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

The Kaepernick Craze: Exposing the Nation's Fools One Conversation at a Time

The Kaeparnick craze and other viral movements haven't merely pressured people into becoming simpler caricatures of their prior selves, but they have manifestly exposed people for how foolish and uninformed they've been all along. 



In his final year in the NFL, Kaepernick ranked 17th in passer rating and 34th the year before that. 

He played through an entire season in only two of his six years in the league, and his best full-season performance ranks far outside of the NFL's top-250 single-season passing performances in the league's history. 

For reference, the oft-criticized Tony Romo posted a career passer rating of 97.1, as compared to Kaepernick's 88.9. 

Romo's passer rating dipped below 90 for only one season of the eleven seasons he played, whereas Kaepernick failed to eclipse the 90 mark on three of his six seasons, a full 50 percent of his time in the NFL. 

In fact, Kaepernick accomplished this feat only once if we are to discard those other two seasons in …

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 that would blur the lines and jurisdictions between sovereign states, that would indiscriminately sacrifice the founding principles etched …

Institutional Racism: The Sasquatch of Political Folklore

A great confusion has arisen out of the clamor of political debate, one which presupposes that any dismissal of the merits of “institutional racism” somehow equates to one’s rejection of personal struggle. 

Whereas the struggle of any individual remains always and everywhere unique and wholly personal, his common bond of complexion with others who have struggled serves inadequately as the basis for any argument which regards this commonality as the cause, or as the reason, for that veritable struggle. 

To condemn the unidentifiable and nebulous abstraction, then, by castigating an unnamed institution which persists beyond our specific capacity to recognize its power, serves only to absolve individuals of their personal responsibility, to shift blame and culpability to a specter which exists only by the creative designs of our imaginations, which exists as the scapegoat for all outcomes popularly maligned as undesirable. 

This unactionable practice, then, swiftly and categorically excuses…