Ciao!

Coffee & books

07.17.2003

Yesterday, while spending the day w/ my friends Bill (back from Japan after a year's absence) and Bay, I shared an interesting discussion about economics, globalization, and corporate capitalism (among other related topics). Bill argued that corporate capitalism and globalization tends to have a negative effect. He gave the usual reasonings — such as a lack of diversity and a homogenization (i.e. "Americanization" of world culture). Bay and I weren't convinced. So, we spent much of the day drinking coffee and debating the positive consequences of economic globalization.

First, I believe that democracy and capitalism are necessarily linked. The same rights that make democracy possible, make capitalism possible (and vice versa). Freedom of speech — the right to advertise products. Freedom of the press — the right to means to advertise products. Freedom of association — the right to engage in economic ventures w/ others. Etc.

Second, I don't necessarily agree w/ the arguments that traditional ways of life must be preserved simply because they are traditional. Sure, I appreciate the "slow food" movement that seeks to preserve local food & culture. But not all traditional conventions are positive. I'm glad traditional Southern norms of racism are vanishing (even if too slowly). I'm glad a globalized standard of human rights helped pressure South Africa to end apartheid. I'm glad "Western" feminism is making headway against Latin American "machismo." Surely, not all traditional values are positive. The good 'ol days weren't always all that good. My problem w/ ethnic/cultural nostalgia (and that's essentially what it is) is that it sometimes reminds me of the Volksgemeinschaft movement of 1930s Germany. If traditional values are to be defended, they must be defended for rational reasons — not merely because they are traditional values.

Third, I actually do believe that globalization is (on the balance) a positive thing. Globalization increases individual choices (in nearly all areas of life). It makes people's lives qualitatively better. And it's the greatest weapon for peace the world's ever known.

Globalization actually brings diversity, rather than a homogenization of the world. Sure, many traditional areas are lost. Tokyo looks like New York looks like Moscow looks like Buenos Aires. But. Think of what that actually means. That means that a person in Tokyo has much the same cultural, political, and economic choices that her peers in Moscow has. And that's actually an increase in diversity, rather than homogenization.

If America is "McWorld", and the world is becoming similar to this giant behemoth, then what would this mean? For all its corporate capitalism, America has the largest number of religions in the world. Here in Kalamazoo you can find not only various Christian denominations, but a mosque, a Jewish synagogue, Buddhist meditation circles, Yoga training centers, and I've no idea what else. Go to any big city and witness the religious diversity.

McWorld also means not only that I can see the Golden Arches in Tokyo, but also that I can eat sushi, falafel, Peking duck, curried chicken, tamales, borscht, and other international fare in America. If every country limited itself only to what it's "traditional" foods were, we'd loose a major avenue of connection between peoples. In a small town in Michigan, I've the opportunity to eat falafel at a Middle Eastern restaurant. What does this mean? It seems trivial, but that helps break down barriers. Suddenly, a foreign culture isn't as alien as I thought. We're all just people; we're essentially the same.

But even in the context of a regional economy, corporations help out. Take coffee houses, for example. People like to attack Starbucks as horrible corporate monster (how dare they be successful!). But what has Starbucks really done that's wrong? They were modestly founded in 1971. They sell "fair trade" coffee (in response to their customers' demands). They've also helped promote and develop a coffee house culture many people enjoy.

My friend wants to open a coffee house. Because of Starbucks (the number of independent coffee houses has dramatically increased since the founding of Starbucks), people are familiar w/ lates, cappuccinos, espressos, and the like. So my friend can open a coffee house, knowing that a ready market exists for his product. Plus, Starbucks carries the brunt of the weight in keeping the specialty coffee market stable (e.g. maintaining supply & distribution networks), which keeps prices low for consumers. This single corporation bore the costs of introducing a product — and continues to do so.

Ironically, the more Starbucks promotes coffee house culture, the more it helps local coffee houses which A) don't have to introduce their customers to products (like caramel mochas) and B) can easily market themselves as counterculture, niche, or somehow different from their major competitor.

Major corporations are also great levelers. Prior to Starbucks, cappuccinos and mochas were unknown to construction workers. Not only that, the cost of these "specialty" coffee drinks were prohibitive. Starbucks introduced the product in such a wide scale, that working people can treat themselves to a double shot Machiato. And that's rather progressive.

Another example is Barnes & Noble, often accused of attacking small local bookstores. And this might indeed be a negative consequence of B&N. But what are the benefits? Imagine ten small, locally-owned and operated bookstores in town. How wide is their selection? Probably not very. But B&N, because it's a large corporate entity can open a store in the same town and sell a much wider variety of books. But it also means that small bookstores don't have to worry so much about competing against each other, and can rather focus on specialty niche genres (poetry or crime/mystery) — which further increases consumer choices. This means that consumers (that's you and I) now have ready access to a much wider selection of books. On top of that B&N (like Amazon.com) not only supports small, independent bookstore networks — it allows you (yes, you!) to open your own online bookstore. All this promotes greater social literacy (which, last I heard, was a good thing). That, too, is progressive.

Posted by Miguel at 10:07 PM

Comments

Posted by: Duane at July 18, 2003 10:11 AM

Posted by: Chanda at July 18, 2003 08:33 PM

Posted by: miguel at July 19, 2003 01:25 AM

Posted by: bil at July 19, 2003 10:56 PM

Posted by: miguel at July 20, 2003 02:59 AM

Posted by: Stephanie at July 20, 2003 04:59 PM

Posted by: Josh at November 28, 2003 11:04 PM