3 ms·
No one is claiming that Coke’s revenue and Madagascar GDP are perfectly correlated. The claim was that the cessation of all vanilla buying from Coke caused a de
by rcme 3y ago
No one is claiming that Coke’s revenue and Madagascar GDP are perfectly correlated. The claim was that the cessation of all vanilla buying from Coke caused a demand shock that harmed the economy in Madagascar. The data does not disqualify that possibility.
Also consider another thing: the revenue of Coke was multiple times that of the GDP of the entire country of Madagascar. Is it really surprising that this demand shock could occur?
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- hiatus 3y ago> The claim was that the cessation of all vanilla buying from Coke caused a demand shock that harmed the economy in Madagascar. No, crazygringo's claim was that the economy crashed: > When New Coke was introduced in 1985, it replaced the vanilla with vanillin, and the Madagascar economy crashed since that's where the vanilla comes from.
- rcme 3y agoI feel like I’m repeating myself here. GDP in Madagascar declined by 3% during the time in question. That’s a pretty big decline in a very short amount of time. During the GFC, GDP in the US contracted by 4.2% over two years, for reference. Are you implying that that a 3% decline is not a crash? I’d like to point out that we already have evidence this happened. The WSJ reported on it at the time, and the WSJ is a credible institution. In this thread, we have someone rejecting this event using cherry picked data to fit their narrative, but their interpretation doesn’t hold up under scrutiny. Not to appeal to authority too much, but given the choice between a write up in the WSJ or some random commenter’s “smell test” decades later, I’m going with WSJ.