Slashdot Log In
Technology And The Fast Food Nation
from the -morality-and-fries-in-the-Corporate-Republic- dept.
Technology, as futurists like George Orwell and Arthur Clarke have been predicting for decades, will be the battleground on which the fight against corporatism is played out.
The United States has become a corporate republic, with the takeover of cyberspace one of that republic's primary goals. Corporate domination of the real world no longer seems possible unless companies like Microsoft and AOL/Time-Warner bring the virtual one under control. From sweetheart regulatory legislation for media companies and telcoms to the Children's Internet Protection Act to Carnivore and the DMCA, they're working on it. Small entrepeneurs are falling like flies, just as little diners, family eateries, and small farms and meatpackers have fallen before McDonald's and Burger King.
In fact, technology and fast food, profoundly intertwined, serve as useful metaphors for the unintended consequences that accompany scientific advances.
Fast food is, in many ways, the story of contemporary America -- its work and health, its homogenization. Fast food is central to urban and suburban sprawl and to the rise of malls as retailing forces. Fast food has created a generation of new, mostly lousy jobs, cemented the divisions between rich and poor, triggered an epidemic of obesity, and sparked resentment of America's so-called cultural imperialism abroad. It's the stepchild of post-war progress in farming, slaughtering and packing, refrigeration and transportation.
For a preview of the unintended ways in which technology shapes the new world -- ways nobody wants to think or talk much about -- the fast food industry is a good (and sobering) case study. Fast food practices are already shaping tech industries, too, from computing to software to bio-tech.
A case study is exactly what Eric Schlosser provides in his new book Fast Food Nation. In the 1970s, he reminds us, political activists were already warning about the McDonaldization of America in much the same way that hackers, programmers and open source advocates are sounding the alarm about the Microsoft-ing of the Net. Those activists sensed that the emerging fast food business threatened independent companies and presaged a food economy dominated by giant corporations.
Beyond that, fast food franchises obliterated a sense of geographical and cultural differences among different regions of the United States. The appeal of fast food -- that people would know just what to expect no matter where they bought their Whoppers or Taco Bell burritos -- was also one of its most devastating consequences.
And there were plenty of others. The industry was one of the first to use technology -- especially advances in genetics -- to set the ground rules for the corporate republic, whose media, culture and economy are increasingly dominated by McDonaldesque notions about uniformity, scale and work. The fast food biz re-conceived the high-tech, manual-labor factory; it has always relied on poorly-paid workers doing regimented, robot-like work.
It has, naturally, attracted a disproportionate number of immigrant, poor and minority workers who have little real chance of advancement, and whose work is so rote and mechanized they have no need for high wages, further training or the opportunities to acquire meaningful new skills. This corporatized industry has, with the help of an equally corporatized media, portrayed itself as a great boon to the underclass, hiring people nobody else would employ.
The fast food industry also perfected, even nationalized, the notion of false courtesy -- those forced mumbled greetings and thanks delivered with all of the sincerity of a telemarketer -- that echoes to this day throughout the tech support and customer service universe.
The burger, pizza and burrito chains' vast purchasing power, writes Schlosser, and their demand for an uncompromisingly uniform product, have triggered fundamental changes in farming and how cattle are raised, slaughtered and processed into burgers. These changes have made meatpacking -- once a highly skilled, well-paid trade -- into the most dangerous job in the U.S., performed by legions of poor, transient immigrants whose rapidly rising rate of injuries attract little publicity or government attention. The same meat industry practices, reports Schlosser, have facilitated the introduction of deadly pathogens, such as E. col 0157:H7, into America's hamburgers, one of the foods most aggressively marketed to kids.
Schlosser describes how the "natural flavor" of most fast foods -- what consumers crave when they order their burgers and fries -- are liquids manufactured in flavor companies along the New Jersey Turnpike and in the Rust Belt.
The American "flavor industry" now has annual revenues of about $1.4 billion, reports Schlosser. Until the l950s, flavor additives were used mainly in baked goods, candies and sodas. But the invention of gas chromatographs and mass spectrometers -- technologies that could detect volatile gases at low levels -- radically increased the number of flavors that could be synthesized. Within a decade, the American flavor industry was creating the taste of products from Hamburger Helper to Pop Tarts.
The evolution of the fast food industry shows us not only how powerful and ill-considered technology is as a force in American life, but offers some chilling previews of where the Net, the Web, the computing industry and tech culture may be headed. The lessons of fast food have been learned all too well, and deployed enthusiastically in the so-called new global economy (computer chips are also made in far-away factories. These jobs pay more than average wages in some countries, but are still lousy jobs generally making pennies. Assembly and packaging jobs pay even less.)
Like the people who established burger chains, the Net's founders arose from a ferociously individualistic culture, advances in technology generally provided by diverse and idiosyncratic subcultures from hackers and geeks to researchers and entrepeneurs.
But an industry launched by iconoclasts with bad haircuts in garages and basements has become a global one based on rooting out individual creativity and promoting uniformity.
The Net is already being overwhelmed by mass-marketed sex, entertainment and retailing entities. And the tech industry is already notorious for creating thousands of low-paying, unrewarding dead-end jobs. It's promoting American notions of culture all over the world -- just wait until the ethos that brought you natural flavor and McDonald's gets hold of AI research and the Human Genome project and starts marketing perfect, sweet-tempered babies to an unsuspecting world.
Mary Shelley's Frankenstein warned about the unthinking application of technology all the way back in 1803. Technology made the fast food industry possible, and without any real national discussion and consideration, retailing, health, work and the ability of individuals to operate farms or small businesses was altered for good. As Eric Schlosser thoughtfully points out in his book, there was nothing pre-ordained about the corporatization of food and culture.
From the airline industry to computer companies, American corporations have always worked to survive under the Darwinian laws of the marketplace by eliminating or absorbing their rivals -- the heart of the Microsoft strategy, in fact.
Some tend to see this corporatization as something apart from civics or public policy, but it isn't. These companies ought to be accountable -- taxpayers helped create them. Some of the strongest growth areas of the American economy -- the computer, software, aerospace and satellite industries -- have been inspired by or subsidized by the federal government. The Net, the heart of the so-called new economy, began of course as the ARPANET, the military communications network funded by Congress in the late l970s.
Free markets are good for economies, and in many cases, for the people who work in them. They can promote creativity, innovation, prosperity, choice and individualism, more than other political and economic systems. But there has to be a balance between the prosperity of the market and the morality of the market -- a balance already tilting off center in almost the entire range of tech industries, and on the Net and Web.
The relentless corporatization of retailing, farming, publishing and entertainment, to name only a few, have swung the balance much too far, at least in the United States. Corporations are now the primary contributors to the American election system. They fund the overwhelming majority of lobbyists who prey on Washington. They block regulation that would promote competition, offer the public more choices in areas like Internet access, and fend off governmental and other supervision. They promote conformity and uniformity. Since corporations have acquired virtually all of the popular media, they are rarely criticized or challenged.
Writes Schlosser: "An economic system promising freedom has too often become a means of denying it, and the narrow dictates of the market gain precedence over more important democratic values."
This ought to sound familiar. This same economic system -- promising security, morality, freedom, protection for artists and the owners of intellectual property -- is using technology to transform the Net with the same zeal that hamburger chains used to decimate family restaurants. The story of fast food is turning out to be our story too.
From A Manager at Mc Donalds (swing manager) (Score:3)
Murder by ice cream! (Score:3)
At least, that's the conclusion one could draw from your logic. McDonalds leads to world peace? Horseshit.
--
Re:How original (Score:3)
"The future is dynamic" is great on a bumper sticker, but you're effectively claiming that what we do in our present doesn't affect the future. Tonight's homework assignment: "The Dust Bowl." Extra credit points: why is the Southwestern United States chiefly desert? (Hint: buffalo and cattle graze differently, something European settlers didn't know in their present.)
From an engineering standpoint, this is simple: what happens if we listen to "the crazy greens" and they're wrong? A lot of industries lose money in the short term, while countries and corporations are forced to learn better farming and conservation practices. If we listen to the sane, rational corporations and they're wrong, the world gets a lot less livable.
Maybe convenience is worth both the risk and the lack of long-term progress in your eyes, but not in mine.
And last but not least, if I represent "the orthodoxy," I guess that explains why there are so many more Honda Insights on the road than SUVs, and why our new proposed national energy plan focuses so much on alternative energy sources and wildlife preservation. :-)
Re:McDonalds and Peace (Score:3)
Hitler was elected. Milosevic was Elected. All US presidents have been elected. Democracies do go to was, at least the sham political systems that we call democracies.
In the last election I votes in, the party I voted for got 12% of the popular vote and 0% of the elected officials. The next party got 30% of the popular vote and 4% of the elected officials, the remaining party got 55% of the popular vote and 96% of the elected officials.
Even if you fixed that, it's still a party system where you can't get an independant into power, and if you did, they wouldn't have any responsibilities or power.
And then, it's a "representative democracy", meaning that I have to hope someone runs who represents my views. If not, I could end up completely unrepresented even if the person I voted for got in.
Then top this off with the fact that in a vote to declare war, it's not just the politicians who actually risk being sent off to fight who get to vote.
Democracies are anything but, and a populace intolerant of war doesn't stop any politician from voting for the draft and sending the completely unprepresented classes off to war.
If we say that 'democracies don't go to war' it's because we conveniently only look at rich countries, without realizing that the real reason they didn't go to war is because they don't think anyone else has anything worth taking. (When they do, like the US going to protect the oil supply) they're more than willing to spend low-class soldiers securing their financial future.
Very Important Book (Score:4)
The book shows capitalism at its best--with the rise of individuals with revolutionary ideas on food service--and corporate culture at its worst--with the companies formed by these individuals growing into huge conglomerates which care little for their customers or employees and disregard regulation and legislation by essentially buying government access.
It's not all bad news, and some of it is a bit alarmist, but the overall impact of the book shouldn't be forgotten. The investigation could easily have been of technology industries, clothing and apparal, the health industry, or a number of other industries. (There are parallels between the fast food industry and the Tobacco industry of The Insider)
Fast Food Nation is highly recommended for anybody interested in turn-of-the century corporate America, and anybody who is concerned with what they are eating.
Katz' commentary is essentially a book review, but doesn't do the book justice. (If this is a review, why does he bury first mention of the book in the seventh graph? Note to Katz: work with an editor.)
How original (Score:5)
No one is forced to eat there, do business there, or work there, but they're somehow super oppressive and evil.
And we envy their money and we want to get the government or lawyers to steal it and give it to us.
And we envy their "power" and we want them to be hurt so they have less power.
And we want the government to be super-powerful to protect us from the corporate evil, but it'll never occur to us that the government's power might be used against us. Maybe if we give it more power, that will stop.
Gee, what a smart, happy bunch we are.
Some links... (Score:3)
Adbusters [adbusters.org]
CorpWatch [corpwatch.org]
AllYourBrand [allyourbrand.org]
etc.:
Independent Media Center [indymedia.org]
Metropolitic.net [metropolitic.net]
You May Be An Anarchist And Not Even Know It [utne.com] (I too thought the "anarchy movement" was a load of crap from bored aggressive adolescents (they really spoil it for everybody don't they?) until reading this and realizing there really is a legitimate coherent philosophy behind it)
Mother Jones [motherjones.com]
In These Times [inthesetimes.com]
Poliglut [poliglut.com]
Protest.net [protest.net] (yes, sometimes there are actually legitimate reasons to protest)
PigDog journal [pigdog.org]
Unabomer Manifesto [panix.com] (he may have been labeled a wacko, but read it - he's not stupid and he does sorta have a point.)
Re:My first trip to Prague (Score:5)
And that's the depressing part. Because if you really look at it, fast food is neither convenient nor cheap.
Big Mac, Fries, and a Coke. About $2.00. Plus maybe a 10-minute drive each way - call it $1.00 for gas and time. And the joy of standing in line waiting for your order, sitting in an annoying fast-food-restaurant seat, etc.
Potato: $0.25, and that's a huge potato. New York Strip: $7.00 a pound at my local butcher. Take one and cut it in half. Coke: $0.50/can, bought in bulk.
Total cost: $4.00 for an 8-oz NY Strip loin, baked potato, and Coke.
Total time: 5 minutes to defrost the steak in the microwave, then 15 minutes on the baking/grill-rack in a toaster oven at 350-400F, while the potato gets nuked in parallel for 10 minutes.
For fifty cents more, you can have a goddamn steak in the same time it takes to go to McDonald's.
McDonald's stays in business for the same reason Microsoft does: Market presence and a[n ad campaign designed to ensure the continued existence of a] customer base that's wholly-ignorant of the existence of alternatives.
Re:Age of the Puppet Kings (Score:3)
Indeed. It's a sad state of affairs when a company's success hinges not on providing a better product or service, but on whether the company is effective at influencing lawmakers and regulators to tilt the playing field in their favor. Realistically though, many companies would be foolish to not have a lobbying presence, given the power that politicians and regulators have to make or break entire industries.
My opinion is that all this makes a strong case for reducing the power that politicians have over the economy. If they don't have the ability to hand out favors that give one industry an advantage over another, there won't be companies and industry groups lining up at the feeding trough.
--
Viable Solutions (Score:5)
Sounds fair! Here are some solutions that would work, unlike the destruction of individual choice approach Katz advocates:
- Eat Locally [discover.com] - Make a goal for yourself. 10%? 25%? more? Try it for a month and see if you can hack it. It's not easy, but certainly worthwhile.
- Promote natural genetic diversity and redundancy in your garden [seedsavers.org] - Centralized buying from major wholesalers like Lamb-Weston promotes at most two or three genetic varieties in potatos, one in soybeans, etc. Garden with the varieties that have been forgotten.
- Buy local foods [ialocalfood.org] - visit the local weekly farmer's market. Find area local foods organizations. Get better produce, picked ripe by family farms in your area.
- Consume simplier, healthier beverages [homearts.com] - Know how much waste water and byproduct is created through double-stage fermentation (i.e. making beer)? Drink a better beverage - locally produced hard cider! (An added advantage is that most locally produced cider uses a major variety of apples - mostly kinds you'd never find at the supermarket - and promotes additional natural genetic diversity).
Unlike Katz's Soviet vision, the above can and does work, as long as you're not too stupid or lazy.
*scoove*
Jon Katz -- Hypocrite (Score:3)
On the one hand, Katz constanly whines about corporations and advocates this very communitarian-oriented "we have to subject technology to democratic control" nonsense.
But on the other hand, the second anyone actually exerts such democratic control -- say by mandating filters for public library and school access -- he's suddenly *shocked* at this blatant abuse of individual rights.
You can't have it both ways, Jon. You can't rail against an out of control market and then turn around and complain when somebody follows through on your suggestions and attempts to get the market under control.
Re:Well capitalism is a white European invention (Score:5)
China is poised to become the 21st century super power and they are communist, not capitalist. Communism is a third world philosophy, not a western one.
This made absolutely no sense. Nazi Germany was a non-capitalist world power as was Imperial Japan. Third World nations that have adopted Communism grossly underperform those that are capitalist (where would you want to live -- South Korea or North Korea?)
McLibel (Score:3)
Re:McLibel (better link) (Score:3)
Re:The New Feudalism (Score:4)
I live in a well to do part of a small town in california -- I drive past the "title 9" (goverment subsidised) housing all the time, and I see *BETTER CARS* parked outside the title 9 then I do in my own neighborhood (sp?) where the lowest household income is well over 100g/y.
I think we need to institute financial education in all 3 elementary, grade school and highschool -- and I also think theres forces out there that *DON'T WANT* consumers to understand financing (Banks, Credit Card Companies, auto-dealerships ... you can walk into best buy any day of the week and get 5000$ credit on a best buy card)
Katz is preaching to the converted here (Score:3)
Unfortunately, in the grand scheme of things, Slashdot's readership is not a very big portion of the American public. A few hundred thousand readers (I don't know the actual figures, this is a seat-of-my-pants guess) out of 281 million Americans is, by itself, not enough to change the way the US works. Continuing to bitch and moan amongst ourselves isn't going to dent the "Corporate Republic." What we need to do is find some way of educating the public at-large about our concerns. Until we can get "soccer moms," AOL users, and other larger segments of the American public to understand our concerns, the Corporate Republic will continue to grow since thats the way most Americans want things to be. They don't mind driving 20 miles to a 250,000 sq. ft. Wal-Mart since Wal-Mart offers prices that no one on Main Street can dream of offering. If people didn't like companies like Wal-Mart, then there would be no way that Wal-Mart could have taken in $200 billion last year. If the mainstream public were convinced of the dangers of having a few huge corporations running around unchecked by the federal goverment, then maybe people would think twice about supporting them.
All the time new articles appear about privacy breaches, new "features" Microsoft is including in Windows XP to extract every possible penny from the American public, and other such horror stories. Most of them are pointless because they are directed at an audience already aware of the situation. I think there needs to be some discussion about how can we make other people aware of these problems. When I talk to many people about Microsoft's antitrust problems, the uneducated ones often say "What's wrong with that? I've never had any problem with Windows." I really don't know how to convince my family and non-geek friends that issues like the "Corporate Republic" need to be taken seriously by the entire population. Once they are understood by the public at-large, Congress will take notice. Finally the issue of privacy seems to be taken seriously on Capitol Hill, as many Americans have started to understand the issues involved in restricting the spread of information about themselves. Whether useful legislation will result is unclear, but at least it's a start in regards to understanding privacy. If the majority of people stood up to Congress and said "We want competition in the telecom sector" and "Here's where you can stick UCITA", Congress will at least strongly consider these issues if not passing legislation to address them.
Until we can get the public to say these things to Congress and to stop giving money to the corporations that we geeks don't like, then we're out of luck. There aren't going to be any easy solutions to this problem, but I think it's time we started discussing it.
Any coherent thesis? (Score:5)
Examples:
This is a devastating consequence? The fact that you can get McDonald's everywhere? Shudder! The blood's running in the street. What exactly does this have to do with "corporatism," anyway? I can get Chinese food everywhere, despite the notable absence of any national Chinese food chains.Seriously, Katz, are you saying we need laws to preserve regional cuisine? Is that what you want?
Ummm...no. Katz seems to have skipped all those history classes. McDonald's was the first to try to do this in the service industry, but manufacturing and agriculture had been doing this for more than a century before McDonald's. So people who work for McDonald's do so for life? Sorry, not in my experience. Again, Katz, what exactly is the problem you're trying to identify, and what solution do you propose? Do you want to ban the timers on the fry machines so workers will need more skill? Gee, meat packing is dangerous. Let's see, we learned that back in 1906, when Upton Sinclair published "The Jungle." Has it become more dangerous lately? No. Are there more germs in meat now? No, it's safer than ever. Which is the safest place to eat: (1) a random home kitchen, (2) a small mom-and-pop restaurant, or (3) a restaraunt run by a large corporation? Which has the lowest incidence of food poisoning, Katz? Do you dare tell the truth?Re:So what is the solution? (Score:3)
Some of the people do have some point, and as it is with everything, it's always a double-edged sword. What is often the best thing about something is also probably the worst. Expecting the homogeneity that McDonald's offers worldwide to bring familiarity and feeling of "home" for Americans is great for Americans who want that - and to some degree, I do find comfort in that. However, it is also scary how far and deep McDonald's reach is. Nothing against the McDonald's people - I'm sure they all mean well - but in the quest to increase the bottom-line for shareholder value, McDonald's must do everything it can to maintain it's popularity and stranglehold on the fast food consumerism - and they do it at the same level that Disney does - they start with the kids. It's at the same time comforting and insidious. They do everything they could to make their image kid-friendly. But they have also raised generation after generation of loyal McDonald's and Disney adherents, who expect to see their corporate iconic parent's influence everywhere. The corporations become the "security blanket" of generation after generation of kids. If not for the wake-up calls of people who challenge the popular view, we'd be, as one of the +5 posters say, in the age of the puppet kings.
This is not to say that McDonald's people or Disney's people are evil - the corporate entity is the one in question - and the corporate entity's consciouness is driven by an economic ego (or was that superego? Damn! I could never remember) to fulfill its economic desires that is expressed by the shareholder collective.
I think that the book merely brings up a good manifestation of corporatism and the reactions of many of the Slashdot reader shows that to a large degree, they have succeeded in their mass brain-washing of generations of kids.
That said, I still like going to McDonalds, even if I know that their foods are completely flavored by chemical factories in New Jersey and their french fries contain beef tallow extracts - sometimes, you just can't help it - their fries ARE good.
Oh, Christ - get a grip (Score:5)
Ever heard of a little book called The Jungle [gutenberg.org]?
You know, I don't want to jump on any anti-Katz bandwagon, but this illustrates his worst propensities: grandiose generalizations with no backup. Look, if your column is only available on the web, dammit, how about using some of that new-fangled hypertext to provide us with a link or two? There are two differences between journalism and unsupported opinion: the first relies on facts, and the second is worthless.
question: is control controlled by its need to control?
answer: yes
Re:No Jon, politicians still rule, and are our ban (Score:3)
You said it.
I'm not into this anti-corporate nonsense like a lot of the crowd here, but maybe we're all very lucky that not all of the corporations are lobbying for the same stuff. I mean, there are still opposing interests among the corporate world, right? Be thankful those corporate nasties aren't all fighting for the same thing!
-bluebomber
Re:McDonalds and Peace (Score:3)
There is much to be said about the growth of a middle class who are averse to conflict, and it is not in a corporations' interest to have its motherland go to war, unless that corp is, say, Lockheed - Martin.
The plain fact of the matter is (and this has been touched on in arguments about why and why not the GPL is communist), we are experiencing continued growth of the Capitalist Manifesto, which has tendencies of which we are all only too familiar. It is my opinion, after reading Das Kapital, that it is the excesses of capitalism of the turn of the century during the early Industrial Revolution that is responsible for the proper climate for the rise of Marxism as an economic model. Concomitant to that rising in Eastern Europe, government here put strong controls on a growing national scourge; outlawing child labor, workhouses, Monopolies such as Standard Oil, and allowing for the creation of the AFL - CIO and similar Labor Unions. The result of all this is the ascendancy of the middle class, which is the one thing that Communists did not count on.
But now that the government is becoming secured for the interests of capitalists (who follow an inherently evil code, that of greed) once again, witness the ascendancy of corporations once again, to the detriment of the Human Spirit.
Capitalists are not Nationalist, nor are they Humanist. They have but one creed, and are willing to rationalize whatever behaviour they engage in to improve profits. This rationalization destroys all else. The lesson of Frankenstein was the arrogance of a man who, in the pursuit of his single-minded purpose, forgot about God as he became engrossed in his Godly powers.
But we only learn this lesson through our mistakes, apparently, since we are doomed to repeat history unless some of the greedy (i.e., the lawmakers and protectors of our Liberties) wake up. Capitalists should never be trusted to manage themselves, but that is what is happening today. And there is nothing the average citizen can trust, except perhaps God himself.
Looking Kate Moss,Feeling Oprah Winfrey (Score:3)
I am so turned off when I think of steak and hamburgers now, that I can barely order and wolf down a Big Mac or prime rib any more.
In other news, E. Coli [cdc.gov]just broke out again, this time in Old Folk's Homes [yahoo.com]. Seems that This strand is a drug-resistant strain!
Re:Murder by ice cream! (Score:3)
Likewise, conditions in which McDonald's thrives (prosperity) are also conditions in which peace thrives.
And that was the point that was being made.
Re:Post hoc... not quite. (Score:3)
That does not mean that McDonald's causes peace, nor does it mean that peace causes McDonald's. If either argument was being made, your criticism would be correct.
However, the argument here is that nations which are prosperous enough to support a customer base for McDonald's tend to not go to war with one another.
If this was based on a single incident, (i.e., "we have observed one war, and McDonald's was not in both countries"), then it would indeed be a post hoc fallacy. However, when you observe a trend (i.e., "of the many wars we have observed, a disproportionate number, in fact nearly all of them, were fought between nations where one or both had no McDonald's), you can establish a thesis.
Nearly all human knowledge, including pretty much everything that Sagan taught about, came from observing trends and drawing conclusions based on those trends. It's how we learn stuff.
Age of the Puppet Kings (Score:4)
Most corporations seem to have figured out that so long as they have the appropriate politicians in their pockets, that being king or president or prime minister is not where it is at. For one thing, you have all of those pesky people demanding something from you. There is no rest for the wicked in the world of politics.
so they stay out of politics, and enter it only to protect themselves. Then they get to have their fancy cars and jets and boats, and minions groveling at their feet. This only works well for the really big companies, but for them that is Good Enough(tm)
You worry about you favorite pet peeve, distro war, or whatever.
While all around you the age of the puppet kings is approaching. Some say it is here already.
Check out the Vinny the Vampire [eplugz.com] comic strip
The New Feudalism (Score:4)
We wage serfs know this well. Pay the same corporations for whom you work for the lifestyle stuff, and you're in the same mess as miners in the 1920's- working harder and keeping less. With mega mergers everywhere, the world itself is becoming a company town.
But does the problem lie in corporate behavior or our own willingness to buy the lifestyle they sell?
[That's an honest question, folks- not a rhetorical one]
(
In other news: Jerry Bruckheimer's Next Epic [ridiculopathy.com])
Re:McDonalds and Peace (Score:3)
- Rising cases of obesity
- Increased gun-related crime
- Lower education standards
- Greater apathy among citizens
- Ever-growing divide between upper and lower classes
If you're going to plug Americanization, you'd better damn well take the bad with the good.My first trip to Prague (Score:3)
-- .sig are belong to us!
All your
Additional relevant reading (Score:4)
I highly recommend "The McDonaldization of America" and "Expressing America: The Credit Card Society," both by George Ritzer.
Also, "The Electronic Sweatshop: How Computers Are Transforming the Office of the Future into the Factory of the Past" by Barbara Garson (1988, Simon and Schuster) has an *excellent* chapter on what it is like to work at McDonalds and brings these concepts to take on office situations and electronic surveillance. Dated, but good.
No Jon, politicians still rule, and are our bane. (Score:5)
Corporations are as manipulated by politicians as politicians are by corporations. By and far, its politicians who are the worst of the two. Corporations don't take your money at gunpoint and spend it where you could care less. They can take your money and give it to some schmoe who doesn't want to work because he doesn't have to. A corporation can't do that.
Re:McDonalds and Peace (Score:3)
He discusses the main reason why this occurs and that is you wouldn't kill your business partner.
It's actually a really good book about the globalization of corporations and what he sees as a counter-force of the globalization of individuals and activism. Globalization puts General Motors in Mexico as well as environmental and work standards. Nike has China make it shoes, but universities won't buy slave labor made equipment. The same forces that drive McDonalds to Japan, puts Thai food in your town.
Re:My first trip to Prague (Score:4)
There are now 10 branches of McDonalds in Prague and one strategically placed on every major road going into the city. There are plans for 40 KFC outlets in the Czech Republic by the end of the year and Coca Cola and Pepsi signs are everywhere. It is impossible to evade their presence.
Would they be put there if the first 4 locations failed? No. McDonalds is not the whole problem, although I will admit it is mostly to blame. But you have to remember that the only reason McDoanlds continues to grow is because of consumers. If people don't buy McDonalds food, there would be no McDonalds. But people like the convenience, the low price and the fact that they know what they are getting. They know exactly what is on a hamburger, what the chicken nuggets will taste like and what kind of sauce they can get.
This is the same thing as a picture I saw of the WTO protests. When you protest in Nikes and Gap clothes, or when you protest McDonalds by only eating there once a week, the problem isn't going to go away. By boycotting a product, you can affect the corporation. But since most people don't care, this is very unlikely to happen..
=-=-=-=-=
abuse of the term "corporatism" (Score:5)
McDonalds and Peace (Score:3)
So, fast food may be used by some as a metaphor for what is wrong with western civilization. However, a few years ago I read an interesting fact:
No two nations with McDonalds on their territory have ever gone to war with each other.
This may be a coincidence (and it may no longer be true ... is there a McDonalds in Yugoslavia?), but there were analysts in the article I read who suggested that the presence of a McDonalds in a nation indicated a certain level of national development, democracy, and sophistication, with an educated middle class, who patronize the McDonalds, and who are intolerant of war.
An interesting thought. International trade has its problems, but frequently it brings peace.