Real Coke and Car Tariffs

Guest Post by Eric Peters

Real Coke – the most American of sodas – comes nowadays from Mexico. I mean of course the stuff made with sugar and put into glass bottles, the way Coke was once made and sold here  – as opposed to the high fructose corn syrup sweetened sludge (in aluminum cans and plastic bottles) currently sold here.

Interestingly, this is the case because of tariffs.

On cane sugar, which costs artificially more here in the U.S. thanks to them – in order to punish the manufacture of “cheap” sugar outside the U.S.

It is why American-made soda – not just Coke – is generally sweetened with HFC instead of cane sugar.

Almost everything else, too.

The soda sweetener switcheroo happened back in the ’80s. You may be old enough to remember. Real Coke was replaced with New Coke, which was Coke with HFC instead of sugar. Then – after an uproar – came Classic Coke, which wasn’t Coke. Because it was made with HFC, too.

But it was cheaper to make and sell  than real Coke with sugar.

Does the tariff on sugar benefit American soda drinkers? Their waistlines – and much-upticked tendency toward obesity and diabetes – provides the answer.

Cheapness – especially when it is artificial – has its price.

Not surprisingly, many people wise to the costs of HFC are willing to pay a little extra to get Mexican Coke – real Coke –  made with cane sugar. Or the more expensive boutique sodas which are made here, with artificially expensive cane sugar.

But if it weren’t for the tariffs on sugar, they wouldn’t have to go to Mexico (so to speak) to get a real Coke. They would be able to buy American-made Coke – without HFC.

And it wouldn’t be artificially expensive.

No one blames the Mexicans for HFC-laden American-made sodas. The problem is not enough people blame the U.S. government for the fact that they are effectively forced to drink HFC-laden sodas – or pay extra for sodas without the HFC.

The sugar isn’t naturally expensive. But the tariffs are.

Now the Orange One wants to apply tariffs to vehicles, apparently on the same principle – and it will have the same effects.

It his argument, essentially, that vehicles made elsewhere don’t cost enough because they don’t cost as much as it would to make them here. But why does it cost more to make vehicles here?

Think about the costs associated with relocating an entire manufacturing assembly in another country – and then mull the costs associated with shipping finished vehicles from that foreign country (in some cases, across an ocean) to this country . . . and it still being a lower-cost deal than it would be to make them here.

Why?

Certainly, labor costs enter into it. But the Mexican line workers in Hermosillo and Silao (where the Chevy Silverado and Ram 1500 pick-ups are made) are not sweat shop coolies. Ask them. Go see. I have been there. And have. They earn wages equivalent to what U.S. line workers made back in the ’50s, which is enough to sustain a very decent middle-class living, just as U.S. line workers once enjoyed.

Well, before the U.S. unions decided that line workers should be earning an upper middle-class living.

Add to this the EPA and OSHA ukase and rigmarole which afflicts manufacturing lines in the United States.

It is why it is easier – cheaper – to hecho things in Mexico and elsewhere, too.

Even China.

Where GM makes lots of Buicks. China is still a nominally communist country but really it is more of an oligarchical authoritarian capitalist state now – and the workers building Buicks in Shanghai are not sweatshop coolies, either. GM makes Buicks in China rather than Michigan because the Chinese government is – unbelievably, almost – less of a burden, which means lower costs and higher profits, some of which go to higher wages for the Chinese line workers.

Maybe the solution would be to make it easier and cheaper to make things here as well. As opposed to “adjusting” (via tariffs) the cost of things made elsewhere to the same higher level that afflicts things made here. People would have to pay less for stuff, which is the same thing as giving them a substantial raise.

It makes too much sense, I realize.

Almost as much sense as having to buy a Coke made in Mexico to get a real Coke.

Subscribe
Notify of
guest
17 Comments
Anonymous
Anonymous
July 3, 2018 12:56 pm

soft drinks should be BANNED!!

Just want to know. . .
Just want to know. . .
July 3, 2018 1:17 pm

Would getting rid of the unions help?

MrLiberty
MrLiberty
July 3, 2018 2:25 pm

100% right on the money. I have always said that we should look inward to see what OUR GOVERNMENT has fucked up FIRST, before blaming anyone else for our “troubles.” Sadly, some find it far easier to blame others and then come up with government “solutions” to the problems caused by government’s original “solutions.”

Mad As Hell
Mad As Hell
  MrLiberty
July 3, 2018 5:04 pm

I have said this so many times, I feel like a broken record. But the sheeple around me just don’t seem to understand. They just want more cheap shit.
It is very PAINFULLY simple: The US Government has larded down EVERY US citizen with a lead weight that other humans occupying the earth do not have to to deal with.
One example. FATCA forces a US citizen, living and working in another country to pay two sets of taxes – one to the country in which they are in, and unbelievably, to the US Government as well. Because of this, a US citizen often is passed over for work in another country because of the lead weight of the US IRS that comes with that citizenship. And, if they have an understanding employer willing to hire them, and take the risk of the US IRS auditing them, that US citizen may not even be able to open a bank account as a US citizen, for you guessed it, the same reasons. The foreign banks just are not interested in all the BS that comes from serving a US citizen. You know that the BS is thick, when a bank no longer wants money……because the burden is more than the reward. Americans are trouble basically that they don’t want. But, by golly, the libtards got those big bad “rich people” to stop hiding money overseas……gosh what a good idea.
More close to home, here in the US, a US citizen now has to support a housing monopoly (Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac) just to live somewhere, a health insurance monopoly, just to be secure that they won’t die, or be instantly bankrupted if they get even the smallest illness that requires any medical aid whatsoever, support an educational monopoly (just to get a piece of paper to even get a job) and support an enormous government (local and federal at all levels) just to avoid being locked up, before they even clear dollar ONE. But you know, it is for your safety and all….And lets not forget the stealth tax of inflation, in which the minuscule money you DO get to keep after all of the monopolists get there forced skim, is slowly eroding away value by the minute, because those same monopolies feel that the amount of treasure you are giving through coercion is JUST NOT ENOUGH, so they have to steal it from you through printing of currency out of thin air.

The entire cost structure of the US is completely unsustainable, and while I agree to some extent that the tariffs can equalize a lot of offshoring BS, the other part that has to be addressed is the FACT that the US Government (and their cronies) have become insatiable parasites that feed off of every American citizen, and will never be satisfied until the host is completely exhausted, or the sheep wake the F^&*( up to the truth of who their enemy really is. Simply can’t have one without the other being fixed.

Anonymous
Anonymous
  Mad As Hell
July 3, 2018 8:15 pm

Mighty fine rant.

gilberts
gilberts
  Mad As Hell
July 3, 2018 10:25 pm

BULLY![imgcomment image[/img]

TampaRed
TampaRed
  Mad As Hell
July 3, 2018 10:46 pm

quit yer bitchin,murica,love it or kill yourself–

Ken
Ken
July 3, 2018 2:50 pm

Not buying the real coke and tariff argument. I live outside of Kansas City. Yes, we do have Mexican manufactured real coke here BUT….for about 8 months now we have also had real Pepsi with sugar, real Mountain Dew with sugar, and yes it was more costly – by the way, NOT manufactured in mexico. I happen to prefer it, so that is what I buy. The price point around here must be about right, because vendors have a hard time keeping them on the shelves (Demand>Supply). However, the PepsiCo manufacturer still keeps a lot of the other fructose products on the shelf as well, and has the demand for it as well. Yes, tariffs are artificial but the laws of supply and demand are not, and at least in this area, we are pretty much at equilibrium when it comes to pricing based on supply vs. demand. BTW, when the American vendors and manufacturers keep the real Pepsi and MD stocked to satisfy demand, the real Coke made in Mexico (stocked in the same isle) just doesn’t sell. It sells when the vendors let the supply of American made real Pepsi lapse……..

Zarathustra
Zarathustra
July 3, 2018 4:29 pm

Once again Peters gets it half right. This is probably because he is too young to have experienced some of the things he writes about. He is right that most American soft drinks are made with HFCS instead of sucrose (cane or beet sugar) and right that subsidies and tariffs are the cause (due to the lobbying of on one hand, the domestic sugar industry and on the other, corn sweetener giants such as Cargill and Archer Daniels Midland). What he is wrong about is that it has anything to do with New Coke or that the switch occurred in the 80’s. New Coke was created because in blind taste tests people overwhelmingly picked Pepsi over Coke because it is sweeter. What they failed to appreciate is brand identification. This has nothing to do with the sweetener employed. Actually the change from sucrose occurred back in the 60’s and early 70’s. The first popular sugar replacement were Cyclamates, but these were (probably falsely) linked to cancer and later banned (in the US, cyclamates are still widely used in other countries). HFCS became widely used by the mid-70’s.

While Coke and Pepsi are lagging, the trend today is a return to sucrose. While the broad category of beverages (most brands are owned by Coke or Pepsi) is fast growing, soft drinks is a mature product with stable to declining sales. Getting rid of HFCS appeals to the health and nature conscious and using cane sugar can justify a price premium, nevermind that sugar in ANY form is a poison when excessively consumed.

surfaddict
surfaddict
  Zarathustra
July 3, 2018 6:34 pm

does banning sugar cane trade with Cuba since Castro have anything to do with it as well???

TampaRed
TampaRed
  surfaddict
July 3, 2018 10:59 pm

the fangul family of w palm beach,formerly of cuba,owns a good bunch of congressmen/senators–
https://promarket.org/sugar-industry-buys-academia-politicians/
wikipedia has a very informative entry on them as well–

Stucky
Stucky
July 3, 2018 5:29 pm

The US Chamber of Commerce dramatically broke with President Trump on Monday with an ad campaign attacking the White House’s protective tariffs, as member companies see themselves as losers rather than winners.

The campaign, which declares “Trade works. Tariffs don’t,” is a rare break for a group that usually confines itself to nuts-and-bolts business issues. It is the largest lobbying organization in the country with more than 3 million members.

They put together a web site, here —– > https://www.uschamber.com/tariffs

It’s worth a quick peek because they have an interactive map … click on your state and you’ll see the costs of that tariff (according to them) …… for example, NJ has $920 Million in exports threatened by an emerging trade war.

unit472/
unit472/
July 3, 2018 5:42 pm

Well, we are better off than Europe where its war against CO2 seems to be manifesting itself, not in the atmosphere, but in beer and soft drinks.

Zarathustra is right, Coca Cola long ago realized its soda was inferior in blind taste tests to Pepsi and Dr. Pepper but it was the biggest so it used its market clout to get favorable positioning in stores and with vendors. I used to order Dr. Pepper at chain hamburger outlets and, once upon a time, got the sheepish response that they had ‘Mr. Pibb’ but no Dr. Pepper. Now they just serve you Mr. Pibb.

Back to CO2 and sugar. When I was a kid my mother and grandmother would occasionally dispatch me to a 7/11 a mile or so away to get them a pack of cigarettes. I would point out that it was a long way, not that the store manager, whom I knew well, would not sell a 10 year old boy cigarettes. I just wanted to wheedle out a tip for my services which would include a 16 ounce bottle of soda from the big cooler in front. It was filled with all manner of returnable bottles of soda floating in a sea of bricks of ice and water. Man, on a hot summer day after biking up to the store dripping with sweat to pop upon a bottle of Pepsi or 7 Up and chug a big mouthful down! It was so carbonated it actually would feel like your mouth was on fire but so sweet you didn’t even want that Milky Way candy bar. It made me proud to be an American that we had such miracles as soda pop.

gilberts
gilberts
  unit472/
July 3, 2018 10:30 pm

I never thought so. When I drank soda, I found pepsi repulsive. And nobody ever asked for a rum-and-pepsi. But to each his own. I prefer beer to soda any day.

Jimmy Torpedo
Jimmy Torpedo
July 3, 2018 7:39 pm

The water that come out of my spring is sweet enough.
A bottle of carbonated tap water with 17 to 30grams of sugar in it is absolutely revolting.

I wonder if anyone has tried a recipe like Llpoh mentioned ( Corn Flake moonshine?) using Coke or Mountain Dew. Curious.

Zarathustra
Zarathustra
  Jimmy Torpedo
July 3, 2018 8:01 pm

I missed Loopy’s recipe. Yeast will feed on any kind of natural sugar and shit alcohol, but not on any artificial sweetener, calories or not. Picky little fuckers, they are.

Llpoh
Llpoh
  Jimmy Torpedo
July 3, 2018 8:32 pm

Jimmy – I have. Delicious!