NationStates Jolt Archive

I had this idea for a law to counteract the epidemic of Starbuck's across our highstreets. A law that said something to the effect of preventing the same business owning two properties in a certian radius of each other. The question I had was this. Would it be free market? On the one hand it wouldnt be as its an example of government intervention in the economy, but on the other hand it encourages competiton, which is the emephsis of the free market. What do you think?

EDIT

This is not a dig at large corperations. Its a dig at large corperations having outlets stupidly close to one another.

I had this idea for a law to counteract the epidemic of Starbuck's across our highstreets. A law that said something to the effect of preventing the same business owning two properties in a certian radius of each other. The question I had was this. Would it be free market? On the one hand it wouldnt be as its an example of government intervention in the economy, but on the other hand it encourages competiton, which is the emephsis of the free market. What do you think?

Nope, it's not a free market.

Incidentally, though you may not enjoy drinking Starbucks, thanks to the government NOT intervening in matters of business, should your views be sufficiently widely held, Starbucks will go out of business. Since they haven't yet, we can only assume that lots of people like Starbucks.

I had this idea for a law to counteract the epidemic of Starbuck's across our highstreets. A law that said something to the effect of preventing the same business owning two properties in a certian radius of each other. The question I had was this. Would it be free market? On the one hand it wouldnt be as its an example of government intervention in the economy, but on the other hand it encourages competiton, which is the emephsis of the free market. What do you think?

If the govt. hadnt intervened in the past John Rockefeller would have still had ownership of 95% of our oil (well not still hes long dead, but by still I mean back in the day) the US govt. broke up trusts and monopolys and that was the best thing possible. Why not do it again?

I had this idea for a law to counteract the epidemic of Starbuck's across our highstreets. A law that said something to the effect of preventing the same business owning two properties in a certian radius of each other. The question I had was this. Would it be free market? On the one hand it wouldnt be as its an example of government intervention in the economy, but on the other hand it encourages competiton, which is the emephsis of the free market. What do you think?
Hmn....it would certainly help tone down the abundance of the same coffee shops within blocks of each other near me... But, then where would I get my caffeine fix?!

Nope, it's not a free market.

Incidentally, though you may not enjoy drinking Starbucks, thanks to the government NOT intervening in matters of business, should your views be sufficiently widely held, Starbucks will go out of business. Since they haven't yet, we can only assume that lots of people like Starbucks.

Starbucks rules! Esp. their caramel mocha frappuccinos (slaughtered the name) I liked the Coconut fraps. but they got rid of them :( guess they werent popular, but I like the caramels better than the coconuts.

The other problem could come into being when you're dealing with campus businesses, or companies that rent out houses. There's

If the govt. hadnt intervened in the past John Rockefeller would have still had ownership of 95% of our oil (well not still hes long dead, but by still I mean back in the day) the US govt. broke up trusts and monopolys and that was the best thing possible. Why not do it again?
Is Starbucks a monopoly which controls 95% of the coffeshop market?

Hmn....it would certainly help tone down the abundance of the same coffee shops within blocks of each other near me... But, then where would I get my caffeine fix?!
I live on a college campus, and oddly enough I have had minimal exposure to Starbucks. Do you know why? The reason is fairly interesting, you see, at OSU we have several school run coffee places, and their coffee is just as good as Starbucks, and a LOT cheaper. Plus a devotion to Buckeye Donuts by some.

I live on a college campus, and oddly enough I have had minimal exposure to Starbucks. Do you know why? The reason is fairly interesting, you see, at OSU we have several school run coffee places, and their coffee is just as good as Starbucks, and a LOT cheaper. Plus a devotion to Buckeye Donuts by some.

Krispy Kreme is the only place to buy doughtnuts in Columbus.

And more to the point, implementing the thesis of this thread would kill off Waffle House. On interstate highways, there might be a Waffle House for each exit. If they don't have the customer base, they wouldn't be there.

Incidentally, though you may not enjoy drinking Starbucks, thanks to the government NOT intervening in matters of business, should your views be sufficiently widely held, Starbucks will go out of business. Since they haven't yet, we can only assume that lots of people like Starbucks.

While lots of people may like starbucks, thats not a reason to choke out all the other services that lots of people like that are closed down because Starbucks can buy up lots of properties. Its like "Which do you like better? Starbucks or J.H.Lorimers". Now thats a stupid question since the two are completely incomparable but what I am getting at is that the propertys are not just to be used by starbucks but anyone. The fact that starbucks is the one powerful enough to buy all the properties is cloging the market. While I have no problem with Starbucks being a powerful body, what I have a problem with is having two starbucks's within 700 yards of one another.

... I have a problem with is having two starbucks's within 700 yards of one another.

And what is your problem with it? Aesthetic? Unless the two stores are participating in price fixing or some other monopoloistic activity, what's wrong with it? It may mean you don't have to cross the street on lousy days to get coffee?

And what is your problem with it? Aesthetic? Unless the two stores are participating in price fixing or some other monopoloistic activity, what's wrong with it? It may mean you don't have to cross the street on lousy days to get coffee?

Its quite simple. You dont NEED two starbucks on the same road. What you might need is a stationary supplier, a hairdresser, any number of other possibilitys. Having too many starbucks in close proximimty is stupid and chokes the market for other businesses.

I have seen the end of the world. The apocalypse. It is not in outerspace,across the universe. It does not come from deep below the earth's crust. It is in Houston,Texas. There is a comedy club called the Laughstock. Down the block is a Starbucks. Directly across the street from that Starbucks, is a Starbucks. If you were to sit in one Starbucks and look out the window, you would see the other Starbucks. I want to know who stood in the empty store with his family, looked out the window at a Starbucks and said "I'm going to build a Starbucks here" "Why daddy?" "Because it will be the end of the world".

Its quite simple. You dont NEED two starbucks on the same road. What you might need is a stationary supplier, a hairdresser, any number of other possibilitys. Having too many starbucks in close proximimty is stupid and chokes the market for other businesses.

The problem with letting the government say what you "dont NEED", is that their idea may be different to yours. Hitler didn't think people needed jews. Stalin didn't think people needed private property, or the right to speak against his regime in any way without death.

Its quite simple. You dont NEED two starbucks on the same road. What you might need is a stationary supplier, a hairdresser, any number of other possibilitys. Having too many starbucks in close proximimty is stupid and chokes the market for other businesses.

You don't NEED a lot of things. Just like Starbucks doesn't NEED a reason to practice their right of opening up shops in visual distance of each other.

While lots of people may like starbucks, thats not a reason to choke out all the other services that lots of people like that are closed down because Starbucks can buy up lots of properties. Its like "Which do you like better? Starbucks or J.H.Lorimers". Now thats a stupid question since the two are completely incomparable but what I am getting at is that the propertys are not just to be used by starbucks but anyone. The fact that starbucks is the one powerful enough to buy all the properties is cloging the market. While I have no problem with Starbucks being a powerful body, what I have a problem with is having two starbucks's within 700 yards of one another.
If Starbucks buys all of that property, they would go out of business and close, leaving cheap space for another business to buy, thus replacing the business bought by Starbucks. If space is that scarese, it would be more profitable for Starbucks to sell the property.

Its quite simple. You dont NEED two starbucks on the same road. What you might need is a stationary supplier, a hairdresser, any number of other possibilitys. Having too many starbucks in close proximimty is stupid and chokes the market for other businesses.
When I was in High School I worked in a movie theater. The movie theather had a zillion screens and they almost never sold out shows. A few hundred feet down the street at another shopping mall they had another movie theater owned by the same company which was dirtier and crappier which lost tons of money and which nobody ever went to, unless everything was sold out at our location.

They obviously were losing tons on money but they figured it would be better than having to deal with competion, which might force them to reduce the price of a soda and a popcon down from $11.00. It is the same with starbucks I think they just oversaturate every market so that there is no opening for anyone else to move in and compete with them.

Its quite simple. You dont NEED two starbucks on the same road. What you might need is a stationary supplier, a hairdresser, any number of other possibilitys. Having too many starbucks in close proximimty is stupid and chokes the market for other businesses.
I guess you'll have to beat me over the head for a while about this, too.

Who cares? What proof is there that too much same-store activity in the close proximity chokes out competition? We have several instances of Home Depot and Lowes across the street from each other and both thrive.

If other coffee shops are competitive with Starbucks, or if they offer alternatives not available in Starbucks, they will thrive. In Boston, there is no Starbucks shortage, but you see more people carrying Dunkin Donuts coffee because Starbucks doesn't sell doughnuts. The bagel places do well too, because Starbucks doesn't do bagels well.

But if there weren't two Starbucks right next to each other, I could never turn to my girlfriend and say "Let's not go to that Starbucks. Let's go to the good one."

As we do not actually have Starbucks in Brazil (We like coffee with flavour here) I have to ask whether Starbucks is a franchising operation or just a chain all managed and owned by the same company.

If it is franchising, then having two in the same high street is actually good for you, as only the better one will survive in the long run.

If it is not franchised, then simply do not use it.

As we do not actually have Starbucks in Brazil (We like coffee with flavour here) I have to ask whether Starbucks is a franchising operation or just a chain all managed and owned by the same company.

If it is franchising, then having two in the same high street is actually good for you, as only the better one will survive in the long run.

If it is not franchised, then simply do not use it.
Starbucks is all owned and operated by the company. I would dearly love to buy a franchise, but there are none for sale.

Starbucks is all owned and operated by the company. I would dearly love to buy a franchise, but there are none for sale.

In that case they are likely to burst the bubble at some point. Over saturation is an old tactic that works with high profit margin goods and services, where one location can support the costs of two or three and still be profitable. Cinemas are a prime example. Coffee houses are not high profit margin in general as they are too labour intensive. Think about the staff to customer ratios in a cinema, or gas station, compared to a coffee house.

All you really need to do Neo Cannen is to wait, drink your coffee elswhere, and laugh when it all goes pop.

Having two starbucks in a particular area probably means that it is a high traffic area and that there is enough business that having two stores makes sense. Likewise there is a starbucks nearby that has its front door less than 15 feet away from the front door of another coffee shop. At times they *both* have 15-25 minute long wait lines. That’s a situation where I wish starbucks would open up another nearby store.

Its quite simple. You dont NEED two starbucks on the same road. What you might need is a stationary supplier, a hairdresser, any number of other possibilitys. Having too many starbucks in close proximimty is stupid and chokes the market for other businesses.
Who's to say what I need and don't need?

I love the free market, so I go to the effort of boycotting companies I don't like. Starbucks is overpriced and full of idiots posing with guitars.

Lewis Black did a hilarious joke on starbucks, well he has a hilarious line about anything that pisses anyone off

Have you ever tried Starbucks????? What if you were driving in the car, and you had just finished youre last starbucks coffe, but then you realize that the nearest one is still 3 miles away! 3 miles!!!! Starbucks is a gift to society!!! Why ruin Starbucks!

if you think about it, mcdonalds is WAY worse than starbucks. starbucks may be right across the street from a starbucks, but thsoe may be the only starbucks in the town, but mcdonalds is EVERYWHERE no matter how small a hickville it is and usually 2-3+ depending on the size of the town, and its spread out around the town not in one little place

if you think about it, mcdonalds is WAY worse than starbucks. starbucks may be right across the street from a starbucks, but thsoe may be the only starbucks in the town, but mcdonalds is EVERYWHERE no matter how small a hickville it is and usually 2-3+ depending on the size of the town, and its spread out around the town not in one little place

I agree, they have even infested us here in the back of beyond. We still don't have Starbucks, I'm waiting.

Have you ever tried Starbucks????? What if you were driving in the car, and you had just finished youre last starbucks coffe, but then you realize that the nearest one is still 3 miles away! 3 miles!!!! Starbucks is a gift to society!!! Why ruin Starbucks!

If some other coffee company would take the time to roast coffee like Starbucks, they might not have the dominant market share that they now hold. The dishwater we brew at work is awful. The company started buying the single pot sleeves of Starbucks and things are much better coffee-wise.

Who's to say what I need and don't need?

If you can think of a serious valid reason why you need two Starbucks on the same road in visual distance of one another I would be very impressed.

If you can think of a serious valid reason why you need two Starbucks on the same road in visual distance of one another I would be very impressed.
I don't know why I didn't think of this before. Just go to the local zoning commission and have them rule against having two same-store businesses within x many yards. That avoids a federal mandate and solves the problem locally, where the objection is. I'd vote against it, if I were on the zoning board, but if there are enough folks like Neo Cannen in town, I wouldn't have been elected in the first place.

Is Starbucks a monopoly which controls 95% of the coffeshop market?

I hardly think so -- you can get your fix at McDonald's, Dunkin Donuts, ye old mom and pop place, diners, restaurants, etc. ad nauseum.

The funniest dig though, at Starbucks, is in Shrek 2. "Farbucks" is destroyed by a rampaging ginger bread giant (Mongo), and the customers shriek in terror -- then run into the Farbucks directly across the street!

If the govt. hadnt intervened in the past John Rockefeller would have still had ownership of 95% of our oil (well not still hes long dead, but by still I mean back in the day) the US govt. broke up trusts and monopolys and that was the best thing possible. Why not do it again?
Because starbucks is not a monopoly

I hardly think so -- you can get your fix at McDonald's, Dunkin Donuts, ye old mom and pop place, diners, restaurants, etc. ad nauseum.

The funniest dig though, at Starbucks, is in Shrek 2. "Farbucks" is destroyed by a rampaging ginger bread giant (Mongo), and the customers shriek in terror -- then run into the Farbucks directly across the street!
Or good old Lewis Black

• [On the end of the universe]:
I've seen the end of the universe, and it happens to be in the United States. And oddly enough, it's in Houston, Texas. I know, I was shocked too. On one side of the street there was a Starbucks,and directly across from it,in the same building,was another Starbucks.
Lol he is great … catch the clip he goes off on how if he turns around there could NOT possibly be a starbucks behind him … if god was good there would not be a starbucks behind him