Ramsay’s Kitchen Nightmares – Public Service and The Market

I'm putting this post here because I don't think "Global Meltdown" or the other political boards are an appropriate forum to discuss how private businesses operate and how the State contrasts with them.



Recently I’ve gotten hooked on a British TV show which is produced by the world famous chef Gordon Ramsay. In the show, Chef Ramsay helps struggling restaurants get themselves back on their feet.

While this may sound only mildly interesting at first glance, the way Chef Ramsay goes about making his corrections turns the show into something more akin to watching a professional wrestling match. Ramsay curses continually, harasses employees, destroys useless property, berates people who he sees as not performing up to snuff and generally acts like a big angry alpha male.

Yet every show, the outcome is the same.

Those businesses who listen to his advice, follow through with his ideas and have the motivation to succeed always do succeed; while those who do not end up failing.

I absolutely love this show because it highlights so many beautiful things about private markets. Markets care about quality, service, and value. Ramsay’s innovations are ALWAYS directed at improving all three of those areas. In order for restaurant to succeed, it must excel at producing an experience which brings all three ingredients to the table.

Ramsay doesn’t go into each restaurant looking to make friends, he goes in with the hard truth and forces business owners to confront the reality of the situation that they are facing. His abrasive style is a tool he uses, much like a drill instructor, to drive important business lessons home.

Ramsay insists on creating a high quality, service driven, high value experience for customers and will not accept anything less. His goal is to create an experience that will cause people to want to return again and again. Only through good service to their customers can a business hope to succeed in the highly competitive restaurant market.

Please take a moment to consider what drives government “businesses” to improve their customer service. Will the DMV face bankruptcy if their waiting lines take all day to get through? Will the police go out of business if a bunch of cops are engaged in crooked or abusive behavior? Will public schools lose students if they pump out a mediocre education? Of course, the answer is no to all of those questions. At best those institutions may face some political pressure, but nothing like the market pressure that private businesses face.

Since private businesses don’t make their profits through the use of coercion, they have to consistently and continually offer a high level of service, quality, and value or face the loss of their customer base. In addition to being forced to provide a high level of service, quality and value, private businesses also must produce a product or service that people actually want to buy!

Consider that the government never asks each individual tax payer if they want to buy a new red-light traffic camera. Government makes that decision for the tax payer on their own without any consultation. It could be that no one other than bureaucrats would want to make such a purchase, but since the money government spends is taken through coercion rather than enticement, it doesn’t matter what each individual tax payer actually wants.

Also consider that the company who produces those red light cameras would not be in business at all without bureaucrats spending money that isn’t legitimately their’s to spend in the first place. This creates a situation where a company who could use its resources to produce something that people want to buy voluntarily, such as coffee makers, is instead wasting resources producing something that no one wants except bureaucrats. Of course, such waste is not limited to just red-light cameras.

So, the next time you watch Ramsay’s Kitchen Nightmares, please take a moment to consider the beautiful aspects of the free market that this show embodies. You can watch every episode of each season of the show without commercials on Netflix.

reply to post by mnemeth1


You do understand this is a TV show...and that the producers edit it to make you think that the restaurants that failed did so because they didn't take his advice...right?

I'm sure each restaurant incorporate some of his ideas and ignore other ideas. I'm sure if you watch closely you will see this. So when they edit the show, the highlight the advice that is ignored in the restaurants that end up failing...and highlight the advice that is adopted in the restaurants that succeed.

And look at that...Gordon Ramsey is a genius...he never fails.


Don't get me wrong, I like the show...but I find it funny how you feel for the editing.

reply to post by OutKast Searcher


Ramsay comes back a month after his initial visit to see how each business progresses.

They can't edit that to make it look pretty.

Either the business succeeds or it doesn't, and the business owners are always interviewed to find out what happened.

S&F.
Your OpEds are always spot on and hit a home run.

Great thread.

Now, get ready for the attack of those that hate the free market, capitalism and everything not regulated by Govt.

Great post OP. I like how you used Gordon Ramsey to analyze economic markets. Very insightful and creative thinking!

Now if only Gordon Ramsey could go to Congress and swear, berate and generally shake up 500 of the most powerful people in the nation. In fact, lets not go with Ramsey, lets go with Jesse Ventura.

Funny thing about those cameras though is theyre designed to make the city money without having to pay an officer to write tickets and racially profile minority drivers. Theyre simply a money making scheme like any profitable business scheme. So the city gets all this money that they now budget into next years finances. So, now, getting rid of the cameras is fiscally impossible when the govt's already budgeted (spent) the money the cameras are projected to bring in. So these cameras are here to stay simply because theyre already here. If we want to get rid of them we'd have to pay taxes to recover the difference that these cameras were making for the city. So its a choice between higher taxes and unwanted surveillance. I dont want either but we're probably going to get stuck with both.

reply to post by mnemeth1


He also decks out their restaurants with brand new furnishings/Kitchens and POS systems, none of which those restaurants could afford. He basically gives the restaurants massive hand outs paid for by the production company.

Surely all these restaurants should be left to fail, if they cant work it out for themselves, spend too much money, have dirty premises and have to rely on hand outs they dont deserve to survive? I thought thats how you free marketeers thought.

Originally posted by woodwardjnr
reply to post by mnemeth1

 

He also decks out their restaurants with brand new furnishings/Kitchens and POS systems, none of which those restaurants could afford. He basically gives the restaurants massive hand outs paid for by the production company.

Surely all these restaurants should be left to fail, if they cant work it out for themselves and have to rely on hand outs they dont deserve to survive?

I've never seen him install a new POS or provide any major handouts on any show.

I think you are confusing his show with some other show.

Most of the changes he makes involve buying fresh ingredients, altering the menu, and improving the speed and quality of service. Occasionally he repaints the interior and makes a few minor cosmetic changes.

free market capitalism continual and self sustaining wealth creation as opposed to the governments slightly hipper rap that is nothing but continual and self sustained wealth destruction

reply to post by mnemeth1


No I have seen it , I'm British , so now of Ramsey quite well. It amazes me he even bothers with half of those restaurants. They deserve to fail. Their kitchens are disgusting and a public health issue, they lack management skills and are generally wasteful with their money. That's why they are in the mess they are.

Why do you want to reward failure?

Originally posted by woodwardjnr
reply to post by mnemeth1

 

No I have seen it , I'm British , so now of Ramsey quite well. It amazes me he even bothers with half of those restaurants. They deserve to fail. Their kitchens are disgusting and a public health issue, they lack management skills and are generally wasteful with their money. That's why they are in the mess they are.

Why do you want to reward failure?

edit on 2-8-2011 by woodwardjnr because: (no reason given)

The point of the show is that markets do not reward a lack of management, poor service, poor food quality, and general waste.

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by OutKast Searcher

 

Ramsay comes back a month after his initial visit to see how each business progresses.

They can't edit that to make it look pretty.

Either the business succeeds or it doesn't, and the business owners are always interviewed to find out what happened.

edit on 2-8-2011 by mnemeth1 because: (no reason given)

Yes I've seen the show....hilarious how much stock you are putting into a TV SHOW.


LOL.


You know what...I saw this show called "Survivor", it PROVES that tribalism is the best way of life...and you will become a millioniare if you kill off the rest of your tribe.

reply to post by mnemeth1

The point of the show is that markets do not reward a lack of management, poor service, poor food quality, and general waste.

the very reasons government has failed us and will continue to fail us because they will never understand that

reply to post by mnemeth1


But surely with these restaurants, their poor service, poor management and poor menus, should resign them to failed business's. They should close and let better ones take their place, with people who can provide a better service. They go back after a month, but how about 6 months a year? It's the same managers and staff left in place, just with the benefit of the producers hand outs.

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by mnemeth1

 

The point of the show is that markets do not reward a lack of management, poor service, poor food quality, and general waste.

the very reasons government has failed us and will continue to fail us because they will never understand that

Exactly.

I would also like to point out that nearly every restaurant Ramsay visits is in violation of just about every health code on the books; yet the government is not responsible for putting those crumby businesses out of business, the market is.

Regulations are worthless as a means of protecting consumers. Only private markets offer a consistent method of weeding out the bad from the good. Imagine if those restaurant owners did not get their funding from voluntarily paying customers, but instead got their funding from a government welfare source.

What motivation would those owners have to improve the quality of their service?

I would also like to point out that nearly every restaurant Ramsay visits is in violation of just about every health code on the books; yet the government is not responsible for putting those crumby businesses out of business, the market is.

Have you seen the state of some of their kitchens and storage? These places should be closed down not rewarded.

hi op
bloody excellent
iv watched ramsay for years
he gets straight to the F*****g point lol

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by OutKast Searcher

 

Ramsay comes back a month after his initial visit to see how each business progresses.

I'm just gonna back you up on Ramsay. I've watched this show and the American show from the beginning.

I've been on blogs that discuss the show and Ramsay. Some bloggers claim to have worked with Ramsay - - and say he is honestly and sincerely as passionate as is portrayed about food/restaurants.

One blogger said Ramsay getting food poisoning from a restaurant was the major force behind him taking on the project of improving local restaurants.

He has been sued for misrepresenting on these shows. While they are edited - - they are also genuine. He's won every lawsuit.

Originally posted by woodwardjnr

I would also like to point out that nearly every restaurant Ramsay visits is in violation of just about every health code on the books; yet the government is not responsible for putting those crumby businesses out of business, the market is.

Have you seen the state of some of their kitchens and storage? These places should be closed down not rewarded.

They would be closed down if things continued on in the same manner as they have been. The entire point of the show is that markets do not reward crumby business practices.

reply to post by mnemeth1


I just dont like seeing bad business being rewarded.These restaurants are so bad that they deserve to fail. One episode, two girls running a restaurant up to a million dollars in the red, through their ineptitude to run a business, yet Ramsey roles in waves his magic wand and everything's all fine again. He should have let them fail, the restaurant business was obviously not the right one for them to be in.

reply to post by mnemeth1

But at the end of each show, all I think is what a waste, waste all that time and effort on people who dont really deserve the help. I'd have much more respect if Ramsey was helping new ventures get off the ground, not propping up failing business's. Thats what the US Governments for.