6 ms·

Charlie Munger had great advice in general. And I've learned a lot of good from him. But I will never get over the hypocrisy of owning a quarter of Coca Cola a

Charlie Munger had great advice in general. And I've learned a lot of good from him. But I will never get over the hypocrisy of owning a quarter of Coca Cola and constantly criticizing Americans for being overweight (he used words like "sloth").

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
vlod 3y ago
Did he actually say this? I can't find any reference to this. (google search)
- profsummergig 3y ago
  He used words like "sloth".
jstarfish 3y ago
> But I will never get over the hypocrisy of owning a quarter of Coca Cola and constantly criticizing Americans for being overweight. That's not hypocrisy, that's savvy. Hypocrisy is an American drinking Coke while complaining about their weight.
- vannevar 3y ago
  Hypocrisy is spending billions of dollars to convince people to buy sugar water and then complaining about their weight. I guess you could call it savvy, but I think predatory is a more apt description.
  - solarkraft 3y ago
    There's a way to avoid (conscious) hypocrisy here: Convincing oneself that marketing (propaganda?) isn't effective and you're just giving the people what they would want anyway.
  - jstarfish 3y ago
    I don't disagree with the sentiment, only the rhetoric. I'd settle for "unethical." Predatory would be investing in Coke, diabetes treatment and weight-loss solutions as a package deal.
oh_sigh 3y ago
Why? For the most part, people are overweight by choice, not by some unavoidable draw of Coke. Not to mention that they have a ton of zero or low calorie coke options that people could choose.
- plufz 3y ago
  Making sugary caffeinated beverages supported by billions in ads sure seems like a method to try to affect peoples choice though.
- needadvicebadly 3y ago
  Many people are overweight by choice in the same way alcoholics or crack addicts are addicted to substances by choice. There are very powerful chemical and subconscious factors at play that make it incredibly difficult to exercise one's will. That semiglutides are proving to be remarkably effective at helping people both make better dietary decisions as well as reduce substance use, should tell you that the problem isn't as simplistic as you've made it out to be.
- mhh__ 3y ago
  Perhaps although I really think a lot of food people are eating today will be considered poisonous at some point.
- crawfordcomeaux 3y ago
  This is kind of missing the point. People are in groups that do all kinds of things normatively that add up to obesity, like dualistic thinking leading to depression while be embedded in a culture of dissociation. Yes, it's a choice, and as the cultures that gatekeep people from meeting their needs grows and spreads, making and sustaining that choice becomes harder. Maintaining cultures that harm is also a choice. No one is an island. We're all programming each other and ourselves in every moment while not taking care about how we do it.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- wharvle 3y ago
nwoli 3y ago
Enjoying the occasional Coca Cola but not overindulging is perfectly consistent correct behaviour within those constraints
- bre1010 3y ago
  but not if Coca Cola's continuing growth depends on their ensuring that many many people are drinking it to excess
  - nwoli 3y ago
    Not sure the math even comes out obviously in favour of someone who overindulges but dies an early death, vs someone who lives long and enjoys a coke every so often throughout that long life.
    - krisoft 3y ago
      Of course it does. Let's just calculate the revenue of two scenairos: Person A consumes 2L of Coke every day. Dies an early death at 45 year old. 2L coke is ~$2. From the age of 18 to 45 that person spent $19710. Person B is good at consuming things with moderation. Drinks one 7.5 oz Coke per week, and lives to the ripe old age of 90. A ten pack of 7.5oz coke is ~$6. That person spent from the age of 18 to 90 about $2252. You can of course tweak the assumptions, but the thing is sugar doesn't kill anyone that fast. People by and large don't drop dead in years from overconsumption of it.
  - droopyEyelids 3y ago
    Imagine being an exec at coca cola. All your product development is done. You already got it right. Now your only goal is coca cola displacing a greater and greater quantity of the substances humans put in their bodies. Every quarter you want that percentage to go up. Maybe public water infrastructure should be looked upon as a competitor. You think about the future and see vague stormclouds- vitamin supplementation can keep our consumers active a bit longer after the product displaces all sources of nutrition, but there is an absolute limit to how much matter a human can ingest over a given 24h period. Perhaps a campaign to de-stigmatize public urination. Or maybe theres a way to grow the population…
zaptheimpaler 3y ago
This is weird, I like drinking Coke occasionally and am not obese. Coke isn't responsible for all obesity. This is just another way to victimize yourself which makes it much harder to actually solve any problem.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
dexwiz 3y ago
He sponsored what essentially was a prison style dorm. He might have great advice, but it will probably make you a worse human. https://www.fastcompany.com/90740511/heres-what-its-like-living-in-a-windowless-dorm-built-by-a-billionaire https://www.fastcompany.com/90740511/heres-what-its-like-liv...
- profsummergig 3y ago
  I had read about this dorm plan, and thought it was very brutal. Then I found myself in a windowless room for a day (voluntarily) with a PC and no internet. Literally staring at a wall. The most productive day I've had in a couple of decades. And I started to have second thoughts about his dorm plan. Maybe he was on to something.
  - dexwiz 3y ago
    I want to hear what day 100 of that is like, not day 1.
    - anonuser123456 3y ago
      I’ve worked in such a room/rooms for most of my professional career (20 years now). It seriously makes zero difference. When you need fresh air you simply get up and go for a walk. People work in submarines for 6 months at a time. Humans are adaptable.
- to1y 3y ago
  >Munger’s $200 million donation to the university is contingent on the structure being built to his windowless specifications. Reason being: >“Our design is clever,” Munger assured skeptics. “Our buildings are going to be efficient.” In addition to cutting costs and foiling potential defenestrations, his design would force students out of their sleeping cubbies and into communal spaces—with real sunlight—where, he said, they would engage with one another. It seems to me encouraging university students to spend more time alone would be more conducive to getting work done. Overall Munger seemed to have had this notion a lot of old people have that the youth need to suffer because of-course they suffered more.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
shrubble 3y ago
If Buffett and Munger wanted,they could certainly point out that Coca-Cola and Pepsi both benefit from being on EBT/SNAP lists as acceptable foods to purchase, and ask that soft drinks as a class of foods be removed. Last I looked, about 9.5% of total EBT/SNAP money for food (that is, money from taxpayers that are supposed to help feed those in need properly) is spent on soft drinks. No person in need, needs soft drinks, especially when we have high rates of diabetes and obesity among the poor.
- bcrosby95 3y ago
  No person in need needs anything in particular, but even dirt poor Charlie Bucket got a Wonka chocolate bar on his birthday.
  - shrubble 3y ago
    How many times a year do you estimate, that poor Charlie Bucket has a birthday?
- _smfg 3y ago
  Just because someone is in need doesn't mean they can't spend some money on soft drinks. This is classist. It's basically "because you're poor you don't deserve chocolate, because you're more likely to be obese". 9.5% of that money being spent on soft drinks is not the problem. The problem is the amount of processed garbage and sugar in most American food. Buying healthy food is unfortunately a privilege. To have the time to stay fit/healthy (whether going to the gym or taking walks) in this world of processed garbage is a privilege, because time is a precious resource that some people seriously cannot afford.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

vlod 3y ago

Did he actually say this? I can't find any reference to this. (google search)

profsummergig 3y ago
He used words like "sloth".

jstarfish 3y ago

> But I will never get over the hypocrisy of owning a quarter of Coca Cola and constantly criticizing Americans for being overweight. That's not hypocrisy, that's savvy. Hypocrisy is an American drinking Coke while complaining about their weight.

vannevar 3y ago
Hypocrisy is spending billions of dollars to convince people to buy sugar water and then complaining about their weight. I guess you could call it savvy, but I think predatory is a more apt description.
- solarkraft 3y ago
  There's a way to avoid (conscious) hypocrisy here: Convincing oneself that marketing (propaganda?) isn't effective and you're just giving the people what they would want anyway.
- jstarfish 3y ago
  I don't disagree with the sentiment, only the rhetoric. I'd settle for "unethical." Predatory would be investing in Coke, diabetes treatment and weight-loss solutions as a package deal.

oh_sigh 3y ago

Why? For the most part, people are overweight by choice, not by some unavoidable draw of Coke. Not to mention that they have a ton of zero or low calorie coke options that people could choose.

plufz 3y ago
Making sugary caffeinated beverages supported by billions in ads sure seems like a method to try to affect peoples choice though.
needadvicebadly 3y ago
Many people are overweight by choice in the same way alcoholics or crack addicts are addicted to substances by choice. There are very powerful chemical and subconscious factors at play that make it incredibly difficult to exercise one's will. That semiglutides are proving to be remarkably effective at helping people both make better dietary decisions as well as reduce substance use, should tell you that the problem isn't as simplistic as you've made it out to be.
mhh__ 3y ago
Perhaps although I really think a lot of food people are eating today will be considered poisonous at some point.
crawfordcomeaux 3y ago
This is kind of missing the point. People are in groups that do all kinds of things normatively that add up to obesity, like dualistic thinking leading to depression while be embedded in a culture of dissociation. Yes, it's a choice, and as the cultures that gatekeep people from meeting their needs grows and spreads, making and sustaining that choice becomes harder. Maintaining cultures that harm is also a choice. No one is an island. We're all programming each other and ourselves in every moment while not taking care about how we do it.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
wharvle 3y ago

nwoli 3y ago

Enjoying the occasional Coca Cola but not overindulging is perfectly consistent correct behaviour within those constraints

bre1010 3y ago
but not if Coca Cola's continuing growth depends on their ensuring that many many people are drinking it to excess
- nwoli 3y ago
  Not sure the math even comes out obviously in favour of someone who overindulges but dies an early death, vs someone who lives long and enjoys a coke every so often throughout that long life.
  - krisoft 3y ago
    Of course it does. Let's just calculate the revenue of two scenairos: Person A consumes 2L of Coke every day. Dies an early death at 45 year old. 2L coke is ~$2. From the age of 18 to 45 that person spent $19710. Person B is good at consuming things with moderation. Drinks one 7.5 oz Coke per week, and lives to the ripe old age of 90. A ten pack of 7.5oz coke is ~$6. That person spent from the age of 18 to 90 about $2252. You can of course tweak the assumptions, but the thing is sugar doesn't kill anyone that fast. People by and large don't drop dead in years from overconsumption of it.
- droopyEyelids 3y ago
  Imagine being an exec at coca cola. All your product development is done. You already got it right. Now your only goal is coca cola displacing a greater and greater quantity of the substances humans put in their bodies. Every quarter you want that percentage to go up. Maybe public water infrastructure should be looked upon as a competitor. You think about the future and see vague stormclouds- vitamin supplementation can keep our consumers active a bit longer after the product displaces all sources of nutrition, but there is an absolute limit to how much matter a human can ingest over a given 24h period. Perhaps a campaign to de-stigmatize public urination. Or maybe theres a way to grow the population…

zaptheimpaler 3y ago

This is weird, I like drinking Coke occasionally and am not obese. Coke isn't responsible for all obesity. This is just another way to victimize yourself which makes it much harder to actually solve any problem.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

dexwiz 3y ago

He sponsored what essentially was a prison style dorm. He might have great advice, but it will probably make you a worse human. https://www.fastcompany.com/90740511/heres-what-its-like-living-in-a-windowless-dorm-built-by-a-billionaire https://www.fastcompany.com/90740511/heres-what-its-like-liv...

profsummergig 3y ago
I had read about this dorm plan, and thought it was very brutal. Then I found myself in a windowless room for a day (voluntarily) with a PC and no internet. Literally staring at a wall. The most productive day I've had in a couple of decades. And I started to have second thoughts about his dorm plan. Maybe he was on to something.
- dexwiz 3y ago
  I want to hear what day 100 of that is like, not day 1.
  - anonuser123456 3y ago
    I’ve worked in such a room/rooms for most of my professional career (20 years now). It seriously makes zero difference. When you need fresh air you simply get up and go for a walk. People work in submarines for 6 months at a time. Humans are adaptable.
to1y 3y ago
>Munger’s $200 million donation to the university is contingent on the structure being built to his windowless specifications. Reason being: >“Our design is clever,” Munger assured skeptics. “Our buildings are going to be efficient.” In addition to cutting costs and foiling potential defenestrations, his design would force students out of their sleeping cubbies and into communal spaces—with real sunlight—where, he said, they would engage with one another. It seems to me encouraging university students to spend more time alone would be more conducive to getting work done. Overall Munger seemed to have had this notion a lot of old people have that the youth need to suffer because of-course they suffered more.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

shrubble 3y ago

If Buffett and Munger wanted,they could certainly point out that Coca-Cola and Pepsi both benefit from being on EBT/SNAP lists as acceptable foods to purchase, and ask that soft drinks as a class of foods be removed. Last I looked, about 9.5% of total EBT/SNAP money for food (that is, money from taxpayers that are supposed to help feed those in need properly) is spent on soft drinks. No person in need, needs soft drinks, especially when we have high rates of diabetes and obesity among the poor.

bcrosby95 3y ago
No person in need needs anything in particular, but even dirt poor Charlie Bucket got a Wonka chocolate bar on his birthday.
- shrubble 3y ago
  How many times a year do you estimate, that poor Charlie Bucket has a birthday?
_smfg 3y ago
Just because someone is in need doesn't mean they can't spend some money on soft drinks. This is classist. It's basically "because you're poor you don't deserve chocolate, because you're more likely to be obese". 9.5% of that money being spent on soft drinks is not the problem. The problem is the amount of processed garbage and sugar in most American food. Buying healthy food is unfortunately a privilege. To have the time to stay fit/healthy (whether going to the gym or taking walks) in this world of processed garbage is a privilege, because time is a precious resource that some people seriously cannot afford.