> "What's great about this country is America started the tradition where the richest consumers buy essentially the same things as the poorest. You can be watching TV and see Coca-Cola, and you can know that the President drinks Coke, Liz Taylor drinks Coke, and just think, you can drink Coke, too. A Coke is a Coke and no amount of money can get you a better Coke than the one the bum on the corner is drinking. All the Cokes are the same and all the Cokes are good.” - Andy Warhol
Unfortunately I think America is starting to lose this way a bit, with the influx of newer premium brands and the fracturing of American consumers into endless lifestyle personas. But there's still some truth left in it.
> where the richest consumers buy essentially the same things as the poorest
To say that "the richest consumers buy essentially the same things as the poorest" by using Coke as an example is a significant oversimplification and is cherry picking examples to prove a point. The richest consumers buy plenty of consumer goods that the poorest cannot even dream of buying or even renting.
If there was a truffle-infused Coke with edible 24k gold flakes that cost 10x as much (and actually tasted good) you can be sure pretty much only the richest consumers would be drinking it, and that everyone who couldn't afford it would be doing everything in their power to keep up with the Joneses.
What percentage of "the poorest" own their own home or go on international trips more than once a year let alone owning multiple homes, luxury cars, and private jets?
Andy Warhol's quote is about aspiration and perceived attainment. The average person is not aspiring to drink a gold flake truffle-infused Coke.
The implication is the lack of a rigorous class hierarchy in America. Not that the rich don't live different lifestyles or consume more. But that niche luxury products were considered effete and un-American.
(Andy Warhol was almost certainly also being ironic - that the richest people in America publicly shared the same trashy taste as average Americans).
The closest analogue today might be an iPhone. Rich or poor, if you want the "best" phone you have an iPhone. Sure, there are gaudier and more expensive phones out there. But you're essentially using the same product as the richest Americans.
Fair point.
What about cars or houses?
Personally I don't envy an "high-end" car (RR, McLaren, Ferrari, Porsche, etc.), or a big mansion which needs a horde of people to run.
I personally developed a feeling for things which are at the edge of "diminishing returns" curve. I get the things which are high-end enough, but not in the "pay 3x more to get 1% more" region.
> no amount of money can get you a better Coke than the one the bum on the corner is drinking
Doesn't the fact that the original quote literally acknowledges "bums on the corner" imply that he wasn't referring to housing at all?
I have found the Coke machines at Costco to always have a perfect mixture.
“If you raise (the price of the) effing hot dog, I will kill you”
That fancy Lamborghini is going to be sitting in the same traffic as my Honda.
the lambo is a toy.
the people who have the real money are flying in private jets.
no - it will be getting very expensive servicing while you're enjoying 200K+ trouble-free miles
But it's not expensive to the person getting it serviced. Finance becomes a matter of perspective at a certain level, I imagine. You buy the Lambo because it's fun to drive, you buy the clothing with the most 000's at the end of the price because it's most likely the best. It's not 'expensive,' it's just... why would you take anything less than the best everytime?
Which is of course entirely besides the point. While it’s receiving service the owner will be in their Honda accord (they drive it daily), but they will always have the top trim and will probably get a new one once it’s out of warranty and needs its first “real entropy” repair.
Being rich is better than being poor. The Warhol quote has nothing to do with that fact.
>Being rich is better than being poor.
As someone who started out very poor, and is now ~ 30x above that. I strongly subscribe to the idea that happiness from income is very logarithmic. The first 2-3x income was life changing. I'm talking going from eating pasta, rice and beans for most meals to fresh fruit and veg, lean cuts of meat. From renting a room in a noisy apartment with 4 other people to having my own place that was both safe and quiet. My reading list was suddenly more constrained by time instead of price or library backlog.
I suppose it's down to my starting position, a content disposition and a boring lack of imagination, but my expenses have now ~ 5x'd what they were when I was on the strugglebus, but still very modest, and I honestly can't identify any spending that would make my life better or make me happier long term.
It’s very true. When I got my first apartment on my own I was living on $3000/month (today’s dollars adjusted for inflation). Now I live on $20k and I can’t say there’s many things better about my day to day. I seem to spend a lot on things that don’t matter that much :(
I'm reminded of the Polish proverb that it's better to be rich & healthy than sick & poor.
You're equals in that regard, but try riding a motorcycle one day. I live in a country where lanesplitting is legal. There's nothing quite like getting passed by an extremely expensive car, and then at the traffic lights, cut in front of it.
Sounds like an evolutionary advantage adapted by the Toxoplasma gondii in your brain to more efficiently deliver you to the big ghost cat in the sky.
It feels great until you die.
So do most nice things in life old boy.
[Honda Fireblade: throttle open and in the red, eyes closed and smiling.]
It's going to be sitting here in my garage in hollywood hills. (and seven more lamborghinis in my lamborghini account)
In other words, it's still perceived as a sign of status.
Unless they pay for the express lanes
Yeah, those are obnoxious and a fundamental undermining of America, imo.
The owner can afford to use the HOT lane at any price.
Not in LA/socal. The secret is out. There's a bunch of underground tunnels that rich and well connected people can use, that the little people can not.
Is this actually true cause it reads like STRAIGHT paranoia. I imagine those tunnels are owned by the illuminati, right?
A Tesla will out accelerate all but the most niche cars now. Even the cheapest cars can have giant screens and climate control. I don't think they are equal to a Rolls Royce, but extreme luxury has greater diminishing returns now than at any point in history.
Where I live pretty much all new houses are being built with granite counter tops and hardwood floors. Whether that's a good thing is a whole other topic ...
> Where I live pretty much all new houses are being built with granite counter tops and hardwood floors. Whether that's a good thing is a whole other topic ...
When land and labor (and fees leveraged by the city, state, etc.) are extremely expensive, the additional cost for these "luxury" items is very low by comparison. The buyers for these homes are buying everything new and it makes little sense to save $10k or so on such a visible amenity that is expensive to retrofit afterwards, on a home that costs $500k.
It is the same reason why crank windows are gone from cars. They aren't really status symbols.
And when my kitchen had to get rebuilt after a fire, I got neither. There are better synthetics for countertops and good tile is generally better for the floors. Maybe new houses are being built with granite and hardwood floors but they're not necessarily the best choices. I've known lots of people who had issues with granite (and my contractor agreed) and my hardwood was pretty beaten up even before the fire though I still have plenty of very old hardwood flooring in other less-trafficked areas of the house.
Like car colors, new house design decisions tend to be driven a lot by various current fashions because they're the low risk for purchasing reasons whether by developers or perceived resale by buyers.
Personally, I didn't care. My new color schemes are muted but not neutral. And my kitchen/dining room choices were, I think, practical for the most part.
>It is the same reason why crank windows are gone from cars. They aren't really status symbols.
That has more to do with automotive engineering being tightly coupled to academic engineering and the latter having gone through a "people are idiots, rob them of the ability to put force on anything at every opportunity" phase.
A Tesla is a poorly built expensive semi-luxury car.
The first Teslas were poorly built expensive semi-luxury cars.
The current Model 3 and Model Y are properly built competitively priced cars with many luxury features (such as huge trunks, rear climate control, all wheel drive, etc) and gadgets (Netflix on huge touchscreen, self-driving, etc).
They are still out of reach as new to a lot of people. Let's call that premium market instead of luxury.
A Tesla Model 3, dual motor has a 0 to 60 speed of 4.3 seconds. My F-150 lightening extended range can do that it 3.8 seconds.
Tesla Model3 dual is 4.03 seconds, not 4.3 while the F-150 lightning standard range is 4.2.
The F-150 extended range is 3.8 as you state, but then the Tesla Model 3 performance comes in at 2.8.
https://www.0-60specs.com/tesla/model-3-0-60-times
https://www.fordoffeasterville.com/blogs/4896/ford-lightning...
Both are absurd and entirely unnecessary for vehicles not on a race track. Tesla's great trick was replacing BMW as the car your neighborhood prick who wants to look upscale buys by default.
> race track
I presume that F150 ain't getting round the corners very quickly.
I reckon optimising for straight line speed is a strange goal.
Right, there's no form of racing that is a straight line, is there.
Regardless, optimizing a pick up for 0-60 time is a strange goal, unless you have some express desire to launch 2x4s a great distance in a complicated way.
I was sad to see it discontinued. I hope the slate truck is gonna be good when it's released, cause I dig their emphasis on customization and repairability.
Me too, it's such a fantastic truck. Built like a tank, huge battery and insanely fast charging for a 400V architecture. The only thing that sucks about it is it's a bit bouncy, and the software can be stupid. But I love it.
We bought it mostly because we wanted an EV for power backup for the house. We get ice storms in the winter and it can knock out power for days, and we need to be able to keep almost 1,000 gallons of aquariums running during them. The F150 extended range has that in spades and was cheaper than the equivalent power wall system.
It's basically a whole house backup generator that we can happen to drive around.
The fascinating thing for me was that they actually had trouble selling it ( and thus the production stop and fairly aggressive incentives to sell the remaining ones off ). I really do enjoy mine and I swear I was not a truck person.
it’s pretty much useless for anything you would actually use a truck for
like cybertruck? :)
yes, those aren’t selling either
f150 power boost is superior, has all the features you mention but you can use gasoline to keep your generator going
Why would I want to lug around an engine everywhere I go? I'd only need it like once or twice a year.
As for the generator aspect, with its 135 kWh battery pack, I can power the aquariums for weeks and weeks.
The frunk on the F150-Lightning has not been praised enough. It's a really great truck, but having that giant storage space that locks makes it so much better than anything else out there if that's what you need.
You'd think they'd emphasize the singe cab at least a little since the frunk does the job most people use the second row for.
Lightning was crew cab only.
I know. I think that's dumb. At least offer extended if not single.
>A Tesla will out accelerate all but the most niche cars now.
Claims presented without evidence. My slightly modified Subaru Wagon from '05 "out-accelerated" base Teslas - dead even in 1st gear, started pulling once the shift to 2nd happened. (Most) EVs cannot shift gears to get torque multiplication, so they start fast, but fall off as speeds get higher. My Kia gas car will outrun all but the model 3 performance - which the average person is NOT driving. Neither of those cars are "niche".
> My slightly modified Subaru Wagon from '05 "out-accelerated" base Teslas - dead even in 1st gear, started pulling once the shift to 2nd happened.
Slightly modified is doing some heavy lifting there. No 2005 Subaru wagon in stock config is anywhere close to beating a Model 3.
> (Most) EVs cannot shift gears to get torque multiplication, so they start fast, but fall off as speeds get higher.
Pretty much irrelevant, because they’re still blisteringly fast up to 60 which is where most of the acceleration happens in day to day. Nobody really cares about 60-80 or 60-100.
> My Kia gas car will outrun all but the model 3 performance - which the average person is NOT driving.
What Kia is that? Even the stinger GT (which is definitely a niche car) is slower than a regular dual motor model 3.
Another reason it's irrelevant is you just don't need the accel. Flooring a Tesla is fun once or twice, but if you floor it every chance you get I don't want to be your passenger. It's neither comfortable nor safe.
Comments like this are pretty useless unless you bring numbers.
EV motors can rev insanely high, so they don't need to shift gears, while most gas engines are limited to 6-7k RPM from factory. Thus the gassers need gears that essentially torque divide to reduce RPMs. You are very confused.
I’m guessing your ‘slightly modified Subaru’ is an ‘05 Impreza STi (276 HP stock) with a chip and higher boost? That is a niche car.
It’s not particularly noteworthy that the road version a vehicle used by Subaru’s WRC team can keep up with a Tesla if you modify the ECU and add more boost.
This doesn't make any sense. You can do a < 5 second 0-60 in your Subaru or Kia?
The real question is what about toilets. You'd think they're all the same, but a $700 Toto bidet with a heated seat that cleans your butthole with warm water is a better experience than using toilet paper.
My $200 home depot bidet does the same.
Toto survives by brand name reco only nowadays.
There was a time when some people were paying “10x” the price of regular water for “raw” water. It was stupid but there is little chance your average Jane and Joe on the street aspired to buy that water. Of anything it was a the butt of some of their jokes.
It's close to true about personal computers. The poorest can't afford Apple computers, but you don't need to be that rich to buy Apple hardware and what's up from that in terms of mainstream status? Nothing, as far as I can see. Specific groups might want a Framework laptop or System76, but those brands are invisible to most people, including, it seems, most rich people.
(And for servers and other business machines, well, other criteria apply, but owning something in the Top500 has to count for something in terms of prestige.)
Hey! The president eats BigMacs dontcha know!
Admittedly that’s because he’s an overgrown child, but what the hey.
> with the influx of newer premium brands and the fracturing of American consumers
I don't find it unfortunate, but I also think this is a bit of a misdiagnosis of the problem.
Coke is a bad example of this because it's mostly unchanged (and when they did try to change it, it became infamous. The "new coke" change). For almost all other american consumer products, the old time well known brands have decided to cut corners and cheap out on production. It's particularly obvious with restaurants where so many of the old chains have moved over to pre-prepped microwaved foods instead of actually cooking in house.
Americans have learned that brands can't be trusted to maintain quality. If a company can get away with it, they'll use any sort of deception to raise the price or cheap out on the ingredients. And they relied heavily on "it's X brand" to keep selling the lower quality goods.
That, IMO, is what's driven americans to brand fracture. People have learned that for a lot of clothing there's no difference between what they get from Temu and what they get from Old Navy. In fact, there's a real good chance those goods were made in the same factory.
American capitalism, for all its defects, was always a mass oriented endeavour in constrast with Continental Europe.
The mantra was sell more, more, more and more, and to do that, you need to sell things to poor people to. A French enterpreneur would be happy selling phones only for the upper middle class and above. In America the idea was to install as many landlines as possible and gain with scale.
Exactly. The deeper wisdom is that the current bifurcated US economy reveals the malaise at the heart of modern America.
When a company can make more profit by catering to the ultra-rich-only than selling a quality mass-market product at a reasonable price to masses, that says a lot about the economic segmentation of those masses.
> American capitalism, for all its defects, was always a mass oriented endeavour in constrast with Continental Europe.
I think it's important to call out that the "capitalism = more stuff" idea is a bit of historical revisionism.
Soviet leaders very specifically saw the goal of Communism was to create abundance and a post scarcity society. There are lots of quotes in particular from Khrushchev about this:
“The socialist system will outstrip capitalism in labor productivity. It will provide the people with more goods, more cultural benefits, and ensure a higher standard of living.”
“Communism is the highest form of organization of society for labor. On the basis of powerful productive forces, it ensures the highest productivity of labor and abundance of material and cultural values for the whole people.”
And it's worth pointing out that that this isn't a Soviet invention. Marx himself made it a central point that material deprivation was an ill (not a feature) of captialism:
"After the productive forces have also increased with the all-around development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly — only then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety…”
“The possibility of securing for every member of society, by means of socialized production, an existence not only fully sufficient materially… but guaranteeing them the free development and exercise of their physical and mental faculties — this possibility is now for the first time here.”
When communist abundance failed to materialize, there was a concerted effort to reframe the promise of communism to be purely one of egalitarianism and turn overconsumption against the West as a criticism.
Soviet Ideology and Lenin in particular deturpated Marxism.
For Marx, capitalism is historically revolutionary precisely because it expands productive forces at a scale impossible under feudalism. In the Communist Manifesto, Marx and Engels explicitly say the bourgeoisie created “more massive and more colossal productive forces” than earlier generations, and then argue that capitalism becomes self-contradictory because those productive forces outgrow capitalist property relations, producing crises of overproduction and destruction of wealth.
We can even say, that is a strict reading of Marx, communism is impossible if the problem of scarcity hasn't been solved before.
Marxism requires abundance as a material precondition for higher communism
> In the Communist Manifesto, Marx and Engels explicitly say the bourgeoisie created “more massive and more colossal productive forces” than earlier generations, and then argue that capitalism becomes self-contradictory
and then left this thought (every system outgrows itself and becomes self-contradictory) applied to communism as an exercise to readers, which gave us Lenin and Stalin's (and Mao's) permanent bloody revolution as a pupil's halfbaked attempt at a solution, because their attempt to create communism contradicted itself way before it succeeded.
The irony is that, in contrast to their relative positions in the 1960s, communism (in the political-economic Marxian sense) vs capitalism (in the 2026 sense) is now more true to the original communist view above.
To wit, that end stage capitalism has become an ouroboros eating its own tail that profits off artificial scarcity, while communism's primary defect (an inability to execute economic planning at a pace, scale, and granularity required to run a country well) is now technologically-feasible.
Though the greatest enemy to communism was always the people who made up the party and their fallibility as human beings.
So you’re saying China is in the drivers’s seat to make Marxist-Communism a reality?
I would say that OpenAI, Anthropic and Donald Trump are the vanguard of the proletarian revolution.
I bet if they wrote a 100 year plan then taking a detour through selling things to Capitalist countries is part of the plan to getting to a Marxist utopia.
An Italian man once told me, "Coca-Cola is American champagne." Take it as you will.
I thought that was Miller High Life.
It's not the same, but concerts used to be affordable. Now they are insane. I'm incredibly fortunate that I have a high paying job and can afford to go to shows if I wanted to but I refuse to pay these insane ticket prices. Same with sports. I no longer have any desire to go to an MLB game and get fleeced with a $15 bud light. I'll go to some minor league game in a shitty stadium with no special amenities and enjoy a baseball experience. We are at the breaking point and it's showing.
the minor league stadiums i've been to in Texas were on par with the mega stadiums, just smaller (and cheaper!)
you'll get a kick out of this. one concrt hall i went to recently was charging THIRTY THREE DOLLARS for a single shot of Whistle Pig. Not even the good stuff.
Earlier today I read how World Cup resale tickets are dropping below face value for many of the upcoming matches. This evening I read that FIFA tripled the price for the best seats. Bifurcation indeed.
> Unfortunately I think America is starting to lose this way a bit, with the influx of newer premium brands
Witness Erewhon fruit juices/smoothies.
Andy Warhol was an apologist for the toxic consumer culture in the US. It’s a big part of why he was so successful.
Coke is a great example. There’s no product more useless and unnecessary than that flavored fizzy sugar water. Or should I say, high fructose corn syrup water. If you drink it, why? Probably because you were indoctrinated since childhood. Same goes for pretty much all fast food. There’s nothing good or desirable about any of it unless you’ve been indoctrinated into thinking that.
Modern US coke doesn't taste much like the coke I drank growing up (late 70s, early 80s, before they switched over). I remember drinking "a perfect coke" on a hot day, it tasted almost "botanical". These days, the closest thing I can find is Mexican Coke (which they sell at Costco), it's a lot dryer (less sweet) tasting to me than US coke.
> There’s nothing good or desirable about any of it unless you’ve been indoctrinated into thinking that.
Ah, that's too harsh.
Sugar water tastes good. Fast food is made quickly and it tastes good. There's no "indoctrination" that happens to make people realize that.
I agree that coke has 0 nutritional value. However, the flavor is agreeable to most people.
You were addicted as a child to something unhealthy, and that's why it's indoctrination.
> However, the flavor is agreeable to most people.
Only because most people have undergone that indoctrination.
You can't imagine that people could try Coke and think "what is this ridiculously sugary shit?" The reason you can't imagine that? Indoctrination.
Coke is amazingly popular around the entire world, though. You can go to China, India, South Africa, and find Coke for sale and selling well even though they have their own traditional beverages. Obviously sugar water isn't very good for you -- it's liquid candy, but the idea that people only drink it if they've been "indoctrinated" isn't very likely.
The turn-off with Coke is usually the carbonation. The appeal of sugar is quite primal.
No.
I have a son with severe autism. Indoctrination doesn't work on him because he doesn't even understand it.
We have actively kept soda away from him because it's bad for his teeth.
And yet, he absolutely loves the stuff (family members gave it to him). He even has severe food aversions limiting what he's willing to try.
You can't convince me that the only reason people like sugar water is because of indoctrination. That's just silly.
Sometimes on a hot day for the short period the kid's napping I find myself at Home Depot searching for this or that tired from the work week under pressure as the clock ticks down having no idea what I'm doing and I make it to checkout tired no exhausted and I see the ice cold cooler the Coke its last moments before it's soaked with condensation open the door scan it rush to the car twist it open it screams wow sometimes there's nothing like an ice cold Coke.
There's two takes on America.
One: It's terrible that you're shopping at a big box hardware retailer instead of a local hardware store and drinking high fructose mass market soda.
The other: Home Depot usually has what's needed, at a decent price, nearby. And Coke from the cooler next to the cash register is convenient, cold, and delicious.
Neither of these are wrong, and they're both worth keeping simultaneously in mind: life should be both aspirational and satisfying.
The French, I guess kinda the paragons of mom and pop (well along with Italy and Japan) still built out lots of carrefours where lots of people go shopping for stuff while still enjoying the corner pastry shop and non-chain coffee shop.
As you say it’s not one or the other.
Home Depot Coke. $3, and in a plastic bottle. The worst Coke.
At least the grocery store sells cups at the register and there's delicious fountain Coke to be had on your way out the door.
What region are you in that grocery stores sell fountain drinks? Never seen this in the NW US.
Publix in the southeast and Wegmans in the northeast both have fountain drinks.
Washington State has grocery stores that sell fountain drinks. Yoke's:
https://shop.yokesfreshmarkets.com/store/yokes-fresh-market/...
...also WinCo Foods. Or at least the closest one to me does, right next to the in-store pizza counter.
Indoctrination via decades of advertisements in clear demonstration. The imagery from this description are taken directly from coke advertisements. Either that or this is a parody.
> Indoctrination via decades of advertisements in clear demonstration. The imagery from this description are taken directly from coke advertisements. Either that or this is a parody.
How can you be so sure you've broken free of the indoctrination, when what you have written is also the product of indoctrination? The only practical difference is the banner under which the indoctrination happened under.
Or, humor me, bubbly cold sugar water tastes good when you're hot and tired.
I suppose but fizzy drinks while not as popular today were yet pretty popular before the aftermath of WWII unleashed a vigorous advertising industry. Sure before then you had roadside painted signs (T bar style) but it’s not attributable to saturation.
Coke Classic is much better as a cooking ingredient than it is a soft drink, IMO. Diet Coke is a different matter for me.