4 ms·

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 mak

• 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