RM there was a time, not all that long ago when I would have agreed wit you, but I am afraid those days of taking risks in a small business are all but gone.
sure, there are those who still do very well, but the reallity is, a small business has a better chance of failure than success today and that's a real shame.

Ruined by over regulation and domination from huge multi sector conglomerates.

Boycotting Coke is certainly the healthy choice.
Why would anyone want to drink that black poison anyway?

The problem is that those American bastards also bought other things that are not as bad, such as the rights over the Peruvian national drink, Inca Kola. You should still be able to import Inca Kola directly from Peru where it is not owned by Coke - it's worth trying!

As an entrepreneur, I would have thought you'd see it that way?
RawMustard,
An enterpreneur would yes but a family man trying to feed his lot probably doesn't share such ideology at a time like now.
I can't help thinking if they took money from every director & shareholder in SPC they could possibly come up with the 25 mills themselves.
A company may have to look after its shareholders but shareholders must also look after the company, after all isn't it supposed to be a symbiosis ? Shareholders probably think its a one-way street. Sorry, better luck next time.

< An enterpreneur would yes but a family man trying to feed his lot probably doesn't share such ideology at a time like now. >

As a family man concerned with my families welfare, I took it upon myself to ensure I always had a means to feed my family and provide them with the security I promised to deliver no matter what happened.

Putting your trust in the system and others has always dealt a cruel deal. I always believed it was better to rely on ones self. That way I was in control, I had no one else to blame and no one else to screw me over!

In this day and age, it would appear to me that this philosophy would be a much safer approach to life and security.

I'm sorry, but I have no remorse for those that put their faith and futures in others and lose!

I guess it's how you're brought up?

< but shareholders must also look after the company, after all isn't it supposed to be a symbiosis ? >

No! Share holders invest their own money at risk to make a profit and that's the cold hard reality of it. If it doesn't pay they walk, it's how life's been since time immemorial.

....No! Share holders invest their own money at risk to make a profit and that's the cold hard reality of it. If it doesn't pay they walk, it's how life's been since time immemorial.

RM, this is one of the problems with big business today, the share holders.

You see the share holders are now treated with such importance that all too often much needed reform is overlooked in fear of loosing their working capital.

Unfortunately in most cases the customer is less important, with the banks being a prime example.

Rechtub if one of two butcher shops you once owned was making a loss.
The other a profit would you close one down.
Or cut over all products by using the profits of one to keep both going.
Coke is not the anti Christ here.
It as is the case with many giant international firms owns but runs the SPC as a separate company.
You seem to demand it not act like a profit making business, invest more in a multi million dollar loss firm, because we need that firm
International firms are not Socialist and never on behalf of a country they can do without and still make billions.
Boycott? in truth such a thing is imposable if we can not get Australians to buy SPCA fruit how can we stop them drinking their favorite drink brands.