It's easy, for example, to blame corporations for fat kids, instead of laying blame on parenting. Those parents are voters, after all. It's easy to blame the corporation for your chopped finges, saying the evil nasty corporation didn't want to spend the money $0.01 to put a warning sticker on your mower... when most people with any degree of common sense understand even without the help that putting your hands under a mower that is running might not be the smartest thing. It's easy to blame the corporation for not warning you that putting your toaster oven in the bathtub with you might cause a problem. It's easy to blame corporations for oil prices,. easier certainly than blaming governmental policies so dominated by the 'no drilling' crowd. It's easy to blame the demise of small (insert product here) shops on the corporations... rather than reflect on the fact that if the small shops were doing a better job, they'd remain in business. etc, etc.

All of this is of a kind with most of the anti-Starbucks nonsense I see, such as what Tlaloc came up with here. Sorry, I'm unimpressed by it.

I was fortunate that, at the time Starbucks was making the leap to a national brand, I was living in towns that were already growing their own local coffee companies (ones that roasted their own beans and didn't feel the need to burn them in the process). Starbucks moved in eventually, of course, and a certain class of coffee drinker continues to ensure that they make money. But us coffee snobs wouldn't be snobs without people to look down our noses at and it helps ensure there's always a table at which to sit at one of the good coffee shops, so it's okay.

Sounds like the anti-Wal-Mart whining that was so popular the last few years. With that in mind, would you call using the power of government and NIBMY to keep Wal-Mart from setting up shop, 'thuggery'?

I ask since it doesn't seem to fall under the heading of 'business'

Or, you just don't like that they provide a product that the local Ma and Pa coffee shops... (most of which wouldn't exist without Starbucks raising the salability of grourmet coffee) can't complete with?

Sorry, that's the nature of a free marketplace. And that's a good thing in the end.

Ever had Tim Horton's coffee?...

A little too much Chickory for my taste, but quite drinkable. And certainly they lack in variety in their blends. But here again, competition rears it's head; Tim's (20 minutes or less, or we don't serve it) attitude is in direct response to Starbuck's success.
And perhaps that too, is a huge part of this tale. Free Markets. Competition, even, yes, from Starbucks. It improves everyone’s situation.

Interestingly, around here, there's far more Tim's than Starbucks, despite their far more plebian fare and prices. Go figure.

Consider what we've seen recently. McDonalds, also well known for it's coffee, has been paying attention... even to the point of remodeling many of their stores in the dark earth tones and woods of a Starbucks. Doesn't look like a burger joint anymore, looks like a break area at a lawyer's office.

When Starbucks finally came to town, that changed almost over night. And its success paved the way for the growth of Peets and the general improvement of coffee across the country.

I discovered good coffee in New Orleans

Which was very unlikely to have been Starbucks, but probably was PJ's Coffee. Which is my complaint; there was great coffee in many places before Starbucks, which overprices and over-roasts its coffee, and I would like to see these other places succeed.

And if I recall from trips to Seattle in the late 80s, Starbucks was not the best coffee there either.

Bithead has a good point about the improved offering in the grocery store lines though.