Discussion in 'Social Life, Food & Drink, Travel' started by Fuuma, Aug 9, 2012.
And more importantly, if bad taste did not exist, would it be necessary to invent it?
I'm giggling at the image of fuuma discontentedly sipping his sparkling water and chewing on a half frozen strudel in a Starbucks playing Nora Jones.
Then your memory sucks. Good, diversified food choices have only become increasingly available with economic growth. Even if the things at Starbucks are terrible, they are still terrible versions of things that weren't even available before to the great expanse of society. Before Starbucks, where could the average American go to get a latte? Or a chai iced tea? Before Whole Foods, how many Americans even knew what a kumquat was? Seemingly every small town in the United States has at least one sushi restaurant today. You may sneer at the sh*tty California rolls (not that you would ever order those), but there was no sushi there before, at all.
If we are defining capitalism as a system where people make their own decisions about what to buy and sell, then yes, the only other choice is to make them do otherwise by putting a gun to their heads. If you are simply more enlightened than me and can suggest another path, please feel free to share.
Hey, I love good fried chicken and cheap Mexican food. That's not the point though. Everyone got into some deconstruction here and I offered my 2 cents. We have food only pretentious fucks eat now, food only teh poorz eat (or higher ups slumming) and then mass produced food which is acceptable to the masses. Some sort of twisted notion of egalitarianism I think.
Oh, and the vanilla scones at Starbucks are pretty good. Maybe you just don't know how to order right.
I always just get the zeen doy
Please tell me you aren't joking and they actually have those at Starbucks in California. If so, that's progress, and I'm moving out West.
Well, this is the most maddening aspect of narratives like Fuuma's. The premise is that corporations brainwash people into buying crap from them.
Possible, yes--though outlandish, and more importantly, pointless to consider. I might as well assume that Fuuma's opinions should be entirely ignored because he's been brainwashed by the Western institution of leftist academic ideology.
They want to save a cent (same as making an extra one), and so does the consumer.
You are falsely approaching the situation as if it is unilateral: "What makes companies/organizations/governments do ____ to people?"
In fact, a complete analysis should begin with an assumption that the situation is bi- or multilateral: "What makes market participants buy and sell the way they do?"
Only after ruling out that consumers aren't making their own value judgments can you conclude the sellers are pulling some sort of coercive voodoo.
Another thing to consider is that as large entities increase in scale, they often cut quality to deal with the challenge of size. exempli gratia, Canadian donut franchise Tim Hortons experienced huge growth over the last 20 years, and at some point they stopped making donuts in store and had them shipped in frozen from centralized bakeries. This may be a reflect of Fuuma's critical views on optimization - companies that rely heavily on brand loyalty or marketing to overcome a decline in product quality or experience.
Sometimes the consistency or operating hours of franchises are appreciated, but growth for the sake of growth seems to eventually have negative effects on the end consumer.
Separate names with a comma.