Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    You didn't make that clear before.
    The amount of time i've mentioned burgers and McDonalds in the same sentence made me thing i did not have to spell everything out to you. Guess is was wrong.

    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
    .

    A corporation is in essence a group of individuals who freely invest their money, come together to make max profts with the same aims/plans.

    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.")
    So? Whats your point? Its the EU who put these regulations in places, how can corporations be able to blame? Also when i said cheaper, quicker food i was referring to the likes of McDonald where the EU does not distort prices to any great extent when compared with other products.




    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.
    I;m sure they are the norm ...in retirement homes.


    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."
    I wasn;t speaking literally when i said 'you', its a form of expression which is widely used.

    For merely stating my preference not to eat American food in France (if I ever go), I'm a fascist?
    No, for your condemnation of others tastes by calling them idiots. You hold this view but where do you want to go with it? Whats the point of a view if you don;t wan it put into action?



    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.
    But what are the investors responding to?? Consumers!!.

    Corporations spend vast amounts of money on research and surverys, why if they are the one's who shape demand?

    The Coke scenario doesn't contradict any of this.
    You still not have explained why.




    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?
    I never said anything about happiness. My point was that thanks to globalisation and corporations people can choose cultures. I know there's more choice because i can see the amount of products compared with the amount in the 1950s. Look at the amount of different models of cars, the wide varitiety of movies that exist, do you think the ordinary man could buy sushi in 1950s USA as often as he can today? My point is that more choice means more options and i think people like this, it gives them more control and more power of what THEY like, not what their 'culture' likes i.e the collective. Also there are hat makers.



    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.
    In the 1960s people said the same about Mitchell et all. Perspectives change with time.




    In other words, with a strategy geared towards pleasing the customer.
    Yes and is there anything wrong with that?





    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).
    How do you know than, the idea of qualty can't be measured as it is value. Whearas say the amount of proucts we now have is measurable



    Yeah, but I wouldn't have if I knew you had such a boner for them. Enough with the bagels already!
    If your going to use an example be prepeared to be questioned about it. There's nothing wrong with that.



    You mean if someone adds costs on to something, it winds up costing more? Well I'll be damned! Thanks for clearing that up.

    Well you did seem to be incapbale of understadning CAP. Have you heard of it before?

    Also your above comment does not address my point.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by objectivism)
    do you think the ordinary man could buy sushi in 1950s USA as often as he can today?
    Do you think an ordinary American (or any American, for that matter) would have wanted to buy sushi in the 1950s?! Not entirely convinced about that one..

    Sorry, I'm being facetious.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tonight Matthew)
    Do you think an ordinary American (or any American, for that matter) would have wanted to buy sushi in the 1950s?! Not entirely convinced about that one..

    Sorry, I'm being facetious.

    Yes. Either way that's not the point. The point is that they now have the CHOICE. This paternalistic attidue that: they don't want it, therefore its unimportant whether thay have the ability is the kind of thing the USSR thought.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by objectivism)
    Yes.
    Your average American.. in the 1950's.. would want to eat Japanese food. Hmmmmm.

    (Original post by objectivism)
    they don't want it, therefore its unimportant
    Isn't this how corporations think?

    I think you've missed my post by the way. I had a question. Basically, 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)
    The amount of time i've mentioned burgers and McDonalds in the same sentence made me thing i did not have to spell everything out to you. Guess is was wrong.



    A corporation is in essence a group of individuals who freely invest their money, come together to make max profts with the same aims/plans.
    I know; you said that already. But that's not what I asked you. I asked you whether you're referring to certain groups as "corporations" on this thread, which are not in fact "corporations" under law.

    So? Whats your point? Its the EU who put these regulations in places, how can corporations be able to blame? Also when i said cheaper, quicker food i was referring to the likes of McDonald where the EU does not distort prices to any great extent when compared with other products.
    My point (let's recap):

    YOU: Below you say my bananas comment is just my personl opion now you say i just postulate theoretical people. Which is it?

    ME: 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.

    ...I suppose my "point" was to answer your question.

    No, for your condemnation of others tastes by calling them idiots. You hold this view but where do you want to go with it? Whats the point of a view if you don;t wan it put into action?
    Almost the entire difference between a fascist and a democrat is the means by which he intends to put his views into action. And besides, a view can be held privately & have "a point" as a guiding principle for an individual, yet have no implications for the conduct of others.


    But what are the investors responding to?? Consumers!!.

    Corporations spend vast amounts of money on research and surverys, why if they are the one's who shape demand?
    Marketing is a complex thing. If you want to find out what kind of burger the public wants, you can conduct a survey---BUT, likewise, if you want to sell a burger made out of inferior ingrediants, you have to do extensive research to find out exactly how to market such a thing. If you want to manipulate the people, you have to be in synch with them, and this requires research.

    You still not have explained why.
    The Coke scenario doesn't contradict my views because I don't hold that it's an impossible scenario. It is somewhat rare, and it is not definitive, but it can happen, and what I said ("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") isn't somehow "disproven" because it did happen (20 years ago).

    I never said anything about happiness. My point was that thanks to globalisation and corporations people can choose cultures. I know there's more choice because i can see the amount of products compared with the amount in the 1950s. Look at the amount of different models of cars, the wide varitiety of movies that exist, do you think the ordinary man could buy sushi in 1950s USA as often as he can today? My point is that more choice means more options and i think people like this, it gives them more control and more power of what THEY like, not what their 'culture' likes i.e the collective. Also there are hat makers.
    How can something be considered a good thing if it doesn't increase human happiness?

    How do you "see the amount of products compared with the amount in the 1950s"? How can you "see" what the amount in the 50s was?

    You're equating unique cultures (& the differences between places) with some sort of dreary collectivism, and offering corporate expansion as the cure. I don't buy it for 2 seconds, but if people really want Generica the world over, I suppose they deserve it. The question remains whether they really want it.

    In the 1960s people said the same about Mitchell et all.
    Not true. Sure there were people who disliked Mitchell, Hendrix et al., but they weren't saying, "These people are industry puppets with no personalities of their own, no individuality as performers" etc., as we're saying about Britney Spears.


    Yes and is there anything wrong with that?
    Time for another recap:

    ME: 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.

    YOU: 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.

    ME: 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.

    YOU: Quite right too. With that strategy they'd sharp go out of business.

    ME: In other words, with a strategy geared towards pleasing the customer.

    YOU: Yes and is there anything wrong with that?

    ...Maybe I belong in a retirement home, but you belong in kindergarten (& with a Ritalin prescrition) for that attention span of yours.

    How do you know than, the idea of qualty can't be measured as it is value. Whearas say the amount of proucts we now have is measurable
    When I read that McDonald's in the 50s used fresh potatoes, real dairy milkshakes, grade-A beef, buns delivered daily from a bakery, etc., I feel justified in concluding that they sold higher-quality food back then.


    If your going to use an example be prepeared to be questioned about it. There's nothing wrong with that.
    Yeah, but there's something wrong with endlessly question me & then criticize me for "banging on" on the subject!


    Well you did seem to be incapbale of understadning CAP. Have you heard of it before?

    Also your above comment does not address my point.
    No, I had not heard of CAP until your posts ... So, what is your point?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Also, Objectivism, I am eagerly awaiting your response to this:



    (Original post by Tonight Matthew)

    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.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Yeah. Me too.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Damn objectivism, how do you keep missing this?
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    Good thread. Iz the Wiz, particularly, makes a lot of good arguments.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Your average American.. in the 1950's.. would want to eat Japanese food. Hmmmmm.

    I think Amercians are innovative and so welcome change, of course there are excpetions, You also ignore the second part of my answer, which is actually the bulk of my argument.


    Isn't this how corporations think?

    I think you've missed my post by the way.
    And i KNOW you have miissed my point.

    I had a question. Basically, 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.[/QUOTE]

    In the political sphere yet but we're talking about the economic sphere as indicated by the word consumer.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I know; you said that already. But that's not what I asked you. I asked you whether you're referring to certain groups as "corporations" on this thread, which are not in fact "corporations" under law.



    My point (let's recap):

    YOU: Below you say my bananas comment is just my personl opion now you say i just postulate theoretical people. Which is it?


    When did i say you 'postulate theoretical people'?

    ME: 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.

    No, your all wrong. Saying something like pizza is wrose now is completely different from saying i dont like paying 80% more for a banana than i should have to. One is a value judgement the other is a judgement based on fact, economic reality, yours is based on your taste buds, which no one can know, but all know such economic facts.



    Almost the entire difference between a fascist and a democrat is the means by which he intends to put his views into action.
    No, Hitler went through democrat means, so was he not a fascist? The difference between democracy and fascism is one of substane not just getting there. Otherwise they would differ on the means (as you suggest) but their ends would be the same. That is the logic of your question. Differ on means and so implicty agree on substance. This is of course nonsence.



    Marketing is a complex thing.
    Typical socialist debating skill. Try to speak above the opponent, of course it never works.

    If you want to find out what kind of burger the public wants, you can conduct a survey---BUT, likewise, if you want to sell a burger made out of inferior ingrediants, you have to do extensive research to find out exactly how to market such a thing. If you want to manipulate the people, you have to be in synch with them, and this requires research.
    So do all the corporations get together to discuss how to twist people into loving a burger which is worse eventhough they've been eating a much better burger for years. Do you think ads can do that? Coke certainly dosen't. People are not as stupid as you think, you have no reason to think your any better than the masses. This nasty socialist idea that the meaases are backward died long ago.

    The Coke scenario doesn't contradict my views because I don't hold that it's an impossible scenario. It is somewhat rare, and it is not definitive, but it can happen, and what I said ("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") isn't somehow "disproven" because it did happen (20 years ago).
    So its defintive that corporations shape our choices but coke is the exception? This is inconsistent.

    How can something be considered a good thing if it doesn't increase human happiness?
    Choice increases the potential to be happy, it does not lead to happiness in itself. Im surprised you hold such a hedonistic utiliatarian view. Choice allows one to purse happiness.

    How do you "see the amount of products compared with the amount in the 1950s"? How can you "see" what the amount in the 50s was?
    Look at any documenatry, any product list or employ common sense.

    You're equating unique cultures (& the differences between places) with some sort of dreary collectivism, and offering corporate expansion as the cure. I don't buy it for 2 seconds, but if people really want Generica the world over, I suppose they deserve it. The question remains whether they really want it.
    How come some people 'see the light' while the masses are misled? Whats so speical about you? Do you ever think that you hold these views to make you feel superior?





    Not true. Sure there were people who disliked Mitchell, Hendrix et al., but they weren't saying, "These people are industry puppets with no personalities of their own, no individuality as performers" etc., as we're saying about Britney Spears.
    No they were saying far worse i.e the loss of morals etc.


    Time for another recap:

    ME: 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.

    YOU: 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.

    ME: 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.

    YOU: Quite right too. With that strategy they'd sharp go out of business.

    ME: In other words, with a strategy geared towards pleasing the customer.

    YOU: Yes and is there anything wrong with that?

    ...Maybe I belong in a retirement home, but you belong in kindergarten (& with a Ritalin prescrition) for that attention span of yours.

    But it would (and does) attract capital look at Brussel Airlines or Brisitsh Airlines for example. Customers want the things you say above, investors know this but want profit so they provide them. Of course having polite staff, decent food etc does NOT mean having the lowest profit margin. It requires proper training, buying in bulk, etc.

    When I read that McDonald's in the 50s used fresh potatoes, real dairy milkshakes, grade-A beef, buns delivered daily from a bakery, etc., I feel justified in concluding that they sold higher-quality food back then.
    When many people go to the countryside they hate it, open spaces, cean air etc, they yearn for the rush and smog of the city. Today many people think like that in the food product, they want fast, cheap food.

    Yeah, but there's something wrong with endlessly question me & then criticize me for "banging on" on the subject!
    So i'm supposed to just ignore your comments? If you don't want me to comment don't write. It's that simple.

    No, I had not heard of CAP until your posts ... So, what is your point?
    Well there we go, if you have not even heard of it you have no idea what its about. That whole example was wasted on you and thats why you could not catch on. Research it than read my comments about it and hopefully you will understand.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tonight Matthew)
    Damn objectivism, how do you keep missing this?
    Calm down!! This is just a forum, its not important.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Iz the Wiz)
    Also, Objectivism, I am eagerly awaiting your response to this:
    If your eagerly waiting for a reply on a student forum, you need to get a hobby
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by objectivism)

    No, your all wrong. Saying something like pizza is wrose now is completely different from saying i dont like paying 80% more for a banana than i should have to. One is a value judgement the other is a judgement based on fact, economic reality, yours is based on your taste buds, which no one can know, but all know such economic facts.
    It's not "completely different"; the whole question is whether or not it bothers you. If an 80% increase in banana prices bothers you, that's fine, I'm not reproaching you for it. But the notion of the price of bananas being bothersome is still subjective; it's still you maintaining that you "don't like" it.

    Your judgement is based on an economic viewpoint which I don't hold, maintaining that the additional amount you're charged for the banana is "unjust." My judgement regarding pizza is based on an economic viewpoint which you don't hold, maintaining that the drop in my enjoyment of pizza is a real loss, one which belongs in the "cost" column of any truly comprehensive cost/benefit analysis of foodservice changes.

    No, Hitler went through democrat means, so was he not a fascist? The difference between democracy and fascism is one of substane not just getting there. Otherwise they would differ on the means (as you suggest) but their ends would be the same. That is the logic of your question. Differ on means and so implicty agree on substance. This is of course nonsence.
    Sure Hitler was elected, if that's what you mean, but he immediately began conforming society to his views by means of coercive force. Surely there is a difference between me privately preferring French cooking over McDonald's, and Hitler conceiving the Kristalnacht.


    Typical socialist debating skill. Try to speak above the opponent, of course it never works.
    I wasn't "trying to speak above you"; I was merely observing that marketing is a complex thing.

    So do all the corporations get together to discuss how to twist people into loving a burger which is worse eventhough they've been eating a much better burger for years. Do you think ads can do that? Coke certainly dosen't. People are not as stupid as you think, you have no reason to think your any better than the masses. This nasty socialist idea that the meaases are backward died long ago.
    Yes, corporations do spend a lot of money getting people to love inferior burgers. Yes, ads can do that. I don't think people are "stupid" and I don't think I'm "better than the masses." I do think the masses can be deceived.

    So its defintive that corporations shape our choices but coke is the exception? This is inconsistent.
    It would only be inconsistent if I were maintaining that corporate manipulation is absolute, which I am not.

    Choice increases the potential to be happy, it does not lead to happiness in itself. Im surprised you hold such a hedonistic utiliatarian view. Choice allows one to purse happiness.



    Look at any documenatry, any product list or employ common sense.



    How come some people 'see the light' while the masses are misled? Whats so speical about you? Do you ever think that you hold these views to make you feel superior?
    Equating "the good" with happiness is not hedonsitic. It goes straight back to Aristotle. Hedonism is the abandonment of all other considerations for the pursuit of pleasure.

    This is getting tiresome. These "do you think you're better than everyone else?" arguments are a surprise coming from you: If The Fountainhead and Anthem mean anything at all, they mean that a lone individual can be right in spite of being alone. (As a matter of fact, I'm not alone, but even if I were I would be surprised to find an objectivist rebuking me for it.) There are plenty of reasons one can differ with the majority, without despising them or considering himself superior to them.

    You've been saying that corporations offer "choice," and that previous generations were worse off because they lacked the option of German cars, etc. What about people who don't like to drive? Before WWII, in America, there were trolley networks in most cities. But the big automakers bought the tracks and tore them up. This is typical corporate behavior: but what becomes of the people's choice in such a situation? Today most Americans, ouside of New York, Boston, and Philadelphia, have no choice but to own cars.

    (BTW, in answer to your question, I do think "choice" is one standard of value. But I think it's only one among many.)

    No they were saying far worse i.e the loss of morals etc.
    Maybe someone said that about Hendrix, but I've never heard of a musician cutting him down. As for Joni Mitchell or Keith Jarrett, find me one quote, made by anyone, to that effect.

    But it would (and does) attract capital look at Brussel Airlines or Brisitsh Airlines for example. Customers want the things you say above, investors know this but want profit so they provide them. Of course having polite staff, decent food etc does NOT mean having the lowest profit margin. It requires proper training, buying in bulk, etc.
    I have no idea how Brussels Airlines or Bristish Airways are run. If they provide good service then I'm glad. But I know that Brussels is regulated by the JAA, and British Airways has to compete with JAA-regulated airlines. The U.S. domestic airlines have no such competition and are thus able to dispense with decent service (which they do).

    When many people go to the countryside they hate it, open spaces, cean air etc, they yearn for the rush and smog of the city. Today many people think like that in the food product, they want fast, cheap food.
    That doesn't change the fact that high-grade meat, fresh potatoes, fresh dairy products and fresh baked goods are higher-quality than frozen/low-grade/chemically-preserved versions of same.

    So i'm supposed to just ignore your comments? If you don't want me to comment don't write. It's that simple.
    No, comment all you want. But asking me to expand on a point & then accusing me of "banging on" about it is obnoxious.

    Well there we go, if you have not even heard of it you have no idea what its about. That whole example was wasted on you and thats why you could not catch on. Research it than read my comments about it and hopefully you will understand.
    I think I understand already: it's a subsidies program that increases fruit prices at your end. Right? I still don't see where you're going with it.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ArthurOliver)
    Good thread.
    I agree, until it started going round in circles.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by objectivism)
    In the political sphere yet but we're talking about the economic sphere as indicated by the word consumer.
    Any definition of democracy HAS to originally be considered in a political sphere, and as you've finally admitted, democracy entails that each citizen has the same power within the process, formally speaking. This isn't the case in the consumer market, so we can finally agree that the phrase "consumer democracy" is a misnomer. Thanks very much.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tonight Matthew)
    Any definition of democracy HAS to originally be considered in a political sphere, and as you've finally admitted, democracy entails that each citizen has the same power within the process, formally speaking. This isn't the case in the consumer market, so we can finally agree that the phrase "consumer democracy" is a misnomer. Thanks very much.

    It is a consumer democracy in the sense that it prevents concentrations of power,the emphasis is on individuals i.e. consumers, it is economic as noted by the word consumer (this must be taken into account when putting it alongside the word democracy obviosuly). Your view of democracy is too rigid. Lincoln noted by democracy was 'by the people, for the people, of the people' (to that effect), no where did he mention OMOV in that famous phrase. CD is by the people (we all buy), for (consumerism gives wealth, jobs, chanves etc) and of the people naturally.
 
 
 
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

3,444

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.