[Kate Adams]

I agree with Craig here ... $$ = market dominance and generica hegemony 
when business enters an area with the intent to use superior capitalization 
to drive competition out of business.

But what's the upside of being open to internationalism?  What are the 
boundaries in global interaction that make it a positive thing and not a 
negative flow?  Isolationism protects markets, but closes off vital 
interactions and can create festering nationalist paranoia.

That's what I'm grappling with in the dual message I'm getting here.  What 
should globally move about and what should not: ideas, scientific 
knowledge, standards of human rights, standards for environmental 
protection/precaution, capital, workers, tourists, corporations, 
participatory democracy, culture, entertainment, works of art, what have you?

A conundrum to be sure.

At 10:04 AM 10/18/02 +1000, craiggy@ozemail.com.au wrote:
>I think what you are talking about is the illusion of choice.
>
>When Starbucks or Maccas come in and set up multiple stores in one area 
>purely for the reason of killing off small operators that is not choice. I 
>mean it is very easy for Maccas or Starbucks to put a small biz out of the 
>biz.
>
>How many family owned, non franchised hamburger restaurants are there left 
>in the world? In five years, ask how many small coffee shops are left...
>
>Get with it! If there is one main, omnipresent, easy choice, and the 
>alternative is small, scattered businesses with small marketing budgets, 
>where's the fair choice there.
>
>American-style franchising has proved a successful business concept but 
>has been devestating for local  choice, consumer health, the environment 
>and any meaningful indicator
>
>Good business does not mean it is a good thing. Get out of the doctrine man.
>
>Craig
> >
> > From: Oils21@aol.com
> > Subject: Re: [Powderworks] LMOC: One Country or 51st State of the US?
> > Date: 18/10/2002 1:39:58
> > To: cjake@pipeline.com,  kate@dnki.net
> > CC: powderworks@cs.colorado.edu
> >
> > I totally agree with this.  Nobody is forcing anyone to make any of 
> these choices. The reason American business has been so successful is 
> because of its ability to satisfy consumer demand throughout the 
> world.  If people In Australia or anywhere want to eat McDonald's, then 
> they should be allowed and able to.   Why should they be denied this 
> desire because they do not live in the US or McDonald's and Starbucks are 
> not from their country. Is choice not one of the anchors of a truly free 
> society?  Denying something that people want on any grounds is wrong.
> >
> > Reporting high atop midtown Manhattan.
> >
> > Phil
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > In a message dated 10/16/2002 6:37:45 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
> cjake@pipeline.com writes:
> >
> > > The other items, all presented as an American cultural invasion, are
> > > choices made by Australian consumers, not something forced upon them.
> > > If I can avoid all of the above living a few miles from midtown New
> > > York, and also avoid the ubiquitous McDonalds, I'm not sure
> > > why those in
> > > other countries can't as well.
> > _______________________________________________
> > Powderworks mailing list
> > Powderworks@cs.colorado.edu
> > http://www.cs.colorado.edu/mailman/listinfo/powderworks
> >
>
>This message was sent through MyMail http://www.mymail.com.au
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Powderworks mailing list
>Powderworks@cs.colorado.edu
>http://www.cs.colorado.edu/mailman/listinfo/powderworks