Turn on thread page Beta
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Hi objectivism. I'm not sure if you missed my post (here) or not, but do you really think the term "consumer democracy" is actually a realistic one?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tonight Matthew)
    Hi objectivism. I'm not sure if you missed my post (here) or not, but do you really think the term "consumer democracy" is actually a realistic one?
    My point was that when there is capitalism the person who decides is the indivdual, they have self rule. Power to the person as it were. Democracy perhaps is not the most apt phrase, but it gets the point over that people decide what they have not the government. Democracy is rule by the people, consumer 'democracy' is rule by that person in the area of their life which are self regarding actions to use Mill's pharse.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by objectivism)
    My point was that when there is capitalism the person who decides is the indivdual, they have self rule. Power to the person as it were. Democracy perhaps is not the most apt phrase, but it gets the point over that people decide what they have not the government. Democracy is rule by the people, consumer 'democracy' is rule by that person in the area of their life which are self regarding actions to use Mill's pharse.
    I was always under the impression that 'consumer democracy' represents the idea that corporations are regulated by the desires of people as a whole, rather than just "people (deciding) what they have, not the government".

    I don't doubt that people can choose what they want to have (although obviously this isn't always the case). This doesn't represent a democracy of any real sort whatsoever, though. Arguably the most basic characteristic of democracy, that every citizen has the same power in the process, irrespective of wealth and social position, is clearly totally absent from the consumer market.

    This is why the term 'consumer democracy' strikes me as utter folly.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    [QUOTE=Tonight Matthew]I was always under the impression that 'consumer democracy' represents the idea that corporations are regulated by the desires of people as a whole, rather than just "people (deciding) what they have, not the government".


    I agree with that as well. The fact that i said the people decide means that corporations don't, something which is often claimed. My point made the above point implicitly.

    I don't doubt that people can choose what they want to have (although obviously this isn't always the case). This doesn't represent a democracy of any real sort whatsoever, though. The essential premise of democracy, that every citizen has the same power in the process, irrespective of wealth and social position, is clearly totally absent from the consumer market.
    For me democracy is avoding a concentration of power and so avoidng tyranny. This is achived due to competition and consumers having choice. If people want wealth they have to work for it and meet what the people want.

    What you say is more eqaulity of opportunity than democracy, of course equalty of opporunty is part of democracy though what makes democracy is its avoidance of a concentration of power, unlike other ideolgies such as communism.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by objectivism)
    For me democracy is avoding a concentration of power and so avoidng tyranny. This is achived due to competition and consumers having choice. If people want wealth they have to work for it and meet what the people want.
    Democracy is achieved just by avoiding the concentration of power? So if we were to have no vote, but a panel of say, 5 million men and women ruled the country with equal power, we'd have a democracy? I'd disagree. Democracy fundamentally requires that every citizen has the same power in the process. If you accept this, then there's no way you can genuinely try and claim that corporations are subject to 'consumer democracy'.

    A 'consumer oligarchy' (an exagerration, I know) perhaps, but not 'democracy'.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Democracy is achieved just by avoiding the concentration of power? So if we were to have no vote, but a panel of say, 5 million men and women ruled the country with equal power, we'd have a democracy? I'd disagree
    .


    So do i. A democracy avoids concentrations of power by giving all equal opportunity. To segragate i.e giving those a vote and the other group have no vote, increases concentrations of power as it leads to anger and so two poles of opposition.

    Democracy fundamentally requires that every citizen has the same power in the process. If you accept this, then there's no way you can genuinely try and claim that corporations are subject to 'consumer democracy'.
    Its not so much they have the same power but that some one else dosen't have the power to infringe upon their rights.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by objectivism)
    . A democracy avoids concentrations of power by giving all equal opportunity.
    Well then, the consumer market can not be described as a democracy. Not all have an equal opportunity to partake in it by any stretch of the imagination.

    (Original post by objectivism)
    Its not so much they have the same power
    And so, not a democracy.

    (Original post by objectivism)
    but that some one else dosen't have the power to infringe upon their rights
    A 'consumer not-quite-a-dictatorship' seems more appropriate then.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tonight Matthew)
    A 'consumer not-quite-a-dictatorship' seems more appropriate then.
    :rofl:


    I have to say, objectivsm arguements haven't been as compelling for me with the democracy topic. However can anyone tell me why it is not best described as a consumer sovereignty?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Consumer sovereignty seems a bit better to me. Of course corporations are going to respond to respond to the spending habits of people, but as far as I understand it, the idea of 'consumer democracy / sovereignty / whatever' is that the behaviour of corporations is regulated (or maybe read: kept in check) by their spending habits.

    The problem with this is that it assumes that peoples' spending habits take into account aspects of corporations that may be desirable to regulate - how they treat their workers for example. I think this is a false assumption. Consider a hypothetical corporation (corp X) who sell a specific product (product Y).

    Now, corp X could treat their workers like utter sh*t or whatever - but how many people buying product Y are going to a) even know about this, b) let it influence their decision anyway? Very few I'd say.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kizdesai)
    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.
    Oh yeah ... there's something I forgot: European airlines are pretty good. It's the U.S. ones that are utterly lousy and stinking. (Uniformly lousy & stinking, thus precluding any consumer choice.)
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Well then, the consumer market can not be described as a democracy. Not all have an equal opportunity to partake in it by any stretch of the imagination.
    Actaully they do. In pure capitalims no one if physically prevented from starting up a business. There is no coercion. Its only that there are uneqaul outcomes, thats not to say people don't have eqaul opportunity.


    And so, not a democracy.
    We have different defintions of democracy. I tend to agree with Friedman you happen to agree with the Greeks (the people who also denied votes for women, supported slavery etc).


    A 'consumer not-quite-a-dictatorship' seems more appropriate then.
    Your being pedantic.

    Don't you think democracy is a form of dictatorship when it is in its purerst form i.e the tyranny of the majority.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by objectivism)
    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?
    How is it corporate?

    A personal opinion which can't be proved and therefore irrealavant.
    Obviously it's just my personal opinion. At least I can say "here's someone who holds this opinion: me!" You just postulate theoretical people, in whose opinion corporate chains are "nicer" than unique restaurants.

    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.
    Who goes to France and eats burgers? But seriously, I just don't find it terribly exciting that I can have a burger and beer in France if I want. Whoopee.


    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.
    Wow, what about choice? Why couldn't the market support 2 types of Coke, for the minority that preferred New Coke?

    I hope you know why: it's because investors controlled the whole thing. They were impatient with the slow growth of a mature corp. like Coca-Cola, there weren't many new markets what with the Iron Curtain still up, so they were ready to try a stupid novelty stunt like changing the "secret formula." It didn't work and the investors clamored for (at the very least) a return to the previous market share. Changing Coke was a gimmick that failed. (Of course, they could make any number of changes to Coke without fanfare & most people would probably not notice.)

    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?
    My measurement of what?

    I value choice too, but in my experience, corporations & the corporate mentality destroy choice & make everything the same.

    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.
    The companies that sell the music I want are not corporations, and the record labels that are recording and releasing the best music today are not the corporate labels.

    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.
    Because they need investors to provide money, and I don't think investors will fund a business plan that necessitates the lowest profit margin in the industry.

    I think it's more important to investors right now to ensure universally crappy customer service, than to return to the old days of good service as a means of wooing customers.

    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.
    Sure, these places are capable of getting business. They get into the best locations somehow (I wonder how...), and customers come in. The question is whether this is the operation of consumer choice. Do consumers really like Starbuck's more than the deli that was there before? Is that the explanation of a Starbuck's being there now? I'm saying at the very least that such a thing is not certain.

    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.
    You kept asking me about bagels & pizza! God!!

    YOU notice bananas and sugar, but what's to prevent me from telling you what you keep telling me---"that's just your opinion, can't be proved, therefore irrelevant."
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by objectivism)
    Actaully they do. In pure capitalims no one if physically prevented from starting up a business. There is no coercion. Its only that there are uneqaul outcomes, thats not to say people don't have eqaul opportunity.
    People don't have equal opportunity to partake in the consumer market. It's no good saying that people have the opportunity to start a business and partake. You're trying to argue that it IS a consumer democracy, not that it COULD be. There's the difference.

    (Original post by objectivism)
    We have different defintions of democracy.
    Oh come along, you're actually trying to claim that genuine democracy doesn't necessarily entail that each citizen has the same amount of influence on the process? That is an undeniable fact. Any '_______ democracy' should reflect this fundamental characteristic. A 'consumer democracy' clearly doesn't.


    (Original post by objectivism)
    Your being pedantic.
    You're*.

    (Original post by objectivism)
    Don't you think democracy is a form of dictatorship when it is in its purerst form i.e the tyranny of the majority
    What? Earlier in the thread you were praising corporations for the fact that they decide what to produce purely on the basis of what the majority wants? Which way around do you want it?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tonight Matthew)
    (Original post by objectivism)
    Your being pedantic.
    You're*.
    Oh the irony :rofl:
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kizdesai)
    Oh the irony :rofl:
    Yeah. Hadn't noticed that one.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    How is it corporate?
    Because the people who provde these things lke burgers or pizza or corporations.


    Obviously it's just my personal opinion. At least I can say "here's someone who holds this opinion: me!" You just postulate theoretical people, in whose opinion corporate chains are "nicer" than unique restaurants.
    Below you say my bananas comment is just my personl opion now you say i just postulate theoretical people. Which is it? Of course i hold opinions i just happen to share them with other people. That dosen't mae my opinion any less important. It seems that the reason you hold the views you do is to be able to say i hold MY own opinion, that hardly anyone holds these days, im radical etc. People who think this are just childish.



    Who goes to France and eats burgers?
    The French? Why are you looking at it from a tourist angle? Quite the opposite is the case - McDonalds sell beer to please the French not the tourists just like in Mexico they sell chilli to please mexicans.


    But seriously, I just don't find it terribly exciting that I can have a burger and beer in France if I want. Whoopee.
    Well many French want it and corporations provide it. Just because your not interested, fine, just don't try and take away others peoples opportunity to have a burger. You display a certain amount of 'cultural fascism'.




    Wow, what about choice? Why couldn't the market support 2 types of Coke, for the minority that preferred New Coke?

    The reason why New Coke failed was because it was like pepsi. Why have two pepsi's. If the coke consumers wanted pepsi the would have liked it, but they did not so they rejected it and so did coke after 70 odd days. Your also moving the goalposts. First it was: conumers don't have power. I showed they did. Now its corps don't give choice. Your changing your line of argument.

    I hope you know why: it's because investors controlled the whole thing.
    As they should, its their money.

    They were impatient with the slow growth of a mature corp. like Coca-Cola, there weren't many new markets what with the Iron Curtain still up, so they were ready to try a stupid novelty stunt like changing the "secret formula." It didn't work and the investors clamored for (at the very least) a return to the previous market share. Changing Coke was a gimmick that failed. (Of course, they could make any number of changes to Coke without fanfare & most people would probably not notice.)
    It failed because of the consumers, thus my point remains, consumers rule.



    My measurement of what?

    You said how do i know things have got better since i have not lived though all the changes in goods of the 20th century. I said because of more choice in products for more people. What's your reasn for thinking things have got worse as you have not lived through all the decades?

    I value choice too, but in my experience, corporations & the corporate mentality destroy choice & make everything the same.
    In music, food, movies, books, drinks etc this is not the case. We are in the age of the the corporation please just go to a shopping centre and look around. If you don't think those millions of products give you choice, i don;t know if anything can please you.



    The companies that sell the music I want are not corporations, and the record labels that are recording and releasing the best music today are not the corporate labels.
    I've established already what i mean when i say corpoartion - a group of individuals who come together with a common business purpose and the same plan and aims.


    Because they need investors to provide money, and I don't think investors will fund a business plan that necessitates the lowest profit margin in the industry.
    Quite right too. With that strategy they'd sharp go out of business.

    I think it's more important to investors right now to ensure universally crappy customer service, than to return to the old days of good service as a means of wooing customers.
    Thats the type of attitude which sums up your views. By the way how old are you?



    Sure, these places are capable of getting business. They get into the best locations somehow (I wonder how...), and customers come in. The question is whether this is the operation of consumer choice. Do consumers really like Starbuck's more than the deli that was there before? Is that the explanation of a Starbuck's being there now? I'm saying at the very least that such a thing is not certain.

    If they don't how did they get there, how did they become corps in the first place if no one likes what they sell? I think people prefer McDonalds to the street corner burger seller, just go and look at the ques. If they didn't like it as much surely corps would be setting up delis and business with that family feel etc.


    You kept asking me about bagels & pizza! God!!
    Your the one who brought up bagels actually.

    YOU notice bananas and sugar, but what's to prevent me from telling you what you keep telling me---"that's just your opinion, can't be proved, therefore irrelevant."
    Because the economcis prove my point. We pay more thanks to CAP, its an econmic fact, thats how subsidies work.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    People don't have equal opportunity to partake in the consumer market. It's no good saying that people have the opportunity to start a business and partake. You're trying to argue that it IS a consumer democracy, not that it COULD be. There's the difference.
    Just like a democracy could be a democracy if more than 50% voted if 50% or more don't vote is it no longer a democracy? If a majority abstain its still a democracy because they had the opporunity just like in capitalism.

    Oh come along, you're actually trying to claim that genuine democracy doesn't necessarily entail that each citizen has the same amount of influence on the process? That is an undeniable fact. Any '_______ democracy' should reflect this fundamental characteristic. A 'consumer democracy' clearly doesn't.
    A genuine democracy separates powers. The purpose of democracy is freedom from the whims of a ruler, this is what consumer democracy does. Companies must compete.

    You're*.
    I'm not a fan of irony.

    What? Earlier in the thread you were praising corporations for the fact that they decide what to produce purely on the basis of what the majority wants? Which way around do you want it?[/QUOTE]


    You never answered my question. The difference between consumer democracy and pure democracy is that in consumer democracy if you can have the money you can get what you want, you may have to look around for products which few want but they are there because there is money to be made and so a reason to provide them. Pure democracy means its ok to kill 1% of people if 99% want it. Consumer democracy makes all happy (all get what they want), pure democracy does not make all happy.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    Tesco policy takes away our humanity
    Tesco’s sickness policy is an offence to modern day living, as several excellent articles in Socialist Worker have pointed out.

    We are allowed 3 percent of our time off sick, even if you have a doctor’s note confirming that your are unfit to work.

    If you are unlucky enough to go over the 3 percent then you are on the disciplinary system, which can lead to dismissal.

    The implication is that you are no longer human, because humans will get ill, have accidents, even have to go to hospital.

    I personally know of someone with breast cancer who was pulled in for taking too much time off sick.

    A Tesco worker in Northern Ireland tried to start up a petition to get a fairer deal.

    He sent sheets out to the shops to get signatures to give to the union so it could act.

    But the staff were too intimidated and the union didn’t help.

    I just feel these multinationals are tearing people’s lives apart, and don’t even recognise that all of us get older and for many that means they will get ill.

    Tesco worker, by e-mail to Socialist Worker

    I used to work at Tesco and I know one woman who broke her leg and was put on disciplinary. One lady asked to go to the toilet as she was pregnant her. Front of shop manager told her if she wasn't back in 5 mins she'd be on disciplinary. She was blackmarked. Another friend of mine was brought into an office and berated because she had 'falied her health check.' She yawned while opening her till at 9 am. Another friend was taken in for a telling off because she didn't engage a customer in conversation or offer to pack for him. He only bought one bottle of windowlene. As she said 'what do they expect, do they want me to do a little dance for them?'

    Breaks were late. Sometimes they said they couldn't give us breaks which is of course against the law. Many times the temperature was below legal levels at the tills.

    These are a few things I experienced. Imagine how the poor workers in Bangladesh must be treated like!
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by objectivism)
    Just like a democracy could be a democracy if more than 50% voted if 50% or more don't vote is it no longer a democracy? If a majority abstain its still a democracy because they had the opporunity just like in capitalism.
    Irrelevant. Non-voters have the power, they just choose not to use it. Poor people don't have the power in the first place, irrespective of whether they could get it. For the sake of argument, let's limit our debate to the reality that various terms have to work in, rather than some fantasy land in the future. Poor people do exist.


    (Original post by objectivism)
    A genuine democracy separates powers. The purpose of democracy is freedom from the whims of a ruler, this is what consumer democracy does. Companies must compete.
    Sorry pal, you still haven't provided an acceptable rebuke for why the phrase 'consumer democracy' doesn't make sense. I'll repeat: democracy entails that each person has the ability to influence the political process just as much as the next person. This is so fundamental, and as the consumer market doesn't satisfy this basic condition, it simply can't claim to be a democracy.

    (Original post by objectivism)
    I'm not a fan of irony.
    You know, I'd never have guessed.

    (Original post by objectivism)
    You never answered my question. The difference between consumer democracy and pure democracy is that in consumer democracy if you can have the money you can get what you want, you may have to look around for products which few want but they are there because there is money to be made and so a reason to provide them. Pure democracy means its ok to kill 1% of people if 99% want it. Consumer democracy makes all happy (all get what they want), pure democracy does not make all happy.
    I wasn't attempting to start a 'consumer democracy' vs. 'pure democracy' battle, so I'm not exactly sure how this is relevant to the fact that the consumer market cannot genuinely be called a democracy, which is in fact what we're still disagreeing upon. Democracy has it so that the poorest man has the same power as the richest man, formally speaking, within the process. Move to the consumer market, and their respective powers are totally asymmetrical.

    One basic premise of democracy is that, as citizens, all people are equal within the political sphere - everyone has one vote, regardless of their wealth or social position. Do you agree that this is true? Yes or no.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by objectivism)
    Because the people who provde these things lke burgers or pizza or corporations.
    You didn't make that clear before. In the interest of clarity, let me skip ahead to something later in your post:

    "I've established already what i mean when i say corpoartion - a group of individuals who come together with a common business purpose and the same plan and aims."

    Does this mean you're likely to refer to a business organization which is NOT legally incorporated, publicly held & traded, etc.---one which is not necessarily a "corporation" in the sense of a legal entity---as a corporation, because it fits your definition? And therefore, that the pizza & burgers you mention are being sold by entities which are "corporations" by your definition, but are not actual corporate bodies under law? It would be good to get this straight.

    Below you say my bananas comment is just my personl opion now you say i just postulate theoretical people. Which is it?
    In the one instance you were postulating people ("corps who offer cheaper, quicker food and to some nicer food"); in the other you were saying that you, as a European, dislike regulations affecting fruit prices. (which I "don't notice ... because [I'm] not in the EU and thus don't suffer from the regulation.") The answer to your question is very simple: you do either, depending on the circumstance. I don't really mind it, but you're trying to impugn me for the same thing.

    Of course i hold opinions i just happen to share them with other people. That dosen't mae my opinion any less important. It seems that the reason you hold the views you do is to be able to say i hold MY own opinion, that hardly anyone holds these days, im radical etc. People who think this are just childish.
    I never said I was particularly radical, and I don't consider myself such. My views are not all that unusual, as a matter of fact.

    The French? Why are you looking at it from a tourist angle? Quite the opposite is the case - McDonalds sell beer to please the French not the tourists just like in Mexico they sell chilli to please mexicans.

    Well many French want it and corporations provide it. Just because your not interested, fine, just don't try and take away others peoples opportunity to have a burger.
    You said to me "you can get chilli with your food in McDonalds, lamb in India and beer in France." I took this to mean you were trying to show me all the wonderful things corporatism is doing for me, not for the residents of France and Mexico. That's why I was "looking at it from a tourist angle."

    You display a certain amount of 'cultural fascism'.
    For merely stating my preference not to eat American food in France (if I ever go), I'm a fascist?

    The reason why New Coke failed was because it was like pepsi. Why have two pepsi's. If the coke consumers wanted pepsi the would have liked it, but they did not so they rejected it and so did coke after 70 odd days. Your also moving the goalposts. First it was: conumers don't have power. I showed they did. Now its corps don't give choice. Your changing your line of argument.
    I was not changing the argument. I never said consumers have no power. What I said was that the modern corporation is focused on shaping public demand rather than catering to it, that it responds to investor demand more than consumer demand, and that the proliferation of chain businesses is not necessarily due to the operation of consumer choice. The Coke scenario doesn't contradict any of this.



    You said how do i know things have got better since i have not lived though all the changes in goods of the 20th century. I said because of more choice in products for more people. What's your reasn for thinking things have got worse as you have not lived through all the decades?
    How do you KNOW there's more choice? Many businesses are gone; it's not as if there's been a simple increase in businesses. Sure we have lots of suit-makers, but how many hat-makers do we have? Sure there are videogames for kids, but there are no slot cars. This could go on and on... But why are you so sure that you can quantify happiness by counting up varieties of food and merchandise?

    In music, food, movies, books, drinks etc this is not the case. We are in the age of the the corporation please just go to a shopping centre and look around. If you don't think those millions of products give you choice, i don;t know if anything can please you.
    Call me a fascist again if you want, but in the late sixties, major record labels were signing the likes of real artists: Joni Mitchell, Jimi Hendrix, Keith Jarrett, etc. Hollywood was releasing feature films by Coppola, Kubrick, Frankenheimer, etc. And this was NORMAL. This was standard---if someone was really good, they got his work out there. Today, well sure you can buy Hendrix CDs, and sure, if Copolla wants to make a movie he can, but what about up and coming artists? Our era is DEFINED by Britney Spears CDs and Nora Ephron movies, and this is a real regression. Young artists do still make albums and movies, of course, but not with corporate backing anymore (with a few exceptions).

    I don't want to go into my dissatisfaction with shopping-mall wares, because I'm sick of being told it's only my opinion & therefore irrelevant, but suffice it to say that endless overpriced bookshops and department stores that all stock the same merchandise don't exactly thrill me.

    Quite right too. With that strategy they'd sharp go out of business.
    In other words, with a strategy geared towards pleasing the customer.

    Thats the type of attitude which sums up your views. By the way how old are you?
    25.

    If they don't how did they get there, how did they become corps in the first place if no one likes what they sell? I think people prefer McDonalds to the street corner burger seller, just go and look at the ques. If they didn't like it as much surely corps would be setting up delis and business with that family feel etc.
    Aren't they teaching you at the LSE about drumming up demand for inferior products? Aren't they teaching you about starting out with quality and then gradually replacing it with mere brand value? McDonald's made quality burgers with good beef once upon a time (calm down; I read about it; no, I don't have pre-natal memories of 1950s California). Now they have a multi-million dollar logo, a monumental ad campaign, grade-D beef and formaldihyde milkshakes. Welcome to the new millenium.

    Your the one who brought up bagels actually.
    Yeah, but I wouldn't have if I knew you had such a boner for them. Enough with the bagels already!

    Because the economcis prove my point. We pay more thanks to CAP, its an econmic fact, thats how subsidies work.
    You mean if someone adds costs on to something, it winds up costing more? Well I'll be damned! Thanks for clearing that up.
 
 
 
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

1,028

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.