In Praise of McCafe
It's a strange thing that all the leading progressives feel schadenfreude toward all the Starbucks closings around the country. I mean, this institution samples all the fashionable attitudes in music, aesthetics, and politics, subtly embracing the ethos of arch-lefty consumer class: happy to promote commercialism provided that the commercialism points to all the right environmental and social-justice causes. Still, Starbucks expanded too quickly and too aggressively and eventually, for whatever reason, earned the wrath of the tribe.
For my part, I'm glad to see Starbucks go down the old-fashioned way: bested by a rival. In this case, it is the least likely rival that one might expect: McDonalds. Have you seen their amazing coffee machines that crank out lattes and cappuccinos with the best of them? Yes, I know that these treats have long been available in urban areas, but they only recently reached my home town.
The machines that make the stuff are sheer wonders. They have two canisters on top with beans that get ground fresh with each new cup ordered. The entire machine is self contained with digital operation. And they do it all in minutes for $2 per cup. I'll never stand around Starbucks for 10 minutes listening to bad 1980s alternative rock again.
The blogs are furious about it all, of course, with people denouncing McDonald's for stirring in the foam and other heresies of coffee-drink making, but I could not care less. I find them delicious and I'm thrilled to be free of all that Starbucks pretense.
McDonalds feigns attempts at latching on to current political trends, offering low-fat this or that or claiming to be environmentally friendly, but it is never very convincing ("Our standard operating procedures include regular litter patrols of the areas around our restaurants"), and thank goodness. This is a company that is all about the thing they do well, which is bringing to life the Jetsons world of push-button food, a vision that has enticed me since childhood.
One has to appreciate this company's capacity for continually reinventing itself and bringing all of its products to all social classes. They perfected the kids' playground. They have a pitch for the hip urban class. They have a country side too. They do fish. They do breakfast. And sometimes it seems like a Quarter Pounder is the best thing in the world. What's more, they don't do what they know they can't do.
Now they have taken a luxury drink like a cappuccino and found a way to bring it to every living soul, in a package that is a beautiful and unashamed mimic of the competition. In this sense, it embodies the very soul of capitalism: efficiently universalizing society's most desirable things.
One of the reasons that the elites loathe places like McDonald's, or Wal-Mart, or Target, or any of these places that cater to Everyman — and you might suppose that the champions of the workers and peasants would love these places — is precisely their capacity to rob the rich of their distinctive social markers. One day it was a sign of class and distinction to drink a latte; the next day, every construction worker is doing it.
Places like this make it difficult for the rich to set themselves apart from everyone else. This is a message I pick up from both Mises's Anti-capitalistic Mentality and Garet Garrett's wonderful novel Harangue. They both seek to explain the strange elitism of the Left and its opposition to capitalism for the masses. And they both discern that the answer lies in the way that the market is so slavishly devoted to serving the needs of the average person as opposed to society's philosopher kings.
And that's why McDonald's effort to latitudinize the latte is not garnering accolades from the blogosphere. No matter: this is a success, as you can see by the lines and all the excitement. It is especially pleasing to see how much the employees enjoy the action. Next time you are in, ask about the machine and talk to the management about it how works, how they were trained, and how it is drawing new crowds in the restaurant.
Yes, it is all about profits. Sorry socialists: this also means that it's all about people.
Comments (32)
Jeff fan
Great article Jeffrey. Very enjoyable and interesting.
Published: May 10, 2009 9:52 PM
MarkB
"Yes, it is all about profits. Sorry socialists: this also means that it's all about people."
That sentence is gold. :-)
Published: May 10, 2009 9:54 PM
Ryan
Wonderful post Jeff.
The more and more I ask the kinds of questions you suggest and attempt to gauge the economic attitudes of the everyday person, the more I marvel at how peculiar we Misesians (or however best to refer to us all who understand the virtues of free markets) must appear when we praise profits, rather than denigrate them as though they were realized by some sort of exploitative behavior. Where we may praise the likes of McDonald's and Wal-mart and any other business that operates in a reasonably competitive industry for their profit making because it indicates their producing precisely that which consumers most desire, the economic illiterates continue to see it all as a negative. It's enough to make one feel crazy.
Published: May 10, 2009 10:14 PM
Eric
Another company that brings a smile to my face when I think about what they can accomplish is IKEA. The ability for them to sell their products at the prices they do is impressive. It's like capitalism at it's finest.
Published: May 10, 2009 10:14 PM
Stephan Kinsella
Beautiful post, Jeff.
But you forgot a few things. First, Wal-mart is a slaver (wage-slavery and worker-exploitation, donchaknow). Second, Walmart is a corporation--evil! Third, they own remotly via "absentee ownership," so are akin to feudal landlords. Fourth, they use subsidized ... roads to ship in their beans from Columbia and such. Everyone knows long-distance trade and the division of labor are SO passe'. How can you be so... insensitive to the proletariat? Sob!
Published: May 10, 2009 10:26 PM
Stephen MacLean
I thought I lived in the middle-of-nowhere until Mr Tucker's revelation: 'Yes, I know that these treats have long been available in urban areas, but they only recently reached my home town.'
Published: May 10, 2009 10:47 PM
Stephen MacLean
I thought I lived in the middle-of-nowhere until I read Mr Tucker's revelation: 'Yes, I know that these treats have long been available in urban areas, but they only recently reached my home town.'
Published: May 10, 2009 10:49 PM
Claire Traas
Have you ever been to Rome? You can get the best espressos, lattes, macchiatos and cappuccinos in the world for 1.50 Euro. It takes less than two minutes and there are bars on every streetcorner, so you never have to ramble around looking for a place to get a decent cup of coffee. Compared to real Italian coffee, Starbucks is a total sham. Their espresso doesn't have the frothy texture and intense, rich flavor of authentic Italian espresso. That being said, even though the lattes at Starbucks are supersized, falsified versions of Italain lattes, they still taste pretty good, and I will never be able to shake my addiction to Caramel Macchiatos.
If you use good beans, grind them correctly and have a machine that can apply the right amount of pressure, you can make good espresso. But if McDonald's espresso drinks are anything like the rest of their menu, then I'm not expecting much.
Published: May 10, 2009 11:50 PM
JD
Nobody in their right mind could say anything "Avante Garde", "Classy", etc. came out of Seattle anyway. America's last cultural breath regarding folksy, naturesque, mixed with a smug know-it-all attitude fell on its face.
Hey now, the 70's/80's alt rock stuff was cool, at least in innovation and imagery. Of course Marx, Nietchze's, etc. philosophical crap is mingled into their lyrics, but I just have come to the conclusion that it's are requirement for most "artists", to push out some good tunes. (this is from a POP perspective)! Besides, most anything I see musically (@ NoBucks) there is old has beens from the 60's, Baez, Dylan, etc. pushing their new agenda trash. Or Jazz Fusion, Ska.....
As far as Mickey D's, yeah, $2.70 for an Vanilla/Carmel Iced Coffee is A-OK in my book, get a least 3-5 a week.
People will always be a bit smug/elitist about their wants/desire/requirements, but when it becomes philosophical (Modern Elitism), and then moves into a coercive legislation against people, then we have a big problem, AKA, Europe, cough cough......(The biggest "Good Old Boy" place on Earth, centuries old.
Their should be a mkt. for everything that can show a profit. Thats where Mickey D's has capitalized. Nothing wrong with that.
Moderation, Common Sense, aka Balance will get you far.
Published: May 11, 2009 12:33 AM
Brian Gladish
Jeffrey,
At least on the left coast, those leftist elites will be found at Peet's.
Published: May 11, 2009 12:36 AM
Alexander S. Peak
There's nothing wrong with bad 1980s alternative rock!
With that said, good article. I loved the line relating profits and people.
As a poor college student, I thank whatever that I have a McDonalds (or twelve) around me. Without them, I'd surely be in even greater debt than I am now. I have never really understood what the so-called "left" has against them--nobody forces me to eat there, I choose to do so because it's economical. If they didn't exist, I'd be forced to go somewhere more expensive, which I clearly do not want to do (for if I did, I'd be doing so already, without their having to not exist).
But now that I read Mr. Kinsella's response, I feel I must add some comments. Please excuse me, as I'm sure my following comments will ramble at certain points--I'm writing this in a rush.
1. The left-libertarian position on wage slavery is that it is a product solely of either (A) the oligopolising effects of statist regulation of the economy or (B) the direct creation of monopoly or oligopoly on the part of a mercantilist state. A firm is only responsible for wage slavery if it has actively sought or promoted statist regulation of the economy or the direct creation of monopolies or monopolies.
2. The debate regarding whether corporations would be permitted to exist in a free market society, as far as I can tell, is simply a debate about the definition of "corporation." Left-libertarians and "right"-libertarians agree entirely on the forms of business that would be permitted to exist in a free market, except some left-libertarians say that these firms cannot be called "corporations" while some "right"-libertarians say they can. I think even the mutualists largely agree with us on the forms of business that would be permitted. If I am wrong about the debate being mostly rhetorical, it is only because I have not paid deep enough attention to the views expressed on all sides.
3. Once one homesteads a piece of property, it remains hers until (A) she dies, (B) she gives it away, (C) she sells it, or (D) she has to surrender it for payment of restitution for her own acts of aggression. I reject the typical mutualist view on land.
4. Many businesses do accept subsidy, either direct or regulatory. Wal-Mart, as Lew Rockwell has pointed out, openly promoted having the national criminal gang raise the minimum wage. Wal-Mart, as Mr. Rockwell pointed out, understood it could profit from this increased regulation because the regulation would drive out smaller competitors. I consider Wal-Mart's advocacy of this regulation to be a violation of natural law, and I believe that Wal-Mart, like all other violators of natural law, should be punished insofar, but to no greater extent than, it violated said natural law. This appears to me to be the only fully-consistent and only rational stance for anarcho-capitalists to take.
This does not address your comments about roads, of course, since I consider government roads to be unowned property that can be legitimately homesteaded by anyone, whether she be a worker or a business executive. The use of roads, therefore, cannot constitute subsidy (that is, unless the person is petitioning the state to steal more money so as to build more roads, in which case it can).
The basic destinction for me, and this I believe should be the basic distinction for all true anarcho-capitalists, is whether the firm could reject the statist action. When the government builds roads with stolen tax-payer money, a business can't step in and prevent the government from doing so, and thus shouldn't be held responsible for the fact that the government has done so. But a firm could stop itself for petitioning for such theft. When the state enacts a regulation that happens to help a given firm by driving out its competition, that firm can't stop the state from enacting the regulation, and so it shouldn't be held responsible for the state's action. But the firm could stop itself from petitioning for such regulation. When the firm allows itself to ask the government to aggress against people, it should be held just as responsible as if it had asked the mafia to kill someone. But if it has not asked the mafia to kill anyone, and the mafia goes ahead and does so anyway, then the firm is not responsible. Insofar as firms petition the state to de-regulate, or merely don't communicate with the state at all (beyond that which it is required to do so by the state), they are ethical entities; insofar as they join forces with the criminal gang, they themselves are criminals. I can think of no position more purely anarcho-capitalist than that.
Regards,
Alex Peak
Published: May 11, 2009 12:42 AM
Chris
McCafe first started here in Melbourne! Just a plug for OZ.
To accommodate the current trend for high quality coffee and the popularity of coffee shops in general, McDonald's introduced McCafé. The McCafé concept is a café-style accompaniment to McDonald's restaurants in the style of Starbucks. McCafé is a concept of McDonald's Australia, starting with Melbourne in 1993. Today, most McDonald's in Australia have McCafés located within the existing McDonald's restaurant. In Tasmania there are McCafés in every store, with the rest of the states quickly following suit. After upgrading to the new McCafe look and feel, some Australian stores have noticed up to a 60% increase in sales. As of the end of 2003 there were over 600 McCafés worldwide.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald's
Published: May 11, 2009 1:24 AM
theblob
We have McCafés in Europe now as well (I don't know how long).
Personally I'm an admirer from afar. The deserts they got look really tasty.
Published: May 11, 2009 2:21 AM
theblob
Jeff, your essay reminds me of a quote from Andy Warhol:
"What's great about this country is America started the tradition where the richest consumers buy essentially the same things as the poorest. You can be watching TV and see Coca-Cola, and you can know that the President drinks Coke, Liz Taylor drinks Coke, and just think, you can drink Coke, too. A Coke is a Coke and no amount of money can get you a better Coke than the one the bum on the corner is drinking. All the Cokes are the same and all the Cokes are good."
Strikes me now as very misesian.
While trying to look that quote up, I've found another great one (from Warhol):
"Being good in business is the most fascinating kind of art. Making money is art and working is art and good business is the best art. "
Published: May 11, 2009 2:28 AM
David
"This is a company that is all about the thing they do well, which is bringing to life the Jetsons world of push-button food, a vision that has enticed me since childhood."
Wow. Push-button food is one thing that I do not want to see in everyday life, at least in its current form. Push-button implies processed food.
Currently, most processed food -including fast food- is constituted of various poisons, such as refined sugar (bad), high fructose corn syrup (very bad), vegetable oils (very bad) and sundry types of chemicals and preservatives. No thanks, I think I will pass. If others want to eat it, thats fine, but people should be aware of what they are putting in their bodies.
Published: May 11, 2009 3:38 AM
Artisan
As much as I liked Mr Tucker's piece (always), I think it's not the whole truth. Now, to raise the average level, is still a great goal I agree, as opposed to raise only the top level and let the average figure inflate mathematically.
I just watched yesterday on European television how Obama ordered a hamburger at Mc Donalds though...
It scares me to see the new German parliament decorated with Mc Donalds -alike furniture too.
Sure, they are a industrially produced - no "expensive craftsmanship" - still I'm sure they were overpriced for what they are.
Isn't it some sort of public deception? They make costly propaganda pictures of Air Force
One and play the average Joe simultaneously on television!
What's next? are they going to sit on the toilet in front of us because it's something everybody can relate to it? I will never understand politics.
Published: May 11, 2009 4:14 AM
Marco
How dare anyone toss Nietzsche in the same bowl as Marx ( crap ) ?! =)
Published: May 11, 2009 5:37 AM
jeffrey
I had no clue of Warhol's views on these matters. Very interesting. Thank you.
Published: May 11, 2009 8:20 AM
Franklin
Wasn't long ago that the anarchists in France were smashing McDonald's windows. Wonder how they'll welcome Starbucks wannabes.
I'm with David, especially when it comes to MacDonald's contribution to global cuisine. Many a minivan drive with the family found them all with Happy Meals while I, behind the wheel, nibbled a croissant and sipped my coffee from the next stop -- a Starbucks, or a Peet's! Up in the Northeast boonies we seem to have both.
Three cheers for Mickey D's business model, but still -- crap is crap. I can easily recall the smell of their fries; soaking them in the sea wouldn't make them as salty. And the processed beef...cripe, you'd be suppressing its fire, gastroesophageal reflux, for hours after you swallowed -- sort of semi-conscious reminder that your arteries were being pillaged. Makes me cringe, thinking of it.
Today, the local SB played a lot of Antonio Carlos Jobim, Ellis Marsalis, and overdone Mozart. Maybe you need to have a word with your franchisee's manager.
When the McCafe arrives up here, I'll be sure to try. At least they'll have the brains to know (I hope) that coffee needs to be drunk from a ceramic mug or cup, not a piece of cardboard.
And hopefully, unlike the classic Mac's around here, perhaps the counter staff will be as pleasant as in your neck of the woods.
Cheers,
F.
Published: May 11, 2009 8:43 AM
Ken
Still, Starbucks expanded too quickly and too aggressively and eventually, for whatever reason, earned the wrath of the tribe.
They succeeded. That's basically what happened. I saw the same thing happen in '80s alt-rock. As soon as the Clash or whomever actually got something played on commercial FM radio and sold a record or two, they became sell-outs to the authorized dispensers of legitimacy (ahem).
Published: May 11, 2009 8:44 AM
Ron
Can someone please explain what "processed" means in the context of the previous posts about McD's food being bad because it's "processed"? What does that mean, anyway? Technically, slaughtering and butchering a cow, then running some of the meat through a grinder is a "process". What's the difference between processed and "processed"?
Published: May 11, 2009 9:06 AM
Billy Beck
"Hey now, the 70's/80's alt rock stuff was cool,..."
No. It wasn't. At all.
Published: May 11, 2009 1:16 PM
Geir
For me, living in Denmark, Seven-eleven is doing something similar - offering great coffee from freshly grinded beans for a very affordable price (on Danish standards). However, don't offer me a place to sit and enjoy this coffee - hence, no blog-attack on them, I guess.
Published: May 11, 2009 3:40 PM
David
Hi Ron,
Granted, there is some ambiguity about what it means for something to be a "processed" food. As you pointed out, hamburger can be considered a processed food.
My gripe isn't with processed food, per se. My problem is with the chemicals and additives they put in most industrially processed food today. For instance, consider tomato paste, a processed food that is not bad in and of itself. However, most brand name tomato pastes have the unnecessary- and detrimental- addition of high fructose corn syrup. The only national brand that does not do this is Hunt's, so that is what I buy.
That is also my problem with fast food- the chemicals, additives and oils they use to prepare most of their entrees. The bread they use on hamburgers is most generally enriched and bleached, and vegetable oil is used in the baking process. They then top it off with ketchup (high fructose corn syrup + other additives), and mayo (high fructose corn oil + vegetable + other additives). Their fries are generally fried in some sort of vegetable oil, and on and on...
By the way, my gripe with vegetable oils is they are high in polyunsaturated fats, which oxidize easily and cause oxidative stress in the body, among other things. There are exceptions, such as coconut oil, which is high in saturated fat and therefore a vegetable oil that I regularly use and consume.
Published: May 11, 2009 4:12 PM
David Spellman
The masses must remain downtrodden for the leftist elites to feel superior. Anyone who elevates the common man necessarily diminishes the philosopher kings. And that is anathema!
Published: May 11, 2009 4:30 PM
Joshua Park
An excellent post, Mr. Tucker. I enjoyed it very much. And not a word about IP! Three cheers for that... Oh, fine, fine; you've brainwashed me. I'll give the IP angle my best shot:
Of course, this just goes to show you that if Starbucks were to patent a flavor or blend of ingredients, or the words "White Chocolate Mocha" or "Carmel Latte", then the average Joe would be doomed to the crappy old alt rock and $4 drinks. McDonald's isn't stealing anything--Starbucks is free to own their own products or sell them at whatever prices they deem marketable. My purchasing a McCafe does not diminish Starbucks' ability to sell a similar product. (Uhh... what else?) Government mandate cannot create market efficiency like this--a cut in price by half! And, of course, the anti-IP argument should include a look at the state's hypocrisy when seeking anti-trust litigation while supporting monopolistic patents.
Published: May 11, 2009 5:10 PM
JD
Gang of Four, Killing Joke, Skinny Puppy, etc. Innovative in their Craft, but corrosive in their philosophical lyrical bent. Nonetheless, light years ahead of anything done today. I don't keep up with all artist's philosophical influences, but GOF is pretty much a ringer. Nietszche (?), I threw in their haphazzardly, but I'm willing to bet he has some influence in that realm. I don't have enough study in all philosophical ideas throughout history, but generally you can follow patterns and influence to the next generation of philosopher kings. It's just hard to be original now. Sorry! Thank goodness I have XM/Sirius, and my 1st Wave jamming. We need a Von Mises Station. The Right/Prog. Stations are horrible. At least we have this wonderful site....for now that is.
Published: May 11, 2009 10:12 PM
Vanmind
"Your kiss so sweet
Your sweat so sour
Sometimes I'm thinking that I love you
But I know it's only lust
Yeah, Gang Of Four rules. Have you checked out pampelmoose.com?
Published: May 11, 2009 11:19 PM
Matthew
Excellent article Jeffrey. It has now been over a year since I've been to a McDonald's, not as a deliberate choice, I've just made the choice to eat less processed foods. Maybe a trip to a McCafe is in order, although I am more of a tea drinker. Isn't it amazing how a once luxury drink like tea can now be made at home for mere cents per cup?
Are there any good alternative rock bands with a libertarian leaning? I recently found out that the lyricist for Rush is a libertarian, one of their albums ("2112") was dedicated to the genius of Ayn Rand.
Published: May 11, 2009 11:25 PM
JD
Yeah, Neil Peart is supposedly libertarian, but its hard to focus on his lyrics, because of their command of their instruments, especially his drumming.
The Movie Rental thing seems to be doing well at Mickey D's as well, (?). I have yet to use it though.
Gang of Four's "I love a man in a uniform" is great musically & lyrically (see below)!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=izVFZG26hNY
Time with my girl I spent it well
I had to be strong for my woman
(You must be joking, O man you must be joking)
She needed to be protected
The good life was so elusive
Handouts, they got me down
I had to regain my self-respect
So I got into camouflage
The girls they love to see you shoot
I love a man in a uniform
I love a man in a uniform
I love a man in a uniform
I love a man in a uniform
To have ambitions was my ambition
But I had nothing to show for my dreams
Time with my girl I spent it well
(You must be joking, O man you must be joking)
The good life was so elusive
Handouts, they got me down
I had to regain my confidence
So I got into camouflage
The girls they love to see you shoot
I love a man in a uniform
I love a man in a uniform
I love a man in a uniform
I love a man in a uniform
I need an order
(Shoot, shoot)
I need an order
(Shoot, shoot)
I need an order
(Shoot, shoot)
I need an order
(Shoot, shoot)
To have ambition
Was my ambition
Time with my girl I spent it well
(You must be joking, O man you must be joking)
The girls they love to see you shoot
The girls they love to see you shoot
I love a man in a uniform
I love a man in a uniform
(They love to see you shoot)
I love a man in a uniform
The girls they love to see you shoot
I love a man in a uniform
(They love to see you shoot)
The girls they love to see you shoot
I love a man in a uniform
(They love a... they love a... they love a...)
(They love to see you shoot)
The girls they love to see you shoot
(Bang bang you're dead)
I love a man in a uniform
(They love a... they love a... they love a... bang bang)
(They love to see you shoot)
The girls they love to see you shoot
I love a man in a uniform
(They love a... they love a... they love a... bang bang)
(They love to see you shoot)
The girls they love to see you shoot
(Bang bang you're dead)
I love a man in a uniform
(They love a... they love a... they love a... bang bang)
(They love to see you shoot)
The girls they love to see you shoot
(Bang bang you're dead)
(They love a... they love a... they love a...)
(I love a man in a uniform)
Published: May 12, 2009 6:45 PM
Cos
I'm rather a fan of Mr. Tucker, but with this one he seems to hit a wall for two reasons:
- Starbucks coffee is awful
- Any coffee made in a machine is even worst
Despite the unarguable merits of the article and its demonstration of 'power of the market' I'd say Mr. Tucker needs to go to a place where a descent coffee is made. May be Peet's Coffee and Tea, if your little town will ever have one :-)
Published: May 17, 2009 6:23 PM
Claire Traas
Peet's makes great coffee... they don't have any franchises where I live but I can buy their beans at the local stop & shop. I prefer them to Starbucks. Even still, I prefer local coffee roasters where I can buy beans that were freshly roasted that day.
So I got curious and stopped at a local McDonald's just to see if their new espresso drinks are any good. On the positive side, they have a 24 hour drive thru and the coffee was in my hands in less than 2 minutes. On the negative side, they don't not offer decaf, which is annoying when you're pregnant or breastfeeding, or just want to drink coffee for the sake of drinking coffee. Also, the guy at the counter did not seem to have a competent grasp of the English language, which was evident in his inability to comprehend my request for decaf. He also asked if I wanted sugar, when properly steamed milk should impart enough sweetness to a well-made latte. I decided that I prefer to get my coffee from overeducated, over-qualified, green-apron-clad Philosophy majors from the local university than someone who doesn't know what decaf means.
The latte I ordered was better than I expected--they used the right ratio of espresso to steamed milk. However, the espresso tasted very bitter and one-dimensional and the steamed milk lacked the natural sweetness I often find in more expensive lattes. I've had decaf lattes that tasted better.
Published: May 18, 2009 12:54 AM