Just try and consume the WHO recommended sugar intake. About 24 grams per day. One can of Pepsi, 41 grams. Eat processed food and you will get up to 24 by breakfast.

"A new WHO guideline recommends adults and children reduce their daily intake of free sugars to less than 10% of their total energy intake. A further reduction to below 5% or roughly 25 grams (6 teaspoons) per day would provide additional health benefits.

Free sugars refer to monosaccharides (such as glucose, fructose) and disaccharides (such as sucrose or table sugar) added to foods and drinks by the manufacturer, cook or consumer, and sugars naturally present in honey, syrups, fruit juices and fruit juice concentrates."

I love ST; Ice-T is awesome - this is one of the greatest combinations of good things I've encountered in 2015. It's like the teens of the eighties have replaced Pepsi cravings with password reset demands as they have become adults of the '10s

*related=http://videosift.com/video/Michael-Jackson-s-Hair-Catches-Fire-During-1984-Pepsi-Ad

Michael Jackson's Hair Catches Fire During 1984 Pepsi Ad has been added as a related post - related requested by Zawash.

Wow, I thought that was going to be a joke, but no, it was actually advertising.

pepsi... partial credit!

All I want is a Pepsi!

I'm more bothered that they're not drinking the fucking Pepsi, it's just THERE!

Seems odd that the pepsi is easy to recognize as a pepsi product, but the beers have had the labels removed and the wine is turned away so not to recognize. Possibly some kind of viral? Can anyone think of why they would remove the beer labels but not the pepsi label?

-edit-
hmmm well the other vids they have don't seem to have any obvious product placement but still curious as to why the beer labels have been removed.

*dead -- "'PEPSI (Britney Spears, Beyo...' This video is no longer available due to a copyright claim by X-CITE RECORDS..."

Do enlighten me: How do you think "dominant corporation(s) or collusion thereof [will] strongarm retailers?" That simply won't happen. Rather, there will be fewer barriers to entry for other widget manufacturers to enter the market, either independently or working for competing "dominant" corporations when they discover that it's more profitable to not be "paid off" but to compete in the market instead.

A dominant corporation cannot buy every possible competitor. That's absurd. And there will always multiple "dominant" corporations, and not just one, or one and a number of "start-ups." Where there is Coke, there will be Pepsi. Where there is Apple, there will be Samsung. In a free market, monopolies and cartels cannot exist except in the very short term and at an eventual loss (unless they have the primary monopoly of the government to back them up).

If there are patents, there's no free market. A free market, by definition, must exclude all patent, trademark, copyright, and other such IP law. So, you may have picked the worst example.

Free markets without patents is not a problem at all. Not for the market and not for consumers. Companies may just be more careful about spies. They certainly wouldn't be incentivized (like they are now) to spend $millions just to hold patents on products that are never produced, only to corner the market and "strongarm" competitors (like they do now).

Companies like Bed, Bath & Beyond have been trying to price upstarts out of the market for years, decades even! And they're still not able to get rid of competitors! Same can be said about Walmart. Many stores other than Walmart sell TVs, even at higher prices, and remain competitive. Other stores sell linens besides BB&B. So, you have a distorted view of how markets actually work. No one corporation can monopolize the sale of any goods or services. That's just incorrect (unless the government helps them to do so). It just doesn't happen.

There's no such thing as a "natural monopoly." Name one. In Texas, for example, there are competing utility providers, and people can choose which energy service to use. This is in contrast to CA, where most of us are forced to "choose" PG&E over zero other alternatives.

"Restriction of information/prevention of rational, informed consumers"

I'm sorry, but anyone who has been involved in business knows this is complete horseshit. If you have a better product/service (the only way to outdo the competition), you will let the customers/market know right away.

And there's no scale at which markets collapse. The same forces of the market apply to big, small, and medium businesses. There is no arbitrary size for which these forces do not apply. And keep in mind that without government granted privileges, corporations would be much smaller than they are now, because competition would make it easier for competitors to participate, thereby forcing a re-allocation of resources to accommodate the market's demands.

So, yes you most certainly "overstated" your case. All markets can be free, regardless of size. Whether it's a small farmer's market or Whole Foods. The same market forces apply. They all have to court voluntary customers through service, price, quality, etc. Again, anyone who has had to work with marketing will know this.

BTW, things like "price dumping" are circumvented all the time. Does Rolls Royce care that Hyundai sells cheaper cars? Does Mercedes care that a Prius is less expensive?

Target makes money because Walmart is cheaper, not in spite of it!
And everything Walmart sells, you'll find many other stores selling it, even though Walmart might sell it cheaper.
The local natural food store in my neighborhood sells, more or less, the same things as Whole Foods. None of your objections pose any real problems in the real world.

I don't see Walmart buying every other TV seller, or even trying to do this. Microsoft tried but, so what? They failed, because they could not buy every single competitor in the software world, could they?

Even in Somalia, to use @enoch's example, in the telecommunications industry (to pick one that saw growth), no one even remotely managed to do any of the things you say could happen. In 20 years, no corporation did any of these things. Why not?

Because they couldn't.

And did "dominant" corporations take over all small retailers and sellers? No way, not even close! They couldn't. Only regulations can really kill all small retailers (and they do it all the time). Your outrage is gravely misplaced. Do the countless bazaars and sellers of Turkey, India, or Thailand get taken over by "dominant" corporations?

Hint: No.

Only when government meddles, do the big corporations wipe out the little ones, and sometimes each other.

In any case, Coke will not eliminate Pepsi (or Sprite, or Dr. Pepper, or A&W), government or no government.

There is a flaw in your premise which suggests that somehow a capitalist system is susceptible to the "evils of man," but a "government" (no matter how limited) is not. Man is either evil or Man is not evil, regardless of the system in which Man functions. A system of government regulation can either be exploited or not, so a government imposed regulation thus becomes a mechanism for that manipulation.

Capitalism, by contrast, does not require the governmental oversight to impose the regulations that the market imposes upon itself. Such a system (despite the prevalent perception, of late) does not, in and of itself, generate the kinds of crony, kleptocratic monopolies that we have seen on the rise for the past 30+ years. That is, sadly, the effect of government -- the original monopoly -- whose regulations and hybridized (private/public) contractual agreements with the private sector create these imbalances and inequities throughout society. As far as I can tell, only the implicit competitions of the free market present the kinds of price restrictions that cannot be circumvented.

Note that capitalist competition does not mean a system of 'survival of the fittest' and it does not entail the strong surviving at the expense of the weak. In fact, the pattern seen throughout a competitive market is that of a "leader" challenged by a "second-place" (Coke then Pepsi), followed by a more distant third (other colas) and then a variety of many others (Sprite, 7-Up, A&W, etc.) Competition in capitalism differs considerably from that seen in the animal kingdom because humans, unlike animals, can increase the supply of what they need to survive, while animals cannot (with possible exceptions like bees making honey). In fact, capitalist competition does the opposite, it allows those who would otherwise not survive (because they cannot produce for themselves, or those too weak to compete) to survive by partaking in the market of increased supply. Even if those people are unable to hunt or farm for themselves, they can still feed themselves with the abundance of food produced by capitalist competition, which is a competition to produce more and better of whatever the market needs (with an accurate reflection of supply and demand in the price, which is very different from the kinds of "blind" economic calculations necessary in a centralized system of government). And to have such an abundance of production/supply, you need capital investment. There's no other alternative.

In any case, read the article I posted. Let me know what you think.

He said he really feels like a Coke, but isn't that Pepsi? Or was he being facetious on purpose?

Back in 1993, I had the same reaction to fresh Crystal Pepsi.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Vomit' to 'Vomit, crystal pepsi' - edited by xxovercastxx

yea that guy makes a lot of fake vids

Brad Jones of Cinema Snob is a gigantic crystal pepsi collector and drinker and he goes over the video and chugs an old crystal pepsi from his collection to prove there is nothing to it

http://thecinemasnob.com/2013/02/19/brad-tries-mountain-dew-game-fuel--chugs-a-crystal-pepsi.aspx