7 ms·

> "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 watch

> "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.

alhazrod 6mo ago
An Italian man once told me, "Coca-Cola is American champagne." Take it as you will.
- RajT88 6mo ago
  I thought that was Miller High Life.
- wcfields 6mo ago
  It's only Coca-Cola if it comes from the Appellation d’Origine Contrôlée of Atlanta, otherwise it's only a sparking cola beverage.
- scottyah 6mo ago
  Was that during our prohibition?
giwook 6mo ago
> 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?
- legitster 6mo ago
  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.
  - giwook 6mo ago
    Fair point. What about cars or houses?
    - shaftway 6mo ago
      That fancy Lamborghini is going to be sitting in the same traffic as my Honda.
      - skeeter2020 6mo ago
        no - it will be getting very expensive servicing while you're enjoying 200K+ trouble-free miles
        Our_Benefactors 6mo ago
        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.
FireBeyond 6mo ago
> Unfortunately I think America is starting to lose this way a bit, with the influx of newer premium brands Witness Erewhon fruit juices/smoothies.
elzbardico 6mo ago
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.
- legitster 6mo ago
  > 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.
  - ethbr1 6mo ago
    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.
antonvs 6mo ago
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.
- windows2020 6mo ago
  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.
  - kelipso 6mo ago
    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.
    - pessimizer 6mo ago
      Or, humor me, bubbly cold sugar water tastes good when you're hot and tired.
    - mc32 6mo ago
      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.
    - x-complexity 6mo ago
thinkingtoilet 6mo ago
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.
- brewdad 6mo ago
  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.
- nunez 6mo ago
  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.
cogman10 6mo ago
> 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.
merely-unlikely 6mo ago
> you can drink Coke, too I drink water. Which means I'm just like Cristiano Ronaldo[1]. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x2ZLS1V3iMw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x2ZLS1V3iMw

alhazrod 6mo ago

An Italian man once told me, "Coca-Cola is American champagne." Take it as you will.

RajT88 6mo ago
I thought that was Miller High Life.
wcfields 6mo ago
It's only Coca-Cola if it comes from the Appellation d’Origine Contrôlée of Atlanta, otherwise it's only a sparking cola beverage.
scottyah 6mo ago
Was that during our prohibition?

giwook 6mo ago

> 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?

legitster 6mo ago
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.
- giwook 6mo ago
  Fair point. What about cars or houses?
  - shaftway 6mo ago
    That fancy Lamborghini is going to be sitting in the same traffic as my Honda.
    - skeeter2020 6mo ago
      no - it will be getting very expensive servicing while you're enjoying 200K+ trouble-free miles
      - Our_Benefactors 6mo ago
        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.

FireBeyond 6mo ago

> Unfortunately I think America is starting to lose this way a bit, with the influx of newer premium brands Witness Erewhon fruit juices/smoothies.

elzbardico 6mo ago

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.

legitster 6mo ago
> 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.
- ethbr1 6mo ago
  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.

antonvs 6mo ago

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.

windows2020 6mo ago
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.
- kelipso 6mo ago
  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.
  - pessimizer 6mo ago
    Or, humor me, bubbly cold sugar water tastes good when you're hot and tired.
  - mc32 6mo ago
    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.
  - x-complexity 6mo ago

thinkingtoilet 6mo ago

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.

brewdad 6mo ago
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.
nunez 6mo ago
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.

cogman10 6mo ago

> 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.

merely-unlikely 6mo ago

> you can drink Coke, too I drink water. Which means I'm just like Cristiano Ronaldo[1]. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x2ZLS1V3iMw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x2ZLS1V3iMw