When subtlety is anathema
Adoucette said:
Not at all since I don't think that McDonalds is almost singlehandedly responsible for childhood obesity.
I wouldn't go so far as to say "singlehandedly", but I get his point.
Are you always so curmudgeonly about your literalism?
Or is it possible that you might look to both the people (i.e., parents)
and the marketplace? That is, we can certainly acknowledge that consumers make some problematic choices, but as long as that is the end of it, we will never achieve any real progress.
Marketplace examples:
• Consumers have a choice between mobile phones, telecom carriers, and skipping the whole notion altogether.
—Effective participation in society often demands that people have some sort of mobile communication device.
• Okay, so I don't like the Droid information tracking system; I think it's sinister. So I'll get an iPhone. But wait. Apple's notorious info-tracking is already on the record. What about other mobile platforms?
—If the whole of the marketplace includes information tracking that consumers disdain, then what is the alternative? To opt out, and be demonstratively less effective?
• • •
• Many people like to eat food that has been prepared for them. Indeed, the restaurant sector of the service market is a tremendous economic influence in the United States; eliminating it (as a theoretical proposition) could bring disastrous results.
—Well, okay. McDonald's is really unhealthy. Well, in truth, Wendy's is only marginally less so. But I can afford to go someplace better. Maybe one of those restaurants like Chili's, which includes "appetizers" that exceed a nutritionist's recommended caloric intake and more sodium than a person ought to receive in a day.
—As a similar proposition—and, indeed, noting that there
are bland, unpopular alternatives—what are the implications if consumers suddenly cut out McDonald's, Pizza Hut, Chili's, Red Robin, Spaghetti Factory, or even the delicious but often no less unhealthy small businesses like Seattle's
Icon and
Amore? I mean, the best steak in town is
The Met, with
El Gaucho running close behind. But come on,
I can make a steak and potatoes dinner that is considerably less unhealthy than those.
We see this over and over again. Have you ever heard the figurative lament, "Five hundred channels, and nothing's on"?
All I'm getting at is that you need to reconsider your bizarre sense of literalism, and look beyond the most absolutely superficial interpretations of rhetoric. While I am an advocate of the principle that it is the responsibility of the broadcaster to transmit information in a manner that will be understood by the audience, there really is no point if the audience refuses communication.
In the case of my daughter, I'm kind of lucky. Sure, she likes McDonald's once in a while, but given her druthers, she would rather I spend three times as much for dinner at
The Rock. And while she certainly likes fettuccine alfredo at
The Old Spaghetti Factory, she likes
mine better.
Meanwhile, on the subject of McDonald's—and, certainly, there are other factors involved—it's worth noting that while I fell out of my exercise habit at the local gym, I didn't start putting on weight (including Thanksgiving dinner, regular pizza & beer nights at the
local pub, or even at a
chain restaurant) until I ate a McDonald's burger. And yes, I'm already aware that this is a regular phenomenon. No, I haven't done the hard science to establish it as a valid and reliable outcome, but in general terms of everyday life, I don't expect everyone to become biochemists or nutritionists in order to figure out their optimal diet any more than I expect people to get M.D.s to second-guess their prescription regimen, or Psy.D.s in order to be happy. Not everyone should have to be an IT experts to use the web without various firms peeking in on their every keystroke. Imagine the implications for voting ....
And, hey, voting is another case of the perils of a free market. You know, the whole
Douche and Turd proposition?
To be certain, there is a relationship between consumer expectations and marketplace availability, but there also comes a point when consumer expectations are
shaped by marketplace availability.
Not all of the information people needed was readily available to them when consumers helped shape the marketplace. That's why massive, unhealthy portions at restaurants are so popular. To the other, I
never ate lentil soup in my lifetime until I was in England last year. And, no, bacon and lentil soup with a pint of ale is not the
healthiest supper on the planet, but for pub food, it sure as hell beats deep fried cheese. Nor would anyone have ever predicted that I would choose a
salad of toasted goat-cheese over radicchio and red kale with raspberry mustard dressing, but not only was the "starter" at
1331 in York enough to count as a meal for me, but it was certainly a healthier bet than lamb shank with butter-glazed carrots and rich gravy, or a bacon cheeseburger with chips.
To the other, I'm of age to eat and drink in pubs. Even looking upscale—i.e., a
nine-dollar salad with goat cheese and fourteen different greens that is actually worth the money—it is hard to find places to take my daughter that aren't grotesquely unhealthy. I mean, sure, there are some vegan places in Seattle, but even my daughter is aware that, for cheese pizza, mac and cheese, or anything else
Cafe Flora, to pick an example at random, offers her, just isn't all that good.
Beyond your strange pseudo-literalism, I would suggest that while consumers shape the marketplace, they only do so within certain parameters; that is, they shape the marketplace within the boundaries it sets itself. Yes, on some occasions, innovations overcome marketplace resistance to flourish and redefine those boundaries, but by and large, our increased childhood obesity phenomenon in this country is a marketplace outcome. It is a result of marketplace competition.
And there is, of course, a solution. People should just stop going to restaurants. After all, consumers could certainly force healthier fare and portions on the marketplace by doing so, but inevitably the market would creep back toward its unhealthy norm.
In the end, the question invoked by Asguard's rhetoric which you find so objectionable is much more subtle than your inanity permits.
And, besides, I would point to high fructose corn syrup as much as fast food. And what kills me most about the HFCS issue is that I actually prefer foods without it. I mean, sure, it sounds silly that I might specifically shop for a bottle of
ketchup without HFCS. But once I found one, yeah, actually, I like it better than the usual stuff. Same thing, actually, with
Pepsi. No, really. I picked up some Pepsi throwback, had a flashback to my childhood, and wondered why the hell people have been drinking the cola-swill dominating the market for the last twenty to thirty years.
It comes back to consumers, and what the legion taste tests suggested. But that's how the marketplace worked. Consumers chose between the available options, which were determined for the most part by the manufacturers. For years, "natural" sodas, or "Mexican" Coke, made with sugar instead of concentrated hypersugar, were more expensive. And we can knock consumers for being a thoughtless flock, but what is the alternative? How many of us should be mechanical engineers, so that no local garage can rip us off for car repairs? Or statisticians, so that we can best reduce our chances of accidental injury or death?
At some point, we have to look at the marketplace. After all, one of the eternal questions of capitalism is how to knock down the overhead while jacking up the market price.
The idea that the parents are responsible for their children's obesity is not anathema. But neither should consideration of the marketplace.
Leaping to the point of children taking themselves to McDonald's to buy their own food is just a cheap way to avoid the myriad subtle facets of reality.
