GOOD! I celebrate the death of the restaurant chains!
The fishy death of Red Lobster
451–460 of 540 posts
Re: The fishy death of Red Lobster
#452I've seen many people saying, on this site and others, that they "believe in markets", as if it was their profession of faith. When markets are allowed to work "normally", this is what always happens: regulations are lobbied to the ground, resources get depleted, profitable companies get destroyed to make a quick buck and everyone is worse off in the long term. Having a strong economy is sadly harder than letting the…
> When markets are allowed to work "normally", this is what always happens: regulations are lobbied to the ground, resources get depleted, profitable companies get destroyed to make a quick buck and everyone is worse off in the long term.
Yes, there was a time during industrial revolution when laissez faire was experimented with in a region of England. It ended up in a total hellhole apparently. Also it looks like it was tried in Norway to a lesser degree and it ended up in another hell:
https://www.quora.com/What-would-happen-if-the-Nordic-countr...
Re: The fishy death of Red Lobster
#453Unfortunately in the late Capitalism that reads more like Feudal than Capitalism, there is not much we can do, and so be it. There is a time that all shall burn and rot and a new world may come forth.
It isn't just late stage capitalism. Robber barons became a glaring issue with capitalism very early on. People eventually realized that it took regulation and government intervention to correct for that, but the wealthy who wanted to keep peasants doing all the work in their fiefdoms have spent a very long time demonizing and weakening the kinds of government interventions that could keep them in check.
They've managed to con a huge number of people into agreeing that they should have unchecked power and that government (that thing 'we the people' have direct influence on) is the real problem. It's shocking to me how many people fell for it and would rather be ruled over by corporations than government even through they don't get any kind of vote for who their corporate masters are, while we can (ostensibly) vote for our government officials and vote them out if they displease us, replacing them with someone more aligned with our interest.
Increasingly government is either bribed into letting corporations do whatever they want, sabotaged by regulatory capture, or stripped of their power by the people who have either been suckered into voting against their own interests or who fantasize about one day being able to carve out their own fiefdoms full of peasants they can chain and exploit
Re: The fishy death of Red Lobster
#454Earlier quoted context omitted.
> None of this is unusual or in any way wrong. You're completely correct. Everything described in the article was completely legal. The things that are illegal, like overfishing protected waters, the company doesn't do. Instead, they lobby to make it legal, then do it. See, all above board. It's all legal. Why would anyone get upset about a company that isn't breaking the law? If it were wrong it would be illegal, ri…
While maybe not illegal (yet), there is a lot of deception of retail investors throughout the process: * astroturf campaign against the company * fake boost in profits from massive asset liquidation Once the stock is run up, equity cashed out leaving morons who only had access to financials and not “the plan” holding the bag. It smells like a combination of fraud and insider trading, but perhaps the SEC can name it s…
I'm just following the logic in the original comment. To wit:
All of that is (barely, probably) not illegal, and because it is not illegal, it therefore is normal, perfectly reasonable, and not in any way wrong. The law wasn't broken, therefore nothing untoward happened.
If they managed to touch their toe over the line of illegal, then it was fraud and bad and they're criminals who should be prosecuted. But since what they did might be barely not quite fraud, it's perfectly normal and acceptable, right?
/s
Re: The fishy death of Red Lobster
#455I think the author has a hard time trying to put a "why should we care?" spin on this at the end: Middle class families need a nice night out, and red lobster is the best way to do that! Totally agree that this is vicious jackal like behavior by the PE funds. But as others have said, this is the lifecycle of a dying company. If red lobster's share prices were high because they were extremely profitable and everyone l…
B is not true. It's more profitable to extract lots of value in the short term and kill the company and then move on to the next victim, continually showing great profit spikes and cashing out yourself, than to slowly extract value over the years. The system is full of perverse incentives.
Why is this perverse? It seems desirable. IF there are other opportunities that generate more value, you would want to cash out of the lower ones and invest in the better ones.
IF there are no options that generate better value, the company wont be liquidated.
Re: The fishy death of Red Lobster
#456I've seen many people saying, on this site and others, that they "believe in markets", as if it was their profession of faith. When markets are allowed to work "normally", this is what always happens: regulations are lobbied to the ground, resources get depleted, profitable companies get destroyed to make a quick buck and everyone is worse off in the long term. Having a strong economy is sadly harder than letting the…
I'm absolutely okay with the market destroying companies. It's literally one of the points of having a market to begin with. That sometimes also includes profitable companies. I think the parent post is a fundamental misunderstanding of what markets are intended to do. If you want a static world that doesn't and can't change, then of course something like a command economy is preferable
I have no problem with unprofitable, severly mismanaged companies going out of business. I do have a problem when a company is liquidated to give an exit to shareholders when it is still profitable, as described in the article.
Re: The fishy death of Red Lobster
#457Earlier quoted context omitted.
Market economies destroyed the wildlife fauna of North America. It's incredible when you see photographs of what used to exist here.
Go look at parts of China, Russia, North Korea, and Vietnam and compare. You also might be shocked to find that Native Americans also had a market economy.
How is that relevant? Yes, planned economies do no better on that front, what's your point?
And what do you mean about Native Americans having a market economy? Are you honestly comparing their economic system with ours? Or are you making a bad faith argument in favor of laissez-faire capitalism?
Re: The fishy death of Red Lobster
#458I went to red lobster in Toronto yesterday as a "lets save red lobster Canada" idea I had in my head, they came to Canada the year I was born and my dad was obsessed so I have a lot of nostalgia. Came out thinking: let em burn. Worse than mediocre rubber for $200 after tip and tax.
I had a really bad dining experience the one single time I went to Red Lobster; happened at the same place probably (Toronto, the one in Bay Street?) hence why I want to share. I came in to the restaurant and there was no one at the front desk, but the place seemed to be operating normally so I just went on to seat at the nearest table I found. Waiters just started ignoring me; at some point I realized this was on pu…
You shouldn’t just seat yourself at the majority of restaurants, unless you are sitting at the bar area.
Re: The fishy death of Red Lobster
#459I've seen many people saying, on this site and others, that they "believe in markets", as if it was their profession of faith. When markets are allowed to work "normally", this is what always happens: regulations are lobbied to the ground, resources get depleted, profitable companies get destroyed to make a quick buck and everyone is worse off in the long term. Having a strong economy is sadly harder than letting the…
> When markets are allowed to work "normally", this is what always happens: regulations are lobbied to the ground, resources get depleted, profitable companies get destroyed to make a quick buck and everyone is worse off in the long term. Yes, there was a time during industrial revolution when laissez faire was experimented with in a region of England. It ended up in a total hellhole apparently. Also it looks like it…
I would love to see an experiment where the only type of regulation allowed was to price unpriced externalities.
Re: The fishy death of Red Lobster
#460Earlier quoted context omitted.
Go look at parts of China, Russia, North Korea, and Vietnam and compare. You also might be shocked to find that Native Americans also had a market economy.
How is that relevant? Yes, planned economies do no better on that front, what's your point? And what do you mean about Native Americans having a market economy? Are you honestly comparing their economic system with ours? Or are you making a bad faith argument in favor of laissez-faire capitalism?
I'm highlighting how silly it is to blame the destruction of North American wildlife on "Market Economies". I think it an incredibly bad take.