Well, obviously you missed my point entirely about American prosperity, or you wouldn't have thought I changed the subject when I discussed the grocery store.

By the way, economic progress is not dependent upon Disneyworld, big hotels and McDonalds.

Of course not. These are secondary results but more obvious to the average person than the other indicators of American prosperity. They are effects, not causes. Bellwethers. Indicators. Canaries singing in a coal mine. Where you see such things, you have a thriving middle class, an essential part of a prosperous nation.

Next, you lapse into the poor, conservative "either - or". EITHER it's Disneyworld, McDonalds and big hotels OR it's back to the Stone Age.



And the sad thing is that apparently that doesn't seem odd to you. If I'm to believe what you say, there is nothing except a barren wasteland, OR McDonalds, Disneyworld and big hotels. (You left out Starbucks, but I think that they may be a bit upscale in the culture department for you.)



Again, don't confuse causes with effects, but here's an exercise for the student: show me a prosperous, healthy, free country that does NOT have these signs of happy consumerism. McDonalds in particular is a favorite of mine in this category, since unlike a Disneyland, it does not require the massive investment and is more likely to show up first as a nation's economy improves.

And you're right--I don't go to Starbucks. Mr. Coffee does the job for me just fine, thanks. But it would make a good addition to the list. I would remove hotels from the list for the reasons I gave earlier.

You will have heard the famous generalization:

"If two states are democratic, they do not wage war against one another."

A more facetious version goes:

"If two states have McDonalds' franchises, they do not wage war against one another.*"

Understanding why these two seemingly unrelated statement are in fact intimately related is a critical step in understanding the underlying principles of freedom and markets. I have read comments on the McDonalds theory that try to figure out how a McDonalds franchise can somehow generate peace, which is again confusing causes and effects.

I apparently find myself in the position of defending McDonalds, which is funny. At least it's a lot more palatable than defending Saddam Hussein.

*This is not strictly true, of course. For example, both India and Pakistan have McDonalds. But these are the exceptions rather than the rule.