Coke Wars!
By Josh Lipton Nov 06, 2009 10:00 am
How would a soda tax affect companies' and consumers' bottom lines?
In addition to raising much needed funds, the tax has the support of health advocates who believe fewer people will consume the sugary drinks if prices go up.
On the other hand, companies like Coca-Cola (KO) and Pepsi (PEP) reject the claim that soda is to blame for obesity, and argue that it’s unfair to single out soda.
But what do New Yorkers think?
Join Josh Lipton for a closer look.
 |
No positions in stocks mentioned.
The information on this website solely reflects the analysis of or opinion about the performance of securities and financial markets by the writers whose articles appear on the site. The views expressed by the writers are not necessarily the views of Minyanville Media, Inc. or members of its management. Nothing contained on the website is intended to constitute a recommendation or advice addressed to an individual investor or category of investors to purchase, sell or hold any security, or to take any action with respect to the prospective movement of the securities markets or to solicit the purchase or sale of any security. Any investment decisions must be made by the reader either individually or in consultation with his or her investment professional. Minyanville writers and staff may trade or hold positions in securities that are discussed in articles appearing on the website. Writers of articles are required to disclose whether they have a position in any stock or fund discussed in an article, but are not permitted to disclose the size or direction of the position. Nothing on this website is intended to solicit business of any kind for a writer's business or fund. Minyanville management and staff as well as contributing writers will not respond to emails or other communications requesting investment advice.
Copyright 2009 Minyanville Media, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Copyright 2009 Minyanville Media, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
(1)
Reply
2009-11-07 09:38:07
a tax on non-diet soft drinks?
It's obvious that policy is too important to be left to politicians, yet our policy planning - & evening news - is completely hostage to short term profit management.
In that context, it's good when politicians actually do make suggestions, but depressing when even their suggestions are part of the problem.
tax on non-diet soft drinks to help the state close its $3 billion budget gap?
Here's a better idea. How about a tax on semantics?
Why? 'Cuz we've all got bigger fish to fry.
Diabetes in children
The last 30 years has seen a threefold increase in the rates of [even Type 1] childhood diabetes. [not to mention autism, asthma, etc]
www.netdoctor.co.uk/
diseases/facts/
diabeteschildren.htm
This is past early warning signs, since it's already appearing in the lay press. Doesn't mean we can't ignore it, and prolong profits by sweeping obvious causes under the rug. It's always the same base cause. "Do your experiments on controlled test batches, not on the entire population."
When we lose control of experimental outcomes, the sane thing to do is back up to prior, more controlled diet/environmental contexts - quickly. For instance, what things changed systemically just over ~30 yrs ago?
Any suggestions on how much of today's profits will translate to net costs once Type 1 diabetes rates triple yet again? Is it really going to be worth it? Even Warren Buffet & other stockholders of Coca Cola naively think so. This isn't the sort of thing where repair is affordable, only prevention. The most valuable investment we can make is in our descendants. Why sacrifice them for short term profits? Why prolong it with semantics?
In that context, it's good when politicians actually do make suggestions, but depressing when even their suggestions are part of the problem.
tax on non-diet soft drinks to help the state close its $3 billion budget gap?
Here's a better idea. How about a tax on semantics?
Why? 'Cuz we've all got bigger fish to fry.
Diabetes in children
The last 30 years has seen a threefold increase in the rates of [even Type 1] childhood diabetes. [not to mention autism, asthma, etc]
www.netdoctor.co.uk/
diseases/facts/
diabeteschildren.htm
This is past early warning signs, since it's already appearing in the lay press. Doesn't mean we can't ignore it, and prolong profits by sweeping obvious causes under the rug. It's always the same base cause. "Do your experiments on controlled test batches, not on the entire population."
When we lose control of experimental outcomes, the sane thing to do is back up to prior, more controlled diet/environmental contexts - quickly. For instance, what things changed systemically just over ~30 yrs ago?
Any suggestions on how much of today's profits will translate to net costs once Type 1 diabetes rates triple yet again? Is it really going to be worth it? Even Warren Buffet & other stockholders of Coca Cola naively think so. This isn't the sort of thing where repair is affordable, only prevention. The most valuable investment we can make is in our descendants. Why sacrifice them for short term profits? Why prolong it with semantics?
Get real-time options trading ideas from Steve Smith, veteran options trader and newsletter author, plus let him show you the way to cut risk and boost your returns through the strategic use of options. Click here for a free 14 day trial to OptionSmith by Steve Smith.
Copyright 2009 Minyanville Media, Inc. All Rights Reserved
