Max unemployment for all of them , runs , 438 million.
Printable View
Max unemployment for all of them , runs , 438 million.
The brands will be offered for auction , I do not see why anyone would buy them though.....
Collective bargaining is a free market concept so long as participation is not compulsory, and so long as no law or union contracts can be created that abrogate rights of non-participating, non-collectivized (competing) individuals. In that sense, most unions, as constituted, are not free market at all. The notion that you cannot individually bargain with a firm as a result of a law, and not a voluntary contract between parties, means that for as much I love Hostess products, I would rather see it, and everyone who dug their artificial protectionist heals in, as casualties. That void will be filled soon enough.
Here is the thing that constantly leaves me shaking my head in both wonder and disgust. Under a fiat currency debauching regime, labor is among the very last to adjust to currency devaluations, as they are perpetually forced to bargain for higher nominal wages to keep pace with monetary inflation, and only after price inflation has fully permeated the economy, and their wealth and purchasing power has been siphoned away.
If neither Keynes nor any other currency debauching economist, banker or politician had ever existed, a sound currency in a growing economy would naturally favor labor. As prices fall, wages would be the very last to eventually fall. It would be FIRMS that are perpetually forced to bargain for lower nominal wages, as they ask employees to take pay cuts in nominal value, not exchange value. That should be a union-members wet dream, as productive labor would find itself perpetually in the cat-bird's seat. And yet, ironically, union members I have spoken with (out of those who at least have a basic understanding of how a fiat currency works--against them) still tend to be opposed to a sound currency. When it boils right down to it, they don't mind at all that other wage earners are being perpetually ripped off, so long as a union is in place to make sure that they get theirs. Thus, they are very much anti-labor in the aggregate.
I'm about to eat a grilled pastrami reuben 'sub in a tub' from Jersey Mike's :)
./
at least it wasn't the government that force them out of business :)
Homeland Security Partnership Council, is a public-private partnership that basically merges the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) with local governments and the private sector for the implied purpose of giving the Executive Branch complete and limitless control over the American people. President signed the executive order while everyone was watching the weather last month.
Just didn't know where else to post it so...this was close enough.
http://youtu.be/M1vYj0E2Hr0
Will looking for Twinkies resort to something similar in this video?
You know, those people who make fried twinkies at the state fair are going to have teh sad next year. :(
Legalizing marijuana and discontinuing twinkies seems counterintuitive for Washington ...
Another company will buy the twinkie brand and they'll be made again... just not by hostess.
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8210/8...ced0495f_z.jpg
Twinkies may give us the runs
Bernanke has just ordered tons
His printing is peaking
So now he is seeking
A new recipe for sore buns
The Limerick King
http://maxkeiser.com/2012/11/16/happ...deral-reserve/
I bought 61 boxes from 5 different stores the morning the news came in saying Hostess shut down. PM me if you want to buy your stake in America's golden icon :) I've already sold several but I'm in no rush to give these away.
Count me out, enjoy.....
Excuse me. Maybe I'm wrong but wasn't this bankruptcy due to the union? If so, doesn't the bankruptcy free the company from Union constraints? The new owners will have buildings and equipment to make twinkies .... So won't they make twinkies? I haven't heard this is a liquidation of the company assets.
Spot on, that is exactly right.
If Hostess was being reorganized through a Chapter 11 bankruptcy restructuring (as it has done twice in the last ten years), the reason for that particular type of bankruptcy would not (and did not then, either time) free the company from union constraints. Those constraints stand to be completely destroyed now, however, because there will be no new owner of the "Hostess" brand. This time, the owners of Hostess are seeking to liquidate assets entirely, and go completely out of business. The new owners of those assets (e.g., Twinkies) would be completely different companies. They may or may not have anything whatsoever to do with any unions, but prior union constraints are not, and cannot be, tied to the assets--because they don't belong, in any sense of the word, to any unions or their members. The particular unions that did once have a strangehold on Hostess will be left without a Hostess pot to piss in, or a Hostess window to throw it out of.
http://www.twinkies.org/messboard.phpQuote:
Comment: I hear a Chinese company going to buy you guys out. Now you bake and sell Hostess Chinkies