What Is True/Slant?
275+ knowledgeable contributors.
Reporting and insight on news of the moment.
Follow them and join the news conversation.

Nov. 10 2009 - 5:07 am | 5 views | 1 recommendation | 6 comments

Why does a falling dollar boost Pepsi?

More things I don’t understand about the world economy, courtesy of the New York Times. (You could fill a book with them. And people have! Lots!):

While the faltering dollar will make everything from French wine to Korean televisions more expensive for American consumers, it will also make American exports more competitive overseas — a lift for multinational corporations like Caterpillar, Intel and Pepsi.

Intel chips are made in Israel, Ireland and Vietnam. Pepsi is bottled wherever it’s drunk. Why is a falling dollar a boost for companies like that?


One T/S Member Comment Called Out, 6 Total Comments
Post your comment »
  1. collapse expand

    Because as long as the “exporter” is U.S. based, some of the price of the chip/tractor/over-sweetened refreshment has to be repatriated to pay for the research, development, administration and mismanagement the occur stateside. Lobbying against health reform, for example, must be paid for by the can regardless of where the “water” was drawn and disguised and mislabeled.

    So the falling dollar makes a can of pepsi cheaper overseas by loweingr the cost of the bottled hijinks. You’re welcome.

    • collapse expand

      Yeah, but is that really a significant portion of the cost of the item? Pepsi makes a lot of money because of huge volumes, but how much of every bottle gets repatriated in dollars to pay off the geniuses who invented that special cola formula, and would that really drop the cost and allow them to sell significantly more Pepsi?

      Oh, wait, I think I may be thinking about this backwards. Maybe it doesn’t matter so much whether the overall price of the item is affected by the fall in the dollar; the point is that the portion of the item’s price that represents “profit” in the foreign currency now converts to that many more dollars when it’s repatriated. So it may not make Intel’s chips much more competitive against Chinese chips or whatever, and Intel may not sell any more chips, but on the same sales it was making before, Intel’s profits will rise in dollar terms proportional to the shift in currency. So it’s a boost for the company in terms of profit, but not so much in terms of sales, market share, number of workers, etc.

      Assuming the company is making a profit, that is. Presumably if it’s losing money abroad, that becomes a bigger dollar loss.

      In response to another comment. See in context »
    • collapse expand

      E.g. this is a little out of date but I see here that Coke’s profit per 8-oz serving was just under 1 cent in 1999:


      So the money that’s getting repatriated to the US is clearly not going to affect price much, if at all, and thus is not going to increase competitiveness or volume. But the amount of pure profit will rise as 1 baht buys you more dollars. But one thing this illustrates is that to the extent that American companies’ manufacturing now happens abroad, a falling dollar may help the company and shareholders, but it doesn’t help American workers.

      In response to another comment. See in context »
      • collapse expand

        I think that depends on what constitutes help and what constitutes workers.

        I’m reminded of a professor’s lesson on the little packets of sugar you find on the table at a diner where the big jar used to be. The point made was that not having to refill the sugar jar at each diner is a very small improvement but across all the diners in the country, the packets are worth hundreds of million of dollars in productivity. The aggregated global economy may be much more sensitive to small price changes than any one of us might be, and a penny per 12-ounce serving probably makes a big difference to coke, and a big difference to many employees of coca-cola. (and a huge difference to Emory University’s financial wherewithal to tell new generations about sugar pakets.)

        In the end, I think this: The weaker dollar is going to eat into people’s paychecks and might make it harder to buy all the things we’ve grown used to. It’s also going to put some significant number of people in this country back to work, and probably raise nominal wages.

        But be careful not to cross populisms. If you are concerned that Americans generally have been living beyond their means and consuming a disproportionate share of the world’s resources, then it’s a little unfair to also deplore the flagging opportunity to continue.

        In response to another comment. See in context »
Log in for notification options
Comments RSS

Post Your Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment

Log in with your True/Slant account.

Previously logged in with Facebook?

Create an account to join True/Slant now.

Facebook users:
Create T/S account with Facebook

My T/S Activity Feed


    About Me

    I've reported from Vietnam since 2003. I'm now the Hanoi correspondent for the German-based, English-language wire service Deutsche Presse-Agentur, and was previously a Hanoi-based stringer for the Boston Globe and for Voice of America. Before that I reported from West Africa, and before that from the Netherlands; my articles have appeared in the Washington Post, the Nation, the New York Times Magazine and the New York Times. I've got a thing for languages, and have picked up Russian, French, Dutch and Vietnamese. I used to write scripts for the children's cartoon shows "Arthur", "Doug", and a few others. I got a degree in interactive telecommunications back when most people had never sent an email. In April 1991 I predicted the USSR would collapse into its constituent republics and that Boris Yeltsin would become president of Russia. Since then most of my predictions have been rather less accurate, so it was probably a fluke.

    See my profile »
    Followers: 59
    Contributor Since: July 2009