Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 (Tek) 9/28/84 based on 9/17/84; site orca.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!tektronix!orca!andrew
From: andrew@orca.UUCP (Andrew Klossner)
Newsgroups: net.consumers
Subject: Re: Price of soda
Message-ID: <1612@orca.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 13-Jul-85 14:10:40 EDT
Article-I.D.: orca.1612
Posted: Sat Jul 13 14:10:40 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 15-Jul-85 01:31:02 EDT
References: <11495@brl-tgr.ARPA>
Organization: Tektronix, Wilsonville OR
Lines: 28

[]

	"We all know that name-brand sodas are vastly ovrpriced; after
	all, it is nothing but flavored & treated water, with the cost
	of the canning or bottling being rather low per-item ... Just
	"refusing to pay" the higher prices will NOT work; enough other
	people will just go ahead and buy the stuff anyway. Maybe
	holding the children of all bottlers as hostages...?"

And software is nothing but bits on magnetic media.  Hogwash.  The
fixed overhead component of the soda industry (as opposed to the
cost-per-unit) is extremely high, as you can tell just by watching the
commercials aired during TV network prime time.

But this is beside the point.  Refusing to pay the higher prices will
work perfectly: do so and you will no longer have to pay high prices.
Soda pop is not a staple, you have no right to ask that soda makers
charge anything less than what the market will bear.  They're in
business to turn a profit, not to provide you with cheap flavored
water, and, if industry management turned their attentions away from
profit, the stockholders would assuredly replace them.

And, speaking as the uncle of two children, ages 3 and 5, whose father
is a bottler, I find the kidnapping suggestion to be abhorrent, even in
jest.

  -=- Andrew Klossner   (decvax!tektronix!orca!andrew)       [UUCP]
                        (orca!andrew.tektronix@csnet-relay)  [ARPA]