MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
Coca Cola supports Macri with US$ 1.2bn, 2019/2021, investment pledge
Coca-Cola announced it would increase its investments in Argentina over the next three years, giving embottled President Mauricio Macri’s government a boost at a difficult time. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rulesGreat market for Coke.
Jun 01st, 2018 - 04:43 pm - Link - Report abuse 0We wish you an appropriate rg reward for your investment.
The only thing Argentines don't need -- sugar-filled drinks -- Macri brings it to them in a golden plate!
Jun 02nd, 2018 - 05:12 pm - Link - Report abuse -1No doubt a token of the success of a “business-friendly reforms after more than a decade of leftist populism.”
Oh well. At least drinking large amounts of Coke makes one feel satiated -- Macri's trick to achieve zero poverty!
@EM
Jun 02nd, 2018 - 11:10 pm - Link - Report abuse +1I thought you weren't going to comment on this story, since it is positive for Macri, but I see you have managed to find a way to turn good news into bad. Very ingenious.
Reekio,
Jun 04th, 2018 - 05:26 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“The only thing Argentines don't need -- sugar-filled drinks”
Cherry-picking the selective bad aspect again. I think you will find that Coke's portfolio includes drinks that are reduced sugar or sugar-free and they provide them to Argentina: https://www.coca-cola.com.ar/es/home/
@DT
Jun 04th, 2018 - 05:35 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You are right that the Coke investment is positive for Macri. Not so for the rest of the Argentines.
In my view, carbonated sugary drinks should, similarly to tobacco products, be taxed heavily to discourage consumption and to allow public health care pay for treatment of diabetes, obesity and many other health issues derived from their consumption.
None of this will happen in Argentina, where carbonated drinks are listed as part of households 'essential' expenses.
The investment should help the country generally, it's not a loan. And if people are going to drink coke anyway then better to manufacture it in the country.
Jun 04th, 2018 - 09:36 pm - Link - Report abuse 0But I do kind of agree with you about the tax. No one needs fizzy drinks and it's an easily way to cut out empty calories. However, the first thing to do would be to remove the subsidies the EU pays for sugar beat and the US gives to corn (made into corn syrup). That way sugar would become more expensive naturally. If they still want to help farmers they can subsidise healthy vegetables and fruits instead.
Reekio,
Jun 05th, 2018 - 05:09 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“In my view, carbonated sugary drinks should, similarly to tobacco products, be taxed heavily to discourage consumption”
I agree with the principle but it didn't end well when they tried it in Chicago.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/editorials/ct-edit-soda-tax-cook-county-20171129-story.html
“Unfortunately, our website is currently unavailable in most European countries. We are engaged on the issue and committed to looking at options that support our full range of digital offerings to the EU market. We continue to identify technical compliance solutions that will provide all readers with our award-winning journalism.”
Jun 06th, 2018 - 01:49 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Fail.
Maybe it would work better in some country that isn't America, though, home of the Big Gulp and infinite refills. I don't know how anyone can drink that much fizzy stuff, do they slosh when they walk?
OK, try this one: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/10/10/why-chicagos-soda-tax-fizzled-after-two-months-and-what-it-means-for-the-anti-soda-movement/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.aab074575f60 or a Google search for “Cook county soda tax”
Jun 06th, 2018 - 05:04 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Essentially there were other factors in play and the amount and manner of tax collection resulted in a strong backlash. Also, the tax was relatively easy to avoid if you were willing to drive to a neighbouring county and stock up.
I did find a way to read the first article despite the paper's evident incompetence, but the second one was more informative.
Jun 06th, 2018 - 09:43 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The comments are interesting too. I see there are still Americans who don't understand the reasons for their revolutionary war, but the one that suggested taxing sugar at source rather than in the final products makes sense. Much as I don't want chocolate to cost more, it would probably be better for all of us if it did. Also, “Lesson learned: don't get between fat *ssed Americans and their diabetes sugar water.” ;)
”Also, “Lesson learned: don't get between fat *ssed Americans and their diabetes sugar water.” ;)”
Jun 07th, 2018 - 05:20 pm - Link - Report abuse 0:-D I think another lesson is that trying to introduce a clumsy draconian tax at the county level is doomed to inevitable failure. You've either got to make the tax sufficiently small that it is just a minor nuisance rather than a level that results in a large backlash and/or introduce the tax at a state or national level so it is more difficult to avoid.
Yeah, I'm sure both of those would help, but like I said above the first and most urgent thing to do is get rid of subsidies on corn and sugar beet that are making the sweet stuff artificially cheap. Plus they could use the money raised to subsidise healthy foods instead of to plug a hole in their budget.
Jun 07th, 2018 - 07:39 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!