its that im tired of this wal-mart/mc donalds/best buy/oldnavy/ superduper store monotony.

i like how they actually still have small, competing electronics stores in Japan. I miss those things here.

10/26/2005 3:18:45 PM

The japanese also poop on one another.

10/26/2005 3:20:42 PM

yeah, they do

the dutch shop nude

the french piss in the streets

and we're still debating stem cell research and abortion like its going to end time

id say pooping,pissing, and running around nude is much more fun

[Edited on October 26, 2005 at 3:22 PM. Reason : .]

10/26/2005 3:22:02 PM

well then MOVE TO RUSSIA IF YOU HATE FREEDOM SO MUCH

10/26/2005 3:24:21 PM

One time I went to study abroad in London, and there was this girl that the first thing she wanted to do when we got there was go to the Starbucks in London. Because, you know, the Starbucks in London is vastly different from the Starbucks in any other fucking place. I wanted to crack her skull open.

10/26/2005 3:31:33 PM

if you buy shit at stores that arent wal-mart, you are a FUCKING DIRTY ASS COMMUNIST FASCISTFREEDOM HATER!!11

^BUT IT IS! YOU CAN GET CRUMPETS, NOT PASTRIES!!!11

[Edited on October 26, 2005 at 3:32 PM. Reason : .]

10/26/2005 3:31:38 PM

I actually agree.


Plus, I want to shop nude - it would be more fun.

10/26/2005 3:33:41 PM

nothing particularly wrong with capitalism in theory. commercialism sucks

[Edited on October 26, 2005 at 3:51 PM. Reason : .]

10/26/2005 3:50:42 PM

Quote :

"its that im tired of this wal-mart/mc donalds/best buy/oldnavy/ superduper store monotony."

Then go to the mall or flea-market. Lots and lots of relatively little stores.

10/26/2005 4:18:41 PM

Lets just pass laws outlawing McDonald's and Wal-Mart.

10/26/2005 4:21:55 PM

Quote :

"Then go to the mall"

HAHAHHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAH

10/26/2005 4:54:11 PM

^^id support it

i mean, you can get the same shit elsewhere, and in the case of mcdonalds, its guaranteed to be better!

10/26/2005 5:50:28 PM

fuck that... when mom and pop drop their prices i'll buy from them. i don't care what they do as long as i get shit for cheap... and when 90% of it comes from the same distribution center, i could care less WHO i'm buying it from.

plus if i want a burger and a pop in 30 seconds i can just go drive-thru and save time, not wait while Gladys talks Earl into throwin another meat patty on the grill before he goes and fixes his truck


look, i like small business as much as the next guy. hell, i especially support small business mechanics in the auto industry. but when you charge more for the same product that they sell at Target, Kohls, Wal-Mart, or wherever, you have to be prepared to lose business. them's the breaks, kid.

plus as a working adult i have a helluva lot more to worry about than who I buy my christmas cards from.

10/26/2005 6:04:33 PM

i like bojangles. theyre good, theyre fast, theyre cheap

and they dont stick ads behind every corner and invade every small town that springs up

10/26/2005 6:42:33 PM

Quote :

"nothing particularly wrong with capitalism in theory. commercialism sucks"

would you rather have every business in existance be a sole proprietorship? I don't think you can point to commercialism and say capitalism has no flaws, commercialism will necessarily come from capitalism in a world as connected and large as this one.

Quote :

"The japanese also poop on one another."

I can't say i've never seen japanese pooping on themselves on the internet. but i also can't say that i've never seen americans pooping on themselves on the internet. I've been to japan, and i live here, and i can say that i've never seen either nationality pooping on themselves in real life. well, minus babies. But if my knowledge of japan and the such came from only the Simpsons, adult swim, and the like, i would certainly sound just as stupid.

10/26/2005 6:46:31 PM

you must be new to the internet.

10/26/2005 6:48:35 PM

northgate mall in durham has lots of locally owned stuff
hope you like urban fashion

10/26/2005 7:12:13 PM

Quote :

"^^id support it i mean, you can get the same shit elsewhere, and in the case of mcdonalds, its guaranteed to be better!"

That is all well and good for you. But why would you support stopping me from shopping at WalMart? I could very easily flip the coin and proclaim "I support outlawing bojangles because they are insufficiently cheap and trashy."

What is sooo wrong about letting everyone shop where-ever the hell they want to?

10/26/2005 7:53:38 PM

^I think that they may be more concerned that with huge conglomerates like Wal_mart, that true competition may actually be stifled.

Wal-Mart may even be considered a price setter instead of a price taker at this point.

10/26/2005 8:14:02 PM

I do think the U.S. is the victim of "brand trusts" more so than the rest of the world. As a country, we seem pretty content to just let large companies own entire supply chains, to the exclusion of any competition.

A good example is Coke. They (and Pepsi, of course) basically have a hegemony over the entire "distribution channel" of restaurant chains. Either they own the chain itself -- which is, IMO, quite scandalous -- or they own "mindshare." Realistically, it is just not possible for a restaurant to open and not serve Coke somewhere. It's like the Coke tax.

Personally I don't think consumers get a good deal out of the "soft drink" brand hegemonies -- at the end of the day, it is sugar water. But using exclusive "OEM" deals and economy of scale, they've tied up pretty much the whole market.

I definitely think big companies have advantages -- they definitely can use economy of scale to make things cheaper. But they offer one big mixed blessing for consumers: branding. Big companies use brands to instill in people's minds that they are "the one, true provider of X." In most markets (niche or otherwise), there are only _2_ companies that control any significant market share.

We're all sorta supposed to sit back and believe that Coke and Pepsi are the only viable sugar water alternatives, and yet, because of their marketing and first-mover advantages, they always will be. And they buy out their competition and consolidate like there's no tomorrow.

The trend of mega-branding runs rather contrary to the "ownership society" mantra -- in America, you either fill a teensy, tiny, itsy-bitsy niche market (for most people, a niche market of 1 employer), or you take millions of dollars and ram an image down consumers' throats until they "get it."

10/26/2005 8:15:45 PM

Quote :

"I can't say i've never seen japanese pooping on themselves on the internet."

Damn dude, you're missing out

10/26/2005 8:46:49 PM

Quote :

"It's like the Coke tax."

Except that selling coke or pepsi are just about the two most profitable things a restaurant can do, so its hardly a tax.

Because people are willing to pay extra for their perceived or real quality difference, there is a pretty good margin and those companies like to share it with the restaurant establisments. The restaurants are far better off then they would be if they sold some cheap ass generic sugar water.

10/26/2005 8:49:34 PM

Quote :

"Except that selling coke or pepsi are just about the two most profitable things a restaurant can do,"

I think selling beer and liquor are probably both more profitable than that.

10/26/2005 9:00:06 PM

^thats true, but I thought we were talking about cheap diner places, fast food, etc, but they would still rank up there for other establisments, not many places make money selling the actual food.

10/26/2005 9:04:47 PM

Quote :

"We're all sorta supposed to sit back and believe that Coke and Pepsi are the only viable sugar water alternatives, and yet, because of their marketing and first-mover advantages, they always will be."

I would like to point out that you are simply closing your eyes to the obvious facts in the real-world. I would direct your attention to Sam's Choice Cola, as well as Food Lion Cola.

And if you do not like Coke or Pepsi, bring your own drink with you! There is no sign on the door preventing you from bringing in outside food or drink while you eat your meal. In fact, they'll even give you a cup with ice so you can use the 2-litre you keep in the trunk.

Anyway, I usually just drink water.

10/26/2005 9:13:33 PM

well there is more than generic or coke or pepsi at the supermarket as well, there is Dr. Pepper (owned by Cadbury), Cheerwine, Dr. Brown, and several other smaller soda and root beer brands.

10/26/2005 9:22:09 PM

cheerwine and sundrop pwn all

10/26/2005 9:42:03 PM

Quote :

"Except that selling coke or pepsi are just about the two most profitable things a restaurant can do, so its hardly a tax."

It certainly is for the consumer. In two ways:

a) consumers pay too much for soft drinks because there is no competition
b) the restaurants that compete with each other fight to drive down the cost, and therefore the quality, of their food because they rely on drinks for profit margins.

If there were no magical Coke monopoly, restaurants could make a profit off food. In the presence of one, they can just make the food cheaper and foist all the overhead on the soft drink costs.

An efficient marketplace, this is not. See: monopolies are not very efficient business models for $500, Alex.

Plus, (until recently, at least) Pepsi owned major restaurant chains, and therefore provided additional competition for most business owners.

Quote :

"Because people are willing to pay extra for their perceived or real quality difference, there is a pretty good margin and those companies like to share it with the restaurant establisments."

No, it's because restaurants are willing to sign exclusive contracts with one vendor or another in order to lock in those aforementioned profit margins. That includes not selling cheaper, competing drinks like (say) Sam's Choice Cola.

Think about the idiocy of the Coke situation: in most retail markets, the distributor forces the price down. Take Wal-Mart for example -- they bully the Hell out of suppliers to get the lowest cost and the best margins to make them competitive.

Not so in the restaurant biz -- Coke tells them what their margins will be, and fosters an environment in which Coke really dictates the whole business model.

Quote :

"I would direct your attention to Sam's Choice Cola, as well as Food Lion Cola. "

Funny, I hadn't seen Sam's Choice Cola on the menu anywhere. Nor do I exactly see Sam's Choice drink machines anywhere except Wal-mart.

Oh yea -- there's TONS of choice there. I'd be willing to bet that Sam's Choice commands single-digit percentages (if that) of the market.

See above about "exclusivity."

Speaking of which, here's a question for you kids -- why does NCSU, which has a fiduciary duty to the state, carry (alternatively) Coke and Pepsi on campus instead of Sam's Choice Cola? Hmmmmm?

Quote :

"I would direct your attention to Sam's Choice Cola, as well as Food Lion Cola."

That's just ghetto, dude. And some places do frown on it (rightfully so).

10/26/2005 10:06:42 PM

Quote :

"Speaking of which, here's a question for you kids..."

Probably because Walmart doesn't offer a distributing service that includes coming to the school to stock and maintaining vending machines.

10/26/2005 10:18:54 PM

Quote :

"Quote : "I can't say i've never seen japanese pooping on themselves on the internet." Damn dude, you're missing out "

common, lets handle the double negative. You're saying i'm missing out on not seeing japanese pooping on themselves on the internet.

[Edited on October 26, 2005 at 10:22 PM. Reason : ]

[Edited on October 26, 2005 at 10:23 PM. Reason : ]

10/26/2005 10:21:48 PM

Ok so now explain why the profit margin is driven by alcohol in higher end restaurants and bars, where there is like a bazillion choices.

If Coke's practices were as anti-competitive as you claim then Pepsi would have never even been able to emerge as a major player in the soft drink market.

In talking about the restaurant business, the reason why profits are driven mostly by beverages (whether youre talking coke or liquor) is because the demand curve for the beverages is more inelastic than it is for the food. The reasons for this should be fairly obvious.

10/26/2005 10:27:23 PM

cokewhores?

10/26/2005 10:38:58 PM

Quote :

"Ok so now explain why the profit margin is driven by alcohol in higher end restaurants and bars, where there is like a bazillion choices."

No. I'm not going to be your unpaid restaurant industry analyst; if you can't think of good reasons why Second Empire is a little different than Joe's Wing Shack in terms of cost and profit structure, please do some research.

Quote :

"If Coke's practices were as anti-competitive as you claim then Pepsi would have never even been able to emerge as a major player in the soft drink market."

So in your view, the reason why nobody has challenged the Coke/Pepsi hegemony is because of a lack of good-spirited enterprise, not because the two major players have the market in absolute lockdown?

Pepsi didn't "emerge" as a major player, it's always been one -- both companies have been around since the late 19th century (which is to say, since the market itself emerged forever ago).

I'm basically to understand that Americans are competitive and free-spirited enough to market new and innovative high-tech companies (Google) against entrenched competition (Yahoo), but not a new brand of sugar water.

Of course, the difference is that Yahoo's distribution channel is a web site, whereas Coke owns multitudinous "OEM" distribution channels via restaurants, and Pepsi even owned restaurant chains itself at one point (a Standard Oil-ish trust if ever one has existed).

Quote :

"In talking about the restaurant business, the reason why profits are driven mostly by beverages (whether youre talking coke or liquor) is because the demand curve for the beverages is more inelastic than it is for the food."

That's a nice academic argument, but I find it rather hard to believe that the demand curve is that much more elastic for beverages. The premise of your argument has to rest on the idea that soft drinks are "entertainment food," whereas food is mere sustenance -- but I don't exactly see McDonald's serving military-style MREs.

[Edited on October 26, 2005 at 11:28 PM. Reason : foo]

10/26/2005 11:28:09 PM

Quote :

"I'm basically to understand that Americans are competitive and free-spirited enough to market new and innovative high-tech companies (Google) against entrenched competition (Yahoo), but not a new brand of sugar water."

Yes.

I bet you can name a lot of reasons why someone would switch to google from yahoo. Name one damn reason anyone would switch to your brand of sugar water even if Coke and Pepsi did absolutely nothing that was anti-competitive.

And I think youre making the market out to be way more anti-competive than it is. New Coke sure as hell wouldnt have happened if they had managed to get a lock down on their market shares and stopped competing with each other. NC State wouldnt switch between the brands if they werent bidding against each other.

Quote :

"That's a nice academic argument, but I find it rather hard to believe that the demand curve is that much more elastic for beverages. The premise of your argument has to rest on the idea that soft drinks are "entertainment food," whereas food is mere sustenance -- but I don't exactly see McDonald's serving military-style MREs."

The premise of my argument is not that it is entertainment food. Its that youre a captive consumer (and some psychological elements of pricing).

Dont believe me? Walk into almost any small Chinese restaurant. A lot of the local ones dont have any type of soda deal and sell the shit straight from the can.

Watch as people enter, pay $5 for a heaping mound of chicken and then proceed to fork up $2 for a can of soda the guys just bought at the grocery store for less than 50c.

People have a much higher price tolerance for what they will pay for a beverage before taking their business elsewhere than they do with the food.

This is why every single restaurant business will push its profit margin toward the beverages (and side items and appetisers for similar reasons.)



[Edited on October 27, 2005 at 12:29 AM. Reason : ]

10/27/2005 12:23:51 AM

Quote :

"a) consumers pay too much for soft drinks because there is no competition b) the restaurants that compete with each other fight to drive down the cost, and therefore the quality, of their food because they rely on drinks for profit margins."

And I profit, Mr. Smoker4! You're just not smart enough to play the system! I cannot drink cola because my dentist tells me so
But it opens up opportunity! Because I cannot drink anything but water my food bill has dropped markedly. I routinely eat at Taco Bell for $2.50, just the sandwitch at Burger King is $2.89.
This allows the rich, you and everyone else that demands sugar-water with their meals, to subsidize the poor, everyone else that is willing to subsist on sugar-free sugar-water. Because if what you say is correct then the food is artificially cheap and the restaurant obviously planned it this way to broaden the potential clientel all the while maximizing profits from individuals willing and able to pay more.

If you don't like being taken advantage of in this manor then do as I suggested and bring your own drink or learn to subsist on water. Or, as if it needed to be said, go shop elsewhere.

10/27/2005 12:58:43 AM

Dude, visit a gastroenterologist for once.

10/27/2005 1:06:22 AM

Quote :

" I don't exactly see McDonald's serving military-style MREs. "

MREs are much better than McDonald's.

10/27/2005 1:31:03 AM

for the last time, mathfreak, a pediatrist cannot write you a prescription for a mouseketeer.

10/27/2005 1:31:26 AM

I Love mcdonalds...

Think about it: Double Quarter Pounder with cheese meal supersized and a cheeseburger..yummy!!

Im lovin it!

and Wal-Mart...Togetherrrr.

10/27/2005 1:48:56 AM

Quote :

"I think that they may be more concerned that with huge conglomerates like Wal_mart, that true competition may actually be stifled."

ding ding ding

10/27/2005 10:23:13 AM

how bout this, sam's choice tastes like ass compared to coke...im sorry it is true.

[Edited on October 27, 2005 at 10:54 AM. Reason : they had demz 100 years to perfect my sweetness]

10/27/2005 10:54:17 AM

Quote :

"You're saying i'm missing out on not seeing japanese pooping on themselves on the internet."

Yeah, that stuff is pretty hot

you know, if you're in to that kind of stuff

10/27/2005 10:56:14 AM

i miss IGA red cream

oh, and boonga boonga is highly superior to any other arcade game in the world

[Edited on October 27, 2005 at 10:59 AM. Reason : .]

10/27/2005 10:57:02 AM

First of all, generic sodas typically aren't as enjoyable as Coke products, or even Pepsi. However, there are some good ones. I really enjoy the generic sodas from Aldi, and they have the added benefit of only costing $1.89 for a 12 pack or $0.49 for a 2-liter.

Secondly, there are plenty of small, regional, brands that are available. Cheerwine kicks ass. There are literally dozens of brands of root beer, many of them very high quality.

Thirdly, there are still alternative beverages. I'd wager that - in the south at least - sweat tea still outsells carbonated soda in the restaurant business, if not in fast food. In addition to tea, there are sports drinks, juice drinks, and energy drinks of all sorts. Many of these are owned by Coke or Pepsi, but many are not. I have computer-oriented friends who seem to subsist entirely off of high-dollar energy drinks they buy in bulk online.

There is no one forcing you to buy coke or pepsi. If you buy it, it is only because you're willing to part with your $1.29 for a cup of sugar water. Regardless of the business structure, if people weren't willing to buy coke or pepsi, stores and restaurants simply wouldn't carry it.

However, complaining about voluntary exclusivity agreements and other business arangement is nothing more than an attack on the freedom of contract. Coke and Pepsi don't force anyone to consume their products, they are just the owners and producers of the most popular flavors of soft-drink. They are well within their rights to sell them conditionally. Those drinks don't belong to you, or to the restaurants. You are not entitled to carbonated beverages. You have no right to dictate the terms on which carbonated beverages may be sold. They are the property of Coke and Pepsi and they may do with them as they wish. When they screw up, as with new coke, the consumers can and do still excercise their choice and vote with their dollars.

10/27/2005 1:48:12 PM

I don't give a fuck about small as shitty electronic stores. If they sell the same product as Wal-mart for more, I'm going to Wal-mart.

Now small hardware stores are a different matter... home depot just has bad service.

10/27/2005 3:00:31 PM

there's nothing wrong w/ capitalism, only consumers.

if you dont like walmart, dont go there. if you dont like starbucks, dont go there. i don't.

its not the government's responsibility to regulate business, its ours.

10/27/2005 3:29:43 PM

you cant regulate when the only place to buy stuff is walmart.

[Edited on October 27, 2005 at 3:35 PM. Reason : !]

10/27/2005 3:35:04 PM

Nevermind the fact that nobody ever complains when they buy a DVD player for 30$.

I long for the days when people didn't talk out of their ass on every fucking topic because they have little to no understanding about different social systems.

10/27/2005 3:43:23 PM

Quote :

"you cant regulate when the only place to buy stuff is walmart."

eh? Where on planet earth is wal-mart the only retailer?
And if by some magic trick this ever happens, why not do more shopping on the internet?

10/27/2005 4:22:11 PM

^ my aunt lives in WV and the only place to buy shit is walmart. at least without driving far.

10/27/2005 4:33:35 PM