undefined | Better HN

0 pointsserf13y ago0 comments

>>So it is reasonable to argue that Coke has achieved its position on the back of The American Military, but not reasonable to say it achieved it because of US military action.

it's more reasonable to assume that Coca-Cola made most of its money by creating local factories in developing nations which struggled with getting clean water.

This pushed the use of Coca Cola as a health conscious choice. On top of that, the labor was near free by western standards, the syrup price lock is so low, and the shipping is handled by the natives.

Coca-Cola has also been accused of massive civil liberties violations due to their opportunistic nature in South America.

This is usually too fringe for me to post, but http://killercoke.org/

0 comments

1 comments · 1 top-level

duaneb13y ago

It's not just Coke, though obviously they're an interesting case that's particularly close to home in e.g. Mexico. But many american companies have gotten contracts to privatize water resources and blatantly break the contracts, sometimes even providing people with worse water than what they were already getting.

However, I don't think any of that would have been possible without the american military, though to say that Coke is so successful because of military action is rather absurd. Yes, it's probably true, but Coke's actions are so far removed from the military action (that happened decades, if not a century, ago) that it's a little dramatic and silly.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse