Which company is better to invest in, Coke or Pepsi Term Paper

Which company is better to invest in, Coke or Pepsi - Term Paper Example Although on the surface Coca-Cola and Pepsico appear to be quite similar there are some distinct differences between the two companies. Coca Cola is the world's largest non-alcoholic beverage company with a market capitalization of $147 billion. The company distributes over 500 non-alcoholic beverage brands Coca-Cola owns and markets four of the top five non-alcoholic sparkling beverage brands in the world including Coca-Cola, Diet Coke, Fanta and Sprite. Unlike Coca-Cola which is concentrated almost exclusively on beverages, a considerable portion of PepsiCo's product portfolio is in their macro snack division. The company offers over 200 refreshment brands worldwide. Some of their strengths are their youth oriented â€Å"New Generation† brand image which helps develop a long term customer base and their strong franchise system helped Pepsi become one of the leaders in the industry. With a market capitalization of $101 billion and major brands such as Frito-Lay, the number on e snack product brand in the industry, and popular brands such as Gatorade, Quaker, Tropicana, and Pepsi their product portfolio is much more diversified. As a consequence growth opportunities are far superior for PepsiCo compared with Coca-Cola. Although excellent growth opportunities abound for Pepsi in their snack food business as a whole, the company is much more susceptible to rising commodity prices, therefore it is more exposed to commodity price fluctuations compared to Coca-Cola.

Political Realism Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 words

Political Realism - Essay Example It supposedly achieves certain results (e.g. status quo, dà ©tente) that are pivotal in the stability of international relations. These principles expound on detailed explanations and illustrations that underscored the realist perspectives in international politics - that nations must advance their own self-interest because: a) it is more effective in achieving political objectives; b) it balances international powers; c) it is better than the idealist/moralistic approach in pursuing not just effective foreign policy, but social and other domestic objectives as well; and, d) it is crucial in a state’s very survival. Morgenthau’s arguments cited the experience of the Second World War and international relations in a post-war period to drive home his point. He criticized the political idealism that preceded the First World War, the political theory, which he believed paved the way for the outbreak of the Second World War. He used the British experience as an example: Neville Chamberlain’s politics of appeasement were†¦ inspired by good motives; he was†¦ less motivated by considerations of personal power than were many other British prime ministers and he sought to preserve peace and to assure the happiness of all concerned. Yet his policies helped to make the Second World War inevitable.1 Morgenthau cited Churchill’s policy which apparently ran counter to Chamberlain’s policy of appeasement. He noted that Churchill was able to successfully navigate international politics than his predecessor because of the former’s strategy of advancing Britain’s power in the world stage. Interestingly, the seemingly selfish policy of self-advancement for states becomes an important tool for achieving and maintaining peace as well. As power becomes the principal theme of international politics, states wittingly an unwittingly strive to maintain an equilibrium or balance of it by attaining, preserving and/or increasing their