You must log in or # to comment.
Capitalism itself rarely invents new things, but it does optimize existing things quite well
Though what it tries to optimize it for isn’t always what is best for the consumer
Chicken sandwiches used to be so much better. Now it occasionally feels like I’m biting into a tire. I don’t understand this business strategy.
Its simple, capitalism treats the consumer like cattle, and the optimization of profit drives them to replace real quality products with cheaper and cheaper substitutes over time until you’re expected to bite into that tire and go “wow, this chicken is delicious”
But I just stopped buying them instead.
Unfortunately, you’re the minority.
Most people seem to as economic actors behave quite a lot like cattle, which is why treating them as cattle works…
I just broke into the fast food chain’s headquarters to find the secret formula. Next year’s recipe is going to be this between two buns:
I don’t understand this business strategy.
You still bought it and they saved money. Profit!
Even the almighty Chick-fil-A has seemed lower quality the last 3-4 times I went. Used to never get chewy chicken from them.
Maybe one day you’ll stop hating gay people too.
They recently stopped donating to anti-LGBTQ orgs, for what it’s worth.
They’ve said that every single time they’ve been called out for their actions before. If you support them, you hate gay people. End of discussion.
As a gay person with plenty of unrelated self-loathing, that tracks
Could be the supply chain or that location? The only chicken sandwiches that are worth are CFA and MCD.
Woody breast syndrome?
Damn chicken steroids.
Indeed. People like to claim that capitalism is the most efficient system, but what it’s efficient at is transferring wealth to the ownership class.
That’s what efficiency means in context, and in practice.
Well, everything is learned in comparison. I lived in USSR, and that OP meme for USSR would be just an empty frame. At least under capitalism there is this wealth that is being transferred and if it is democratic capitalism then a safety net can be created to correct for capitalism failures.
To be honest, the whole farce is the capitalism vs socialism argument anyway. It was just a an idea so that we can do us vs them.
We should be doing what’s best for the country each and every time as best we can. In some cases this may mean socialism when providing free education which then enhances capitalismn having a smarter country average of people.
The problem is people don’t realise we’re not really capitalist. When everything’s good for companies rich CEO’s blame capitalismnin why they keep their fat pay checks and why if you don’t like it you should leave. When everything’s bad, CEO’s blame society in why they deserve a free government bail out. Because the truth is, either way it’s the people who get screwed over.
Sure we may have many companies with competing products (usually only 2 big ones) that’s supposed to bring competition. Until you realise they’re all largely owned by two main shareholder groups.
Simply having it worse doesn’t validate something that’s not quite as bad. The whole reason it’s called capitalism is because the driving factor is capital and everything else is secondary. It was literally made as a replacement to monarchies because the nobles and merchants already held all the money and could keep their undeserved power.
You should know as well as anyone else that you didn’t live under communism in the USSR. The USSR was stuck in the place on the way to communism because people didn’t want to give up their power. It was basically state-run capitalism at that point.
Correcting for the failures of capitalism is a waste of time when better systems exist that don’t require going all-in on extreme ideologies. If it takes bringing up the disaster that was the USSR to make it sound good then it’s just a joke and shouldn’t be taken seriously.
USSR economic system is called socialism, which is a step in direction to communism. Given that this might be a particular flavor of socialism/capitalism, nothing significantly different was tried experimentally, so to say.
I also disagree with the certainty of you last statement claiming that a better system exists, which I assume you mean communism. Existence of such system on paper does not mean that it works in practice. It is possible, and in my opinion is very likely that particular features of human brain, of human psychology makes the system relying only on altruism to be less effective that the system that relies also on material interests.
It is plausible that in future, with different level of economic development, and with possibility to directly modify brain pathways (or transferring to silicon all together) the situation can be different and better system may exist. But with current biological humans and present development level? I seriously doubt that.
What better system exists?
Holy shit this is a reach. “Maybe you can’t afford to live under capitalism, but that guy on a yacht is having a nice time, so it’s really all worth it. Imagine if we all couldn’t afford to live? Then you couldn’t see that guy’s cool yacht!”
That’s clearly not the situation in the most developed western democracies.
that’s not what efficiency means in context. Stop spreading ignorance.
Also source in the claim that capitalism is the most efficient system?
My source is communists claiming that capitalism is too efficient and mean for their system to compete against
Capitalism is also highly adept at taking the credit for the inventions and innovations of talented engineers and other scientists.
(Pictured: a now deceased deadbeat dad/marketer/capitalist/new age medicine enthusiast who never invented anything, but sure did enjoy wearing turtlenecks)Steve Wozniak: makes hardware and writes the software
Steve jobs:
I can’t find it anymore, but there was an excellent Youtube vid or podcast about the components and integrations of an iPhone and how almost none of them were new inventions even though their particular use was patented by Apple, and they were in fact mostly publicly funded projects! University grants, AR&D defense contracts, infrastructure allocations, open source, etc.
GPS, touchscreen, LCDs, cell networks, HTTP, GPS, IMUs, basically every file format on the thing aside from distribution formats, much of the SDK and the foundations of the IDE.
Capitalism does not foster innovation. It fosters opportunism. The public sector takes the 1-in-a-million risk inventing something like HTTP, and carefully nurses small saplings into a sprawling fruit-bearing orchard, then the private sector comes along and harvests it, taking credit for inventing the apple. (Pun intended)
Capitalism only ever optimizes along the “maximum profitability for the seller” axis, and buyers only ever benefit if there is a ton of competition and it’s a low brand recognition domain (otherwise the profitavility optimization mostly just ends up influencing marketing, not price or quality) and only ever whilst said situation lasts (the profit optimization will also tend to end high-competition low brand recognition situations if possible as that’s not optimal for profitability).
Optimization is only a guaranteed good thing for those who benefit ftom what is deemed the optimal state or direction of improvement and in Capitalism that’s the ones taking the profits.
Capitalism itself rarely invents new things
I don’t know that it even makes sense to say that capitalism (or socialism, or communism) invented something, but it seems fair to say that most of inventing we’ve seen in the modern world was done in a capitalistic system.
Sure, it’s not really the economic model itself doing the inventing, but people like to say that there couldn’t be any innovation under any economic model but capitalism.
But more often than not, new technologies come from universities since investing in potential technologies is risky, it’s much safer to invest in refining an existing one. Meanwhile universities are more willing to spend money on research for researchs sake
Take the language models that are all the rage these days, the underlying technology was created at a university, then once it existed, companies took it and pretty much just made them bigger and more easily available
Computers, screens, modern encryption, lithium batteries, the internet, touchscreens, wifi, i could go on. Your phone is pretty much just a pile of parts that were invented at an university, then made smaller, cheaper and assembled together by a company
And while some of those university projects were also externally funded, it was usually state funded, usually for their military applications
It does spread and apply new things fairly well though even if it doesn’t invent them as much.
This is a dumb post
Yeah. All of these chicken sandwiches tastes different, and I like having choices.
It’s like getting mad at different fast food restaurant for all selling hamburgers.
Huh… good point, i didnt think about it like that, and it kinda does bring the whole post down into something like “old man yells at cloud” kinda thing but with the twist being more like “Young snowflake yells at chicken burger”.
But i think the point being made in the meme its still valid, that being the chase for infinte grow doesnt really promote innovation, instead it just promotes copying what already works while not really improving the thing and not making peoples lifes better, and that they would rather do that than to invest into something that could make peoples lifes better because that wouldnt make as much money ore would be to risky, but i feel like this is more aplicable into artistic industries like movies and music or even with tech industries, while in gastronomy it really is just offers more variety, otherwise what? You would have to get the same chicken burger from the same corporation and thats monopoly and its bad. Probably a better example would have been with smartphones, specially the apple ones.
Sorry for the rant btw, i just got al this realizations in my brain and had to dump them somewhere.
But i think the point being made in the meme its still valid, that being the chase for infinte grow doesnt really promote innovation, instead it just promotes copying what already works while not really improving the thing and not making peoples lifes better
I think the meme is unintentionally making the opposite point. All these chicken sandwiches don’t taste the same. I enjoy spicy chicken so I’ve tried a handful of them, and there’s marked differences in flavor. There still is innovation, in trying to create the tastiest spicy chicken sandwich. If they all tasted the exact same, I’d agree.
I said the one its trying to make, not the one it ends up making.
The one it ends up making its just the example i gave earlier, that being “Young snowflake yells at chicken burger”
Don’t worry about the rant, we’re all here to chat about whatever. Most of us, anyways.
You would have to get the same chicken burger from the same corporation and thats monopoly and its bad.
Yeah, many people have an objection to Chick-fil-A due to their um… views, and they should have the option to get a greasy fried chicken sandwich somewhere else. (Or on Sundays)
but i feel like this is more aplicable into artistic industries like movies and music or even with tech industries
It’s more that the people who are funding these who don’t want to take risks, right? Many of them are trying to replicate what works due to the aversion for risks, instead of trying to make something that’s good.
Yes thats all true, im aware that not everyone whants or even needs to pursue innovation and that is good, not everybody is steve jobs nor james cameron nor they should be, but it does become a problem when they copy way to much, like for example disney movies, How many movies have had a main character become grumpy because they lost a loved one? Im talking indiana jhones, luke skywalker, han solo, obi wan and nick fury i hear even if i hadnt really seen their series and i heard that in hounted mansion movie too, hell two of those are the same actor.
They are just copying what has worked in the past ( i think its the Logan movie they are copying but im not sure) and made products with doubius quality while burning thons of money without making any of it back, specially with indiana jhones wich seems to be the biggest bomb ever.
They could have used all those billions into making something good or just straight up donate it to charity, or just spend it in something with a better return of investnent like heroin, but they thrown it from a bridge chasing trends, making no bodies lifes better nor happier and probably had an impact on the market somehow, even though fuck the market, but a lot of people other than the super rich do eat from it.
Or at least thats my perspective on this. Again sorry for the length.
I don’t see how selling a similar looking chicken burger means there’s no innovation. Innovation in how the end product looks is just one form of innovation, and there are many more. Innovation in marketing, innovation in management practices, innovation in ingredients and sourcing, innovation in kitchen effiency, innovation in customer interaction, innovation in franchising and corporate structure, innovation in restaurant design, innovation in niche capitalization, innovation in novel products to attract groups, and I’m sure many more I can’t think of.
Cmon m8, with all due respect dont be debating semantics.
Of course there are diferences in the burgers and the entities that sell them, after all they are not made by the same people, the idea is the same in the product, and a chicken burger is not really a concept that should be judged with it being original or not, kinda like oatmeal or hooks or screws, like of course there are diferences, but that wasnt the point this dumb meme was trying to make, it was that companoes just copy each other in the pursuit for endless revenue and dont like totake risks in products that could make peoples lifes better, thats what its trying to say, now what it acctually says its that “capitalism bad cuz same chicken burger junk food” and ends up falling on its face and looking more like an “old man yells at cloud” kinda deal, but instead of a clowd its chicken burgers and instead of old man is a young snowflake.
Yeah I get the idea, “right wingers say capitalism leads to innovation yet these chicken burgers all look the same”. My point in semantics was to say there is a lot more to innovation than the appearance of the end product.
it was that companies just copy each other in the pursuit for endless revenue and don’t like to take risks in products that could make people’s lives better
That’s still not a valid point. There are all kinds of products being released all the time that make people’s lives better. (Don’t mistake that for claiming that all products from all companies make people’s lives better, or that capitalism is the only way to have that happen.)
Im just gonna copy and paste another comment i already made about that:
Yes thats all true, im aware that not everyone whants or even needs to pursue innovation and that is good, not everybody is steve jobs nor james cameron nor they should be, but it does become a problem when they copy way to much, like for example disney movies, How many movies have had a main character become grumpy because they lost a loved one? Im talking indiana jhones, luke skywalker, han solo, obi wan and nick fury i hear even if i hadnt really seen their series and i heard that in hounted mansion movie too, hell two of those are the same actor.
They are just copying what has worked in the past ( i think its the Logan movie they are copying but im not sure) and made products with doubius quality while burning thons of money without making any of it back, specially with indiana jhones wich seems to be the biggest bomb ever.
They could have used all those billions into making something good or just straight up donate it to charity, or just spend it in something with a better return of investnent like heroin, but they thrown it from a bridge chasing trends, making no bodies lifes better nor happier and probably had an impact on the market somehow, even though fuck the market, but a lot of people other than the super rich do eat from it.
Or at least thats my perspective on this. Again sorry for the length.
The bit about “capitalism promotes innovation” doesn’t mean that every product offered by every company is going to be some total game changer.
Im just gonna copy and paste another comment i already made about that:
Yes thats all true, im aware that not everyone whants or even needs to pursue innovation and that is good, not everybody is steve jobs nor james cameron nor they should be, but it does become a problem when they copy way to much, like for example disney movies, How many movies have had a main character become grumpy because they lost a loved one? Im talking indiana jhones, luke skywalker, han solo, obi wan and nick fury i hear even if i hadnt really seen their series and i heard that in hounted mansion movie too, hell two of those are the same actor.
They are just copying what has worked in the past ( i think its the Logan movie they are copying but im not sure) and made products with doubius quality while burning thons of money without making any of it back, specially with indiana jhones wich seems to be the biggest bomb ever.
They could have used all those billions into making something good or just straight up donate it to charity, or just spend it in something with a better return of investnent like heroin, but they thrown it from a bridge chasing trends, making no bodies lifes better nor happier and probably had an impact on the market somehow, even though fuck the market, but a lot of people other than the super rich do eat from it.
Or at least thats my perspective on this. Again sorry for the length.
Keep buying in to the illusion of choice, good little consumer.
Good little consumer?
That’s Academy Award nominated character actress Margot Robbie to you!
Oh shut up, as if Margot Robbie eats cheap fast food and stans for fast food chains.
Except this is actually choice.
Not really it’s all chicken in bread crumbs with some basic veg.
You may not know this but each of these establishments serves other things besides a breaded chicken sandwich.
Furthermore, what do you want from the world? Would you prefer to be fed the same government issued protein paste every single day?
Would you prefer to be fed the same government issued protein paste every single day?
How the fuck do you get that from me saying a few different ways of cooking chicken (Or beef for that matter) isnt really innovative?
If you generalize enough, everything is the same as everything else. It’s all just protons, neutrons, and electrons.
bro really thought he said something 😂
Keep eating cheap trash for far more than it’d take to make yourself and enjoying it. Keep being a good little consumer. All those chicken sandwhiches definitely aren’t all factory farmed and cost the company pennies when they charge you dollars. Keep simping for trash, it’s kinda’ cute.
You really think people are paying the money for restaurants because they’re not aware that it’s cheaper to make food themselves?
My guy
What?
They’re all cheap shit food.
“but they taste different!” Is fucking pathetic.
Yup, honestly food is a cornerstone of the human experience. Having different options and exploring different things is generally great.
Even though I disagree with the statement “capitalism breeds innovation”, this is poor way to demonstrate that it’s bullshit.
Of course a chicken sandwich isn’t going to appear fundamentally different from Popeyes to KFC. They’re also not the only items that these restaurants sell.
The idea is that these restaurants exist as some kind of better option over a local mom & pop sandwich joint with higher unit overhead. Whether or not the value proposition is sufficient for you is personal.
It’s also an example of something capitalism does well. Those chicken sandwiches are not interchangeable, and you can buy the one that best suits your taste and budget, plus competition generally keeps the quality pretty good.
Capitalism ruins a hell of a lot of things that really matter, but not chicken sandwiches.
Exactly. I’m as “last stage capitalism” as they come (okay maybe not extreme) but this image is a terrible take.
All those varieties saw a market that demanded a product. Companies innovated and are selling the products and making a profit.
I feel like the OP missed the point. A better example would be to show pure monopolies like ISPs. The fact we’re paying hand over fist for subpar internet is an example of innovation not working.
If you think any fast food restaurant is quality then I would go learn to cook.
See, unfettered capitalism is completely fucked, but this is a bad example. It would be like getting a bunch of different coffee brands and putting them together like this and saying the same thing.
Coffee is coffee.
Chicken Sandwiches are chicken sandwiches.
There are bigger issues with capitalism that are worth discussing instead
While I agree with you, I think it’s meant more symbolically but Lemmy being Lemmy everyone here is going to take it literally
I don’t get it, how much can you possibly do to differentiate a chicken sandwich? There’s plenty of issues to discuss but you can do better than this, come on.
Fast food has a lot more competitive aspects than just the actual food, marketing, other unique products to draw customers in, location, branding, kitchen effiency, customer retention, franchising structure, ingredient sourcing. The public facing stuff is also the easiest to copy so that’s why a lot of those things are similar.
They taste distinctly different. I like spicy chicken sandwiches so I’ve tried a couple of these. Burger King’s tastes like they just slapped a bunch of ingredients together and wrapped it up. McDonald’s actually tastes and feels like a chicken sandwich. Popeye’s has a very buttery mouth feel, and the bun is a lot more flavorful and rich.
I get what the meme is trying to say, but this is a poor example of it.
I will have to respectfully disagree on the McDonald’s chicken sandwich. No idea how they made fried chicken taste so bland, but they did it.
It isn’t amazing, that’s for sure.
The fuck is this shit meant to mean?
It’s an illusion of choice. You’ve got eight different corporations spending billions of dollars in “Pick Me!” marketing campaigns, but its all just the same sad looking chicken sandwich.
We can see in the pictures there are differences between the sandwiches though.
It’s also a chicken sandwich, there are limits to what can be done.
there are differences between the sandwiches
All the ingredients for those sandwichs come from Sysco. You get some minor variation in preparation style, but you’d get that as a matter of course from a thousand independently run sandwich shops anyway. Corporate ownership of the real estate and IP does nothing to increase diversity or improve quality.
that’s not fair! our sandwich has a sauce that is formulated to be the closest we can get to chemically addictive without the FDA nuking our headquarters!
“How dare there be more than 1 type of chicken sandwich! Under socialism there will be 1 chicken sandwich and people will be happy!”
What do you want when you order a chicken sandwich? Do you want them to give you a burger?
Can’t you see that OP wants a chicken sandwich when they order a chicken sandwich? /s
Look, I’m all for shitting on crapitalism and our hyper consumerist society, but it’s a chicken sandwich ffs.
it needs infinite innovation and growth otherwise capitalism is failed. no chicken sandwich evolution = doomed philosophy
I don’t get the claim that capitalism requires consistently infinite growth, I would agree some parts of the current monetary system liked constant money supply growth benefits from it- but that’s not a necessary trait of capitalism.
Capitalism is when burger
Capitalism (here meaning a market economy dominated by a powerful investor class) breeds a dozen different companies trying to differentiate themselves with minor variations. Sometimes those variations lead to actual, legitimate improvements that are then spread throughout the industry.
Most of the time it just leads to one wondering what the fuck the difference is between ‘Cheerios’ and ‘Cheery Os’ in the cereal aisle at the grocery store.
deleted by creator
I’m a fan of Chi Ryos. Delicious with a bit of soy sauce.
It’s Cheer? Reee! …Oh’s for me. Half a cup sautéed with butter and garlic then smothered with beef gravy-- Exquisite.
Popeyes putting their fried chicken on Brioche with a decent sauce was an innovation, at least for fast food. It was sold out at most locations in CA when it launched. The BK and KFC both copied it.
Popeye’s is damn tasty. Very buttery feeling and the brioche is so good.
Considering they’re all trying to copy Chick-fil-A’s sandwich, yes
bigot chicken
deleted by creator
stay strong, friend
deleted by creator
All corporations suck in one way or another. The only difference is whether we know about it or not.
Well, pardner, gather 'round and let me spin ya a yarn about Wendy’s spicy chicken sandwich. Now, this here sandwich, it ain’t no newfangled creation. No siree, it’s been around for a long time.
Back in the days when the sun beat down on dusty trails and tumbleweeds rolled through the town, folks would mosey on over to Wendy’s for a taste of that spicy chicken goodness. The sandwich had a kick to it, a real fiery flavor that could wake a sleepy cowboy right up.
They say the recipe was a closely guarded secret, passed down through generations of Wendy’s cooks. The chicken was crispy, the spices were just right, and the bun, well, it held it all together like a trusty steed on a rough ride.
Folks from far and wide would ride in from all corners of the territory just to sink their teeth into one of them spicy chicken sandwiches. It became a legend in these parts, a symbol of good eatin’ and a taste of the wild, wild west.
So, next time you saunter on down to Wendy’s and order yourself a spicy chicken sandwich, remember, you’re tappin’ into a taste of history, partner. It’s been around for a long time, and it’s still kickin’ to this very day.
They always taste like they’ve been around a long time, to your point. Like chewing a very dry shoe every time.
It probably was, I tend to ask for them to make the chicken fresh if it’s not busy
I’ve always had a soft spot for Wendy’s chicken sandwich and I can confidently say they didn’t even try to change anything when the Great Chicken Wars started.
Chic-Fil-A>Popeyes>McDonalds (spicy)>Wendys
I don’t think any of them are like Chick-fil-A. I like CFA’s sandwich, but it tastes entirely different to me.
They brine the chicken in pickle juice. Works great, and I’ve done it at home. Personally I like Popeye’s better.
Same, Popeye’s is great. The coating on Chick-fil-a is different as well - tasty, but not what I associate with a typical fried chicken coating.
I’ve got a hankering for some Chick-fil-A now.
I think you’re all missing the point, half of these places were known for hamburgers, the other half for whole pieces of fried chicken. They all ended up with slight variations on the same product. The point isn’t that they should’ve innovated the chicken sandwich it’s that they all ended up with the same product, the opposite of innovation in a market full of restaurants.
In the real world, people often eat in groups. Some overlap is to be expected, especially when what is really being sold isn’t a chicken sandwich, it’s addictive convenient food.
Capitalism takes innovation and beats the life out of it to flog the corpse for a quick buck. The thing that made KFC special wasn’t the blend of herbs and spices (that they don’t even fucking use anymore and you used to be able to buy ready mixed at the shops) it was the new innovative cooking technique that they immediately tossed in the trash because it was cheaper to just throw it all in a deep frier like everyone already did.
