford to spend in monthly payments given its income) expense.

The car price, adjusted for inflation, has NOT gone up. Condition #1 is false. So distractions about the physical difference between the 2005 and 1964 car are meaningless. Auto manufacturers have doubled the loan term because Condition #2 obviously applies. Adjusted for inflation it is the same purchase price. It is just that the consumer can no longer afford to pay it in 3 years because he is poorer.

[1rudeboy]

Setting aside your reasoning, which I have attempted to show is convoluted, let's stick to your conclusion:

"It is just that the consumer can no longer afford to pay [a car loan] in 3 years because he is poorer."

And your evidence for this is that consumers choose car loans with longer terms?

_____
Circular reasoning is the practice of assuming something, in order to prove the very thing that you assumed. In Logic-speak, you assume that proposition A is true, and use that premise (directly or indirectly) to prove that proposition A is true. This is one of many logical fallacies that routinely get used in heated arguments, and is actually a special case of the fallacy of false assumptions.

[Toddsterpatriot]

The car price, adjusted for inflation, has NOT gone up. Condition #1 is false. So distractions about the physical difference between the 2005 and 1964 car are meaningless.

So you're saying that despite all the added safety and luxury features in todays cars, the prices haven't gone up. Sounds like we can get more for our money and this is bad how exactly?