the Fat Tax

[nbcrusader]

I'm not a trademark lawyer, but I do know that if a company does not defend a trademark; it will lose the trademark. This forces a company to be diligent to investigate possible infringement and take all reasonable steps to protect the mark.

In both cases, it was not simply a matter of an innocent independent coffee shop being targeted by big, mean Starbucks; we have independent operators who wanted to get some benefit from using a similar logo as Starbucks.

And Sam Buck could have had money in his pocket - he chose to continue to infringe on a trademark and incur litigation expenses.

None of this is unusual. Cease and desist letters are sent everyday by companies with trademarks. Sometimes there are innocent infringements, but frequently the infringing party knows what they are doing.

Trademark cases are quite different that site selection for retail outlets, which was what I thought we were discussing.

 

[Irvine511]

Trademark cases are quite different that site selection for retail outlets, which was what I thought we were discussing.

there are many ways to destroy your competition.

 

[nbcrusader]

With horrible things like doing a better job

 

[Irvine511]

With horrible things like doing a better job

horrible things like a well-paid legal team and thousands of employees.

 

[nbcrusader]

Sometimes you need that when people want to steal from you

 

[Irvine511]

Sometimes you need that when people want to steal from you

curse that Sam Bucks.

:shakesangryfist:

 

[nbcrusader]

curse that Sam Bucks.

:shakesangryfist:

If you don't want to deal with the requirements of trademark law, we can always just shake angry fists at big organizations (unions and liberal non profits exempt of course )

 

[Irvine511]

i'd rather shake my fist at a monochormatic exurban landscape and a choice between a $3 macchiato or a $3.50 macchiatio with whip in paper.

it seems as if the defense of capitalism, as it is practiced in the US particualrly today in what might be called "late capitalism," becomes a defense of fewer choices and those choices controled and presented by fewer and fewer corporate entities. we're becoming like the Soviet Union, but with money.

 

[nbcrusader]

Well, shake away.

It is an odd company to target. Healthcare benefits for all employees. Stock options for all employees. Fair trade practices. Big corporation. How to reconcil all these principles!

 

[Irvine511]

Well, shake away.

It is an odd company to target. Healthcare benefits for all employees. Stock options for all employees. Fair trade practices. Big corporation. How to reconcil all these principles!

i find it amazing that such things are exceptions to be lauded rather than parts of a standard business model.

i'm not sure how we arrived at Starbucks either, but all those benefits for employees (something WalMart could learn from) doesn't negate their predatory practices and deliberate targeting of independent coffee shops -- which leads us back to the overall lesson that large corporations seek to reduce choice and increase their influence on the consumer through a variety of tactics and the result is that people have far less choice than they like to tell themsleves that they have.

i think it's also possible to see things in various shades of grey, to appreciate complexity, and realize that things are neither all good nor all bad. however, good qualities don't negate bad qualities, and vice versa.

it does come down to what values one has, i suppose, when it comes to evaluating the net good or net bad of something like Starbucks or McDonalds.

in my opinion, unhealthy food, blandness, homogeneity, increased capital in the hands of a few, rising obesity, a crowded media landscape with a thousand voices telling you to buy-buy-buy, and many more things, all spell the death of culture. as i've said, late capitalism, where we have fewer and fewer megacorporations controlling more and more of commerce, is really akin to a Soviet-style economy, or at least an oligarcy. we have unhealthier lifestyles and less choice because of it.

 

[nbcrusader]

You have yet to establish bad qualities. Repeating "predatory practices and deliberate targeting of independent coffee shops" without evidence is empty fist waving.

We have more choices today than we did 10 years ago, 25 years ago, 50 years ago, etc.

The fact that people are free to make "bad" choices is not enough to substantiate a tax on such "bad" choices.

 

[Irvine511]

You have yet to establish bad qualities. Repeating "predatory practices and deliberate targeting of independent coffee shops" without evidence is empty fist waving.

i just gave you several examples of Starbucks using litigation to intimidate its competition.

Starbucks also tried to sue this Oklahoma-based company -- www.doubleshotcoffee.com -- into changing it's name because it claimed that the name DoubleShot Coffee is too close to the name of a Starbucks product. Starbucks doubleshot is a mass produced coffee-drink sold in stores across the country, and DoubleShot Coffee company is an independent roaster of beans in the Tulsa area. Starbucks contends that you will mistake the two. it's like suing a coffeeshop for having the word 'coffee' in its name.

anyway, here's a nice summary of Starbuck's "lease poaching" from Naomi Klein:

[q]"Until the practice began creating controversy a few years back, Starbucks' real estate strategy was to stake out a popular independent cafe in a well-trafficked, funky location, and simply poach the lease out from under it," Klein writes. "Several independent cafe owners in prime locations are on record claiming that Starbucks went directly to their landlords and offered to pay them higher rental payments for the same or adjacent spaces."

Once a foothold has been established in a new market, Starbucks commences what it calls "clustering," flooding the zone with as many new stores as possible, to the point where a new Starbucks location is actually stealing business away from other Starbucks stores. The overall effect is a net increase in sales revenue chain-wide and another step toward achieving the company's primary goal: advancing brand recognition to household-word status.

The collateral damage, of course, is that Starbucks cannibalizes not only itself, but also all the mom-and-pop coffeehouses and restaurants in its selling radius. And while Starbucks is big enough that it can absorb a few percentage-point declines in sales at select stores, the little guy usually operates at such a narrow profit margin that even a modest drop in sales can mean closing up shop. Essentially, they die a death by a thousand tiny cuts.
[/q]

and there's also the fact that it's caffeine content is through the roof, drawing nictotine comparisons.


[q]We have more choices today than we did 10 years ago, 25 years ago, 50 years ago, etc. [/q]

can you quantify this? also, isn't this something any big corporation doesn't want? isn't it in it's best interests to eliminate competition?

The fact that people are free to make "bad" choices is not enough to substantiate a tax on such "bad" choices.

so you support the repeal of all "sin taxes" on cigarettes and alcohol?

 

[nbcrusader]

You've given me a few examples of Starbucks defending its trademarks, as required by federal law in order to maintain its trademarks. When someone tries to ride on your coattails, and does so in violation of law, it is wrong to stop them??

As for the real estate leasing description, relying on the editorial commentary of an anti-globalization activist really doesn't provide convincing evidence (though it helps me understand your persistence in the face of contrary evidence). In fact her statements run contrary to the economic evidence on the subject (after Starbucks moved into San Francisco, the number on independent operators tripled).

If you have worked in real estate, you would know there is extreme competition for well-trafficked locations. Not just from Starbucks, but from a long list of QSR and other retailers who all live by the same mantra: location, location, location. When leases come up for renewal, landlords look for the best deal possible. Now, an independent operator may feel entitled to stay where they are at presumable below market rates, but that is not reality.

 

[Irvine511]

You've given me a few examples of Starbucks defending its trademarks, as required by federal law in order to maintain its trademarks. When someone tries to ride on your coattails, and does so in violation of law, it is wrong to stop them??

ride on their coattails by daring to get into the coffee business?



[q]As for the real estate leasing description, relying on the editorial commentary of an anti-globalization activist really doesn't provide convincing evidence (though it helps me understand your persistence in the face of contrary evidence). In fact her statements run contrary to the economic evidence on the subject (after Starbucks moved into San Francisco, the number on independent operators tripled).[/q]


could you site your evidence please? you've demanded much from me, but provided none of your own.

yes, dismiss Ms. Klein outright. she must be wrong. especially with all the contrary evidence you've provided.

anyway, Starbucks eliminates competition through buy-outs, "cluster bombing" tactics, and market cannibalization. if Starbucks finds a successful coffee establishment they build one or more locations to take their business. they lease buildings to keep out competition.

Starbucks's market-entry strategy involves first finding a market's leading independent coffee shop and then buying the lease out from under them in order to replace the shop with a Starbucks. if they cannot buy the lease, several franchises are opened around the shop and heavily promoted to draw the crowd (this happened in my hometown in CT -- we had an independent coffee shop, and Starbucks opened up a 2nd location two blocks away). hence, the "cluster bombing" campaign. after driving out independently owned coffee shops, the Starbucks franchises then have to start competing with themselve, but the net revenue growth increases.

also note the Starbucks inside other large retail outfits -- inside Safeway, Barnes and Nobles, etc.

you're also getting caught up -- as you do, in addition to ignoring my questions -- in the minutae and missing the larger discussion here: the effect that large corporations have upon American culture and lifestyle as well as the reduction of meaningful choice for the consumer.

 

[nbcrusader]

ride on their coattails by daring to get into the coffee business?

I could sell a new soda much faster if I bottled it in something that looked like a coke bottle. Mimicking someone’s name, logo or other trademark is riding on their coattails. Stealing goodwill from a large corporation is still stealing.

could you site your evidence please? you've demanded much from me, but provided none of your own.

yes, dismiss Ms. Klein outright. she must be wrong. especially with all the contrary evidence you've provided.

anyway, Starbucks eliminates competition through buy-outs, "cluster bombing" tactics, and market cannibalization. if Starbucks finds a successful coffee establishment they build one or more locations to take their business. they lease buildings to keep out competition.

Starbucks market-entry strategy involves first finding a market's leading independent coffee shop and then buying the lease out from under them in order to replace the shop with a Starbucks. if they cannot buy the lease, several franchises are opened around the shop and heavily promoted to draw the crowd (this happened in my hometown in CT -- we had an independent coffee shop, and Starbucks opened up a 2nd location two blocks away). hence, the "cluster bombing" campaign. after driving out independently owned coffee shops, the Starbucks franchises then have to start competing with themselve, but the net revenue growth increases.

also note the Starbucks inside other large retail outfits -- inside Safeway, Barnes and Nobles, etc.

you're also getting caught up -- as you do, in addition to ignoring my questions -- in the minutae and missing the larger discussion here: the effect that large corporations have upon American culture and lifestyle as well as the reduction of meaningful choice for the consumer.

Yes, I got the editorial comments in the last few posts. Here is some more evidence to chew on: From 2001 to 2004, the total number of independent coffee houses in the US increased from 10,330 to an estimated 13,570 – despite the growth in Starbucks. (Mintel Consumer Intelligence Report)

Repeating conclusionary statements about “Starbuck’s market-entry strategy” without any experience or evidence on the subject doesn’t get you any closer to the truth. If you want to buy into Ms. Klein’s opinions – fine. Don’t confuse them with fact.

And how can we trust your larger claims (reduction in choice) when the evidence you used to support such claims doesn’t pan out? You’ve made statements and asked questions – and I’ve responded to them.

 

[Irvine511]

I could sell a new soda much faster if I bottled it in something that looked like a coke bottle. Mimicking someone’s name, logo or other trademark is riding on their coattails. Stealing goodwill from a large corporation is still stealing.

the examples i have given you weren't akin to imitating a coke bottle. it's more like you going into the soda business and daring to call your drink a cola, and then Coca-Cola suing.



[q]Yes, I got the editorial comments in the last few posts. Here is some more evidence to chew on: From 2001 to 2004, the total number of independent coffee houses in the US increased from 10,330 to an estimated 13,570 – despite the growth in Starbucks. (Mintel Consumer Intelligence Report) [/q]


that's it? with all your trumpeting of how much starbucks has "tripled" independent coffeeshops in san francisco combined with it's undeniable influence on the growth of coffee culture in the US -- which you've touted several times as proof of the healthy state of independent coffee shops all thanks to Starbucks -- i'd expect much more than such a small increase.

have you got a citation?


[q]Repeating conclusionary statements about “Starbuck’s market-entry strategy” without any experience or evidence on the subject doesn’t get you any closer to the truth. If you want to buy into Ms. Klein’s opinions – fine. Don’t confuse them with fact.[/q]

as easy and convenient as it would be for you to continually write my arguments off as repitions of Ms. Klein, that simply isn't the case. i've referenced her once, and only once, and it's rather arrogant of you to purport to have truth and label others as merely holders of opinion.

any "experience or evidence" -- that's quite condescending, and can't possibly be backed up. have you comparable "experience and evidence" on the subject? you've offered none but anecdotal claims and the general repeition of free market dogma.

And how can we trust your larger claims (reduction in choice) when the evidence you used to support such claims doesn’t pan out? You’ve made statements and asked questions – and I’ve responded to them.

but you haven't. you've done little to further your own case, offered no citations, beyond asking me a series of questions without answering the one's i've presented, such as:

can you quantify this?

also, isn't this something any big corporation doesn't want?

isn't it in it's best interests to eliminate competition?

so you support the repeal of all "sin taxes" on cigarettes and alcohol?

could you site your evidence please? you've demanded much from me, but provided none of your own.



you've also had nothing to say on deleterous health effects of fast food as well as the effect of homogenization upon American culture.

i suppose such things are unimportant?

 

[maycocksean]

In Saipan there is this music store called "Music and". Apparently they used be called Musicland until they got a cease and desist letter. so they dropped the L off their sign and went on their way.

I thought it was kind of funny.

I've been following the back-and-forth between you two for awhile now and found it very interesting. Right now, I'm kinda leaning more towards nbc's perspective. The point of these companies is to make as much money as possible. I question whether there are these Evil Capitalist Lords meeting in some dark room with smoke swirling around trying to destroy everyone in their path. I don't doubt that they will do all they can to get people to come to their stores rather than to the competition.

I do agree that companies like Starbucks have degraded the "cultural quality" of our society. We lose a lot when everything becomes homogenous and mass produced. But a business at the end of the day is going to want to make as much money as it can.

 

[Irvine511]

But a business at the end of the day is going to want to make as much money as it can.

and that's precisely the problem. the crime is what's legal. and our apathy towards the myths of the "free market" -- as if it were itself a diety -- is precisely what is contributing to the homogenization of America and the degredation of local culture and color.

there are costs, big costs, when massive retail companies like Starbucks will open stores that will operate for years in the red with the expressed purpose of bleeding business away from the independents (when they are unable to simply buy out the landlords) until the independents finally close.

in the end, i do think there are bigger battles to be fough and certainly bigger enemies than Starbucks.

however, that does not mean that homogenization is not a tragedy and predatory business practices enabled and encouraged by American-style capitalism don't have a deleterous affect upon everyone.

 

[Irvine511]

I question whether there are these Evil Capitalist Lords meeting in some dark room with smoke swirling around trying to destroy everyone in their path.

where do you think business models are thought up?

it's never as cinematic as that, but having sat in on meetings about "promoting the brand" (i work for a great big company that EVERYONE recognizes), it is more calculated and intentional than you ever think it could be.

they test and research EVERYTHING -- nothing is an accident or the "will" of the Free Market (peace be upon its name).

 

[maycocksean]

however, that does not mean that homogenization is not a tragedy and predatory business practices enabled and encouraged by American-style capitalism don't have a deleterous affect upon everyone.

I agree. What alternative would you suggest? I'm not meaning to suggest that we just throw up our hands and say "Oh well, we can't change it." I'm genuinely curious as to what you see as an alternative to the free market system we've currently got going.

 

[maycocksean]

where do you think business models are thought up?

it's never as cinematic as that, but having sat in on meetings about "promoting the brand" (i work for a great big company that EVERYONE recognizes), it is more calculated and intentional than you ever think it could be.

they test and research EVERYTHING -- nothing is an accident or the "will" of the Free Market (peace be upon its name).

So the people at these meetings (minus the smoke and maniacal laughter) are actually saying, "we need to drive this buisness, and this business, and this buisness out of business. We need to get rid of them. How can we do it?" I'm not disagreeing that the outcome is the same, but I'm wondering if people are that frank about what they are doing or do they dress it up so they can go home with a clear conscience? And with that in mind, is there any company (big or small) that would say, "Hey, let's make sure that as we enter the market, we make sure that all of our competitors stay in business as well."

Like I say, I agree that system has some seriously inherent flaws, but what other alternative is there that doesn't involve us all livng as hunter-gatherers.

 

[Harry Vest]

I don't know but I'd say that it was better when everyone smoked what they wanted, ate what they wanted (food was healthier for the most part), played in the dirt - when parents didn't worry about kids going out of the house but instead insisted on it, when most people knew they're neighbours. There were hardly any allergies of any kind - nobody i knew had asthma until junior high school!!!

 

[the iron horse]

I don't know but I'd say that it was better when everyone smoked what they wanted, ate what they wanted (food was healthier for the most part), played in the dirt - when parents didn't worry about kids going out of the house but instead insisted on it, when most people knew they're neighbours. There were hardly any allergies of any kind - nobody i knew had asthma until junior high school!!!

I agree.

*would you rather spend ten minutes in a closed garage with me smoking a cig or your BMW running on idle?*


Just pleading for some common sense here....

 

[maycocksean]

I don't know but I'd say that it was better when everyone smoked what they wanted, ate what they wanted (food was healthier for the most part), played in the dirt - when parents didn't worry about kids going out of the house but instead insisted on it, when most people knew they're neighbours. There were hardly any allergies of any kind - nobody i knew had asthma until junior high school!!!

I find this picture of the good old days fascinating. Was it really better "back then"? Or just different?

Perhaps some things were better "in the old days" than they are now. Others were worse, and vice versa.

Certainly, as a black American I'm glad I was born in 1973 and not 1873 (or 1923).

 

[U2Bama]

Should Ben & Jerry's Ice Cream outlets be subject to a "fat tax," or should they be exempt for other reasons?

~U2Alabama

 

[Irvine511]

Should Ben & Jerry's Ice Cream outlets be subject to a "fat tax," or should they be exempt for other reasons?

~U2Alabama

i would imagine a nutritional rubrick could be developed by nutritionists and then adopted as a means of implementing what foods are considered to be so harmful to your health that they necessitate a "sin tax" comparable to that levvied on alcohol and cigarettes.

again, i'm not necessarily arguing for a fat tax, but i am arguing that fast food is far more harmful to the body, and puts far more financial stress on the health care system, than alcohol and cigarettes because more people eat fast food than drink or smoke to excess.

if we're going to tax one, why not the other?

finally, i think fast food outlets contribute to the homogenization of culture, making one town seem much like the next, and they seek to reduce consumer choice by presenting themselves as an inevitable alternative through a variety of means and methods. i'm not saying that any of this is illegal, or should be illegal, but i am saying that this takes a psychic toll on the individual (because in the corporate world, there are no individuals, just consumers) as well as a physical toll on the landscape in the form of endless box-shaped strip malls.

the one positive effect, i think, is that homogenization will always spawn a group of citizens dedicated to fighting blandness and seeking that elusive thing known as authenticity -- these citizens (often derided and laughed at as urban elitists or intellectual snobs or dirty hippies or whatever) might save capitalism from itself.

case in point: http://www.delocator.net/

 

[Irvine511]

So the people at these meetings (minus the smoke and maniacal laughter) are actually saying, "we need to drive this buisness, and this business, and this buisness out of business. We need to get rid of them. How can we do it?" I'm not disagreeing that the outcome is the same, but I'm wondering if people are that frank about what they are doing or do they dress it up so they can go home with a clear conscience? And with that in mind, is there any company (big or small) that would say, "Hey, let's make sure that as we enter the market, we make sure that all of our competitors stay in business as well."

no, it's much more euphamistic than that and driving others out of business is simply a way to increase your market share -- it's the little lies, or the calculated perspective, that allows one to sleep at night. and i can also speak to the rah-rah, football player, it's-all-a-big-competition ethos that comes out at certain meetings. it's not about wanting to compete, it's not about selling a product, it's about wanting to win. and, utlimately, it's much more about "the brand" and how no one really sells products anymore, they simply sell various accessories that constitute "the brand" -- which is another way of saying that they're trying to sell a lifestyle, and often this lifestyle is cross-intergrated with other products. certainly, altenative lifestyles are seen as threats, and

i think you're getting at the flaws in the system itself, and the basic judgement call is whether the flaws in the system warrant the dismantling of the system. i have no answer to that. but what i do think is critical is to spread awareness and educate consumers about the deleterous effects of one's consumption, and to appeal to a greater sense of social responsibility, so that they might think about how they participate in the system and then self-regulate.

do i shop at starbucks? sometimes. i've found it's much cheaper to make my own coffee, and if i do buy something from starbucks, it's usually the fair trade stuff. i do make it a point not to go to Starbucks every day, or to choose Starbucks over an alternative (and i'm also trying to switch to Yerba Matte tea to get my caffeine fix anyway).

it's very convenient to try to toss anyone who could possibly raise an objection to the way we live and how we consume into the "seattle 1999 protestor" pile, because it's easier to ignore them that way, but i think if we take a minute to sit back and examine the choices we make, and learn a little more about the system itself and about the costs of the system, you'll find a very reasonable position that's hardly radical or anarchist, and in fact, it's probably better for capitalism in the long run and certainly better for culture and for the human psyche.

no one is seeking to install communism, or even socialism. some of us are simply looking for balance, for places to go where we aren't constantly marketed at, a space that isn't branded, and meaningful options.

 

[nbcrusader]

I think you get the Seattle 1999 protestor pile reaction in that there is a lack of evidenciary proof to support a lot of what is said about the "evils" of corporations - especially when describing intent.

We've gone back and forth trying to nail down specifics. You've got passion and drive, but the dots are not connecting with fact.

To support the argument that coffee independents are driven out of business, you offered trademark cases. While there may an emotional appeal to such cases, the motivations for such cases are far different. Not to mention that the business sited in your articles are still operating.

You've asked for facts, I've given you facts, you've dismissed the facts, and have not countered with related facts of your own. Again, you come at these issues with great zeal, but the logical and factual assumptions needed to support the positions need shoring up.

I've noticed that many of the statements end with "meaningful" options or choices. Is this something you can quantify? Is it an objective thing, or a personal choice? What if a choice is not meaningful to you, but meaningful to someone else?

 

[nbcrusader]

Talk About Legislative Action

Fluffernutter Sandwich Angers Mass. Senator

It's creamy, it's sweet and it's become a staple of lunch boxes for generations of New England school children.

Now, the beloved Fluffernutter sandwich _ the irresistible combination of Marshmallow Fluff and peanut butter, preferably on white bread with a glass of milk handy _ finds itself at the center of a sticky political debate.

Sen. Jarrett Barrios was outraged that his son Nathaniel, a third- grader, was given a Fluffernutter sandwich at the King Open School in Cambridge. He said he plans to file legislation that would ban schools from offering the local delicacy more than once a week as the main meal of the day.

The Democrat said that his amendment to a bill on junk food in schools may seem "a little silly" but that school nutrition is serious.

His proposal seemed anything but silly to Rep. Kathi-Anne Reinstein, a Democrat whose district in Revere is near the company that has produced the marshmallow concoction for more than 80 years, Durkee- Mower Inc.

She responded with a proposal to designate the Fluffernutter the "official sandwich of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts."

 

[maycocksean]

no, it's much more euphamistic than that and driving others out of business is simply a way to increase your market share -- it's the little lies, or the calculated perspective, that allows one to sleep at night. and i can also speak to the rah-rah, football player, it's-all-a-big-competition ethos that comes out at certain meetings. it's not about wanting to compete, it's not about selling a product, it's about wanting to win. and, utlimately, it's much more about "the brand" and how no one really sells products anymore, they simply sell various accessories that constitute "the brand" -- which is another way of saying that they're trying to sell a lifestyle, and often this lifestyle is cross-intergrated with other products. certainly, altenative lifestyles are seen as threats, and

i think you're getting at the flaws in the system itself, and the basic judgement call is whether the flaws in the system warrant the dismantling of the system. i have no answer to that. but what i do think is critical is to spread awareness and educate consumers about the deleterous effects of one's consumption, and to appeal to a greater sense of social responsibility, so that they might think about how they participate in the system and then self-regulate.

do i shop at starbucks? sometimes. i've found it's much cheaper to make my own coffee, and if i do buy something from starbucks, it's usually the fair trade stuff. i do make it a point not to go to Starbucks every day, or to choose Starbucks over an alternative (and i'm also trying to switch to Yerba Matte tea to get my caffeine fix anyway).

it's very convenient to try to toss anyone who could possibly raise an objection to the way we live and how we consume into the "seattle 1999 protestor" pile, because it's easier to ignore them that way, but i think if we take a minute to sit back and examine the choices we make, and learn a little more about the system itself and about the costs of the system, you'll find a very reasonable position that's hardly radical or anarchist, and in fact, it's probably better for capitalism in the long run and certainly better for culture and for the human psyche.

no one is seeking to install communism, or even socialism. some of us are simply looking for balance, for places to go where we aren't constantly marketed at, a space that isn't branded, and meaningful options.

I see your point. Excellent post.

Nbc, I'm afraid Irvine is swaying me. To tell the truth, neither one of you have provided a lot in the way of "hard facts." Both of you have referenced some "factual sources" but on both ends of the argument it's been mostly both your opinions and arguments. Which is fine. I mean you both sound like you've got jobs and have busy lives (unlike me whose loafing about on my summer break) so who has time to go doing heavy research to marshal an army of facts and statistics complete with links etc to bolster your point of view?

The problem I had with Irvine's argument was that he seemed to be implying a level of "evil intentionality" in the corporate world that I had a hard time believing was really there. Well, he I felt he addressed that pretty well. Based on Irvine's response above it would seem corporations do use destructive tatics to their competition, it's just that the people who make those kinds of decisions don't tell themselves that's what they're doing.

And I do agree that it's important to have some awareness about the homegenization of our culture. Believe me, it's one of the worse things about coming back to the States every summer, the "sameness" of everything.

And Irvine, I get the point you started this thread with which has largely been ignored. It seems like you were questioning the validity of sin taxes in the first place, arguing that since eating unhealthily is not a "sin", a moral wrong, it doesnt' get taxed the way the "demon rum" does. Sin taxes as a kind of holdover from the Prohibition Era and so on.