Should they stay or should they go?

I heard only yesterday that Coke and Pepsi had decided to stop selling in Russia.
 
As a shareholder, I'm more interested in my investment portfolio than I am about the Russian-Ukranian problem.

My vote: They should stay.

'Calls grow to boycott Coca-Cola, McDonald’s and PepsiCo as major firms stay in Russia.'​

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/calls-grow-boycott-coca-cola-182445654.html
It's a question of morality vis a vis profit. No need to feel alone. These ten companies helped Hitler, one of them is Coca-Cola:
https://www.toptenz.net/top-10-american-companies-that-aided-the-nazis.php

If you feel good about what is going on there, go ahead and get on with it.
 
That's a personal choice and the OP says he'd made the choice. Seems no particular reason to post this thread.
 
That's a personal choice and the OP says he'd made the choice. Seems no particular reason to post this thread.
It's an old issue. Back in the Apartheid days, college students were always demanding the university divest from any South African investments in its portfolio.

Older than that -- during the Revolution, Patriots boycotted British manufactures.
 
It's an old issue. Back in the Apartheid days, college students were always demanding the university divest from any South African investments in its portfolio.

Older than that -- during the Revolution, Patriots boycotted British manufactures.
And as I just pointed out Coca-Cola supported Hitler.
 
It's an old issue. Back in the Apartheid days, college students were always demanding the university divest from any South African investments in its portfolio.

Older than that -- during the Revolution, Patriots boycotted British manufactures.
And during the American Civil War, cotton workers in Manchester refused to work on cotton picked by slaves even though that meant the British workers starved.
 
Hate to tell our beloved Fascist Rightguide....companies learn from their mistakes...whereas Fascist pieces of shit like himself don't
 
And during the American Civil War, cotton workers in Manchester refused to work on cotton picked by slaves even though that meant the British workers starved.
Couldn't they get cotton from Egypt and India?
 
Couldn't they get cotton from Egypt and India?
At the time the US was the worlds' largest producer of cotton. India was not happy to supply Manchester because the mills were undercutting Indian cotton fabric production.
 
At the time the US was the worlds' largest producer of cotton. India was not happy to supply Manchester because the mills were undercutting Indian cotton fabric production.
I have read that the American Civil War had the unintended consequence of providing a lot of stimulus to the Egyptian and Indian economies.
 
My maternal ancestors were told to invest in Russian stocks in 1900. They lost all their money in 1917.
 
I have read that the American Civil War had the unintended consequence of providing a lot of stimulus to the Egyptian and Indian economies.
It did as cotton fabric manufacturers struggled to get cotton that wasn't supplied by the Southern US, but the two countries could not make up what had come from America.
 
It did as cotton fabric manufacturers struggled to get cotton that wasn't supplied by the Southern US, but the two countries could not make up what had come from America.
That's what they get for not using slave labor.
 
He should have advised diversification. Of course he sold out of Russian stocks before 1914.
Anyone who had stocks in 1914 would have been well advised to sell everything and put it all into war industries.
 
Back
Top