Adbusters

#NOSTARBUCKS

Vow never to walk into a Starbucks ever again.

Vow never to walk into a Starbucks ever again. Instead, search out the most interesting indie coffee shop around where you live and work … get to know the people who own and run the place and get your friends and co-workers to join you there. Individually this may feel like a drop in the bucket, but if all of us do it collectively, then we can begin to shift power from megacorporations to our friends and neighbors.

Tweet #NOSTARBUCKS, Facebook it, email it, whisper it to a friend or shout it from the rooftops. Spread the word and let’s start brewing the mood for a worldwide revolution.

Video by Tyler Jackson

164 comments on the article “#NOSTARBUCKS”

Displaying 111 - 120 of 164

Page 12 of 17

Anony +1

Name me a system the prevents inequality. That doesn't rely on the same amount of resources. yet doesn't involve massive inhuman control via a government body?

"Just let one giant mega corporation rule the world. Isn't that the inevitable conclusion of unfettered capitalism?"

No. because in capitalism, businesses must provide consumers with goods they want. otherwise they can't amass wealth. If this corporation becomes corrupt or jacks up prices, competitors come in and take consumers away from them. Its all about balance. We see this in action everyday.

"We can go back to having slaves"

You have absolutely no idea what capitalism is. Slavery is anti-capitalist. Why? because a pillar of capitalism is individual property rights and rule of law. Slavery is a violation to both.

"American capitalism is really just socialism for the rich"

Then its not capitalism at all. The actions you oppose are not capitalist actions.

"Pure capitalism would dispense of things like this internet"

No it wouldn't, at all. If one company scrapped its internet service, a competitor would pop up and allow access. Why? Because there is a demand, and the only way to amass wealth in an actual capitalist society is to supply a demand!

You seem to be attacking the attributes of statism/authortarianism, but for some reason you call them capitalist actions. They are not. Read up on free markets. You will see a very different picture of capitalism, then what you have apparently been taught.

Anony +1

Name me a system the prevents inequality. That doesn't rely on the same amount of resources. yet doesn't involve massive inhuman control via a government body?

"Just let one giant mega corporation rule the world. Isn't that the inevitable conclusion of unfettered capitalism?"

No. because in capitalism, businesses must provide consumers with goods they want. otherwise they can't amass wealth. If this corporation becomes corrupt or jacks up prices, competitors come in and take consumers away from them. Its all about balance. We see this in action everyday.

"We can go back to having slaves"

You have absolutely no idea what capitalism is. Slavery is anti-capitalist. Why? because a pillar of capitalism is individual property rights and rule of law. Slavery is a violation to both.

"American capitalism is really just socialism for the rich"

Then its not capitalism at all. The actions you oppose are not capitalist actions.

"Pure capitalism would dispense of things like this internet"

No it wouldn't, at all. If one company scrapped its internet service, a competitor would pop up and allow access. Why? Because there is a demand, and the only way to amass wealth in an actual capitalist society is to supply a demand!

You seem to be attacking the attributes of statism/authortarianism, but for some reason you call them capitalist actions. They are not. Read up on free markets. You will see a very different picture of capitalism, then what you have apparently been taught.

Anonymous

Fail.
Truly unregulated capitalism would result in MegaCorp. Why wouldn’t it. Why wouldn’t the corp with the most capital simply take over – monopolize?
Free-market Shmree market. It’s an illusion son.
Nothins free in this world.
Back to the drawing board.

Anonymous

Fail.
Truly unregulated capitalism would result in MegaCorp. Why wouldn’t it. Why wouldn’t the corp with the most capital simply take over – monopolize?
Free-market Shmree market. It’s an illusion son.
Nothins free in this world.
Back to the drawing board.

Anony +1

How could a company monopolize? In order to do so it must constantly provide better quality to the highest degree. It likely wouldn't. Its prices would rise, or its innovation would dwindle, etc. Thus leaving room for competitors from other cities/countries, or new businesses, to expand on their territory. This happens all the time. Literally all around us Nothing today suggests your conclusion would occur. We have seen big companies rise and fall. For example, if someone were to say a Japanese car company would be giving Ford and GM a run for its money 50 years ago, it would be considered laughable.

Anony +1

How could a company monopolize? In order to do so it must constantly provide better quality to the highest degree. It likely wouldn't. Its prices would rise, or its innovation would dwindle, etc. Thus leaving room for competitors from other cities/countries, or new businesses, to expand on their territory. This happens all the time. Literally all around us Nothing today suggests your conclusion would occur. We have seen big companies rise and fall. For example, if someone were to say a Japanese car company would be giving Ford and GM a run for its money 50 years ago, it would be considered laughable.

Anonymous

uh-huh well I guess we can only wonder would actually happen if a company such as oooh say Starbucks or Walmart or Google existed in a completely unregulated environment. But they don't. They are regulated and truly free markets don't exist much as I'm sure the big companies wish they did and continually fight for them with the same simplistic logic you use.
Pretty sure the reason Americans have anti-monopoly laws is precisely because of the conclusions the poster above you posits.

Anonymous

uh-huh well I guess we can only wonder would actually happen if a company such as oooh say Starbucks or Walmart or Google existed in a completely unregulated environment. But they don't. They are regulated and truly free markets don't exist much as I'm sure the big companies wish they did and continually fight for them with the same simplistic logic you use.
Pretty sure the reason Americans have anti-monopoly laws is precisely because of the conclusions the poster above you posits.

Anony+1

True, lots of regulations around, but the many aspects of free market capitalism still exists, and it is the main reason we don't see one big megacorp, not regulation.

Lets use my local mall as a starting point. In this mall for instance there are like 10 resturants in the food court. Within the rest of the mall there are at least 30 different clothing stores. 3 Department stores (none of which are walmart, that’s on the other side of town). A dozen specialty stores selling everything from jewelry to frisbees to videogames. 2 grocery stores. Within a 5 minute drive there are 3 more grocery stores. Several fast food places,a couple nicer resturants, a dozen different car lots, and much, much, more.

Why such choice? Its certainly not the law thats stopping one resturant from monopolizing the food court, or the rest of the area around it. There is no law that I'm aware of that says that there needs to be more than 1 brand of grocery store or car lot per square mile. No, this diversity emerges because demand is diverse. In a free market, companies can only gain market share if people (the market) likes what they have to sell.

Walmart, Starbucks, etc, can only grow so long as people keep buying their goods. So long as they do this, who cares how big it gets? No harm done. Don't like them, then you can personally chose not to shop there. However, in areas where is begins to fall behind, other stores will fill the void accordingly.

For those who wish to avoid the monopolization of power, free market capitalism is something we should strive toward, not away from. After all, if we cannot trust large institutions (ie Walmart) then why the heck should we trust government. It’s the mother of all institutions, and has a heck of a lot more control over everyone via the law.

Anony+1

True, lots of regulations around, but the many aspects of free market capitalism still exists, and it is the main reason we don't see one big megacorp, not regulation.

Lets use my local mall as a starting point. In this mall for instance there are like 10 resturants in the food court. Within the rest of the mall there are at least 30 different clothing stores. 3 Department stores (none of which are walmart, that’s on the other side of town). A dozen specialty stores selling everything from jewelry to frisbees to videogames. 2 grocery stores. Within a 5 minute drive there are 3 more grocery stores. Several fast food places,a couple nicer resturants, a dozen different car lots, and much, much, more.

Why such choice? Its certainly not the law thats stopping one resturant from monopolizing the food court, or the rest of the area around it. There is no law that I'm aware of that says that there needs to be more than 1 brand of grocery store or car lot per square mile. No, this diversity emerges because demand is diverse. In a free market, companies can only gain market share if people (the market) likes what they have to sell.

Walmart, Starbucks, etc, can only grow so long as people keep buying their goods. So long as they do this, who cares how big it gets? No harm done. Don't like them, then you can personally chose not to shop there. However, in areas where is begins to fall behind, other stores will fill the void accordingly.

For those who wish to avoid the monopolization of power, free market capitalism is something we should strive toward, not away from. After all, if we cannot trust large institutions (ie Walmart) then why the heck should we trust government. It’s the mother of all institutions, and has a heck of a lot more control over everyone via the law.

Pages

Add a new comment

Comments are closed.