Skip to main content

The Beauty of the Market: A Dining Tragedy

After a less-than-mediocre dining experience at an Indian-Pakistani restaurant today, and minutes after learning that we had returned an order of spice-less biryani, the manager approached to ask about our experience. I quickly informed him, “Not good.” 

Instead of asking how to improve his restaurant, he embarked upon a quest to prove to me and my accompanying master chef that we were simply unenlightened about the methods of his region and that his restaurant avoids spices to allow customers to return home without the aroma of the food. 

Oddly enough, we dine to enjoy the cuisine, not to taste the region or the story of excuses behind the tasteless menu of inadequately-characterized courses. 

I thank my sweetheart, the aforementioned master chef, for exposing me to the best cuisine on the planet, her own, which has effectively transformed me into the American Gordon Ramsey of Asian cuisine and the greater band of ethnic fare. 

It is humorous how close a restaurant manager can be to answers to his looming deficiencies, with intelligent consumers and even a restaurateur volunteering their criticisms, yet it appears that the lazy businessman can nonetheless find his way back to the default judgment: the customer is always wrong. 

Here’s a page out of the next edition of The Idiot’s Guide to Restaurant Management, due to publish this fall: “When you label your food as spicy, apply spice. And when your customers dislike the food, arguing with them won’t change their minds or their palates. In fact, it’s far more likely to cross your name off their list for future date nights.” 

Ultimately, food that is undercooked, overcooked or spice-less has little business in any restaurant, let alone one which famously prides itself in flavor. 

Fortunately the market will conduct its own due diligence to distinguish the viable and adaptive enterprises from the stubborn ones, a phenomenon which ensues without any formal administration or profligate governmental institution, but rather through the acting pocketbooks of paying and abstaining customers. 

Within the tragedy of all of this is the beauty of the market: it deals in reality and requires no debate.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Into the Wild: An Economics Lesson

The Keynesian mantra, in its implications, has its roots in destruction rather than truth: “In the long run, we’re all dead.” If this is your guiding principle, we are destined to differ on matters of principle and timeline. While it is true that our fates intersect in death, that does not mean that we ought to condemn our heirs to that view: the view that our work on this planet ought only to serve ourselves, and that we ought only to bear in mind the consequences within our own lifetimes.  The Keynesians, of course, prefer their outlook, as it serves their interests; it has the further benefit of appealing to other selfish people who have little interest in the future to which they'll ultimately condemn their heirs. After all, they'll be long gone by then. So, in the Keynesian view, the longterm prospects for the common currency, social stability, and personal liberty are not just irrelevant but inconvenient. In their view, regardless of the consequences, those in charge tod

America's Civil War: Not "Civil" and Not About Slavery

Virtually the entirety of South and Central America, as well as European powers Britain, Spain and France, peacefully abolished slavery — without war — in the first sixty years of the nineteenth century.  Why, then, did the United States enter into a bloody war that cost over half of the nation’s wealth, at least 800,000 lives and many hundreds of thousands more in casualties?  The answer: the War Between the States was not about slavery.  It was a war of invasion to further empower the central government and to reject state sovereignty, nullification of unconstitutional laws, and the states’ rights to secession.  It was a war that would cripple the South and witness the federal debt skyrocket from $65 million in 1860 to $2.7 billion in 1865, whose annual interest alone would prove twice as expensive as the entire federal budget from 1860. It was a war whose total cost, including pensions and the burial of veterans, was an estimated $12 billion. Likewise, it was a war that would

There's Always Another Tax: The Tragedy of the Public Park

In the San Francisco Bay Area, many residents work tirelessly throughout the year to pay tens of thousands of dollars in annual property taxes. In addition to this, they are charged an extra 10 percent on all expenses through local sales taxes. It doesn't stop there. In addition to their massive federal tax bill, the busy state of California capitalizes on the opportunity to seize another 10 percent through their own sizable state income taxes. But guess what! It doesn't stop there. No, no, no, no.  In California, there's always another tax. After all of these taxes, which have all the while been reported to cover every nook and cranny of the utopian vision, the Bay Area resident is left to face yet an additional tax at the grocery store, this time on soda. The visionaries within government, and those who champion its warmhearted intentions, label this one the "soda tax," which unbelievably includes Gatorade, the preferred beverage of athletes