Would McDonalds Exist in a Free Market?

[Mtn_Dew]

Are you saying that there would be no inexpensive meat products that are mass produced?

While I don’t doubt you’d have a lot more street vendors, a business like McDonalds isn’t going away. If I’m in an unfamiliar town and need a quick bite to eat i’m probably going to find a chain, not some street vendor.

[Bert_B]

@limitgov

I mean, who in their right mind would buy a crappy antibiotic injected, hormone injected, washed in ammonia beef hamburger, when you could probably buy food made from people all over the place much cheaper in a free market.

People are essentially sado-masochistic, that’s why. I try not to ask these types of questions. I can find 10 people, explain what’s in their food, and I’m sure they’ll still eat it.

[John_James]

@limitgov

“Why not? Zero entry cost, no taxes. Sure McDonalds would flourish, just like most businesses”

I guess what I’m saying is, there’s be way more competition in a real free market for local eateries. Crappy food like McDonalds would have a hard time with all that competition.

Did you miss the part where it was said NYC has the highest concentration of McDonald’s in the world? Are you seriously arguing there isn’t competition in New York City?

[John_James]

@mikachusetts

McDonald’s is a franchise, so the degree to which any given McDonald’s store can cut through government red tape is not as high as you might think. I know someone who owns a McDonald’s and got in some trouble with labor laws - he had to pay the fines, not McD’s corporate offices. The real reasons that the company succeeds is that it meets consumer demand for fast, recognizably consistent, and inexpensive food. You might do just fine selling burgers on your street corner, but a family of 4 that just pulled off the highway on their way to Wally World is going to choose the place that they know they’ll enjoy from experience.

The franchise aspect is a really important point.

Mik says here that the reason the company succeeds is because ti does a good job in the food business…but he ignores his own first point. The franchises might do well because they’re good at the food business, but the company does well because it’s good in the real estate business. It’s a little known fact that McD owns the majority of the land on which the restaurants reside…and the franchisee is also a tenant.

I think it was even Ray Kroc himself that said something about poeple thinking they were in the hamburger business, when really they were in the real estate business.

There’s even a How Stuff Works on it. (And just for good measure, a sample from Greatest Business Stories of All Time)

[Autolykos]

@vive la insurrection

One thing is for sure, empty speculation seems to run rampant whatever the culture.

Cry me a river. I, for one, am still going to engage in “empty” speculation no matter how much you dislike it.

[Neodoxy]

“Cry me a river. I, for one, am still going to engage in “empty” speculation no matter how much you dislike it.”

[Autolykos]

Yes, seriously.

[Neodoxy]

“Yes, seriously.”

Why? There’s no need to get aggressive or to insult other people, and Vive had a very good set of points which are:

1. It’s all speculation and it’s without real consequence no matter what the outcome is
2. It is impossible for us to no or even have a very good idea of what the change in conditions would be in a real free market
3. It doesn’t matter how educated or smart we are we still argue over the same stupid stuff as a socialists would in a thread on leftrev that would read “would there still b Hummers in a socialist society”

Nowhere did he say that the topic of discussion was idiotic or the people engaging in it were, nor that there was anything strictly negative about doing so, or even that we should stop doing it. It’s hard to argue that “useless” as a description of this topic is much of a hyperbole, and everything else he said in his short statement is impossible to argue with.

Furthermore he didn’t even address you, you weren’t even part of the discussion when he posted that, so there is no reason to insult him over it, a more civil comment, or preferably a small thought out rebuttal. You could have simply said: “I enjoy posting and reading about these sorts of discussion personally, and the responses of everyone here seem to back me up on this”, but you didn’t, and it would seem to me (forgive me if I’m wrong) that this is an extension of your frustration at him in another thread you recently posted in.

To wrap up, there’s no need to be caustic or angry at someone for a civil post, and a civil post in turn should be the response, I don’t mean to chew you out here or give a lecture, I’m just trying to lay out why it wasn’t appropriate to reply as you did, unless you have some other motivation/reasoning which I have missed.

[Autolykos]

@Neodoxy

Nowhere did he say that the topic of discussion was idiotic or the people engaging in it were, nor that there was anything strictly negative about doing so, or even that we should stop doing it.

I disagree - I think those were all implied by his post.

@Neodoxy

You could have simply said: “I enjoy posting and reading about these sorts of discussion personally, and the responses of everyone here seem to back me up on this”, but you didn’t, and it would seem to me (forgive me if I’m wrong) that this is an extension of your frustration at him in another thread you recently posted in.

This is an extension of my frustration with him in general. When he posts things like that, I strongly get the vibe that he wants other people to stop talking (or not talk to begin with) about whatever they’re talking about.

@Neodoxy

To wrap up, there’s no need to be caustic or angry at someone for a civil post, and a civil post in turn should be the response, I don’t mean to chew you out here or give a lecture, I’m just trying to lay out why it wasn’t appropriate to reply as you did, unless you have some other motivation/reasoning which I have missed.

Chew me out all you want. I don’t care.

I don’t consider his post to have been exactly civil. I don’t appreciate his tone (as it sounds like to me). I see no reason for him to say what he said other than being a way of saying “I don’t like it when you guys engage in empty speculation like this, so why don’t you all just STFU about it already!”

Yes, I fully understand that it’s impossible to know or even have a very good idea of how conditions would change in a free market. But speculation doesn’t involve trying to know that. It just involves exploring possibilities. I see nothing wrong with that, and quite frankly, it bothers me when other people do.

[Neodoxy]

“I disagree - I think those were all implied by his post.”

I don’t see why you would, but this is not the first time where you’ve seen malignance where others have not, or at least not cared to comment.

“This is an extension of my frustration with him in general. When he posts things like that, I strongly get the vibe that he wants other people to stop talking (or not talk to begin with) about whatever they’re talking about.”

It’s good that you acknowledge that, but I see nothing backing that up. From what I’ve seen Vive has a problem with stupid comments, but he usually expresses his problem in an understandable way.

“I don’t consider his post to have been exactly civil. I don’t appreciate his tone (as it sounds like to me). I see no reason for him to say what he said other than being a way of saying “I don’t like it when you guys engage in empty speculation like this, so why don’t you all just STFU about it already!””

What he was saying was undoubtedly civil, but you can read into the tone all you want. I personally obviously got something entirely different out of what he said, tone is many times up to a whole variety of interpretation, you can read into any post, mine, yours, or Vive’s, and get something angry and disrespectful from it, but no matter what you read into a post there’s no reason not to give someone the benefit of the doubt and be as civil as you can with the matter.

“Yes, I fully understand that it’s impossible to know or even have a very good idea of how conditions would change in a free market. But speculation doesn’t involve trying to know that. It just involves exploring possibilities. I see nothing wrong with that, and quite frankly, it bothers me when other people do.”

There’s no evidence that he saw anything inherently “wrong” in it, and you’re vindicating his argument that it is in a very real way in that it’s useless in explicitly finding anything out about the future, and even if you write it off as “exploring possibilities” then it’s hard to deny that he has a point.

Most importantly, even if something “bothers you”, then there’s no reason to be explicitly insulting towards him, and while I hate to call on something so cliche, that kind of behavior is below this forum.

[Autolykos]

@Neodoxy

What he was saying was undoubtedly civil, but you can read into the tone all you want. I personally obviously got something entirely different out of what he said, tone is many times up to a whole variety of interpretation, you can read into any post, mine, yours, or Vive’s, and get something angry and disrespectful from it, but no matter what you read into a post there’s no reason not to give someone the benefit of the doubt and be as civil as you can with the matter.

I didn’t read his post as being civil. More on this later.

@Neodoxy

There’s no evidence that he saw anything inherently “wrong” in it, and you’re vindicating his argument that it is in a very real way in that it’s useless in explicitly finding anything out about the future, and even if you write it off as “exploring possibilities” then it’s hard to deny that he has a point.

Do I need to repeat myself? Didn’t I say that the point of speculation (at least as I see it) is not to actually find anything out about the future? Do you not see a distinct difference between that an simply exploring possibilities?

Furthermore, some of us - myself included - see speculation as an interesting intellectual exercise at times. Denigrate it all you want, even call it “mental masturbation” or “navel-gazing” if you so wish. It makes no difference to me. That means it won’t lead to a change in my behavior.

@Neodoxy

Most importantly, even if something “bothers you”, then there’s no reason to be explicitly insulting towards him, and while I hate to call on something so cliche, that kind of behavior is below this forum.

As I mentioned earlier, I didn’t read his post as being civil. I read it as implicitly insulting. So what reason should I then have to not bring it out in the open by being explicit in response?

[limitgov]

for goodness sakes guys…you both love liberty. that right there is a good enough reason to apologize to each other, make better and treat each other decent and good. there are very few people I meet in the real world that have a knowledge and a hunger for liberty. so you both are too few and far between.

[Neodoxy]

“Furthermore, some of us - myself included - see speculation as an interesting intellectual exercise at times. Denigrate it all you want, even call it “mental masturbation” or “navel-gazing” if you so wish. It makes no difference to me.”

I agree, if you would look above I’ve been quite vocal in this thread with my personal “speculation”, but I still acknowledge that Vive has a point and that what many want out of these sorts of threads, real or very likely answers, probably won’t happen.

“That means it won’t lead to a change in my behavior.”

No one here has even so much as asked you to change in this regard.

“As I mentioned earlier, I didn’t read his post as being civil. I read it as implicitly insulting.”

That’s a matter which is highly up to interpretation and nothing is gained by being explicitly insulting when there’s a possibility, even a probability, that you misinterpreted his message because you already have leftover impressions from the behavior you recently dealt with in the other thread. Why not give him the benefit of the doubt and try to understand exactly what he meant, or eek out an apology from him before even having to resort to insults.

“So what reason should I then have to not bring it out in the open by being explicit in response?”

1. There’s a good chance you won’t bring it out in the open in this way because even if he did mean it “in that way” because he can take the high ground by saying “that wasn’t in what I wrote”
2. You’re not even sure you know exactly what he meant
3. People don’t like being insulted and so all you’re likely to do is insight more conflict
4. You look more justified, professional, and reasonable to others and you’re less likely to see A. Me, or more often B. People who are more aggressive and will take the other person’s side.
5. You don’t descend to the level which you see as inappropriate, indeed, a state lower than his because at least he wasn’t explicitly confrontational and insulting.

I think a much more compelling question is: Why would you bring it out in an insulting, explicit, and seemingly (to others) uncalled for response.

[Neodoxy]

“that right there is a good enough reason to apologize to each other, make better and treat each other decent and good.”

I’m not entirely sure about the grammar here, but that’s what I’m trying to promote right now.

[Autolykos]

@Neodoxy

I agree, if you would look above I’ve been quite vocal in this thread with my personal “speculation”, but I still acknowledge that Vive has a point and that what many want out of these sorts of threads, real or very likely answers, probably won’t happen.

Using the term “acknowledge” like that seems to imply that he necessarily did make the points that you think he made. I fail to see how that’s been proven.

Furthermore, I’m not sure whether the OP was really looking for “the answer”. The thread could’ve been more accurately titled “Do You Think McDonald’s Would Exist in a Free Market?” Modern-day English speakers confuse assertive and expressive statements all too often, IMHO.

@Neodoxy

No one here has even so much as asked you to change in this regard.

Oh come on. What’s been your whole intention with this exchange then? As far as I can tell, you’re trying to get me to “admit” that I was mistaken, apologize, and not do it anymore in the future.

@Neodoxy

That’s a matter which is highly up to interpretation and nothing is gained by being explicitly insulting when there’s a possibility, even a probability, that you misinterpreted his message because you already have leftover impressions from the behavior you recently dealt with in the other thread. Why not give him the benefit of the doubt and try to understand exactly what he meant, or eek out an apology from him before even having to resort to insults.

IIRC, he’s made similar statements in other speculative threads. My impression for some time now has been that he doesn’t want people to engage in speculation (among other things). So my point was to inform him in strong terms that I, for one, don’t appreciate him trying to shut people up about it, and I will resist his efforts at every turn.

@Neodoxy

There’s a good chance you won’t bring it out in the open in this way because even if he did mean it “in that way” because he can take the high ground by saying “that wasn’t in what I wrote”

True. Then I could tell him that I think he’s lying.

@Neodoxy

You’re not even sure you know exactly what he meant

True, but I still feel confident that my guess is accurate.

@Neodoxy

People don’t like being insulted and so all you’re likely to do is insight more conflict

My goal here isn’t to minimize conflict and “not step on anybody’s toes”.

@Neodoxy

You look more justified, professional, and reasonable to others and you’re less likely to see A. Me, or more often B. People who are more aggressive and will take the other person’s side.

They won’t deter me either, because I won’t let them.

@Neodoxy

You don’t descend to the level which you see as inappropriate, indeed, a state lower than his because at least he wasn’t explicitly confrontational and insulting.

I consider being explicit insulting to be above being implicitly so. You could call it a matter of “honor”.

@Neodoxy

I think a much more compelling question is: Why would you bring it out in an insulting, explicit, and seemingly (to others) uncalled for response.

To express both my disapproval of his apparent behavior, and my commitment to resisting it, in sufficiently direct and obvious terms so as to (hopefully) leave no doubt whatsoever in his or anyone else’s mind. If I feel that I’ve been proven wrong, then I will gladly stand corrected.