Chris,
You said:
"The problem is that *consumers* prefer McD, so other restaurants must
close and lay off workers who would prefer *non*-McD restaurants. -->
workers must switch to McD. Consumers prefer McD because they just want
low prices and don't care for the bad working conditions at McD that this
entails. The losers are the workers who have to cope with these bad
working conditions."
Chris, old friend, you are making a lot of assumptions.
The "problem" is not that consumers prefer McD, They wouldn't if the
competition was better. Of course consumers prefer quality at low prices.
You are assuming that consumers are wrong to do what is perfectly natural,
I'm sure you prefer paying less for something rather than more. In fact one
of the Basic Assumptions of Classical Political Economy is:
"People seek to satisfy their desires with the least exertion."
You make the large assumption that existing restaurant conditions were
better than those of McD. How do you know? I don't think that regular
restaurants have exactly a great reputation with regard to work conditions.
You said:
>McD consumers may understand things but still don't care, they just want
>low prices and give a damn about bad working conditions at McD.
Do you want to take from people their right to buy where they like? That's
their right. Further, you still assume that any alternative work had
better conditions than McD.
Sorry I missed your segue toward Microsoft. All of Microsofts power along
with their shameful use of it, rests on copyright and patent laws. These
are anti-free market and the market, in their absence, would squelch the
antics that the monopoly enjoyed.
However, getting rid of patents and copyrights is far too radical for most
modern liberals. In fact, their radicalism drowned in the wishy-washy
moderation that is now the mark of American liberalism.
Harry
________________________________________________
Chris wrote:
>Hi Harry,
>
>you replied:
> > Sorry, but the local people apparently prefer McDonalds to the
> alternatives.
> >
> > Sorry they are so ill-informed - but it's their choice.
> >
> > If these better jobs are there, why don't employees take them?
>
>The problem is that *consumers* prefer McD, so other restaurants must close
>and lay off workers who would prefer *non*-McD restaurants. --> workers must
>switch to McD. Consumers prefer McD because they just want low prices and
>don't care for the bad working conditions at McD that this entails. The
>losers are the workers who have to cope with these bad working conditions.
>
>
> > You must watch your language. You say:
> >
> > CHRIS: "Of course, the study ignores any possible alternative system(s)
> > that could exist if it wasn't for M$'s destructive behavior (and how much
> > more beneficial these other systems would be for the economy)..."
> >
> > The "alternative systems" were presumably in place before McDonalds. I
> > assume that the local people preferred Mac's to them. Perhaps you suggest
> > that they were an ignorant lot who don't understand things as well as
> we do.
>
>This referred to M$ = Micro$oft, not McDonalds.
>(systems = computer operating systems)
>
>McD consumers may understand things but still don't care, they just want
>low prices and give a damn about bad working conditions at McD.
That's their right. However, you are still assuming that any
alternative work had better conditions than McD.
> > You throw out "destructive behavior" as if you mean it. Maybe it isn't a
> > propaganda statement.
> >
> > What destructive behavior?
>
>The destructive behavior of Micro$oft on the software market's diversity
>and innovation. See http://www.kmfms.com/whatsbad.html and
>http://users.aol.com/machcu/msproducts.html for details on this.
>
>Chris
***************************************
Harry Pollard
Henry George School of Los Angeles
Box 655
Tujunga CA 91042
(818) 352-4141 -- Fax: 818 353-2242
***************************************
