What "anti free market" activities were even going on in this video? Makes no sense. Does McDonalds just really like paying Taylor more money than they should for ice cream machines for no particular reason? And I felt like I was having a stroke from 26:00 to the end when he just keeps repeating the same thing in a poor effort to make the viewer think he actually came to an impactful conclusion.
"It's because there's an old relationship between between two old companies that don't want things to change." Great detective work there, McDonalds is known for wasting money and never adopting new technology like digital ordering machines to replace employees. This narrative just makes no sense.
Businesses trying to make money is not anti free market just because you don't like the way they do it, but that's not even ostensibly what's going on here. According to this guy one corporation, Taylor, is fleecing another corporation, McDonalds, and McDonalds is complicit in this even though he presented no reason why this would benefit them whatsoever. Maybe there is some convoluted way that McDonalds corporate benefits, but he never even attempted to figure out how. Instead he chalked it up to "old relationships." Which is incredibly flimsy because corporations have business relationships, not personal relationships where people are content to be leached on.
The only way this makes any sense as presented is if Taylor is somehow the only company able to make ice cream machines in the world and the person in charge just hates McDonalds for some reason.
Here's what's happening:
The franchise owners have to buy a certain product to open a McDonalds, which is prone to breaking. They cannot have the machine repaired by the best service tech available, they have to pay Taylor certified techs for it or the warranty is void. Instead of helping franchise owners find new private solutions to solve this monopoly, they send cease and desists to people who circumvent Taylors technology, as well as force franchise owners to keep to the current solution. McDonalds doesn't pay a penny for crappy Taylor machines, the franchise owners do. For some franchise owners, it's lost time and revenue, while Taylor and McDonalds profit off of red tape and buraucracy. The consumers pay down the road with lower satisfaction, while McDonalds Corporate isn't on the hook for any of it.
That's how tightly controlled franchises work. They knew couldn't buy non corporate approved products when they bought a franchise and signed the agreement.
while Taylor and McDonalds profit off of red tape and buraucracy.
Please try to explain how McDonalds corporate profits from their franchises losing revenue and having to pay techs.
while McDonalds Corporate isn't on the hook for any of it.
You do realize that McDonalds corporate takes a percentage of a franchises sales?
Because McDonalds has a quid pro quo with Taylor. Theres a contract document that allows Taylor to to profit and scratch corporates back, which replaces lost sales revenue from ice cream sales, which is marginal in the McDonalds franchise. The issue is the owners are on the hook for repair costs, that dont factor into McDonalds sales commission, so from corporates eyes they see it as marginal at best. However, for the franchise owner, the costs have to be weighed with revenue, and therefore many stores have refused to clean or maintain their ice cream machines due to the extra costs, becoming a health hazard for the general public from unsanitary ice cream machines. Theres a domino effect here thats being completely ignored by only focusing on the McDs corporate bottom line.
Ive probably mentioned it before, but in case I havent (either on this thread, or in general) but I dont believe its the monetary value thats the primary problem here. Its the principle of the matter. Price fixing and monopolistic contracts are bad for the private sector, as well as the franchise owners and the general public. If I were a franchise owner, Id be pissed off that I wasnt given informed consent on this problem that clearly exists to benefit a few at the expense of others.
Because McDonalds has a quid pro quo with Taylor. Theres a contract document that allows Taylor to to profit and scratch corporates back,
That's mere conjecture, but maybe its possible.
Price fixing and monopolistic contracts are bad for the private sector, as well as the franchise owners and the general public
What do you propose then? Banning franchise agreements?
If I were a franchise owner, Id be pissed off that I wasn't given informed consent on this problem that clearly exists to benefit a few at the expense of others.
If you were a franchise owner you would have signed an agreement with McDonalds corporate that says you must do things their way. That's the cost of being a franchisee instead of an independent business.
Frankly I don't care that much about the woes of a Mcdonalds franchisees ice cream machine. They are adults and they signed the contract. They aren't going to starve to death because their ice cream machine breaks a lot. If its that bad they could have opened a Wendys. Kind of like you could go to a Wendys to get a frostee instead of McDonalds.
sir, you may or may know this, but people buy ice cream just about everywhere else they're able. if mcdonald's can't figure that out for—shit—19 years (when last i worked there), they're not going to. the market incentive isn't strong enough for them fo do so. i don't see the issue here at all
If you were a franchise owner, and you lost money every month because of bureaucracy/red tape, would you think it's a perfect solution and there's no need to change it?
"The ice cream machine doesn't work. Capitalism has failed..."
Strawman. I never said anything about the failure of Capitalism.
It was more of a joke for ancaps than an argument against whatever you were saying. It's the kind of thing statists say a lot.
Gotcha completely missed the reference, my bad. Heres an updoot.
this is the correct response
What "anti free market" activities were even going on in this video? Makes no sense. Does McDonalds just really like paying Taylor more money than they should for ice cream machines for no particular reason? And I felt like I was having a stroke from 26:00 to the end when he just keeps repeating the same thing in a poor effort to make the viewer think he actually came to an impactful conclusion.
"It's because there's an old relationship between between two old companies that don't want things to change." Great detective work there, McDonalds is known for wasting money and never adopting new technology like digital ordering machines to replace employees. This narrative just makes no sense.
Businesses trying to make money is not anti free market just because you don't like the way they do it, but that's not even ostensibly what's going on here. According to this guy one corporation, Taylor, is fleecing another corporation, McDonalds, and McDonalds is complicit in this even though he presented no reason why this would benefit them whatsoever. Maybe there is some convoluted way that McDonalds corporate benefits, but he never even attempted to figure out how. Instead he chalked it up to "old relationships." Which is incredibly flimsy because corporations have business relationships, not personal relationships where people are content to be leached on.
The only way this makes any sense as presented is if Taylor is somehow the only company able to make ice cream machines in the world and the person in charge just hates McDonalds for some reason.
Who is they, McDonalds corporate or the franchisees?
Are you serious? If you had actually even read my top level comment you would know the answer. Here's a hint: "26:00 to the end ."
Here's what's happening: The franchise owners have to buy a certain product to open a McDonalds, which is prone to breaking. They cannot have the machine repaired by the best service tech available, they have to pay Taylor certified techs for it or the warranty is void. Instead of helping franchise owners find new private solutions to solve this monopoly, they send cease and desists to people who circumvent Taylors technology, as well as force franchise owners to keep to the current solution. McDonalds doesn't pay a penny for crappy Taylor machines, the franchise owners do. For some franchise owners, it's lost time and revenue, while Taylor and McDonalds profit off of red tape and buraucracy. The consumers pay down the road with lower satisfaction, while McDonalds Corporate isn't on the hook for any of it.
That's how tightly controlled franchises work. They knew couldn't buy non corporate approved products when they bought a franchise and signed the agreement.
Please try to explain how McDonalds corporate profits from their franchises losing revenue and having to pay techs.
You do realize that McDonalds corporate takes a percentage of a franchises sales?
Because McDonalds has a quid pro quo with Taylor. Theres a contract document that allows Taylor to to profit and scratch corporates back, which replaces lost sales revenue from ice cream sales, which is marginal in the McDonalds franchise. The issue is the owners are on the hook for repair costs, that dont factor into McDonalds sales commission, so from corporates eyes they see it as marginal at best. However, for the franchise owner, the costs have to be weighed with revenue, and therefore many stores have refused to clean or maintain their ice cream machines due to the extra costs, becoming a health hazard for the general public from unsanitary ice cream machines. Theres a domino effect here thats being completely ignored by only focusing on the McDs corporate bottom line.
Ive probably mentioned it before, but in case I havent (either on this thread, or in general) but I dont believe its the monetary value thats the primary problem here. Its the principle of the matter. Price fixing and monopolistic contracts are bad for the private sector, as well as the franchise owners and the general public. If I were a franchise owner, Id be pissed off that I wasnt given informed consent on this problem that clearly exists to benefit a few at the expense of others.
That's mere conjecture, but maybe its possible.
What do you propose then? Banning franchise agreements?
If you were a franchise owner you would have signed an agreement with McDonalds corporate that says you must do things their way. That's the cost of being a franchisee instead of an independent business.
Frankly I don't care that much about the woes of a Mcdonalds franchisees ice cream machine. They are adults and they signed the contract. They aren't going to starve to death because their ice cream machine breaks a lot. If its that bad they could have opened a Wendys. Kind of like you could go to a Wendys to get a frostee instead of McDonalds.
sir, you may or may know this, but people buy ice cream just about everywhere else they're able. if mcdonald's can't figure that out for—shit—19 years (when last i worked there), they're not going to. the market incentive isn't strong enough for them fo do so. i don't see the issue here at all
If you were a franchise owner, and you lost money every month because of bureaucracy/red tape, would you think it's a perfect solution and there's no need to change it?
depends on if there's an opportunity cost somewhere else in the business. you're suggesting that there are solutions without trade-offs. why?