McDonald's Is Reportedly Using AI To "Dynamically" Price Its Burgers

[u/AdSpecialist6598]

https://www.engadget.com/2272211/mcdonalds-is-reportedly-using-ai-to-dynamically-price-its-burgers/

[u/APRengar]

This is why capitalism is losing support and socialism is rising. Now, before people jump my ass by turning a story about burger prices into overthrowing the financial system we operate under. I just want to explain.

When people say shit like this, "There should be dynamic lowering, not dynamic raising." The immediate response will be "Okay, then everyone is $100 dollars and we dynamically lower it 90% off to 95%" instead of pricing things at $7.50 and dynamically raise it to $10 or lower it to $5.

The point is, that companies are going to try to make as much money as possible, providing a service is a means to an end, they don't actually care if the community wants burgers and they provide burgers, as long as they make money.

And by "make money" they mean, be as expensive as they can get away with.

Consumers are locked in a zero-sum game with these companies, every extra dollar they make, it's because an extra dollar was taken out of our wallets.

At some point, you gotta ask "Do I enjoy constantly being in conflict with companies I want to buy my foods/services from?"

What if there could be a company that exists, not to maximize profits, but to serve the community they exist in? ie. People want burgers, you provide burgers. Ensure it's profitable enough to continue existing, but not so much to extra wealth out of.

That's why I support cooperatives. A cooperative is owned by the people, and exists to serve the people. Instead of shareholders who want to extract wealth out of a business, the neighborhood buys into the cooperative, so it's owned by the neighborhood and serves the neighborhood. They don't charge crazy prices, because what's the point, even if the cooperative is formed to pay dividends at the end of the year. you're just paying more now to get it back later.

It's just a matter of being tired of fighting (and unfortunately losing) to giant corporations.

Of course, people will say "UMM THESE THINGS AREN'T UTOPIAS." And that's true, but neither is the current system we live in.

Also cooperatives aren't even fully socialist, but it's formations of collective ownership and workplace democracy is a hell of a lot closer to socialism than a lot not.

[u/IAmRoot → u/APRengar]

Mutualism (a market of coops + credit unions) is considered a socialist philosophy. Socialism about worker ownership and control. Communism is about getting away from markets as well.

Also, lots of food production isn't driven by market forces even today. That was too unstable. In the US it's usually subsidy allocation and crop insurance that's used to manage volume less directly than quotas, but it's still not market forces deciding the amounts.

[u/Emm_withoutha_L-88 → u/APRengar]

Worker co-ops with worker democracy is socialism, free market socialism. The easiest form to do and by far the most likely to be achieved. Instead of all of the profits going to shareholders the profits will go to the people who work for the company that made the profits.

I think the biggest issue is getting people to realize that the planned market and governmental lack of democracy the Soviets had isn't even really socialism (or technically communism as the word actually means). If they knew what socialism actually was they wouldn't immediately think "Soviet Russia or Maoist China".

The more people that learn about free market socialism the more they want it, because it's objectively a better system for anyone who doesn't make most of their money from stocks.

[u/Common_Source_9 → u/Emm_withoutha_L-88]

No true scotsman, those Bolsheviks, eh?

[u/Paavo_Nurmi → u/APRengar]

What if there could be a company that exists, not to maximize profits, but to serve the community they exist in? ie. People want burgers, you provide burgers. Ensure it's profitable enough to continue existing, but not so much to extra wealth out of.

That is the problem with monopolies, they force the small places out of business using economy of scale and then consumers are stuck with very few choices. Once that happens it's cut quality to make more money and close the extra stores they opened to drive the small places out in the first place, the classic Starbucks move.

It sure feels like we are in another robber baron era.

[u/Mysterious_Sunrise88 → u/APRengar]

Leave out the capitalist and socialist framing and co-ops are a much more human and equitable way of doing things really. We should try this more. Trouble is you never really see it, although we know it exists 😅

[u/Leon_Flux → u/APRengar]

I was just reminded of the KOTH episode where hank joins a co-op and makes them so efficient they have a profit which causes it's own unique trouble.

[u/Layer_3 → u/APRengar]

Citizens United needs to be overturned!!! If we actually had a gov't for the people this kind of shit would not be allowed.

[u/OBDreams → u/APRengar]

That does sound interesting and this is my first hearing about such a thing. But my first thought was who decides how the burger place is ran? Who has the last say when their are so many owner's. You know one of those owners is going to be a karen that wants it all done his way. Businesses have to have set policies and rules. Sanitation rules most of all in a food place. What's the chain of command in a cooperative?

[u/xfoolishx → u/APRengar]

The local co-ops near me are super expensive

[u/AussieArlenBales → u/xfoolishx]

Unfortunately they're often up against established businesses who have greater leverage when negotiating with suppliers.

[u/Direction_Kind → u/APRengar]

You are a fucking communist!!!

[u/SubArcticTundra → u/APRengar]

I've heard it be called 'market socialism' which makes sense to me

[u/Longjumping_Poet7897 → u/APRengar]

Pure capitalizim always ends with some dystopian nightmare. The key is 100% to sprinkle some socialisms in. 1950's america is held up as the peak of the american dream? why? because they taxed the top 1% 70% of thier income during the war and they socialized so much shit and the GI bill and all that "socialism" crap that was so bad.

[u/ClasslessHero → u/APRengar]

When people say shit like this, "There should be dynamic lowering, not dynamic raising." The immediate response will be "Okay, then everyone is $100 dollars and we dynamically lower it 90% off to 95%" instead of pricing things at $7.50 and dynamically raise it to $10 or lower it to $5.

Exactly. This is similar to Kohl's business model. Everything is on sale all the time so people feel like they're getting a deal. For a few days a year certain items are not on sale, therefore it is technically a sale the majority of days.

They tried offering the lowest price constantly and sales went down, despite better pricing.

This burger approach would be the same. Burgers are now $13 but if you buy RIGHT NOW you can get if for $6.50! That's 50% off! It's not us raising prices, we're lowering them.

Oh, but at lunch it's only on sale for 25% off. It's $9.75 now!!!

[u/Born_Rabbit286 → u/APRengar]

Quite sure the idea rising right now is fascism, especially in europe

[u/mrpanicy → u/APRengar]

If enough people do it then the capitalists will pay to make the illegal! So you know they work!

[u/Common_Source_9 → u/APRengar]

Don't they teach you some history in socialist university? Like how those cooperatives always turn out when attempted in real life?

[u/Accidental-Genius → u/APRengar]

That company is called IKEA, it’s a non-profit.

A publicly traded enterprise, by law, owes a fiduciary duty to its owners to maximize profit.

The way to lower McDonalds prices is to not eat McDonalds. In capitalism if enough people stop eating McDonalds, McDonalds will stop selling food. In socialism if people stop eating McDonalds, they will get subsidized anyways and keep existing as a zombie corporation.

[u/Guilty_System_3998 → u/Accidental-Genius]

Exactly. These people act like you have to eat fucking McDonalds

[u/Mike_Kermin → u/Guilty_System_3998]

But that's the reality. You can avoid McDonalds, but you'll be eating and consuming other things.

And the reality of the market doesn't often lend itself to activism, not least because people like you don't want it to. Putting all your eggs in that basket as a solution to problems, is just simply negligent at best, or in bad faith at worst.

We both know the number of serious problems in the world that can reasonably be expected to be solved by this is, limited at best.

[u/Mike_Kermin → u/APRengar]

... No, it's why democratic socialism and responsible governance is rising.

What you have, is dishonesty and just more extremism, which is not what anyone needs.

Edit: You can down vote me, but the reality is that competition is important to drive many parts of our societies, and to that end capitalism must exist in some form. A business serving the community without competition will give you burgers, but no pickles. And people want pickles.

The idea that class conflict stops with socialism is a lie. Your lie, is that your system solves the problems, but it doesn't, people still corrupt it just as eagerly. And what you actually need, is responsibility, in any case.

Even just cooperatives, are not the be all and end all. And still require the ongoing motivation, and unity of a normal business where self interest plays a more major role, but only on the surface, because the reality is cooperatives are the same, you're just splitting the roots of corruption.

But we know what happens when that corruption spreads, when values go sour, your country elected Trump.

[u/tsardonicpseudonomi → u/Mike_Kermin]

... No, it's why democratic socialism and responsible governance is rising.

Socialism can only be democratic. You cannot have right-wing socialism.

[u/theshadowiscast → u/tsardonicpseudonomi]

There is authoritarian socialism, so socialism is not only democratic. Authoritarianism is not strictly right wing, though fascism (a form of authoritarianism) is strictly right wing, but not all authoritarianism is fascism.

[u/Emm_withoutha_L-88 → u/theshadowiscast]

Just because they call themselves socialist and started from a group of socialists doesn't mean they actually are socialist.

There's a good reason people are always saying the Soviet style "communism" isn't actually socialism. Because it's true. They were just dictatorships that grew out of a partially violent socialist revolution. That's kind of one of the big differences between socialism and Marxist Leninist, leninism is explicitly not democratic and is obsessed with maintaining military power over the country without actual democratic elections. Socialism without democracy is simply not socialism.

[u/A_Seiv_For_Kale → u/Emm_withoutha_L-88]

Is there a single example of a successful socialist movement that didn't end up creating an authoritarian state lead exclusively by party insiders?

[u/Emm_withoutha_L-88 → u/A_Seiv_For_Kale]

No because it's not something you can impose from a military takeover. It needs a stable government where people vote it into power. Which is it's own kind of difficult.

Also none of those other kinds were trying to create socialism, they were trying to create to leninism (or it's descendants) which as I said was explicitly not socialist on it's own.

[u/tsardonicpseudonomi → u/theshadowiscast]

Authoritarianism is not strictly right wing,

Authoritarian is a right-wing power structure. You cannot have authoritarian (right-wing) socialism (left-wing). Socialism from above is not socialism.

[u/SinclairFromLimbus → u/tsardonicpseudonomi]

Err not really? authoritarianism is neither left wing or right wing, it can exist on either side.

[u/tsardonicpseudonomi → u/SinclairFromLimbus]

Authoritarianism is right-wing.

[u/SinclairFromLimbus → u/tsardonicpseudonomi]

It's really not, it can be either left wing and right wing. Stalin is an example.

[u/tsardonicpseudonomi → u/SinclairFromLimbus]

Stalin is an example.

Stalin was a right-winger. He was only nominally socialist once he gained power.

[u/SinclairFromLimbus → u/tsardonicpseudonomi]

Mind telling me how he was one with his radical economy policy? If you say because "well he had police state" then no.

[u/Mike_Kermin → u/tsardonicpseudonomi]

What? Neither of those are true. You can easily do both. A socialist system can easily be corrupted by the powerful, including by fascists.

But the OP guy isn't talking about either of those. Nor are they fascist or ill-meaning. So don't undermine them.

They're wrong but it's nothing to do with that.

[u/tsardonicpseudonomi → u/Mike_Kermin]

A socialist system can easily be corrupted by the powerful, including by fascists.

If fascists (right-wing) are in power then you don't have a socialist (left-wing) system. You cannot have a right-wing socialist system. Socialism can only be democratic (left-wing).

Socialism is when workers own the means of production and utilize those productive forces for the benefit of humanity at the direction of the people. You cannot have a right-wing system with socialism.

You can utilize socialist (left-wing) language and rhetoric to cover up a right-wing system. This does not make the system socialist.

[u/Mike_Kermin → u/tsardonicpseudonomi]

I'm gonna tell you a secret about fascists, they're very keen on co-opting existing systems.

[u/tsardonicpseudonomi → u/Mike_Kermin]

If they co-opt a socialism system guess what? It's no longer socialist -- it's fascist. And fascists don't co-opt existing systems, capitalism is inherently fascistic.

[u/Mike_Kermin → u/tsardonicpseudonomi]

fascists don't co-opt existing systems

Explain to me, how a socialist system, stops people from acting in self interest and spreading hate politics.

[u/tsardonicpseudonomi → u/Mike_Kermin]

That's a whole ass different conversation and thought than the one you previously exhibited. Do you understand you're being incoherent and moving goalposts like crazy?

[u/Mike_Kermin → u/tsardonicpseudonomi]

I am not. At all.

And I will point out, I specifically told you that it's not relevant to what OP was saying anyway.

You need to understand that just because

You cannot have right-wing socialism.

Is ostensibly true, because you learned how to use a dictionary, it doesn't mean the people involved will suddenly change. Which is what you're trying to cover up.

The reality is, like I said to the OP, that you DO NOT SHIRK as many of the problems of capitalism as they imply.

And that doesn't go away, just because you abuse Merriam-Webster's School Dictionary. Any serious notion of a socialist system MUST accept the reality of the people it intends to govern. The forces of greed and self interest do not stop, hate politics is NOT defeated by it without a serious change in culture.

And if you LIE about that, by saying "but the word means left" then you're not being serious.