Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Hehe! Spot on about who the corporate chipmunks are!
    I defend freedom, corps are just an expression of freedom. You seem to oppose them because its the trendy thing to do. You offer no real coherent argument.


    Objectif, even for other corps cracking new markets is almost impossible. New developments and technology in energy say, are soon controlled by the corps. In the car industry corps actually come together and make near identical models together, sometimes the corps also merge, either way choice is not increased.
    Yes and? My point was that whats so bad? We are still getting more chocie and cheaper prices. I don't see what your problem is.

    I'm not arguing that this is a bad thing except for the groups I mentioned, poorer people (because prices are fixed),

    Poorer people are becoming richer, as we all know, they now have more choice in their products. More have cars etc.

    non-union workers
    ,

    These types are in communsit states where independent unions arn't allowed. Many corporations have unions.
    poorer countries,
    Corporations give people better jobs, more money, better condtions etc. For example in Vietnam Nike offers double the monthly average wage, education, air condtioning, unions, bonuses etc. S. Korea was very poor in 1960, but it opend up, let in corps and now look at it. In 1960 the av salary was 300 dollars or so now its over 10,000.

    and smaller businesses who suffer more from the excessive burdens which corps can soak up.
    Small businesses are damaged by taxation. Attack government not corps. Alos just because they are small does not mean they should get special treatment i.e protection. If people wnted the corner shop it would still be here, people wanted supermakets and got them. The consumer knows best, not you or the state.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by thebucketwoman)
    I like corporations, such as Tesco, on the whole. They provide jobs and a high quality, good value product/service. I am in support of relatively high taxation and regulation on such corporations to protect consumers/employees, and also to ensure they make the maximum contribution to society.
    How are you protecting consumers and employees, when high taxation increases the cost of production and thus the price consumers pay for their goods and services and forces the corporation to reduce their work force due to lower sales?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ArthurOliver)
    Hehe! Spot on about who the corporate chipmunks are!

    Bizzy, retail isn't one of the sectors I mentioned, and Wal-Mart is a monopoly rather than one of an oligop.
    And that's why Target has a higher return on equity than Wal-Mart? :rolleyes:

    Innovation? Where? I notice that the US still struggles to send people to space, when a few decades ago it had no trouble sending people to the moon. I'm reading 'Human Accomplishment' by neocon Charles Murray, the decline in innovation seems a more proven trend.
    CDs, DVDs, hybrid cars, the internet, computers with 3 GHz, mammal cloning, map of human genome, cures to a countless amount of diseases?
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    Objectif, as well as defending freedom, you also happen to be defending almost uncontrollable power. I don't oppose corps and I'm offering no argument against their power, I'm just pointing out the obvious downsides which are sometimes forgotten in the eternal pursuit of 'growth'.

    You seem to believe there's a link between corps, and choice and price. Do you really believe that when Ford spend a billion dollars getting a new model on to the market they leave their success/failure to the whim of the consumer?

    Their business plan extends to planning the customer’s future 'free choices' and his future 'personal tastes'. When the new car is launched, which typically is very similar to the latest models of ‘rival’ manufacturers , the customer unsurprisingly 'freely' wants one. Failures then are almost as rare as unusual or original products.

    Price fixing. Ford, Seat and VW cooperate in building three near identical cars. Choice and value?

    About unions, yes many corps have unions, more especially in their earlier stages of economic development. The unions are formed because workers want some of the security their business (as a corp) has. Corps don’t mind because they can pass increased costs to the consumer. So union workers fix their wages, and corps fix their prices. Poorer consumers (esp. non-union employers who cannot control their wages) pay the price, literally.

    About Nike and equivalents, at this stage in Vietnam's economic development, generous salaries (by Viet standards, cheap to the Corps) and benefits and unions, are a win-win for corps as they make Vietnam and other markets more likely to open up their markets to corps, who of course are able to dominate the new markets, it functions as a bribe would. The losers again are the non-Nike, non-union workers in Vietnam, housing costs most obviously, will rise across the board as a section of the population has increased spending power. Other losers of course are manufacturing workers in the West.

    Bizzy, I plead ignorance. I've never heard of Target. I had the impression that Wal-Mart was very dominant. Retail is far more open to competition than the sectors I specified.

    About innovation, I'm sure we crank out new stuff, but I really wonder if the pace of progress isn't slowing. Perception only, can't prove it, but Murray thinks he's shown it true.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ArthurOliver)
    Bizzy, I plead ignorance. I've never heard of Target. I had the impression that Wal-Mart was very dominant. Retail is far more open to competition than the sectors I specified.

    About innovation, I'm sure we crank out new stuff, but I really wonder if the pace of progress isn't slowing. Perception only, can't prove it, but Murray thinks he's shown it true.
    Innovation = productivity rate = per capita GDP growth

    Since per capita GDP is going up by the highest amounts in decades, it's safe to say that innovation is the highest we've seen in decades.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by objectivism)
    You can still do it. In fact i was watching a progamme about jazz last night. If you want something its out there, go to a record store, listen to the music on the internet or just look around for a good radio channel you'll find one as there is a market for it. Of course not as big as40-50 yrs ago when jazz was the craze but you can't blame corporations for people developing tastes.
    The above is a matter of taste, and I won't be able to prove to you that radio stations are all the same today, that Good Charlotte sucks and Avril Lavigne is no Carly Simon, and today's trickle of jazz recordings is a joke compared to the 70s of ECM, Impulse, CTI, and Black Jazz Records.

    I was just trying to express why I'm not exactly turning cartwheels over the stale sushi in the supermarket.



    You can do this as well. Perhaps your just too picky. How do you know you could find good pizza 20 yrs ago - that is a value judgement, but can you remember eating pizza 20 yrs ago? Thus what are you comparing it to? An idea that 'things were better in the good old days'.
    No, actually it was like this until about 7 or 8 years ago. Then it started quickly changing, & was quite noticeable.


    If you think people weren;t in debt 20 yrs ago your in a dream world. People choose to get in debt, its up to them what they buy. It is an expression of their freedom and corporations allow them to express this. It may not be wise but its their money. I wouldn't want to enforce my morals on them, they can buy what they want with their money.
    First of all, you did say "30 years ago," not 20, didn't you? I think people weren't in as much debt 30 years ago as they are today.

    I reserve the right to consider the things I like and dislike about a society, without being accused of "imposing my morality on them."



    Ok, how about India - not many mercs there but plenty of those dreadful cars from the days when their car industry was closed off from competition. Fortunately this is changing. There arn't many people wearing Gucci in Venezuala. In Vietnam you need 60,000 dollars for a Japanese car, in Japan you need 20,000 for the same car. Why? Because the Vietnamese gov puts massive taxes on imported cars thus reducing choices for people. Ghana who rejected capitalism in te post war period for protectionsim dosen't have many mercs or sushi restaurants or mcdonaolds. Go to South Korea and see their vairiety - French food, german food, Thai food, pizzas, mcdonalds etc. Its all there if you want it.The trend is clear - those with less capitalism have less choice in their products.
    Yeah, now South Korea is less capitalist than the US, isn't it? How about Italy, France, Denmark, etc.? Wouldn't you agree that Western Europe has "less capitalism" than America has? I thought W. Europe was dominated by the welfare state.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    B]Objectif[/B], as well as defending freedom, you also happen to be defending almost uncontrollable power.
    But they are controllable. People like you have taken what left wingers propaganda to be true. Corps are restrcited by red tape, environmental legislation, and high taxes (getting higher all the time). Why are the almost uncontrollable? Look at what courts have done for example a US court restricted Microsoft and there are many examples of such interferance.


    You seem to believe there's a link between corps, and choice and price. Do you really believe that when Ford spend a billion dollars getting a new model on to the market they leave their success/failure to the whim of the consumer?
    Who else are they leaving it to since its the consumer who decides. No one forces them to buy. Thats why corps spend millions on research and consumer surveys to see what sells.

    Their business plan extends to planning the customer’s future 'free choices' and his future 'personal tastes'. When the new car is launched, which typically is very similar to the latest models of ‘rival’ manufacturers , the customer unsurprisingly 'freely' wants one. Failures then are almost as rare as unusual or original products.
    What are you talking about? Planning someone's future choices? All they do is put on the market their product, if people like it, it sells, if not, it does not sell. Your above point is nonsensical. Do you think you know what people want more than they do? How do you know its not their choice?

    Its absurd to suggest there is not choice in the car industry. Go into a street and watch the variety.

    About unions, yes many corps have unions, more especially in their earlier stages of economic development.
    Why especailly in their later developments? Coke is 100 yrs old and has a union for example.

    The unions are formed because workers want some of the security their business (as a corp) has. Corps don’t mind because they can pass increased costs to the consumer. So union workers fix their wages, and corps fix their prices. Poorer consumers (esp. non-union employers who cannot control their wages) pay the price, literally.

    In one of your past posts you said we are all doing well out of corporations. Your now doing a u-turn. Prices are coming down thanks to corporations as the more they expand economies of scales come into force.


    About Nike and equivalents, at this stage in Vietnam's economic development, generous salaries (by Viet standards, cheap to the Corps) and benefits and unions, are a win-win for corps as they make Vietnam and other markets more likely to open up their markets to corps, who of course are able to dominate the new markets, it functions as a bribe would.

    Bribes usually have a negative effect on someone. What Nike is doing does not.

    The losers again are the non-Nike, non-union workers in Vietnam, housing costs most obviously, will rise across the board as a section of the population has increased spending power. Other losers of course are manufacturing workers in the West.
    All will get richer thanks to the trickle down effect. The more these workers have, the more they spend, the more others have. Also a solution to your point that housing costs will rise is to have MORE corporations and so MORE people earning more. Thus you should be supporting them.

    Those manufacturing workers in the west win in a certain respect i.e. they pay less for their goods since they are made by cheap labour and less tax as the government is not using taxpayers money to subsidise them.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by objectivism)
    If they weren't taxed so much they wouldn't be so inclined to cut corners and in so doing break the law.
    Yes they would, sooner or later. Isn't it true that every means of profit maximization must be tried at some point?

    Actually its a misconcpetion that corporations are 51 of the largest 100 economies. These statements and the above Portugal point are arrived at by comparing companies sales and states gdp's. This is wrong. Imagine a market trder who sells 1000 sterling pounds of fruit pw, is he icher than a lawyer who earns 900 pw. Yes according to people who side with point you made.
    I don't know; I think revenues vs. GDP is fairly accurate. Maybe EBITDA vs. GDP would be better, but the point is it's gross, not net, domestic product.

    Corporations surely can't be as bad as you make out if you have to go deep inside them to see wha they are doing is so bad.
    I wasn't that deep inside at all. I was just below the surface (but most people never get even there).

    Anyway whats wrong with growth? Making money? You make it sound as if there's something intrinscially bad about them being happy with their progress. The richer the get the better, the more people the employ, the more tax they pay, the more products they offer etc. They are producing something, unlike government.
    You make it sound as if I'm the only person besides Marx to see any danger in it. Jefferson warned about the dangers of excessive business power. If I'm not mistaken Adam Smith did too. Many people have seen the danger there: simply put, it's that money equals power and these are massively powerful institutions that aren't accountable to any population.

    There is nothing wrong with growth simply, or money-making, but as I have been saying,



    Sour grapes?
    Yeah. It's all been a charade, Ob. I wish I'd been a Yalie, & then safe in an actuarial firm with a Gucci suit and a 430A. Does that make you feel better?

    The idea that corps are running the world is nonsence. We have increased taxes, increased state powers for example in the UK it looks like we will all have to have id cards, there is more cctv everyday. Corps need states as they maintain property law, thats why you don't see many going to Africa as its not worth the risk but you see them locating to East Asia, Europe etc because the states can protect them.
    I never denied that states perform valuable services to corporations (and cheaply, too!).

    We can all point to random examples but to be honest if the problem was bad as you say people against corps would not be in the minority as you recognise.
    Why not? You can fool all of the people some of the time.

    True they weren't in charge, if they were they would not have let welfaism to emerge. Thats why i said that era was not pure capitalist.
    Wouldn't it be reasonable to expect them to be more or less in charge, in proportion to how pure the capitalism is? Thus, 19th-century America's corporate personnal would be closer to the folks in John Galt's valley than today? ...But is this what you actually find?


    If thats what they want and its not violating the rights of another i see no problem. You have to remember that the entity which gives corps its position which you condemn is ultimately the state. If anything blame government




    Such a contrct should be agreed before any money is given. If thats whta they wanted to do fine, but if they started blowing peoples money on chairty they'd sharp lose money and investment. The resuts would be unemployment, less products, less choice, no progress and no way out for third world countries
    Cool. Cheers, as they say over there.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    The above is a matter of taste, and I won't be able to prove to you that radio stations are all the same today, that Good Charlotte sucks and Avril Lavigne is no Cary Simon, and today's trickle of jazz recordings is a joke compared to the 70s of ECM, Impulse, CTI, and Black Note.

    I was just trying to express why I'm not exactly turning cartwheels over the stale sushi in the supermarket.
    Yes it is a matter of taste, and many would disagree with you otherwise we would see what we so 30 years ago as there would be a demand for it. What's wrong with corps giving people what they want? If you want jazz that was made decades ago you can find it, just like if i want sushi in a supermarket i can get it. Both win. 30 yrs ago only you got what you wanted.





    No, actually it was like this until about 7 or 8 years ago. Then it started quickly changing, & was quite noticeable.
    I thought we were using the 20-30 yrs framework now its suddenly 7 or 8 yrs. These things you suggest, if they had happened, would have occured gradaually, after all the market is so massive and so diverse with so many actors involved, the time frame you suggest makes it sound like it happened quickly. Your point about it being 7 or 8 yrs ago sounds odd, can you also remember the day? Exactly what started changing? Clothes began to fall apart? That time sure past me and about everyone else as i have never heard this idea before.



    First of all, you did say "30 years ago," not 20, didn't you? I think people weren't in as much debt 30 years ago as they are today.
    Again its their choice. People can afford to get into debt more these days, people earn more, bonuses are more often, people get promotion more thanks to less sex and race discrimination for example. Such things have rbought new opportunites to buy more.

    I reserve the right to consider the things I like and dislike about a society, without being accused of "imposing my morality on them."
    So you dislike society, but don't want it to change? If you do want it to change you would inevitably me enforcing your morality on others.






    Yeah, now South Korea is less capitalist than the US, isn't it?

    Well given acts of this administration e.g subsidies, tarrifs etc i wouldnt be too sure. Either way the fact remains the USA and S Korea are fairly capitalist and both have great choice for the bulk of their people when it comes to products. Thats just the reality.


    How about Italy, France, Denmark, etc.? Wouldn't you agree that Western Europe has "less capitalism" than America has? I thought W. Europe was dominated by the welfare state.
    But the point remains they are allow capitalism, true not to the extent that the US does, perhaps that partially explains why there is less choice in products, for example the US gets most of the movies, CDs etc way before we do. They get choice, while we're still buying products that are thought of as old in the US. Also in the UK our satellite box from the BBC offers nothing like 300 channels more like under 30. True many get more channels but not as many as a propotion in the US where having hundreds of channels is not out of the norm. Foodwise we get less choice thanks to CAP. Thanks to CAP we pay over 80% more than we should for bananas for example, two and half times as much for sugar.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by objectivism)
    Yes it is a matter of taste, and many would disagree with you otherwise we would see what we so 30 years ago as there would be a demand for it. What's wrong with corps giving people what they want? If you want jazz that was made decades ago you can find it, just like if i want sushi in a supermarket i can get it. Both win. 30 yrs ago only you got what you wanted.
    Who cares that much about whether you can get sushi in the store? Yes, tastes change. What if I want pork chops & gravy, but the neighborhood is lousy with Japanese restaurants? This is just chasing fickle public taste, and I'm not going to praise or blame corporations for it.

    With music, though, I think corporate leaders have made decisions far above "catering to the public." They decide to market almost exclusively to teens and pre-teens, because they're the easiest to manipulate ... they bribe radio stations in key markets for airtime ... they sign talentless performers who will never be in control of their artistic direction, etc.


    I thought we were using the 20-30 yrs framework now its suddenly 7 or 8 yrs. These things you suggest, if they had happened, would have occured gradaually, after all the market is so massive and so diverse with so many actors involved, the time frame you suggest makes it sound like it happened quickly. Your point about it being 7 or 8 yrs ago sounds odd, can you also remember the day? Exactly what started changing? Clothes began to fall apart? That time sure past me and about everyone else as i have never heard this idea before.
    No, re. the "7--8 years ago" thing I'm just talking about bagels & pizza, etc. Yes I remember when it became difficult to get a good bagel. It wasn't "overnight," but there was a turning point.



    Again its their choice. People can afford to get into debt more these days, people earn more, bonuses are more often, people get promotion more thanks to less sex and race discrimination for example. Such things have rbought new opportunites to buy more.



    So you dislike society, but don't want it to change? If you do want it to change you would inevitably me enforcing your morality on others.
    By merely wanting it to change, I'm not "forcing my morality" on anyone. Even by directly addressing people with appeals I wouldn't be forcing anything on them. But all I'm doing now is trying to assess the situation. Calm down.

    Well given acts of this administration e.g subsidies, tarrifs etc i wouldnt be too sure. Either way the fact remains the USA and S Korea are fairly capitalist and both have great choice for the bulk of their people when it comes to products. Thats just the reality.

    But the point remains they are allow capitalism, true not to the extent that the US does, perhaps that partially explains why there is less choice in products, for example the US gets most of the movies, CDs etc way before we do. They get choice, while we're still buying products that are thought of as old in the US. Also in the UK our satellite box from the BBC offers nothing like 300 channels more like under 30. True many get more channels but not as many as a propotion in the US where having hundreds of channels is not out of the norm. Foodwise we get less choice thanks to CAP. Thanks to CAP we pay over 80% more than we should for bananas for example, two and half times as much for sugar.
    I don't care; bananas & sugar are cheap. I get a week's worth of bananas for about $1.50, and buy sugar like every 2 years.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Yes they would, sooner or later. Isn't it true that every means of profit maximization must be tried at some point?
    Not when they risk their reputation and in this age of mass media its all too real. Its just not worth the risk. Corps are even more careful when things like Enron occur.



    I don't know; I think revenues vs. GDP is fairly accurate. Maybe EBITDA vs. GDP would be better, but the point is it's gross, not net, domestic product.
    Well i do know. The figures which the likes of Klein and you use are wrong. A company with sales of 20 billion dollars is not bigger than a coutry with a gdp of 15 billion if its value added (the difference btw the value of its sales and the costs on inputs bought from suppliers) is only 5 billion. States are much bigger e.g the us's economy is 200 times bigger than wal mart, china 20 times, and Belgium 3 times bigger.


    I wasn't that deep inside at all. I was just below the surface (but most people never get even there).
    The fact remains few others are saying this. You remind me of one of those lonely people who claim they have been taken up in a UFO. You've seen the truth, but for some reason no one else has. Perhaps because you weren't deep enough you didn't see the reality.

    You make it sound as if I'm the only person besides Marx to see any danger in it. Jefferson warned about the dangers of excessive business power. If I'm not mistaken Adam Smith did too. Many people have seen the danger there: simply put, it's that money equals power and these are massively powerful institutions that aren't accountable to any population.
    Conumser democracy. They mess up, they pay big time. What about if government messes up, for example a million marched against the war in the UK but it meant nothhing we still went to war so much for democracy. If a million boycott a product of a corp and march against a corp the corp takes notice and changes, for example Shell show us this in the way they have handled the dismantly of oil rigs in the North Sea.

    Pure capitalism dosen't produce excessive and dangrous power as it does not rely on force. Governments do. They are the only creators of inefficient monopolies, such as the Royal Mail and the National Health Service.




    I never denied that states perform valuable services to corporations (and cheaply, too!).

    Yes, but you seem to suggest that the state is so weak that corps can live without them. This is wrong. Corps need states, you overestimate their power.

    Cheaply? 42% of their wealth is not cheap. 50%+ in Sweden. All corps need is law and order, defence and courts. That does not cost 42% of wealth. Infrastrcture and schools etc could be provided privately.


    Why not? You can fool all of the people some of the time.
    You sound like a typical socialist. All the people have been conned but your one of the select few who knows what is going on and to boot you haven't even left college yet.

    Wouldn't it be reasonable to expect them to be more or less in charge, in proportion to how pure the capitalism is? Thus, 19th-century America's corporate personnal would be closer to the folks in John Galt's valley than today? ...But is this what you actually find?
    Explain

    Cool. Cheers, as they say over there.
    Your welcome 'dude' as they say over there.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by objectivism)
    You sound like a typical socialist. All the people have been conned but your one of the select few who knows what is going on and to boot you haven't even left college yet.
    Hey! I'll respond to the rest later, but in case you get the wrong idea I do have a degree. I'm a Bachelor of Arts in music performance, from a somewhat fancy school in Boston by the way, and I'm taking some philosophy courses these days to brush up. I have "left school"; I'm not some little snot nose.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Who cares that much about whether you can get sushi in the store?
    Now your starting to sould like a cultural fascist. Who cares if you can't listen to good jazz? Its not the sushi rather it is the choice, the option, the freedom. Previosly people had to accept the culture they were born into with all the opporesion that brought in many cases now people have choice. Thats why i care.

    Yes, tastes change. What if I want pork chops & gravy, but the neighborhood is lousy with Japanese restaurants? This is just chasing fickle public taste, and I'm not going to praise or blame corporations for it.
    Go to a different neighbourhood. Cities have many types of restaurants thanks to globalisation. Why not praise corps after all they respond to that taste? They are providng a service and people like it thats why they buy.

    With music, though, I think corporate leaders have made decisions far above "catering to the public." They decide to market almost exclusively to teens and pre-teens, because they're the easiest to manipulate ... they bribe radio stations in key markets for airtime ... they sign talentless performers who will never be in control of their artistic direction, etc.
    There's no denying we have ever more choice in music, go to any record store and you'll see the massive range of genres and decades.

    No, re. the "7--8 years ago" thing I'm just talking about bagels & pizza, etc.
    So you only critisicse corps who offer food, not clothes and so on now


    Yes I remember when it became difficult to get a good bagel. It wasn't "overnight," but there was a turning point.
    What happened in the bagel industry?




    I don't care; bananas & sugar are cheap.

    Yes they are in the US - a more capitalist state than EU states. Thanks for proving my point. People who don't get enough fruit certainly care. If gov didn;t interfere corps prices wouldn't be distorted and more competitiors would be able to enter the field but they can't. For example we can;t buy bananas from many African farmers at the market price thanks to big government.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by objectivism)
    Now your starting to sould like a cultural fascist. Who cares if you can't listen to good jazz? Its not the sushi rather it is the choice, the option, the freedom. Previosly people had to accept the culture they were born into with all the opporesion that brought in many cases now people have choice. Thats why i care.

    Go to a different neighbourhood. Cities have many types of restaurants thanks to globalisation. Why not praise corps after all they respond to that taste? They are providng a service and people like it thats why they buy.
    Long before the word "globalization" was even coined, cities had many different types of restaurants. Before there was a World Bank there were Chinatowns in America's cities and curry shops all over London. There were tiki bars and palm trees and Copa Cabanas, fine Italian restaurants and casual pizzarias, international food of all kinds, taco stands, barbecue joints, teriyaki bars, you name it. These restaurants were not big business; they were not corporate; their founding and success was not a function of the shareholder-profit model. They were generally owner-operated and always local. We do not owe our variety of restaurants to corporations.

    If "globalization" in the modern sense has any legacy in the food of my country, it's The Olive Garden, Taco Bell, Red Lobster etc.---in other words, the legacy of "Generica," the aspects of America which are exactly the same no matter where you go. The corporate restaurants offer inferior, non-fresh meals cooked by non-chefs. They're lousy.



    There's no denying we have ever more choice in music, go to any record store and you'll see the massive range of genres and decades.
    Not really true. There's a lot of good stuff out of print. The glory days of the record industry have passed ... But my point was about radio, because you were bringing up TV. Radio programming now is inferior to practically any stage in its history.

    So you only critisicse corps who offer food, not clothes and so on now
    No, I was going through different examples one by one and happened to be on "food" when mentioning bagels and pizza.



    What happened in the bagel industry?
    I think it's "what happened in retail"? At least 3 bagel shops that I can think of became Starbuck's. Some changed hands, to new owners (sound Capitalists, no doubt) who saw nothing wrong with frozen bagels and Kraft cream cheese.


    Yes they are in the US - a more capitalist state than EU states. Thanks for proving my point. People who don't get enough fruit certainly care. If gov didn;t interfere corps prices wouldn't be distorted and more competitiors would be able to enter the field but they can't. For example we can;t buy bananas from many African farmers at the market price thanks to big government.
    How much is a frigging pound of bananas?

    American fruit is lousy anyway. Everyone I know who comes back from Europe talks about how fruit & vegetables taste "real" over there, & when they come back here they have to get re-accustomed to fruit tasting like chemicals and causing indigestion.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Long before the word "globalization" was even coined, cities had many different types of restaurants. Before there was a World Bank there were Chinatowns in America's cities and curry shops all over London. There were tiki bars and palm trees and Copa Cabanas, fine Italian restaurants and casual pizzarias, international food of all kinds, taco stands, barbecue joints, teriyaki bars, you name it. These restaurants were not big business; they were not corporate; their founding and success was not a function of the shareholder-profit model. They were generally owner-operated and always local. We do not owe our variety of restaurants to corporations.
    Some cities had different types of dish on offer. Now towns do as well. Globalisation has given more choice to more people. I think this is good.

    If "globalization" in the modern sense has any legacy in the food of my country, it's The Olive Garden, Taco Bell, Red Lobster etc.---in other words, the legacy of "Generica," the aspects of America which are exactly the same no matter where you go. The corporate restaurants offer inferior, non-fresh meals cooked by non-chefs. They're lousy.
    Thats your personal judgement and you are free not to buy that food. But i assure you there is good food out there is you look for it, there are still family ownwed Indian restaurants for example. Now we have two options - family businesses or corps who offer cheaper, quicker food and to some nicer food. Corporations also offer different foods in different parts of the world, for example in Mexico and parts of California you can get chilli with your food in McDonalds, lamb in India and beer in France.

    If its so lousy why do so many people buy this food? Why arn't we seeing a massive boom in traditonal family type businesses if there is such a demand. If there was a demand do you think corporations would ignore it when there is money to be made?




    Not really true. There's a lot of good stuff out of print. The glory days of the record industry have passed ... But my point was about radio, because you were bringing up TV. Radio programming now is inferior to practically any stage in its history.
    If you want it, you can buy it, look on the internet there are whole companies dedicated to finding out of print songs and books for example. Why? Because there is a demand. Also your point about radio, how do you know its the worst stage in hisotry? Have you listened to them all? Lived them all? Of course not, your merely presuming. Which a fair few do i.e 'it was better in the good old days'.



    I think it's "what happened in retail"? At least 3 bagel shops that I can think of became Starbuck's. Some changed hands, to new owners (sound Capitalists, no doubt) who saw nothing wrong with frozen bagels and Kraft cream cheese.
    Neither do most consumers, otherwise they'd be provding it. Its consumer democracy - what most want, get what they want. Those in the minority can get what they want just not as easily. Either way why should capitalists have to make a loss just because you have picky tastes? Should people pay taxes to keep the old products you so like going just because you liked them? I don;t think anyone has a duty to give up the fruits of their labour for someone else happiness, because in the process they lose their happiness.




    How much is a frigging pound of bananas?
    Its 80% above what it should be. Read Legrains 'the truth about globalisation'.
    You;ve ignored many of the points i made in relation to this.

    American fruit is lousy anyway.
    Again another value judement. See my above comments. Do you think it would be better with protectionsim?

    Everyone I know who comes back from Europe talks about how fruit & vegetables taste "real" over there, & when they come back here they have to get re-accustomed to fruit tasting like chemicals and causing indigestion
    .

    Actually i find that very hard to believe as CAP makes fruit very poor due to the amount of pesticides and chemicals farmers are enouraged to use.


    You have missed out quite alot of my points as well.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by objectivism)
    Its consumer democracy - what most want, get what they want.
    The word 'democracy' suggests a level of parity in terms of the influence that each person holds - one person, one vote. That is clearly not the case in the consumer market.. so why use the word democracy? It's simply not democratic in any real sense of the word.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    maybe consumer sovereignty would be a better term?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by objectivism)
    Some cities had different types of dish on offer. Now towns do as well. Globalisation has given more choice to more people. I think this is good.
    This isn't the way it works. Globalization removes choice. The corporate tendency is to get rid of choice altogether. I just drove through the Midwest, and in Indiana all the rest areas have a Hardee's restaurant. There used to be unpredictable, unique places to stop off the highway, but today your only choice, for hundreds of miles, is Hardee's. And this is ABSOLUTELY characteristic of modern big business. It obliterates choice. When that self-replicating molecule of GAP/Barnes & Noble/Starbuck's hits the block, it replaces unique businesses. In New York in 2005, you can drive down 7th Avenue from Central Park to Houston Street (I did last week) and see a total of 2 businesses that you can't find identical chains of in the shopping malls of Connecticut or Oregon (or, for all I know, Hong Kong).

    Thats your personal judgement and you are free not to buy that food. But i assure you there is good food out there is you look for it, there are still family ownwed Indian restaurants for example. Now we have two options - family businesses or corps who offer cheaper, quicker food and to some nicer food.
    Sorry, but The Olive Garden is not cheaper or quicker, and not in 1,000 years "nicer," than a pizzeria.

    Corporations also offer different foods in different parts of the world, for example in Mexico and parts of California you can get chilli with your food in McDonalds, lamb in India and beer in France.
    This is what the corporate world is doing: knocking down and stamping out local flavor, in order to cater to the tastes of the kind of idiot who would drink beer when in France.

    If its so lousy why do so many people buy this food? Why arn't we seeing a massive boom in traditonal family type businesses if there is such a demand. If there was a demand do you think corporations would ignore it when there is money to be made?
    You're really stuck in about 1905, you know that? Corporations stopped catering to public demand, & started shaping it instead, decades ago.

    If you want it, you can buy it, look on the internet there are whole companies dedicated to finding out of print songs and books for example. Why? Because there is a demand. Also your point about radio, how do you know its the worst stage in hisotry? Have you listened to them all? Lived them all? Of course not, your merely presuming. Which a fair few do i.e 'it was better in the good old days'.
    Your arguments are open to the exact same objection in reverse; this is so obvious I'm amazed I even have to point it out. You say things are better now than ever: how do you know?

    Neither do most consumers, otherwise they'd be provding it. Its consumer democracy - what most want, get what they want. Those in the minority can get what they want just not as easily. Either way why should capitalists have to make a loss just because you have picky tastes? Should people pay taxes to keep the old products you so like going just because you liked them? I don;t think anyone has a duty to give up the fruits of their labour for someone else happiness, because in the process they lose their happiness.
    If your statements were true, you would of course be forced to abandon the position that capitalism fosters individualism. There is no room for idiosyncrasy (or in your words, pickiness) in a consumer democracy.

    But there is no "consumer democracy" when shareholder interests drive business. What consumers want is airlines with tolerable seats, decent food, polite staff ... but an airline like that wouldn't get off the ground, because it wouldn't attract capital.

    When the bagel shop on your corner is REPLACED by a Starbuck's most people are going to keep going there anyway. It's not worth it to them to change their routine ... they stop by for coffee & a bagel en route to work, and don't have time to go somewhere else. (Then there are the millions that are susceptible to advertising, and actually LIKE chain restaurants, SUVs, etc. They have been taught to seek fulfillment via aquisition. Prozac awaits them later in life when this doesn't work. There's a corporate cradle-to-grave plan for them.)

    The "demand" for new Starbuck's stores comes from shareholders. They need to grow. This is not in response to consumer demand; it's in response to investor demand.


    Its 80% above what it should be. Read Legrains 'the truth about globalisation'.
    You;ve ignored many of the points i made in relation to this.



    Again another value judement. See my above comments. Do you think it would be better with protectionsim?

    .

    Actually i find that very hard to believe as CAP makes fruit very poor due to the amount of pesticides and chemicals farmers are enouraged to use.


    You have missed out quite alot of my points as well.
    Look, you're using "fruit" as an example of the evils of regulation, and it's not something I even notice. What more can I say?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Iz the Wiz)
    But there is no "consumer democracy" when shareholder interests drive business. What consumers want is airlines with tolerable seats, decent food, polite staff ... but an airline like that wouldn't get off the ground, because it wouldn't attract capital.
    Consumers primarily want cheap, safe flights. I'd say corporations have done a good job of that. Not only this, if you have the money you can pay for "tolerable seats, decent food, polite staff"

    If you had a decent arguement in this industry I would guess it would be that security and safety are being compromised through the profit motive. Something I would disagree with as it is in the interest of the industry (its shareholders) to keep consumer confidence in its service high.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    This isn't the way it works. Globalization removes choice. The corporate tendency is to get rid of choice altogether. I just drove through the Midwest, and in Indiana all the rest areas have a Hardee's restaurant. There used to be unpredictable, unique places to stop off the highway, but today your only choice, for hundreds of miles, is Hardee's. And this is ABSOLUTELY characteristic of modern big business. It obliterates choice. When that self-replicating molecule of GAP/Barnes & Noble/Starbuck's hits the block, it replaces unique businesses. In New York in 2005, you can drive down 6th Avenue from Central Park to Union Square (I did last week) and see a total of 2 businesses that you can't find identical chains of in the shopping malls of Connecticut or Oregon (or, for all I know, Hong Kong).

    i look at the bigger picture not what one person has seen. So its not cities anyome but the rest areas? Ok, in the UK there are a number of different companes who have rest areas and in each of those rest areas there are differenet stores and providers of different food. There is now more choice. If you want a burger you can have one, if you want pancakes you can have them, if you want pizza you can have that. How is this less choice?


    and not in 1,000 years "nicer," than a pizzeria.
    A personal opinion which can't be proved and therefore irrealavant.



    This is what the corporate world is doing: knocking down and stamping out local flavor, in order to cater to the tastes of the kind of idiot who would drink beer when in France.
    Stella Artois? Only an idiot would drink wine with a burger. There taking a product and putting a local edge on it. If anything it helps the culture, its preads it into a whole new industry.



    You're really stuck in about 1905, you know that? Corporations stopped catering to public demand, & started shaping it instead, decades ago.

    Really? Tell that to coca cola. In 1985 they sure found out that the consumer rules when they brought out New Coke. 70 days later, after a public outcry, it was off the shelves.



    Your arguments are open to the exact same objection in reverse; this is so obvious I'm amazed I even have to point it out. You say things are better now than ever: how do you know?
    Because i value choice. I think being able to choose is always better. Previosly there was less choice, now there is more. This is intrinsically good because it offers freedom. Also you do not answer my question. I;ve answered yours, please answer mine. What is your measurment, mine is choice, how about yours?

    If your statements were true, you would of course be forced to abandon the position that capitalism fosters individualism. There is no room for idiosyncrasy (or in your words, pickiness) in a consumer democracy
    .

    Not true. As i said before if your picky about music on the internet and you'll find a company which sells the music you want.


    But there is no "consumer democracy" when shareholder interests drive business. What consumers want is airlines with tolerable seats, decent food, polite staff ... but an airline like that wouldn't get off the ground, because it wouldn't attract capital.
    Why would it not get of the ground if thats what people wanted? If people want it the company does because there is a ready made market.


    The "demand" for new Starbuck's stores comes from shareholders. They need to grow. This is not in response to consumer demand; it's in response to investor demand.
    And why do they want to grow? To make money? But whats the point of growing i.e having more stores if people don't want to buy from you? Thus ultimately they do it because people want to buy from them.




    Look, you're using "fruit" as an example of the evils of regulation, and it's not something I even notice. What more can I say?
    Your one to talk, your the one banging on about bagels!! You don't notice it because your not in the EU and thus don't suffer from the regulation i.e the common agricultural policy (CAP). You've just supported my point - we have regulation and notice it, you have much less and don't notice.
 
 
 
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: July 22, 2005

2,864

students online now

800,000+

Exam discussions

Find your exam discussion here

Poll
Should universities take a stronger line on drugs?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.