3 ms·

Funnily enough, Coke are already draining the wells of villages that do have them. http://www.theguardian.com/money/2006/mar/19/business.india1 http://www.thegu

by drcongo 13y ago

Funnily enough, Coke are already draining the wells of villages that do have them. http://www.theguardian.com/money/2006/mar/19/business.india1 http://www.theguardian.com/money/2006/mar/19/business.india1

pearkes 13y ago
Yea, let me clear – I'm not saying a huge multi-national corporation is squeaky clean because of one positive thing they've done. The point I was trying to make is that the motivation of said company may not be to "save the world", but the results (and the impressive efficiency of attaining them) may do a lot of good, even if indirectly.
- wavefunction 13y ago
  Efficiency is not the only thing that matters though. As drcongo pointed out Coke is very efficiently depleting the normal aquifers that native farmers rely on in their quest to build a market for their product. Now if we consider that Coke is a luxury when compared to a necessity like water for drinking and irrigation, we should conclude that a luxury that precludes a necessity is superfluous and should be prohibited. That includes prohibiting "efficient businesses" when their actions to earn profits negatively impact the basic level of life.
  - s_q_b 13y ago
    If Coca Cola is depleting a shared resource, then there is an unpriced negative externality. The solution is for the government to transfer some of the gains from the new more efficient system to those worse off under the new equilibrium. This can be accomplished by taxing the corporation for its use of the aquifers, and transferring the payments directly to those that lost use of their wells. The end result is that everyone ends up with more wealth than they had under the old system.
- ssivark 13y ago
  Positive results occur only when those companies are well-regulated, else exploitation is the most probable outcome. If companies companies can exploit and make more money, they will usually go ahead with that.
- mindcrime 13y ago
  It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we can expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. ~~ Adam Smith
at-fates-hands 13y ago
It's the same thing Pepsi is accused of as well: http://www.indiaresource.org/news/2011/pepsipositivewater.html http://www.indiaresource.org/news/2011/pepsipositivewater.ht... "Pepsico, one of the largest food and beverage companies in the world, has begun claiming that it has achieved "positive water balance" in India, that it is "Giving Back MORE WATER Than We Take". Wonderful as it may sound, Pepsico's claims of achieving "positive water balance" simply do not add up."

by drcongo 13y ago

pearkes 13y ago

Yea, let me clear – I'm not saying a huge multi-national corporation is squeaky clean because of one positive thing they've done. The point I was trying to make is that the motivation of said company may not be to "save the world", but the results (and the impressive efficiency of attaining them) may do a lot of good, even if indirectly.

wavefunction 13y ago
Efficiency is not the only thing that matters though. As drcongo pointed out Coke is very efficiently depleting the normal aquifers that native farmers rely on in their quest to build a market for their product. Now if we consider that Coke is a luxury when compared to a necessity like water for drinking and irrigation, we should conclude that a luxury that precludes a necessity is superfluous and should be prohibited. That includes prohibiting "efficient businesses" when their actions to earn profits negatively impact the basic level of life.
- s_q_b 13y ago
  If Coca Cola is depleting a shared resource, then there is an unpriced negative externality. The solution is for the government to transfer some of the gains from the new more efficient system to those worse off under the new equilibrium. This can be accomplished by taxing the corporation for its use of the aquifers, and transferring the payments directly to those that lost use of their wells. The end result is that everyone ends up with more wealth than they had under the old system.
ssivark 13y ago
Positive results occur only when those companies are well-regulated, else exploitation is the most probable outcome. If companies companies can exploit and make more money, they will usually go ahead with that.
mindcrime 13y ago
It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we can expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. ~~ Adam Smith

at-fates-hands 13y ago

It's the same thing Pepsi is accused of as well: http://www.indiaresource.org/news/2011/pepsipositivewater.html http://www.indiaresource.org/news/2011/pepsipositivewater.ht... "Pepsico, one of the largest food and beverage companies in the world, has begun claiming that it has achieved "positive water balance" in India, that it is "Giving Back MORE WATER Than We Take". Wonderful as it may sound, Pepsico's claims of achieving "positive water balance" simply do not add up."