/ck/ - Food & Cooking

[Anonymous No.12426286]

why do all the best products disappear? Is capitalism really a race to the bottom?

[Anonymous No.12426330]

>>12426286
>Is capitalism really a race to the bottom?
yes

[Anonymous No.12426347]

>>12426286
> Is capitalism really a race to the bottom?
yeah but unlike libtards who think this means race to pay workers as little as possible it actually means a race to normalize a product that is as cheap and shitty as the market is willing to bare.

[Anonymous No.12426358]

>>12426286
WHY DID THEY STOP MAKING THESE THEY REALLY TASTED LIKE STEAK

[Anonymous No.12428171]

>>12426358
I need it breh...;_;

[Anonymous No.12428191]

>>12426286
the "best products" of the kind you're referring to are removed from market to create artificial scarcity when they are reintroduced later.

To your other question, no, the "race to the bottom" is caused by population growth.
Capitalism is the reason starvation isn't an active counter-force to our population growth.

[Anonymous No.12428222]

>>12426286
i made a beef jerky in my trusty cast iron. marinade is quite easy, i like low-so teriyaki sauce, but if you cant find it just a low-so soy/brown sugar substitute. dump in a lil liquid smoke and red pepper flakes and you got a salty, sweet and spicy bite

[Anonymous No.12428239]

>>12428222
Setting aside all the soy memes in this post
>a beef jerky
You mean a roast?

[Anonymous No.12428250]

>>12426286
I’m a junk food eating slob and these chips don’t even sound good

[Anonymous No.12429472]

Am I the only one who finds meat-flavored chips disgusting?

[Anonymous No.12429518]

Meijer sells steak flavored chips. Its their own generic brand. They are amazing

[Anonymous No.12429533]

>>12429472
It just tastes like steak seasoning and liquid smoke

[Anonymous No.12429678]

>>12426286
M A X I M U M

[Anonymous No.12429707]

I hate BK but go there for spicy nuggies, they snatch them away after two weeks, disappear for a month or two, come back for two weeks. Fuck you BK. And fuck McDicks for taking away my Spicy McChicken. They clearly pull them from the market because if Spicy Nuggs/Spicy McChicken are on the menu nobody would be willing to pay $5 for a shitty whopper/Big Mac.

[Anonymous No.12429737]

>>12426347
It's both. Capitalism in the mid 20th century was more balanced concerning the needs of the worker, the consumer, and the bottom line. Now it's all about the bottom line at the expense of everything else.

[Anonymous No.12429751]

>>12429737
>said every wage slave ever since the dawn of profit

[Anonymous No.12429774]

>>12429751
Nah, being a worker wasn't so bad in the Eisenhower years. I once read a theory that the whole "American middle class" thing was one gigantic propaganda tool against communism, and now that we've defeated communism, there's no more need for a comfortable middle class that is neither rich nor poor.

[Anonymous No.12429783]

>>12429751
>tfw communist
>but not a worker
Imagine my shock.

[Anonymous No.12429818]

>>12429472
Good French Fries are cooked in beef tallow. Besides, you never had steakhouses chips on the plate that soaked up all the juice from your steak?

[Anonymous No.12429856]

>>12429774
I really hate getting dragged into a /pol/ discussion but what is this elusive middle class? If it means wagies getting lavish pensions we're actually paying for that now. It wasn't prosperity, just boomers jacking us. A "living wage"? I think i've had that for almost my entire career and what does that mean anyways?

[Anonymous No.12429862]

>>12429856
Exchange rates made life in the US temporarily easy mode for about one generation, they assumed that's what it would be like forever, and now that it's not, the problem must be (pick one or more): gays, brown people, foreigners, women's uteruses.

[Anonymous No.12429881]

>>12429856
I believe a "living wage" is defined as enough money, adjusted for local cost-of-living, to afford housing, food, and necessities for a family, with enough left over to contribute to your savings (might be off on a point or two).

Calling it a "living wage" is a huge buzzword tho, cuz people scraping by paycheck-to-paycheck have a "living wage".
What they CALL a "living wage" is more like, "All the money you'll ever need".

But y'know... why would EVERY job pay that much?

[Anonymous No.12429890]

>>12429856
In the 50s and 60s, wealth growth for the bottom 90% was faster than for the top 10%. That is no longer true, and the top 10% controls 90% of the wealth. 95% if you don't count houses as wealth.

[Anonymous No.12429918]

>>12429818
Asinine comparison. If you want to get closer bring up actual lard chips, not meat flavor seasoned chips

[Anonymous No.12429922]

>>12429918
And that would great if OP was talking about pork chop flavored chips...

[Anonymous No.12429924]

>>12429862
You forgot the “you know who’s” that force all of that shit upon us

[Anonymous No.12429930]

>>12429856
This middle class is mostly lower class people that are brainwashed or in denial.

[Anonymous No.12429932]

>>12429922
They don’t taste like pork chops at all. They are cooked in actual animal fat though and are very delicious

[Anonymous No.12429940]

>>12429774
>now that communism won
Ftfy

[Anonymous No.12429943]

>>12429932
I can tell the difference between lard and tallow by taste.

[Anonymous No.12429946]

>>12429862
>implying women and unchecked immigrants entering the workforce doesn't effect wages
>>12429881
Reasonable
>>12429890
And here comes Bernie Sanders with a ton of random percentages and no context.

We should all be banned. This is a damn cooking board.

[Anonymous No.12429998]

>>12429946
They're not "random percentages with no context." What is "random" about the concept of there being a top 10% of income earners who make up the upper class, and a 90% that includes everyone else?

[Anonymous No.12430010]

>>12429943
Can you tell the difference between vegetable fat and animal fat? That’s the big power gap. Lard is excellent and generally only people who feel the need to stay “Kosher” shit on it

[Anonymous No.12430019]

>>12429998
>What is "random" about the concept of there being a top 10% of income earners who make up the upper class
Different anon, but context always matters.

For example, if the lifestyle of the top 50% right now was as lavish as the top 10% ~60 years ago, then there's really no reason for people to CARE about inequality.

Fundamentally, if your own quality of life, and that of your family, continues to improve, how much money a very rich person makes is none of your business.

This is why people say that socialist politics are motivated by envy.

[Anonymous No.12430030]

>>12430019
Because when basically ALL of the wealth growth goes to the top percentiles, there will eventually come a point where the majority of Americans needs to go on government programs in order to live a halfway comfortable lifestyle. Why should the American taxpayer subsidize the wages of lower income workers when the people running the companies these lower income earners work for make such egregious amounts of money? Amounts that you can never spend in 10 lifetimes.

[Anonymous No.12430057]

>>12430030
>Why should the American taxpayer subsidize the wages of lower income workers when the people running the companies these lower income earners work for make such egregious amounts of money?
Rich people already pay most of the taxes, anon.

And there's a good reason why they shouldn't pay much more:

The glut of money owned by rich people is never just sitting around. Its constantly being invested, and that constant reinvestment is a driving force of economics.

This money is called "The community chest" (like monopoly). The real danger isn't depletion of the community chest, because LONG before that could ever happen, the billionaires who control that money would evacuate their fortunes to friendlier governments.

[Anonymous No.12430064]

>>12429737
Capitalism has always been about keeping the workers and consumers down and the wealthy in power.

[Anonymous No.12430065]

>>12430057
I don't want them to pay more taxes. I want them to pay their employees well enough so those employees don't have to go on welfare.

[Anonymous No.12430066]

>>12430057
Addendum: I understand that the idea I'm conveying here is "wrong", but its also reality.

[Anonymous No.12430068]

>>12426286
>make literally the best chip flavor ever
>get rid of it
fuck you cape cod

[Anonymous No.12430071]

>>12430010
This is correct. The Jewish peoples are pushing for the demise of products which contain lard

[Anonymous No.12430074]

>>12430066
It doesn't have to be reality, though. There's no reason we can't have a market economy in which the workers in a company have some amount of control over that company in the form of ownership shares.

[Anonymous No.12430077]

>>12430065
why should they pay employees any more than what they're willing to work for?

[Anonymous No.12430080]

>>12430077
Because they wouldn't be willing to work for it if welfare weren't there.

[Anonymous No.12430084]

>>12430065
It’s not like the American government is good at saving money, if you got everybody off welfare, they would just hand the cash to the oil companies.

[Anonymous No.12430085]

>>12430071
Not unlike the Jewish people’s glaringly obvious push for the demise of white people, right?

[Anonymous No.12430088]

>>12430065
Every employees is payed exactly what they are worth, where "worth" is defined by the scarcity of the employee's skills and work ethic, as well as the wage requirements of employees with similar worth.

When leftists insist that we flood the market with uneducated foreigners, it should not be a surprise that people with non-skilled jobs suddenly see their labor-value plummet.
In fact, that's exactly why leftists have so much corporate support.

[Anonymous No.12430091]

>>12428191
>when they are reintroduced later.
Except when they are never brought back

[Anonymous No.12430095]

>>12430088
Plenty of people have cushy middle management jobs that they got through connections and nepotism, and they ultimately contribute nothing and collect a paycheck off the hard work of the people actually contributing to the company.

[Anonymous No.12430099]

>>12430074
>the workers in a company have some amount of control over that company in the form of ownership shares.
What you're describing sounds like a 401k.

I mean, when you own stock in a company you work for, you LITERALLY have a vote within that company.

[Anonymous No.12430104]

>>12430085
That’s absolutely correct! Jews generally try to kill off anything that isn’t in direct alignment with their aspirations of global enslavement, be it potato chips or human beings

[Anonymous No.12430106]

>>12430091
Maybe they forgot.

c'est la vie.

[Anonymous No.12430109]

>>12430099
401ks usually don't include voting shares in the company you work for.

[Anonymous No.12430111]

>>12430104
How can Jews be so evil though? They’re basically the devil personified except worse

[Anonymous No.12430116]

>>12430099
>>12430109
Also, how many wage-payed workers get 401ks?

[Anonymous No.12430117]

>>12430095
True enough, but if other workers are picking up the slack, then the average worker-value for that position is still accurate.

Also, if too many middle managers are useless in that way, then the company gains a competitive disadvantage vs the other companies in its industry, leading to eventual buyout.

[Anonymous No.12430118]

>>12430111
Never forget the old saying: “The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn’t exist”

[Anonymous No.12430123]

>>12430117
The whole system is made up to begin with. These ain't immutable laws of physics we're dealing with here. There's no reason we can't change the system so it's more fair and equitable.

[Anonymous No.12430133]

>>12430109
Then you can opt-out, take the extra money, and buy some voting shares at a loss.

>>12430116
Let's be honest: if you're talking about a zero-skill fast food worker, why would you allow them to vote on macro-scale corporate issues that they know nothing about?

It can be hard to accept, because it contradicts the idea of "fairness", but "letting everyone vote" is usually the worst of all possible options.

[Anonymous No.12430147]

>>12430133
I think the people doing the thing that actually makes the company money should have some say and financial interest in the company they're working for. It also results in more dedicated employees, because if the company does better, then they do better.

[Anonymous No.12430154]

>>12430080
obviously the solution is to cut welfare then

[Anonymous No.12430155]

>>12430123
We can have a system that is fair, or we can have a system that creates prosperity.

It might as well be a law of physics that directing resources to the most capable economic actors results in the best economic outcomes for EVERYONE.

Its important to understand: capitalism isn't some top-down system of oppression designed to piss you off. It is simply a system of incentives, and those incentives trend towards greater general prosperity.

"Inequality" is a red herring that will cause you to forget your REAL economic self-interest.

[Anonymous No.12430162]

>>12430154
Yeah, no shit. But that won't happen because then workers will demand to be paid fairly.
>>12430155
The system created prosperity in the 50s and 60s while also being fair.

[Anonymous No.12430175]

>>12430147
>I think the people doing the thing that actually makes the company money should have some say and financial interest in the company
Yes, that would be fair, but it would not maximize prosperity, because those workers lack a deeper understanding of WHY they do what they do.

Disagree with that or not, answer which is better:

1. To improve the lives of the greatest possible number of people

2. To "do what is right" at the expense of significant and widespread human suffering

[Anonymous No.12430186]

>>12430175
It's not an either/or thing, and framing it as such is disingenuous and kind of kikey. You can have prosperity and fairness simultaneously. We did it before, and we can do it again.

[Anonymous No.12430193]

>>12430186
It absolutely is either/or. You lack perspective.

A simple example: The survival of a company depends upon cutting overhead, and you can't save enough money without layoffs.

The greater harm would be caused by the bankruptcy of the company, so the clear solution is the lesser harm of laying off SOME workers.

If workers controlled the company, what workforce ON EARTH would vote in favor of that kind of self-harm?

And thus the workers would foolishly and selfishly cause even greater harm, likely while convincing themselves that, "no, everything will be okay".

[Anonymous No.12430198]

>>12430193
I never said they should get controlling shares, just that they should have SOME say in it.

[Anonymous No.12430209]

>>12430198
If its a public company, anyone can buy shares.

Most simply choose not to.

[Anonymous No.12430215]

>>12430209
You can't buy shares if you don't have any extra income. Also, there ARE companies that are set up this way, and they do just fine. The only reason to oppose it is greed, and greed is a sin. You come off as very un-Christian.

[Anonymous No.12430219]

Youre all right about the state of politics and economics, especially regarding Potato Chip flavors that have been fucking Jewed

HAIL HITLER !

HAIL HITLER !

HAIL HITLER !

[Anonymous No.12430235]

>>12430215
>trying to bring religious morality into economic prosperity
Now who's being Kike-y.

Protip: The reason why capitalists say that "greed is good" is because under capitalism, its almost impossible for you to make money for yourself (and satisfy your greed) without also enhancing the prosperity of others.

Socialist, on the other hand, are consumed by the sin of envy. A sin that never creates, and only consumes.

[Anonymous No.12430240]

>>12430235
I'm not a socialist. I just want capitalism that is rooted in Christian morals like selflessness and avoiding things rooted in Jewish morals like inflicting usury upon gentiles.

[Anonymous No.12430248]

>>12430219
This makes 0 (zero) sense whatsoever

[Anonymous No.12430274]

>>12430240
I care about results.

Usury lacks the "moral purity" of charity, but the weaving together of "doing good" with "self-interest" has created the most powerful and self-sustaining force for good in human history.

There is no more powerful tool for improvement of human life than the exchange of opportunity for interest.

[Anonymous No.12430285]

>>12430274
You can still have an economy without loans. There's nothing wrong with investors taking on risk and having a vested interest in the success of a company, which a bank does not, since they get paid regardless of how well the company does, and if the company fails, they get the assets.
Also, a whole lot of suffering is necessary for our system to continue. It's just that we outsource the suffering to the other side of the world.

[Anonymous No.12430314]

>>12430285
>You can still have an economy without loans.
2008 called. It said that you're a weenus.

Also, protip: if a bank is likely to be able to claim assets from a business in the case of default, that reduction in risk will be reflected in the interest rate.
This is why credit card rates are insanely high: no collateral.

[Anonymous No.12430331]

>>12430057
You’re right. That’s why the megacorps should be dissolved, the ultra-rich executed, and their money redistributed to its rightful owners, the people.

[Anonymous No.12430357]

>>12430331
By the time the first hints appear that such a policy will be put in place, the rich are already gone along with their money.

The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money. However, in practice, "eventually" happens much sooner than later.

[Anonymous No.12430645]

>>12426286
I unironically miss Viennetta (I know it's still made, it's just not sold here anymore).
>>12430057
I just wanted to point out that an economy based on interest and banking is unsustainable.

[Anonymous No.12430662]

>>12430645
>an economy based on interest and banking is unsustainable.
Yeah, if you're a socialist and think economics is a zero sum game, then of course ALL investment is just a shell game, and "growing wealth" never happens.

This is why I would urge you to NOT think like a retarded commie.

[Anonymous No.12430665]

>>12430068
The best chip flavor ever is salt and vinegar. This is not debatable.
Also, capitalism doesn't always work, but it usually works. Socialism ONLY works with strict border/immigration enforcement and a very well educated populace with great job skills that all speak the same language. Communism never works; China is a weird communist/capitalist hybrid.

[Anonymous No.12430677]

>>12429818
What a half-assed sear.
>>12430662
>if you're a socialist
Far from it. An economy whose primary driving force is banking and interest is unsustainable.

[Anonymous No.12430679]

>>12430665
>The best chip flavor ever is salt and vinegar. This is not debatable
Don't quit your day job pleb

[Anonymous No.12430694]

>>12430677
>primary driving force
Boy, its amazing how adding a couple of weasel-words completely changes the meaning of a sentence.

[Anonymous No.12430726]

>>12430030
>all dem pies
I'm personally a fan of pecan pies.
>>12430694
It's what I honestly meant but couldn't find the right words for before. It also describes the current United States economy.

[Anonymous No.12430765]

>>12430726
>It also describes the current United States economy.
This is a silly thing to say, but not necessarily because its false.

Most economies, let alone in the US, are so complicated that they cannot be wholly processed by a human brain. The sheer volume of interconnected information surpasses our "cognitive limit".

You could be right, that our economy has passed a tipping point where banks sending excessive money on meaningless adventures has resulted in insolvency, but there's no way for a human to know until right when it all falls apart.

That being said, it is still a fundamental truth that the exchange of opportunity for interest, (which we call usury), has been a critical force of "sustainable pseudo-altruism" that has elevated our technology and quality of life beyond anything that previously existed.

[Anonymous No.12430831]

>>12430010
Lard is wonderful.
>>12430765
The exchange of opportunity for interest and usury are not the same thing. This exchange is sometimes but not always usury. This exchange has, indeed, been a driving force behind civilization, all the way back to the ancient Sumerians and ancient Greeks. Usury has not been a driving force behind civilization.

[Anonymous No.12430843]

>>12430831
Other than various predatory practices and discretionary loans, when is usury NOT an opportunity/interest exchange?

Are you using some nuance of the term "usury" that I'm ignoring? I'm just using it interchangeably with "loan".

[Anonymous No.12430854]

>>12428239
How about beef jerky flavored chips?
>>12430843
Indeed:
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/usury
The nuance is "at unreasonably high rates of interest." Usury is predatory lending.

[Anonymous No.12430867]

>>12430854
Ah. My definition would have been, "especially (not exclusively) at unreasonable rates"

I'll say "lending", then.

[Anonymous No.12430868]

>>12430162
>The system created prosperity in the 50s and 60s while also being fair.
That's because WWII absolutely fucked the economies of Europe and Asia, and the rest of the third world hadn't become a cheap source of labor yet, so there was a huge demand for American goods and resources which translated into a lot of good paying jobs for people with no post-secondary training or education. Those economic conditions are gone and they're never coming back. The rest of the world has caught up and there's a lot more competition to American goods and labor now.

[Anonymous No.12430888]

potato chips with oriental ramen flavor.

i will take my answer off the air.

[Anonymous No.12430899]

>>12430064
THIS, BROS!

WE NEED SOCIALISM NOW!`

[Anonymous No.12431040]

The thing that nobody, Leftwing or Rightwing, in America wants to admit is that we're heading for a massive economic stall-point and nobody can stop it. America's great 20th Century middle class golden age only existed because of external economic and political factors. We're all taught to believe that we're special and God/the Universe loves America and we can solve anything but it's horse shit. Socialism won't save us, capitalism won't save us, investing gold or silver, won't save us, the graph line won't go up forever. The bubble is popping and we're going to hit a free fall in the next 50 years and it is going to be a scary-ass ride until we reach an economic normalization point where U.S. labor and goods are competitive with places in Asia, Eastern Europe and South America.

[Anonymous No.12432541]

>>12430679
She’s right, though.

[Anonymous No.12432549]

>eat two/three meat flavored chips
>brain says "ah what a delicious meal I can stop eating now :)"
I feel like it was this, people aren't gonna eat too much of the steak chips.

[Anonymous No.12432627]

>>12430888
You could just sprinkle the dry powder packets on your plain chips at home, shake bag and eat.

[Anonymous No.12432628]

>>12430154
>obviously we should regress to 21st century serfdom

[Anonymous No.12433253]

>>12430665

>salt and vinegar

pleb taste detected

[Anonymous No.12433364]

>>12426286
I NEED IT NOW BREHS

[Anonymous No.12433660]

>>12430068
it seems you posted the wrong picture there friend

[Anonymous No.12433790]

>>12430899
We can hope, but inbred hillbilly retards will always think socialism is the big bad boogy man trying to make them even more destitute as if that was even possible, so they will never vote for it unless their team says it's ok. And their team is the team of big business so that's never going to happen.

[Anonymous No.12433798]

>>12426286
try these
still in production

[Anonymous No.12434267]

>>12430155
or we can occupy a neutral ground in which some fairness for the majority is traded for some prosperity for the minority. the upper classes could take a 10 percent cut to their income and still be rich while the poor could take a ten percent cut to their income and it could mean having to choose between feeding your family and making rent. how can someone be expected to reliably make money, much less save it, when they don't even have a place to live? how can someone be not be expected to break the rules and steal and sell drugs when following them hasn't benefited them for their entire life?

isn't the the point of democracy? that rules can be changed when they no longer serve the majority's common interests? other things might change from culture to culture, race to race, country to country, but a desire to live comfortably is common among all categories. when our system not just fails to give people the chance to prosper but denies it altogether, it's time for change.

[Anonymous No.12434283]

>>12433798
>still in production
Lol yeah right

[Anonymous No.12434376]

This thread is a prime example of why you should leave shitty politics out of everything.

[Anonymous No.12434474]

>>12434376
>This board is a prime example of why you should leave shitty politics out of everything.

[Anonymous No.12434503]

>>12429737
End stage or perfect capitalism will lead to a somewhat communist state. It will cut the middle man out completely. That's what creates competitive nature of economy. Rockefeller knew this quite well and created pr to provoke it.

[Anonymous No.12434804]

>>12426286
On the other hand we now have all dressed ruffles as south as Texas. Kroger makes a prime rib and horseradish flavored chip though if you have a craving.

[Anonymous No.12434862]

>>12434376
I just want to grill for gods sakes

[Anonymous No.12436123]

These things right here were literally THE BEST snack food ever invented. Nothing has ever come close nor will ever. Fuck Arnott's for not making them a permanent product line. If I had one wish I would wish for infinite wishes and then wish that these came back.

[Anonymous No.12436166]

>>12426286
the goal of the capitalist :
To produce products/services while making as much profit as possible.

SO
To provide the lowest quality product/service possible, while paying workers the lowest possible wage, while charging the highest price possible, while giving back as little as possible to the investor who made it possible.

"To infinity and beyond" takes on a special new meaning here as the ultimate goal is basically "Pay me all your money for nothing"
which is basically what the investor wants as well.

which leaves me thinking that capitalism isn't so much "a race to the bottom" as a race between capitalists and investors to "shove it as far up the arse" of workers and consumers as possible without getting torn apart by the mob

[Anonymous No.12436198]

>>12430064
Its just not as good at it as socialism

[Anonymous No.12436216]

>>12430219
go to psyops base, do not pass go, do not collect $200

[Anonymous No.12436226]

>>12426347
What makes you think labour isn't a product and subject to the same downward pressure? There's a reason it's called the job market, anon.

[Anonymous No.12436305]

>>12426286
Boring people with boring tastebuds only ever keep buying the plain flavors instead of trying anything new.