Where is the support for your post #15 and what they hell are you trying to say?
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread...ut-not-Union&p=3013188&viewfull=1#post3013188
Twinkee: Can Survive Nuclear Holocaust, but not Union
- Thread starter madanthonywayne
- Start date
Where is the support for your post #15 and what they hell are you trying to say?
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread...ut-not-Union&p=3013188&viewfull=1#post3013188
Lol, Yes, I'd say so.
Lol, you make a good case.
That's actually not true. None of that has happened yet.
At first it may seem odd that the CEO would ask for a raise in pay while at the same time as conducting negotiations with the workers - sort of like rubbing their noses in it. My guess is the company was unsalvageable (as their debt and obligations were too high) and the CEO will make out with millions either way. While the workers stand around dumbfounded as their entire way of life is destroyed. This company will be parted out like a stolen car with the Bankers getting the lion's share through 'consultation fees'. The CEO will go on to work for a Bank.
Pretty much a mirror image of America.
With the Obama playing the part of Hostess CEO. Lucky for him, unlike Hostess, we can just sell more Bonds on your children's future labor and then use income tax to collect it. Lucky us.. I bet if Hostess could get away with that shit, the CEO would be making her millions and the workers would have all these wonderous benefits. Of course the twinkee's would taste like shit.
A Keynesian Progressive Neo-Con's wet dream.
Pretty much a mirror image of America.
With the Obama playing the part of Hostess CEO. Lucky for him, unlike Hostess, we can just sell more Bonds on your children's future labor and then use income tax to collect it. Lucky us.. I bet if Hostess could get away with that shit, the CEO would be making her millions and the workers would have all these wonderous benefits. Of course the twinkee's would taste like shit.
A Keynesian Progressive Neo-Con's wet dream.
Last edited:
So 'capitalist/market' mechanisms at work, eh? The CEO wants more while he knows the ship is sinking. And damn the workers.
And asking workers to work for a 'working poor' level of remuneration is NOT engaging in 'slavery'? Who was it so concerned about such things, I wonder?
And asking workers to work for a 'working poor' level of remuneration is NOT engaging in 'slavery'? Who was it so concerned about such things, I wonder?
true their are good corporations and bad as well as good union and bad ones
can you make a post with out lying about what progressives believe. this is more in lines with neo conservativism and libertarianism than progressivism. progressivism is the anthisis to neo conservativism and you continu to dishonestly equate the two. you should be happy james doesn't give a fuck about the forum rules or you'd be banned for intellectual dishonesty years ago.
More of a anarchist's wet dream. He's a FREE MAN! Not shackled by any unfair labor laws or troublesome conscience, trying to get the only thing important (money) out of what remains of his company. Thank God he has the freedom to do his worst, rather than living in some socialist hellhole and being forced to compromise.
Our economy is not a free market, we live in a highly regulated non-free market centered on Keynesian economic principals that the Banks came up with 'for our benefit'. Banktocracy would probably best describe our system. Ask any Neo-Con or Progressive if Keynesian economics is the best way to run the economy and you'll see both nodding in agreement. Ask any Neo-Con or Progressive Keynesian if bailing out the To Big To Fail banks was the right thing to do and both will nod in total agreement. Hell, it was a Progressive, Bill Clinton who DEregulated the banks with a Senate full of Neo-Cons.
They're two sides of the same coin: Chicken Hawk Neo Cons and Progressive Welfare Queens hand in hand. Take a good look as these sociopaths part this company out like a used Chevy. The workers will have next to nothing (there is no community left to fall back on thanks to the government) and the CEO will probably go work for a Bank or be sent in to dismantle another company.
That's not free-market capitalism, it's regulated Keynesian where the only access to 'money' is through debt and a crooked banker. Eventually the debt catches up. Which is why I said take a good look because they're doing this to our economy and the debt their selling is on your kids future labor through 30 year bond sales.
Maybe you need to look up what Progressive's actually do and not just listen to their platitudes.
The top 1% took in 93% of the gains in productivity under Obama.
The Banks were DEregulated by Clinton.
The Progressives lined right up with the Chicken Hawks and lied us into two wars - sending American children over the ME to die.
Obama and the Democrats had full control over the House and Senate and they did nothing different then the Neo-Cons they replaced. Just more Debt, more Central Government, Less Civil Liberties and more War.
Only Ron Paul consistently voted against the war and debt and for that the media painted him as a racist kook. And the Cattle moo moo mood right along in tune and on cue.
Lets get something straight, it's not "Anarchists" or "Libertarians" destroying this company. Take a real good look in the mirror and try to be honest with at least yourself.
Hi Michael. You seem to care about 'something', but it's not quite clear what, since you are all over the place. Perhaps we can agree that anything 'extreme' is BAD. And that anyone exploiting either capitalism OR communism or any other 'ism' (including religionism, anarchism etc) is a BAD practitioner of commerce/society no matter what patriotic jingles and conmen spiels they offer?
History has now made it clear that NEITHER 'end' of the communism-capitalism spectrum is workable where humanity and fair play should reign supreme. That is why socialism with a small-S and democracy with a big-D is the only one left to pursue and perfect as we go into the future of a global society where the old paradigms of ignorance and greed (of any 'ism') cannot be sustainable.
Let's drop the confrontationalist and extremist arguments based on past irrelevancies.....the only way forward for the globe is a sane non-extreme socialistic democratic secular scientific/humane and balanced approach to governing and conducting economic and human affairs. Anything else is just indulging in wasteful and anarchistic conflicts for conflict's sake and not for constructive building of the future where the historical idiocies and failures have been learned from so that we can concentrate on solving the imminent and long term global problems.
We are all in it together now more than ever. The human condition unites us all anyway, and always has. These are the important things not to be overlooked whenever we ponder our predicament as a global species. Calm and reason and goodwill and forward rather than back to what failed.
Good luck to you and yours, whichever 'ism' you end up in, mate! Cheers all!
History has now made it clear that NEITHER 'end' of the communism-capitalism spectrum is workable where humanity and fair play should reign supreme. That is why socialism with a small-S and democracy with a big-D is the only one left to pursue and perfect as we go into the future of a global society where the old paradigms of ignorance and greed (of any 'ism') cannot be sustainable.
Let's drop the confrontationalist and extremist arguments based on past irrelevancies.....the only way forward for the globe is a sane non-extreme socialistic democratic secular scientific/humane and balanced approach to governing and conducting economic and human affairs. Anything else is just indulging in wasteful and anarchistic conflicts for conflict's sake and not for constructive building of the future where the historical idiocies and failures have been learned from so that we can concentrate on solving the imminent and long term global problems.
We are all in it together now more than ever. The human condition unites us all anyway, and always has. These are the important things not to be overlooked whenever we ponder our predicament as a global species. Calm and reason and goodwill and forward rather than back to what failed.
Good luck to you and yours, whichever 'ism' you end up in, mate! Cheers all!
Take a look at parmalee's response. The Union was on strike because the company was taking money away from the employees and giving it to executives. The question for an employee would be: Is it better to have a job where the execs are stealing from you personally or find another job where execs are not stealing from you personally? The question for an executive would be: Is it better to own a business where you don't personally steal from your employees or not own the business at all? It seems like both the employees and executives thought their corresponding latter choices were better.
On a side note, what on earth does this have to do with Obama or Carter?
I admit it. I looked in the mirror, and you're right - I destroyed the Twinkie.
And while I'm at it, I'll come clean. I planted the nanothermite in the Twin Tower on 9/11, and shot JFK, and caused the banks to fail. I'm the one suppressing free energy from cold fusion, and I buried the 100mpg carburetor. I'm the fifth dentist who recommends _sugary_ gum for their patients who chew gum just because I want to make money filling cavities. It's all my fault.
(How's that for your perfect scapegoat?)
Do You Hear a Sucking Sound, and Other Notes
Do You Hear a Sucking Sound, and Other Notes
The rumor mill is already looking to the free market to rescue Twinkies. Patrik Jonsson explains:
Whatever the outcome, we have to remember that there is a lot more than a labor fight going on here.
Hostess has endured a number of financial challenges in recent years, and the attempt to pin their situation on unions is another example of convenient situational exploitation. A company continually flirting with bankruptcy probably shouldn't be handing out large bonuses and pay raises to its executives.
Meanwhile, the marketplace might well be ready to come to the rescue and ensure a steady supply of newly-assembled Twinkies on American retail shelves in the future. And certes, some would object, holding up a purchase by GB as an example of the sucking sound from the south, but that would simply be a perpetuation of the convenient situational exploitation.
In truth, when I heard the news that we might be facing the end of Twinkies, my first thought was humorous: The long national nightmare is almost over! It was the same, before that, when I heard that the local Hostess bakery was shutting down: Well, it's not like they'll have product freshness issues shipping from elsewhere.
But there is iconic potential in a Bimbo-owned Twinkie. While some will shout furiously about how a hostile climate is driving businesses south of the border, it almost seems a natural fit for jokes about Mexico and Mexican labor: A cheap, unhealthy, unnecessary product imported to satisfy our sweet teeth.
I'm not worried about the potential loss of Twinkies. And though there is reason to worry for the jobs, that is a more general concern; from the sound of things, these jobs were going away soon enough—the executives seem to have nickel-and-dimed the company into so perilous a situation that they would rather sell off than address the issues. Certes, there is a story there—if, for instance, the problem is the distribution and delivery system, the union is likely a factor, but as the blame-the-union argument fails to gain any serious traction, the deeper examination might well provide an opportunity to examine the deeper workings in a manner superficial press releases and sound bites do not offer.
Although, hey, if Florida secedes, we can lower the sugar tariff.
____________________
Notes:
Jonsson, Patrik. “The Twinkie: Will it return as a Mexican expat?” The Christian Science Monitor. November 17, 2012. CSMonitor.com. November 17, 2012. http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2012/1117/The-Twinkie-Will-it-return-as-a-Mexican-expat
Do You Hear a Sucking Sound, and Other Notes
The rumor mill is already looking to the free market to rescue Twinkies. Patrik Jonsson explains:
In fact, global firms are already lining up to bid on the iconic brand names – Ding Dongs, Ho Ho’s, Wonder Bread, Drake’s – in order to prepare many, if not all, for reissue.
The brands “most likely will be purchased by a competitor that will bolt the additional sales to a more efficient delivery system,” David Pauker, a food industry restructuring specialist, tells Reuters. “The company itself won't survive.”
Food producers ConAgra and Flowers Food, the American company behind Nature Valley granola, have expressed interest and so has Little Debbie baker McKee Foods. But another possible bidder hints at the future of Twinkies and maybe the US bakery business as a whole: Mexico’s Grupo Bimbo, the world’s largest bread baking firm, which already owns parts of Sara Lee, Entenmann’s and Thomas English Muffins.
Bimbo has already sniffed around the bankruptcy proceedings that have haunted Hostess for a decade, in a bid to further expand its North American portfolio and pad its $4 billion net worth. Bimbo reportedly put in a low-ball bid of $580 million a few years ago, Forbes reports, and may be rewarded for that move since the Hostess kit-and-kaboodle may fetch more like $135 million today.
But the big question is whether the same problems that haunted Hostess – high sugar prices tied to US trade tariffs, changing consumer tastes, and union pushback against labor concessions – will squeeze whatever profit is left in the brands.
Especially if a Mexican buyer is involved, production may go the way of the Brach’s and Fannie May candy concerns: south of the border. With US sugar tariffs set artificially high to protect Florida sugar-growing concerns, a non-unionized shop with access to lower-priced sugar in Mexico could be the Twinkie lifeline, economists suggest.
On the other hand, if Hostess’ problem is its legacy delivery system, which is what University of Maryland economist Peter Morici suspects, Bimbo may be able to squeeze profits out of the supply chain while still making Twinkies in the US, albeit probably not in union shops.
“It may well be that other US producers step into the void and expand their US production, in which case the Hostess liquidation might not be a total loss,” says Chris Edwards, an economist with the conservative Cato Institute.
The brands “most likely will be purchased by a competitor that will bolt the additional sales to a more efficient delivery system,” David Pauker, a food industry restructuring specialist, tells Reuters. “The company itself won't survive.”
Food producers ConAgra and Flowers Food, the American company behind Nature Valley granola, have expressed interest and so has Little Debbie baker McKee Foods. But another possible bidder hints at the future of Twinkies and maybe the US bakery business as a whole: Mexico’s Grupo Bimbo, the world’s largest bread baking firm, which already owns parts of Sara Lee, Entenmann’s and Thomas English Muffins.
Bimbo has already sniffed around the bankruptcy proceedings that have haunted Hostess for a decade, in a bid to further expand its North American portfolio and pad its $4 billion net worth. Bimbo reportedly put in a low-ball bid of $580 million a few years ago, Forbes reports, and may be rewarded for that move since the Hostess kit-and-kaboodle may fetch more like $135 million today.
But the big question is whether the same problems that haunted Hostess – high sugar prices tied to US trade tariffs, changing consumer tastes, and union pushback against labor concessions – will squeeze whatever profit is left in the brands.
Especially if a Mexican buyer is involved, production may go the way of the Brach’s and Fannie May candy concerns: south of the border. With US sugar tariffs set artificially high to protect Florida sugar-growing concerns, a non-unionized shop with access to lower-priced sugar in Mexico could be the Twinkie lifeline, economists suggest.
On the other hand, if Hostess’ problem is its legacy delivery system, which is what University of Maryland economist Peter Morici suspects, Bimbo may be able to squeeze profits out of the supply chain while still making Twinkies in the US, albeit probably not in union shops.
“It may well be that other US producers step into the void and expand their US production, in which case the Hostess liquidation might not be a total loss,” says Chris Edwards, an economist with the conservative Cato Institute.
Whatever the outcome, we have to remember that there is a lot more than a labor fight going on here.
Hostess has endured a number of financial challenges in recent years, and the attempt to pin their situation on unions is another example of convenient situational exploitation. A company continually flirting with bankruptcy probably shouldn't be handing out large bonuses and pay raises to its executives.
Meanwhile, the marketplace might well be ready to come to the rescue and ensure a steady supply of newly-assembled Twinkies on American retail shelves in the future. And certes, some would object, holding up a purchase by GB as an example of the sucking sound from the south, but that would simply be a perpetuation of the convenient situational exploitation.
In truth, when I heard the news that we might be facing the end of Twinkies, my first thought was humorous: The long national nightmare is almost over! It was the same, before that, when I heard that the local Hostess bakery was shutting down: Well, it's not like they'll have product freshness issues shipping from elsewhere.
But there is iconic potential in a Bimbo-owned Twinkie. While some will shout furiously about how a hostile climate is driving businesses south of the border, it almost seems a natural fit for jokes about Mexico and Mexican labor: A cheap, unhealthy, unnecessary product imported to satisfy our sweet teeth.
I'm not worried about the potential loss of Twinkies. And though there is reason to worry for the jobs, that is a more general concern; from the sound of things, these jobs were going away soon enough—the executives seem to have nickel-and-dimed the company into so perilous a situation that they would rather sell off than address the issues. Certes, there is a story there—if, for instance, the problem is the distribution and delivery system, the union is likely a factor, but as the blame-the-union argument fails to gain any serious traction, the deeper examination might well provide an opportunity to examine the deeper workings in a manner superficial press releases and sound bites do not offer.
Although, hey, if Florida secedes, we can lower the sugar tariff.
____________________
Notes:
Jonsson, Patrik. “The Twinkie: Will it return as a Mexican expat?” The Christian Science Monitor. November 17, 2012. CSMonitor.com. November 17, 2012. http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2012/1117/The-Twinkie-Will-it-return-as-a-Mexican-expat
This case has the Bain Capital MO written all over it. First they bribe executives to sabotage their own companies while taking excess 'bonuses' to ensure pending failure. Then blame the unions or some other scapegoat/distraction. Then sell the brand name cheaply to overseas companies so jobs are offshored and everyone at Bains and their conspirators can make huge profits at the expense of workers andshareholders who were kept in the dark that their company was being slowly white-anted by their CEOs and their conspirators like Bains Capital and the Romney gang who while crying patriotic slogans are the ones commiting treason and economic vandalism for personal profit....and then they have the gall to damn and blame the poor/unemployed they created! I don't often talk of things being 'evil', but such characters/strategies under the guise of 'free market' is almost there!
Wake up to these scoundrels. Good luck.
Wake up to these scoundrels. Good luck.
And maybe you should be more honest and less onsided, less dogmatic.
That claim makes some nice demagoguery, but where is your proof. If you are going to make that kind of wild assed claim, you should be able to back it up.
To be more accurate, the banks were deregulated by a Republican controlled congress. Clinton didn’t veto the bill. He signed the bill into law. Presidents don’t make laws. It’s party of that Constitution thingy.
Again more demagoguery, more of your falsehoods Michael, the Democrats, what you are calling progressives, were lied to by a Republican administration. American children were not sent overseas. Adults, including young adults were sent overseas, were not sent overseas not to die but defend the nation. The fact that a Republican president lied to them does not change their motives in sending those adults overseas. It just means they were lied to and misinformed.
The motives of president who sent the troops overseas are questionable. I personally think George II (Republican POTUS) sent the troops to Iraq in pursuit of a personal vendetta, revenge, as payback for Saddam’s attempt to kill George I. But that doesn’t change the fact that George II lied to Democrats and they believed him and acted accordingly.
Are you seriously that out to lunch? This too is not true. Democrats didn’t have full control of the Senate. Democrats had 57 seats in the Senate in a body that needs 60 seats to control it. There were 2 Independents in that Congress. The only way Democrats were able to pass healthcare reform in the Senate is with a Republican vote, Scott Brown.
Democrats ended the war in Iraq and withdrew American combat forces from Iraq, ending a decade long war. Democrats are pulling troops out of Afghanistan next year. And they killed the nation’s number one enemy after a decade of failed Republican attempts.
Democrats inherited an economy in ruin, losing almost a million jobs every month, and a trillion dollar deficit and growing. Democrats have reduced the deficit they inherited by roughly 600 billion dollars and they have attempted to enact spending reductions that would reduce the nation’s budget deficit by 4 trillion dollars. And they have enacted legislation projected by the Congressional Budget Office to save another trillion plus dollars off the nation’s healthcare expenditures.
So your claim that Democats have done nothing but continue the failed policies of the previous Republican president and congress just, like most of your ideology, flies in the face of fact.
Yeah Ron Paul has consistently voted like a kook, talked like a kook and acted like a kook. Perhaps that is why most people think he is a kook. That is probably why Paul failed even to gather a majority of the vote in party which shares many of his beliefs.
What would Ron Paul have done if he were POTUS? Paul would have exacerbated the economic downturn by reducing government spending, further reducing demand for goods and service at time when demand for goods and services were at critical lows. Paul would have sent the nation into a deep and prolonged depression. Paul would have given us sustained high double digit unemployment. He would have given us massive deficits. As the economy collapsed under a Paul regime, tax revenues would have fallen just as fast if not faster. Unemployed people don’t pay much in taxes. And federal expenditures would have soared with increased demands for public assistance (i.e. unemployment, Medicaid, food stamps, etc.) resulting from the growing masses of unemployed. Paul would not made things better had he been POTUS. He would have royally screwed things up with his kooky beliefs. We definately wouldn't be in recovery as we are now.
Generally there are good reasons why non-mainstream ideas, especially ones that have been repeatedly disproven as is the case with Ron Paul, are not main stream.
Last edited:
no the media portrayed ron paul as a racist kook because he is a racist kook nothing more. and the only cattle here are the people like you that blindly accept every thing that comes from the libertarians corporate masters while rejecting everything else out of hand and not even bother to think about anything.