if they’re gonna act like colonizers, people have every right to be mad at individual tourists. no more of this “no ethical consumption under capitalism” bs
This is how demand works. If the population of an area want a Starbucks, they get a Starbucks. I’ve lived in many areas that were cool until they became “cool,” if you catch my meaning. Prices went up and I had to leave. It’s tempting to blame the people who came in and were willing to spend money. But while trying to find the root cause of the problem, they quickly become… Not the problem.
I’d say few people go into a new area and think, gosh I want to make this different. They went there because they wanted to be there. If a Starbucks pops up, they aren’t exactly upset, but they probably could live without it.
The problem is the people who own these places. Those people aren’t the ones protesting. And if you want to think of it from a purely ownership standpoint, the people protesting have no right to complain what the people who own the land want to do with it.
I have no idea what the solution is beyond rent control and price caps. Those two things will keep costs down regardless of tourism, discouraging landowners from changing the area to suit the demand of tourism.
Additionally, preventing foreign companies from establishing their businesses in the region would preserve the local culture. However, as previously mentioned, it is the individuals who own this land—both in a literal and a political sense—who are facilitating this occurrence.
deleted by creator
if they’re gonna act like colonizers, people have every right to be mad at individual tourists. no more of this “no ethical consumption under capitalism” bs
The people in power allow the rich to become richer on the backs of the poor.
“I’m not the problem!” Says the rich man, “it’s those immigrants, whose money I’m taking, who are the problem. Fight amongst yourselves”
deleted by creator
This is how demand works. If the population of an area want a Starbucks, they get a Starbucks. I’ve lived in many areas that were cool until they became “cool,” if you catch my meaning. Prices went up and I had to leave. It’s tempting to blame the people who came in and were willing to spend money. But while trying to find the root cause of the problem, they quickly become… Not the problem.
I’d say few people go into a new area and think, gosh I want to make this different. They went there because they wanted to be there. If a Starbucks pops up, they aren’t exactly upset, but they probably could live without it.
The problem is the people who own these places. Those people aren’t the ones protesting. And if you want to think of it from a purely ownership standpoint, the people protesting have no right to complain what the people who own the land want to do with it.
I have no idea what the solution is beyond rent control and price caps. Those two things will keep costs down regardless of tourism, discouraging landowners from changing the area to suit the demand of tourism.
Additionally, preventing foreign companies from establishing their businesses in the region would preserve the local culture. However, as previously mentioned, it is the individuals who own this land—both in a literal and a political sense—who are facilitating this occurrence.