Panera Bread's Socialist 'Pay What You Want' Experiment Fails Miserably

Socialism originally created the idea of free market, and it meant freedom from monopolies, oligopolies, undue interest, and all other things which disrupt natural supply and demand. Now free market has been bastardized to mean free from regulations or any restraints upon those who wish to artificially influence the natural markets supply and demand.

What, no fun anymore? I’d venture to say that the fun ends when you actually listen to the real proponents of the criticisms of our version of capitalism, and it makes sense. Rather than just judging them upon the many clever memes and popular, well funded attacks meant to make them look silly, and to make you think that the system we have is successful, when really all it’s succes at is exploiting the population so a small group accumulates all the surplus while everyone else accumulates debt.

a reply to: shooterbrody

Do not feel sorry for them in least I went and got my significant other a bowl of their broccoli and cheddar soup some breadsticks and a medium sized iced tea last year when she was pregnant and I liked to scrapped myself $12 and some change. For a bowl of soup some breadsticks and a tea might have been a dollar or two worth of ingredients in that order.

The most successful governments though history were Monarchies were the people saw the ruler as a god king.

Ancient Egypt - about 3100 years - God/King Monarchy
Ancient Rome - 1229 years - Roman Democracy - Roman Republic - Roman Empire
Ancient Greece - about 1400 years - Democracy/Monarchy/Oligarcy/Tyranny

originally posted by: eManym
The most successful governments though history were Monarchies were the people saw the ruler as a god king.

Ancient Egypt - about 3100 years - God/King Monarchy
Ancient Rome - 1229 years - Roman Democracy - Roman Republic - Roman Empire
Ancient Greece - about 1400 years - Democracy/Monarchy/Oligarcy/Tyranny

The measure of success is how long a ruler maintains power?

a reply to: shooterbrody

This was not a socialist experiment.

If we start with the definition of so many here, it was not an experiment in centralisation and control. It was the opposite.

If we move on to real world definitions of socialism, it was not an experiment in the structural redistribution of wealth and it was not taking control of the means of production or distribution.

If we look at libertarianism, however, and the "free market", we get closer. Much closer. You know, the idea that suppliers don't set the price and the market finds its own level...

An economist pal of mine believes that Americans are quite keen socialism as long as you don't label it.

originally posted by: peskyhumans

originally posted by: projectvxn
This isn't socialism. But it is economic illiteracy from leftist idiots who don't understand how money works.

I disagree. Economic illiteracy is core to the whole concept of socialism. We see it happen every time another socialist state collapses.

It's why communist tyrants print money and cause hyperinflation. They have no idea how to manage a sound economy. We're seeing socialism at work in Venezuela right now.

They try to find someone, anyone else to pay for the public welfare and it's just not possible. Human society doesn't work like that. Free market capitalism isn't perfect but it's the least dysfunctional economic model we know of.

Economic illiteracy is not at the core of the whole concept of socialism. It is at the core of many people's (mis)understanding of socialism.

a reply to: shooterbrody

Socialism has nothing to do with integrity. Sure, there will be people from all walks of life and political persuasions who will take advantage, and took advantage, of "the vision of the founder of "pay what you want" restaurants. The problem with socialism is that all forms of socialism rely on not only devaluing "individualism," but on the principle in socialism that "the collective is more important than individualism."

In other words, as long as people continue being people we will all continue to be "individuals." As "individuals" we all are different, we all have different dreams, ideas and hopes. Socialism relies on "everyone being exactly the same." It relies on "taking individualism out of the human condition", and that will never be possible.

What for one person is a "fair value," to pay for the products they sold at Panera Bread, is not going to be the same "fair value" others will place on such products.

Attention Humans: When your entire life is full of the government, companies, insurance, etc...all trying to rape you of your money on a daily basis...and you see one place where they are offering things for a donation...you tend to take advantage to make up for all the rape. Unless everything was "free" or donation based...this would NEVER work.

But at the same time...I'd rather keep the system we have than give more power to those who wish to rule us, enslave us, silence us, etc.

The USA would become a country of slaves that better not speak, act, protest, raise their voices, eat out of the guidelines of the dictators, etc.

WE BECOME LIVESTOCK!

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: Anathros

As I said before, capitalism dilutes down to supply & demand. Panera thought their product was worth more than they were charging and so they had people pay what they want because they thought it draw higher profits.

If it was a socialist maneuver they would talk to their workers and the public as a whole and set a price that is consistent with what they said regardless of profit.

If it were capitalist then they would have posted the prices so that the public could have decided if they were willing to pay that amount or not.

If it were socialist they they would have also posted their prices. Of course their menu would have been extremely limited, rationing would have been commonplace, and customers would have had to bring their own toilet paper just in case.