Best to not drink any soft drinks
Yes, hard liquors are much better.
Much like how candy is dandy but liquor is quicker.
That’s why I mix my Starburst into my Vodka to make Startinis. Super dandy and quick!
I tried to do that with Skittles once.
It did not go well.
Wouldn’t be bad for one’s health either.
Again: The Norwegian Sovereign Wealth Fund still have active investments in Russia.
Where is the outrage for them?
According to this Norwegian publication in an article published January 31st 2023:
the Norwegian oil fund still holds hundreds of millions worth of shares in petroleum companies like Gazprom, Novatek, Bashneft and Lukoil
Even if the value of their investments lower, they still haven’t pulled out any from Russia. The investments could be worth very little, but they still have something invested in Russia.
Norwegian Government on February 28, 2022, ordered the Oil Fund to freeze all investments in Russia and prepare a plan for divesting with the goal of totally exiting the Russian stock market
What’s stopping them?
sugar drinks could be compramised over living in the freezing cold
How would the richest sovereign wealth fund in the world pulling out their investments from Russia bring about living in the freezing cold?
It isn’t as if Norway’s fund haven’t already said they would divest. It’s just that they haven’t taken any concrete action on what they promised for more than a year.
Why?
All the more reason to stay away from soda
… and chips (Frito-Lay).
What am I supposed to eat with my fish, then?
So what then, is the mercury not filling enough for you? Christ
And Doritos if my memory serves me well.
I mean, the US has been helping Saudi Arabia starve and destroy Yemen for eight years now. Aren’t we also a sponsor of war?
We’re a key part of the war machine. We are gears of war.
Gears of war only has 4 sequels…
Lol, did you think america was ever the good guys?
deleted by creator
Anyone who works to maximize equality is a good guy and anyone who works to maximize inequality is a bad guy
but maximizing equality is authoritarian, or whatever
I don’t think you know what the word specifically means.
I think my point is obvious enough to be understood without getting bogged down in the pedantry of equity vs equality, but if you want to start that discussion you are welcome to provide some definitions :)
but maximizing equality is authoritarian, or whatever
There have been plenty of times they were, though name any country with 200+ years of existence and I’ll show you how they aren’t the good guys either from certain points of view. Ask Africa how they feel about some of the perceived “good guys” in the EU
Doesn’t count since we’re the good guys.
Those are the Good guys, Gods gift to humanity, they dictate what is moral and what ever harm they bring on others they are still righteous
“What about …”
The rallying cry for people who kinda just want to ignore what a piece of shit our country is. You are a well-behaved chickenhawk.
But what about me?
Yes.
Also:
- Don’t import Coke from Mexico–the anchor bottler also has a stake in Heineken (soup)
- Don’t drink Dr. Pepper until Mondelez quits Russia or DPS
Mondelez is way more than DP. Brands under Mondelez include
Cadbury
Grenade
Halls
Oreo
Among others:
Heineken recently sold all of their Russian assets
This is what I love about the free market. You can change the world by drinking the right sodas!
The title is incredibly hard to understand.
It’s not ideal.
So what sodas CAN I drink?
Soda is bad for you. Have some tea or water.
How is no-sugar soda bad for me?
Contrary to poplular belief, sugar and fat are not the only unhealthy food components used, and the rest of what they put in sodas isn’t pretty.
Contrary to popular believe most of the fat is not bad, and there are healthy fats that are important to eat for things like heart health.
There are no good sugars or simple carbs at all. We can tolerate them in small amounts, and use for energy, but modern diet contains way to much of them. Healthy serial is an oxymoron.
Like what?
There is some evidence that artificial sweeteners increase insulin resistance.
There’s a study that says everything is bad for you. Even too much water will kill you. My blood sugar is fine. I’m not obese, and I don’t have diabetes.
Everything is fine for you also. It’s just how much and for how long. Vast majority of smokers don’t have symptoms of lung cancer right at this moment, but that is not proof of safety of cigarettes.
I’m old enough to see the long term effects of my decisions.
yet ;)
At what age should I expect to see the results… and then I’ll tell you my age.
I have a genuine question that maybe somebody with more economic knowledge can educate me in:
How is continuing the sale in Russia helping Russia? As I understand Russia is gaining money on the sales taxes, etc. but the rest of the earnings will go to the US parent company, which cannot be taxed directly by Russia. If Pepsi backs out, wouldn’t operations just be replaced by a rebranded russian company, where all of the earnings would be under russian “sphere of influence”?
I genuinely do not understand why Pepsi backing out is considered bad for Russia. I thought countries generally prefer national companies over foreign ones.
Because Pepsi doesn’t just manifest out of nowhere in Russia. They are brining need for supplies, transportation, repair, maintenance etc.
In other words economic movement and income for the country.
Could some other fully Russian company take over the same thing? Maybe, but not without startup investment and knowledge. All of that isn’t free, and if an economy is unstable, no-one is going to commit money into it.
Maybe, but not without startup investment and knowledge. All of that isn’t free, and if an economy is unstable, no-one is going to commit money into it.
At least the knowledge is already there. Pepsi is not going to take the workers in Russia away with them. And as far as I know the investment is mostly the cost of buying the assets from the western company. For example the russian McDonalds branch just reopened with a new name at the same locations.
Not all the knowledge is there. Some ingredients are imported, in order to protect trade secrets and ensure global consistency.
After Russia took over McDonald’s, customers did notice a change in how the food tasted.
If they imported some ingredients before and then had to switch to local suppliers after the pullout … doesn’t this also benefit Russia, since now all of the production is national and they require less imports?
It is not like making food or soft drinks is really high tech. At worst, it is just going to taste a bit different if the ingredients are different. Or other, already local companies might gain market share.
That depends on if they can keep their customer base.
If your local McDonald’s left town and a place named Burgers-R-Us took its place, would the new restaurant sell as many burgers as the McDonalds did? I doubt it. McDonald’s devotes vast resources to build its brand and get customers into their restaurants. Smaller companies don’t have those resources.
Good point. Thanks for your insights.
Despite what people say, imports aren’t necessarily a bad thing. I mean it’s literally stuff that’s coming into a country that the people of that country now have. Having more stuff is good. Having less stuff is bad.
Trade means the people that can most efficiently produce a certain good in a country most efficiently do that while the people in your country who can most efficiently produce another kind of good do that. Russia having to produce all their goods locally is an economic inefficiency.
And yes, that economic inefficiency means more jobs for Russians. And that’s great! I want Russians to be working in jobs to supply their McDonald’s substitute instead of working on a factory line making tanks.
Yeah but how does that meaningfully impact their lives? If McDonalds ceased to exist here today, I might grumble a bit and then move on to some other fast food joint. And in Russia where people are already resigned to not having any say in the matter?
Not saying these companies shouldn’t pull out, they should. But unless it’s something fundamental (chip fabs, steel production, etc.) it won’t have that much impact. These luxury goods aren’t going to make any difference.
Let’s put it this way. There are about 250 McDonald’s in NYC. If they were all replaced by an Arby’s, there is no way they would be as profitable as the McDonalds were. Arby’s cannot match the brand or advertising power of McDonald’s.
NYC does not want 250 Arby’s, and consequently some - probably most - of the Arby’s would close. That certainly would change the lives of those employees.
So, do Russians want Tasty-and-that’s-all as much as they wanted McDonald’s? I doubt it.
Could some other fully Russian company take over the same thing?
That’s how Fanta became a thing after Coca Cola withdrew from Germany in WWII.
Using that example, yeah there’s an economic cost to doing that. They may not be able to get the ingredients they could get before and would have to do some work in coming up with a new recipe with the ingredients they have available. Figure out supply chains for the new ingredients, all that kind of thing.
Also consider what happened with Fanta after the war. Coca Cola returned to Germany and resumed ownership of their bottling plants. “Oh people actually like this Fanta thing you came up with while we were gone? Yeah that’s cool… we own that now.”
How much is someone going to invest in a company that is operating in a bottling plant owned by Pepsi, who may return and take it all over again after Putin is gone?
Your question is basically “why are embargoes effective”
Collectively shunning an economy cripples it, and it’s most effective when widely adopted.
Pepsi should be ashamed of their actions.
My question was more specific than that. I absolutely understand why it is important to sanction high-tech products and stop Russia from exporting their goods.
But western companies selling non-critical goods inside Russia felt more like russian economic dependancy to western companies to me, which (for me as a layman when it comes to economy) seemed preferable to Russia having an independent economy. Thats where my question came from.
Now I realized that rather than “dependant economy” or “independant economy” the intended goal in this case is “no economy”, although i am doubtful whether that will really work.
Because Russia companies can’t make Pepsi products, they just don’t have the supply chain to get the flavor right. They can, and do make similar products already, it’s just Mountain Dew is way better than off brand Mountain Dew. If the Russian consumers wanted that, they would have been buying it already.
I for one would never drink a cola that is not coca cola. Soda is a luxury, and in my opinion no other cola has the flavor profile to be worth the calories. Some people feel the same way about Pepsi, and a massive amount of people feel that way about Mountain Dew and other Pepsi products.
How’s that been working for Russia? Hasn’t their manufacturing PMI been shooting up? Isn’t inflation actually higher than desired because their economy is red hot?
Lol.
No.
The rubble has fallen to the value of approximately one penny.
That’s the cause of their inflation: because their currency is worthless.
You’re right, it doesn’t matter.
A sanctioning country can get good results from doing its thing to a sanctioned country when the stuff being sanctioned is important to their development. That’s why the us wants to keep 5g chips out of chinas hands.
E: touching finger to ear I’m receiving reports this did not work at all.
A set of sanctions doesn’t matter when the thing that’s being kept out of the sanctioned country’s hands isn’t important. So naturally when in a war no one cares about specific brands of soda or fast food. Pepsi executives saw what happened to McDonald’s and stayed in.
People will say things like “it hurts their economy” and “it makes the people unhappy”. The American experience of war is so completely different than almost every other nationality that they think that makes sense, and the American experience of a war economy is so far beyond the cultural memory that it only reenforces the idea that specific brands of soda matter in wartime.
So basically you’re right, what Pepsi does doesn’t matter. But if we as consumers of Pepsi outside the conflict wished it had a better policy, one that put its weight on the scale to end the fighting, we should wish for it to stop supplying both nations and perhaps even any nation directly supporting either one.
Turns out, keeping 5G chips out of China’s hands didn’t work out too well. Do people just happen to forget that Huawei isn’t exactly some young naive kid in the telecommunications space?
The whole thing was bait to get the most advanced Chinese companies to make the chips they’d otherwise have gotten from tsmc so they could be sanctioned by the west directly and lose their lucrative western contracts.
Jokes on America though, between china throwing state money at contracts to create internal production and brics+ picking up the slack it’s gonna be just fine for em.
Tfw u sink semiconductor reshoring before it even gets off the ground.
Removed by mod
Maybe Im dense but why does the Finnish government carry a soda anyway?
Because the building has a staff cafeteria and a restaurant, as one would expect from an office space of that size.
At least here in the Finnish defense forces all conscripts can buy Pepsi from soda machines. Iirc some government events/buildings have had Pepsi too
Didn’t you see that commercial? They’re the number one way to stop wars.
Well, civil wars between citizens and cops.
Pepsi is better than tear gas at least.
This international sponsors of war thing really should only apply to companies based in countries that have sanctioned Russia - if you’re not operating against sanctions, the onus isn’t with the company (which could be sued for contract violations) but with the government for not placing sanctions.
They have a duty to try and maximize the return on investment for their stakeholders. Dumping all of their stock on the market at once would crater the value of those holdings. In the end the only people who would benefit would be those who picked up that stock cheap (probably the Russian Oligarchy). It would also greatly harm the Sovereign fund due to the losses incurred.
Selling off holdings slowly to try and minimize losses for the sovereign fund is the logical move.
