In my life long project of getting a fix on economics, one of the most difficult tasks has been understanding hard core Capitalism.
On February 5, 2011 in the Business section of the Star Tribune an article by Sharon Bernstein of the Los Angeles Times quotes a merchant who puts capitalism in words that I can understand.
Beth Mansfield, spokeswoman for CKE Restaurants Inc says: "The bottom line is that we're in the business of making money, and we make money off what we sell....If we wanted to listen to the food police and sell nuts and berries and tofu burgers...we'd be out of business."
The issue for the article is whether fast food chains have any responsibility for the health and welfare of their clients or is it entirely a matter of making money for CKE Restaurants Inc. and its owners and stock holders.
The words of Mansfield could be edited to substitute "education", or "medical research" or "my doctor" for "food police".
CKE Restaurants has to make money to stay in existence in the real world. I do not argue that fact of life.
My problem regards who is to pay for the after effects of what the restaurants do in order to stay in business. In a climate when money for social programs like medical care, medical research, and provisions for destitute people are being reduced, how far can an economy go when these costs are not factored into the cost of production and distribution of products?
I can deal with issues when all the cards are on the table. This particular game is not yet in focus or on any table of which I am aware. The search goes on.
On February 5, 2011 in the Business section of the Star Tribune an article by Sharon Bernstein of the Los Angeles Times quotes a merchant who puts capitalism in words that I can understand.
Beth Mansfield, spokeswoman for CKE Restaurants Inc says: "The bottom line is that we're in the business of making money, and we make money off what we sell....If we wanted to listen to the food police and sell nuts and berries and tofu burgers...we'd be out of business."
The issue for the article is whether fast food chains have any responsibility for the health and welfare of their clients or is it entirely a matter of making money for CKE Restaurants Inc. and its owners and stock holders.
The words of Mansfield could be edited to substitute "education", or "medical research" or "my doctor" for "food police".
CKE Restaurants has to make money to stay in existence in the real world. I do not argue that fact of life.
My problem regards who is to pay for the after effects of what the restaurants do in order to stay in business. In a climate when money for social programs like medical care, medical research, and provisions for destitute people are being reduced, how far can an economy go when these costs are not factored into the cost of production and distribution of products?
I can deal with issues when all the cards are on the table. This particular game is not yet in focus or on any table of which I am aware. The search goes on.
