Jeciron - 05 February 2013 07:10 AM

I heard an story on NPR the other day that Europeans had found that much of the hamburger they’d been buying was adulterated with pork and horse.  Pretty heavily too.  You’d think Yahweh or Allah would have let their people know.  Apparently horse is good for you anyway, less fat, more protein.

The discussion about food versus profit raises a question:  Does the capitalist system do a good job accounting for intangible value?  I don’t really have an answer, but the phenomenon of the millionaire franchise owner selling lowest acceptable quality food contrasted to to the failing individual chef/restaurant providing the best food they can make seems worth looking at.  Does this system not reward quality endeavors or even undermine them?  I don’t really have an answer, or even a strong opinion, but I regret seeing quality and integrity struggle and so often fail.  And, the initial post raises a question about how capitalism values service.

Good points.

I don’t go to any of these places - not Applebee’s, Olive Garden, Red Lobster, TGIF, Fuddruckers, etc. partially because the food is somewhat poor quality, partially because I don’t totally trust the staff not to fart in the order, but mainly I dislike the atmosphere, and the majority of the patrons who go there.  I seems to be at odds with most of America though, because they do like these establishments.

I suppose a chef who is trying to run their own unique place will attempt to provide a different atmosphere, different menu, etc. and this takes money - which they are probably not making.

It really is true that there not much “room for the little guy”, and this seems more strongly true in the restauraunt field.  So capitialism doesn’t do a good job accounting for intangible value,IMO.

I was just hoping someone else would have a better answer than me, one I could get embrace with more enthusiasm.

To do a slight variation of what Winston Churchill supposedly said: “Capitalism is the worst of all possible systems, except for all the others.”

This is why I try to avoid focusing on institutions or political/economic philosophies. The systems are rarely the problem, but the people who find ways to work them are.

It’s all about the people involved.

The validity of executive pay is under scrutiny by people with far greater insight than I possess.  Dan Ariely, in his book “Predictably Irrational”,  has looked at the issue in some depth and I found reference to this study.  It may be that the value of executive ability is over rated.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/23/business/ceos-and-the-pay-em-or-lose-em-myth-fair-game.html?_r=0

I’ve read that in some of the countries where the companies which provide the stiffest competition for U. S. based corporations are located have far more equitable CEO to Worker salary ratios.

This article is from a Catholic publication, believe it or not.  (Guess it shouldn’t count )

http://vox-nova.com/2012/03/03/ceo-pay-ratios/

Jeciron - 04 February 2013 06:58 AM

Aside from the ethical issues, (I’m completely on the worker’s side), I think I’d avoid eating at a place where the staff have little or no access to health care simply because the idea of someone with untreated TB or hepatitis preparing my salad kind of messes with my appetite.  If people can’t see universal access to healthcare as a right, maybe they could at least see it as an asset to society, like a fire department or public water and sewer systems.

Good point.

It may be that the value of executive ability is over rated.

Anybody who watched how and why the economy of the whole bloody planet tanked 5 years ago could have told you that!;-)