In Praise of McCafe

[mRx 16]

You find this interesting why? It's full of the usual suspects, dodgy premise and supposition. This isn't clever or interseting although the machine itself obviously is no matter what ####### McDonalds stuff it with

Products once reserved for the elite are quickly being made available to the poor guy with the loose change in his pocket.

I think it's very interesting. It's not dodgy, premiseless, or any other vacuous title you attribute to it.

I perhpas should point out that I am not interested in the fate of Starbucks either.

Of course. You're interested in an imaginative world of "equality"-- An "equality" of poverty.

What kind of stupid statement is that? Latte isn't expensive enough in any establishment to be 'reserved' for the elite. Dodgy premise number one.

Oh, and I am not interested in some arbitary notion of 'equality' that implies 'bringing one section of society down to the level of another section of society - there is nothing I have ever posted that supports that supposition.

But a condition that lifts one section of society up to a level of another society is equally uninteresting?

The article is focusing on this seemingly insignificant occurance to illustrate a much broader point: that free competition leads to efficiency, lower costs, and subsequently raises the standards of all members of society--It's not a dodgy premise.

Considering your concern for the poor, I figured this would brighten your Sunday morning.

Ah, is that the point of the article - not some jab at socialism then?

Here's the problem using such a poor example from my stand point. Starbucks did not invent the latte (or any of the other souped up coffee concoctions) and these drinks have always been available and at a cheap price. Starbucks simply packaged it in a way that suited a certain demographic - McDonald's to another but if you are interested in good coffee you probably will not buy these things in either establishment, but brew your own - or go to an Italian or French cafe. In other words, expensive advertising budgets can make you think that you have got a bargain but the reality is that often these bargains truly suck

OK, first coffee hasn't always been available at a cheap price. It was once expensive, and available only to the wealthy.

Consumers may desire commercially-brewed coffee as opposed to home-made or gourmet for a myriad of reasons. The quality of the coffee is moot. Consumers, collectively, formed a sizable market for quick, commercially-produced coffee.

The point is-- Capitalism and the competition that entailed, led to such previously reserved for the rich goods to be available to the masses-- And again, the scope of this "virtuous cycle" is by no means limited to coffee.

[mRx 16]

The facts: McDonalds has introduced a product which challeges Starbuck's market share. This product is comparable, and costs about 20% less. Starbucks has adjusted prices in an attempt to reclaim market share.

This is a victory of the consumer. Plain and simple.

The sad thing is that a giant like McDonalds is about the only thing that could have an influence/competition over Starbucks... they all but squashed the little guys (hence the 'tribe' turning against them)...

They all start as little guys.

Starbucks was local to the Seattle-area for it's first 20 or so years. It's business was highly desired and demanded by consumers, which led to their rapid expansion.

Consumers ultimately determine which company lives or dies, not rival businesses.

[Otto 83]

Starbucks was local to the Seattle-area for it's first 20 or so years. It's business was highly desired and demanded by consumers, which led to their rapid expansion.

Consumers ultimately determine which company lives or dies, not rival businesses.

True to a point - I've read 'pour your heart into it' - but a great deal of their expansion was not due to consumer demand but rather market domination.

[Tahoma 2,292]

Starbucks was in trouble and started closing stores long before McCafe was rolled out. Both suck big time, by the way.

Yes, Starbucks was in trouble before McCafe rolled out.

At least Starbucks pays much better wages than Mac's and has a (relatively) decent healthcare plan.

[Arabella 4]

Tim Hortons is better than everything else

Cheap and delicious.

I have been many many times to Canada and Tim Hortons is a second rate Dunkin Donuts.

My fiance would kill me for saying this . . . but I was not all that impressed with Tim Horton's either.

I love Starbuck's Chai Latte iced tea, but I don't like paying nearly $5 for it. My local grocery store (Publix) sells the Starbucks Chai Latte and I just mix it with milk. It's $3.99 for a mx that makes probably 8 servings. Good deal!

Edited August 23, 2009 by Arabella

[Tahoma 2,292]

You find this interesting why? It's full of the usual suspects, dodgy premise and supposition. This isn't clever or interseting although the machine itself obviously is no matter what ####### McDonalds stuff it with

Products once reserved for the elite are quickly being made available to the poor guy with the loose change in his pocket.

I think it's very interesting. It's not dodgy, premiseless, or any other vacuous title you attribute to it.

I perhpas should point out that I am not interested in the fate of Starbucks either.

Of course. You're interested in an imaginative world of "equality"-- An "equality" of poverty.

What kind of stupid statement is that? Latte isn't expensive enough in any establishment to be 'reserved' for the elite. Dodgy premise number one.

Oh, and I am not interested in some arbitary notion of 'equality' that implies 'bringing one section of society down to the level of another section of society - there is nothing I have ever posted that supports that supposition.

But a condition that lifts one section of society up to a level of another society is equally uninteresting?

The article is focusing on this seemingly insignificant occurance to illustrate a much broader point: that free competition leads to efficiency, lower costs, and subsequently raises the standards of all members of society--It's not a dodgy premise.

Considering your concern for the poor, I figured this would brighten your Sunday morning.

So...the poor downtrodden masses can now afford to buy a daily fix of caffeine at Mac's instead of a fix every other day at Starbucks. That's deep! Thank goodness for Mac's, because the unwashed masses soon may not even be allowed to enter a Starbucks.

I wonder what revelations Jeffrey Tucker and his buddy, Hans-Hermann Hoppe, come up with next at their Austrian libertarian think tank. Maybe they will tell us why caffeine addiction "raises the standards of all members of society." Or maybe how libertarian free markets don't lead to monopolies.

Your subjective views of caffeine and other sinful consumer desirables are entirely irrelevant. I see it's the same 'ol nihil ad rem posts from you.

The facts: McDonalds has introduced a product which challeges Starbuck's market share. This product is comparable, and costs about 20% less. Starbucks has adjusted prices in an attempt to reclaim market share.

This is a victory of the consumer. Plain and simple.

Did you even read your link? Where does it say that Starbucks cut their prices as a result of McCafe? Where does it say that Starbucks lost customers to Mac's? Same 'ol BS "proof" from you.

But, I will say this: the puff-piece original posting is truly a chuckle. It barely rises to the level of a giddy, breathless teenager's term paper, yet it is was written by a libertarian think tanker. Time to find a new think tank.

[GabiandVi 34]

I, for one, was glad to see Starbucks humbled. Coming from a city with a long history of coffee importation and purveying, I was not happy when many of our small, old coffee houses were run out of business by Starbucks. I'm not a coffee drinker, but I never saw the draw of Starbucks. It always seemed like a contradiction to me. It was so "PC" but it seemed to use the same commercial tactics many of its admirers speak out against.

[Danno 1,228]

I, for one, was glad to see Starbucks humbled. Coming from a city with a long history of coffee importation and purveying, I was not happy when many of our small, old coffee houses were run out of business by Starbucks. I'm not a coffee drinker, but I never saw the draw of Starbucks. It always seemed like a contradiction to me. It was so "PC" but it seemed to use the same commercial tactics many of its admirers speak out against.

I "second" what she said.

I am a coffee drinker and my wife likes the more expensive drinks but it's not often she drinks them as they are way to pricey for her.

I agree with some others, I don't even like to use Starbucks as it feels so friggin plastic, McDonalds is plastic too but it never pretends not to be.

The point is, market competition delivers good things to the customer.

I know this because I am a victim of it myself in my business.

In fact I will give anyone listening a free tip, anytime you are going to have someone give you an estm. for work done.... always in a clever way let the person know you will be getting other prices.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Starbucks was in trouble and started closing stores long before McCafe was rolled out. Both suck big time, by the way.

Yes, Starbucks was in trouble before McCafe rolled out.

At least Starbucks pays much better wages than Mac's and has a (relatively) decent healthcare plan.

Yeah, good point. Frequenting McD's is essentially fueling the race to the bottom - on top of consuming poor quality food and beverages.

I don't care for the quality of Starbucks' coffee - burned and oily are the two words that come to mind when thinking of Starbucks.

[chri'stina 190]

The facts: McDonalds has introduced a product which challeges Starbuck's market share. This product is comparable, and costs about 20% less. Starbucks has adjusted prices in an attempt to reclaim market share.

This is a victory of the consumer. Plain and simple.

The sad thing is that a giant like McDonalds is about the only thing that could have an influence/competition over Starbucks... they all but squashed the little guys (hence the 'tribe' turning against them)...

They all start as little guys.

Starbucks was local to the Seattle-area for it's first 20 or so years. It's business was highly desired and demanded by consumers, which led to their rapid expansion.

Consumers ultimately determine which company lives or dies, not rival businesses.

People get mad when something gets too big sometimes. But if people like something and are willing to pay for it, enough to let the company grow and open new locations, what are you going to do? It becomes one of those "Now that everyone else likes it/buys it too, I hate it" things. I find it silly.

[mRx 16]

You find this interesting why? It's full of the usual suspects, dodgy premise and supposition. This isn't clever or interseting although the machine itself obviously is no matter what ####### McDonalds stuff it with

Products once reserved for the elite are quickly being made available to the poor guy with the loose change in his pocket.

I think it's very interesting. It's not dodgy, premiseless, or any other vacuous title you attribute to it.

I perhpas should point out that I am not interested in the fate of Starbucks either.

Of course. You're interested in an imaginative world of "equality"-- An "equality" of poverty.

What kind of stupid statement is that? Latte isn't expensive enough in any establishment to be 'reserved' for the elite. Dodgy premise number one.

Oh, and I am not interested in some arbitary notion of 'equality' that implies 'bringing one section of society down to the level of another section of society - there is nothing I have ever posted that supports that supposition.

But a condition that lifts one section of society up to a level of another society is equally uninteresting?

The article is focusing on this seemingly insignificant occurance to illustrate a much broader point: that free competition leads to efficiency, lower costs, and subsequently raises the standards of all members of society--It's not a dodgy premise.

Considering your concern for the poor, I figured this would brighten your Sunday morning.

So...the poor downtrodden masses can now afford to buy a daily fix of caffeine at Mac's instead of a fix every other day at Starbucks. That's deep! Thank goodness for Mac's, because the unwashed masses soon may not even be allowed to enter a Starbucks.

I wonder what revelations Jeffrey Tucker and his buddy, Hans-Hermann Hoppe, come up with next at their Austrian libertarian think tank. Maybe they will tell us why caffeine addiction "raises the standards of all members of society." Or maybe how libertarian free markets don't lead to monopolies.

Your subjective views of caffeine and other sinful consumer desirables are entirely irrelevant. I see it's the same 'ol nihil ad rem posts from you.

The facts: McDonalds has introduced a product which challeges Starbuck's market share. This product is comparable, and costs about 20% less. Starbucks has adjusted prices in an attempt to reclaim market share.

This is a victory of the consumer. Plain and simple.

Where does it say that Starbucks cut their prices as a result of McCafe? Where does it say that Starbucks lost customers to Mac's? Same 'ol BS "proof" from you.

Their price adjustments correalate perfectly to their competition. (Price cuts on lattes and cappuccinos, [where the McDonalds competition is] and raises on speciality drinks [where their market share is relatively secure]). This is a fact.

I don't buy Starbuck's statement about price-adjustments being due to the "recession". They're scared.

But it seems like you are incapable of following logic, and are dependant on being farm-fed your "facts". It couldn't possibly be true, if the mainstream media hasn't reported it to you, right?

You appear more incompetent with each post.

Edited August 24, 2009 by -Matt-

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

You find this interesting why? It's full of the usual suspects, dodgy premise and supposition. This isn't clever or interseting although the machine itself obviously is no matter what ####### McDonalds stuff it with

Products once reserved for the elite are quickly being made available to the poor guy with the loose change in his pocket.

I think it's very interesting. It's not dodgy, premiseless, or any other vacuous title you attribute to it.

I perhpas should point out that I am not interested in the fate of Starbucks either.

Of course. You're interested in an imaginative world of "equality"-- An "equality" of poverty.

What kind of stupid statement is that? Latte isn't expensive enough in any establishment to be 'reserved' for the elite. Dodgy premise number one.

Oh, and I am not interested in some arbitary notion of 'equality' that implies 'bringing one section of society down to the level of another section of society - there is nothing I have ever posted that supports that supposition.

But a condition that lifts one section of society up to a level of another society is equally uninteresting?

The article is focusing on this seemingly insignificant occurance to illustrate a much broader point: that free competition leads to efficiency, lower costs, and subsequently raises the standards of all members of society--It's not a dodgy premise.

Considering your concern for the poor, I figured this would brighten your Sunday morning.

So...the poor downtrodden masses can now afford to buy a daily fix of caffeine at Mac's instead of a fix every other day at Starbucks. That's deep! Thank goodness for Mac's, because the unwashed masses soon may not even be allowed to enter a Starbucks.

I wonder what revelations Jeffrey Tucker and his buddy, Hans-Hermann Hoppe, come up with next at their Austrian libertarian think tank. Maybe they will tell us why caffeine addiction "raises the standards of all members of society." Or maybe how libertarian free markets don't lead to monopolies.

Your subjective views of caffeine and other sinful consumer desirables are entirely irrelevant. I see it's the same 'ol nihil ad rem posts from you.

The facts: McDonalds has introduced a product which challeges Starbuck's market share. This product is comparable, and costs about 20% less. Starbucks has adjusted prices in an attempt to reclaim market share.

This is a victory of the consumer. Plain and simple.

Where does it say that Starbucks cut their prices as a result of McCafe? Where does it say that Starbucks lost customers to Mac's? Same 'ol BS "proof" from you.

Their price adjustments correalate perfectly to their competition. (Price cuts on lattes and cappuccinos, [where the McDonalds competition is] and raises on speciality drinks [where their market share is relatively secure]). This is a fact.

I don't buy Starbuck's statement about price-adjustments being due to the "recession". They're scared.

But it seems like you are incapable of following logic, and are dependant on being farm-fed your "facts". It couldn't possibly be true, if the mainstream media hasn't reported it to you, right?

You appear more incompetent with each post.

Stabucks started to make adjustments to their strategy announcing store closings and layoffs starting in July 2008 with additional closings being announced in January of 2009. McCafe was introduced nationwide in May of 2009. I suppose the anticipation of the upcoming competition from McD's which was still almost a year out caused Starbucks to make these damatic changes to their overall strategy?

[mRx 16]

You find this interesting why? It's full of the usual suspects, dodgy premise and supposition. This isn't clever or interseting although the machine itself obviously is no matter what ####### McDonalds stuff it with

Products once reserved for the elite are quickly being made available to the poor guy with the loose change in his pocket.

I think it's very interesting. It's not dodgy, premiseless, or any other vacuous title you attribute to it.

I perhpas should point out that I am not interested in the fate of Starbucks either.

Of course. You're interested in an imaginative world of "equality"-- An "equality" of poverty.

What kind of stupid statement is that? Latte isn't expensive enough in any establishment to be 'reserved' for the elite. Dodgy premise number one.

Oh, and I am not interested in some arbitary notion of 'equality' that implies 'bringing one section of society down to the level of another section of society - there is nothing I have ever posted that supports that supposition.

But a condition that lifts one section of society up to a level of another society is equally uninteresting?

The article is focusing on this seemingly insignificant occurance to illustrate a much broader point: that free competition leads to efficiency, lower costs, and subsequently raises the standards of all members of society--It's not a dodgy premise.

Considering your concern for the poor, I figured this would brighten your Sunday morning.

So...the poor downtrodden masses can now afford to buy a daily fix of caffeine at Mac's instead of a fix every other day at Starbucks. That's deep! Thank goodness for Mac's, because the unwashed masses soon may not even be allowed to enter a Starbucks.

I wonder what revelations Jeffrey Tucker and his buddy, Hans-Hermann Hoppe, come up with next at their Austrian libertarian think tank. Maybe they will tell us why caffeine addiction "raises the standards of all members of society." Or maybe how libertarian free markets don't lead to monopolies.

Your subjective views of caffeine and other sinful consumer desirables are entirely irrelevant. I see it's the same 'ol nihil ad rem posts from you.

The facts: McDonalds has introduced a product which challeges Starbuck's market share. This product is comparable, and costs about 20% less. Starbucks has adjusted prices in an attempt to reclaim market share.

This is a victory of the consumer. Plain and simple.

Where does it say that Starbucks cut their prices as a result of McCafe? Where does it say that Starbucks lost customers to Mac's? Same 'ol BS "proof" from you.

Their price adjustments correalate perfectly to their competition. (Price cuts on lattes and cappuccinos, [where the McDonalds competition is] and raises on speciality drinks [where their market share is relatively secure]). This is a fact.

I don't buy Starbuck's statement about price-adjustments being due to the "recession". They're scared.

But it seems like you are incapable of following logic, and are dependant on being farm-fed your "facts". It couldn't possibly be true, if the mainstream media hasn't reported it to you, right?

You appear more incompetent with each post.

Stabucks started to make adjustments to their strategy announcing store closings and layoffs starting in July 2008 with additional closings being announced in January of 2009. McCafe was introduced nationwide in May of 2009. I suppose the anticipation of the upcoming competition from McD's which was still almost a year out caused Starbucks to make these damatic changes to their overall strategy?

Funny. Where in the above post did I mention anything at all about store closures? If you actually read my post--instead of going off on one of your fragmented tirades--you'll see that the recently announced price adjustments are a direct reaction to competitive pressure from McDonald's.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Starbucks was in trouble and started closing stores long before McCafe was rolled out. Both suck big time, by the way.

I know they were having some financial difficulties and closed a bunch of locations that weren't profitable, but the article I read in the paper the other day showed that they actually opened more stores last year than were actually closed...

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

What kind of stupid statement is that? Latte isn't expensive enough in any establishment to be 'reserved' for the elite.

I thought that was kinda funny too - a latte is a product of the elite?

Last I checked (and I get my coffee from Starbucks on a daily basis - in fact, I was down there about 45 minutes ago) Starbucks caters to a fairly wide range of clientele. The location I go to services my office building (because its right in the foyer) - so most of the customers there are white collar workers (oh noes - the elites!).

Most of the standalone locations around the city (and pretty much all the ones I've been to in NJ, and CA) tend to attract everyone from cops, tourists and college students. College students in particular use Starbucks in much the same way that UK students use pubs.

Elite it ain't.

Edited August 24, 2009 by Private Pike