Archives for the 'economy' tag
Newsweek Writer’s Silly ‘Starbucks Theory of International Economics’
There have been lots of cockeyed pop-food theories to emerge recently. I’m talking to you Morning Banana Diet, and a little less so to proponents of the Bugs Will Save Us All worldview.
But those schemes are nothing compared to Newsweek writer Daniel Gross’s Starbucks Theory of International Economics.
…I propose the Starbucks Theory of International Economics. The higher the concentration of expensive, nautical-themed faux-Italian branded frappuccino joints in a country’s financial capital, the more likely the country is to have suffered catastrophic financial losses.
Gross goes on to list several economically souring countries that have tons of Starbucks, and several economically sound (or mediocre) countries that have very few Starbucks.
Presto! Theory affirmed. Sort of. Because while Gross does admit the “theory isn’t foolproof,” he calls it “close enough.”
Close enough to what or, specifically, where?
How about to Iceland, a country with exactly zero Starbucks, but whose bizarre banking system has wreck(ya-vick)ed the country’s economy faster than an Albanian pyramid scheme? Or how about North Korea? No Starbucks there. No economy (or food), either.
So the theory’s corollary is untrue. The number of Starbucks in a country (or its capital) doesn’t have much to do with the country’s economic situation.
But there may be something to a Starbucks Theory of International Economics. It’s just not what Gross thinks it is. And so I’m stealing the theory named by Gross, and re-defining it thusly:
Globalized countries, many of which have multiple Starbucks locations, are currently caught up in a global economic downturn.
That’s it. That’s my concise, cautious, correlative, and causational-folly-free cappuccino theory.
[Flickr snap taken from Colin Purrington.]
Amazon Cookbook Sales as Financial Barometer
As the dismal economic climate forces Americans to eat on the cheap, Reuters points to a shift in Amazon.com consumer purchases–toward cookbooks that contain less expensive ingredients. Sort of.
“There’s also been some talk in the industry about how more people will be eating at home now to save money,” said Amazon spokeswoman Tammy Hovey. “There has been some increased interest in upcoming big fall new releases from (Food Network’s) Ina Garten and Martha Stewart, whose new books are about getting back to basics.”
Topping the Amazon “Movers and Shakers” list on Monday was “The 99 Cent Only Stores Cookbook: Gourmet Recipes at Discount Prices,” by Christiane Jory, which jumped to 162 from 187,383 in the sales rankings.
“This is an excellent book for the current economic times,” wrote Prabash B. Coswatte, from Pasadena, California, in a review of the book on Amazon. “It shows all of us how we can stretch the dollar or our 99 cents.”
Or our 98 cents. See, I can write book reviews, too.
I’m not sure one Amazon reviewer’s comments, a giant sales jump of a book that appeared on yesterday’s Rachel Ray Show and has been hyped by the New Depression-obsessed media for months as an economic barometer, or interest in a Martha Stewart book really tell me anything about a trend.
But the Reuters writer’s point–that people want to eat cheaper–is well taken, even if not well made.
With Economy Worsening, Hershey’s Starts Selling Mockolate
Last week, our country faced major changes as a result of the worsening economy. Lehman Brothers went bankrupt. Bank of America purchased Merrill-Lynch. The Federal Reserve took over AIG in an $85 billion bailout. Even worse though, was Hershey’s decision to stop doing what they do best – manufacturing chocolate. Last Friday, TODAY reported that Hershey, in an effort to cut costs, swapped cocoa butter for vegetable oil in certain products (e.g. Whatchamacallit, Milk Duds, Mr. Goodbar, and Krackel):
“The removal of cocoa butter violates the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s definition of milk chocolate, so subtle changes have appeared on the labels of the Hershey’s products with altered recipes. Products once labeled “milk chocolate” now say “chocolate candy,” “made with chocolate” or “chocolatey.”
Some say the label changes are too difficult to spot.
“A lot of people don’t notice it. The package looks exactly the same,” said Cybele May, who has chronicled the changes in detail on her Candy Blog. “I feel betrayed by Hershey’s. They’re giving me an inferior product and they’re not even telling me …”
Blind taste tests revealed that consumers also didn’t notice a difference in taste between the chocolate and the “mockolate.” So, I thought I would try it for myself. I went down to my trusty neighborhood convenience store and bought a Whatchamacallit – the package read, “rich chocolatey coating.” Honestly, I can’t taste the difference, but still – where are the antioxidants? And why doesn’t it melt in my mouth as smoothly? I feel betrayed too Cybele. At least Hersheys kept the cocoa in their Hershey’s Kisses and Reese’s Peanut Butter Cups. Still, I think it’s time for a brand change – back to M&Ms and Snickers for me.
