Who Killed Hostess?

Once upon a time, Hostess’ products – particularly Twinkies and Wonder Bread – had significant amounts of cultural recognition. They were once part of the largest commercial bakery in the world. They were once indelibly associated with the very idea of snack foods for both the Baby Boomer and Gen. X youths.

But the market has changed and Hostess really hasn’t. They are no longer culturally relevant in any market other than nostalgia. And whether they’ll be around to change is going to be up to whoever ends up in control of what’s left of its assets. After two bankruptcies over the past decade and a strike by bakery union workers, Hostess Friday said it’s liquidating its assets and shutting its doors, a move that could lead to firing of nearly 18,000 employees.

A judge this afternoon urged mediation between Hostess Brands and its unions to prevent a shutdown, but the company’s future remains very unstable, to be sure. As the possibility of Hostess’ demise grew, analysts made with the pointing fingers, calculating who, where, and how the bakery had been murdered, not unlike a game of Clue (another mid-to-late 20th Century nostalgia reference of limited modern day cultural presence).

The Bakers Union at the Negotiating Table with a Picket Sign

Hostess Brands cited its enormous pension debts and labor costs for its bankruptcy and stated the Bakery, Confectionary, Tobacco Workers and Grain Millers (BCTGM) Union’s refusal to negotiate reductions as culprit. Courthouse News Service looked over the latest bankruptcy filings and noted that eight of Hostess’ top 10 creditors are pension funds. It owes almost $1 billion to the Bakery & Confectionary Union & Industry International Pension Fund alone.

The Teamsters even turned against the bakers union, putting out a statement encouraging them to hold a secret ballot vote as total company meltdown approached to see if people really wanted to risk everybody's livelihoods:

Teamster Hostess members and all Hostess employees should know this is not an empty threat or a negotiating tactic, but the certain outcome if members of the BCTGM continue to strike. This is based on conversations with our financial experts, who, because the Teamsters were involved in the legal process, had access to financial information about the company.

Management at the Executive Suite with a Checkbook

Of course, the counter-narrative to blaming the unions is always executive greed, hedge funds, Wall Street, et cetera.

The BCTGM responded to the attempt to lay the blame on them with accusations of their own:

Over the past eight years since the first Hostess bankruptcy, BCTGM members have watched as money from previous concessions that was supposed to go towards capital investment, product development, plant improvement and new equipment, was squandered in executive bonuses, payouts to Wall Street investors and payments to high-priced attorneys and consultants.

BCTGM members are well aware that as the company was preparing to file for bankruptcy earlier this year, the then CEO of Hostess was awarded a 300 percent raise (from approximately $750,000 to $2,550,000) and at least nine other top executives of the company received massive pay raises. One such executive received a pay increase from $500,000 to $900,000 and another received one taking his salary from $375,000 to $656,256.

Over the past 15 months, Hostess workers have seen the company unilaterally end contractually-obligated payments to their pension plan. Despite saving more than $160 million with this action, the company continues to fall deeper and deeper into debt.  A mountain of debt and gross mismanagement by a string of failed CEO's with no true experience in the wholesale baking business have left this company unable to compete or survive.

According to David A. Kaplan at Fortune, who wrote a lengthy and extremely fascinating look at Hostess’ financial situation back in July, many of those raises were proposed but never actually happened. In fact, the new CEO brought in earlier this year dropped the salaries for four top executives to $1 for the remainder of the year.

The union was correct about the failure of company leadership to improve factories and modernize. But some problems could be laid at both their doors:

Management promised to turn around the company's fortunes through innovation and workplace efficiency. It tried a limited-edition return of original banana-cream Twinkies and published The Twinkies Cookbook, which included such half-baked epicurean delights as Twinkie Sushi and Pigs in a Twinkie. But ancient delivery trucks and plant equipment didn't get replaced. The company's pricing often didn't keep pace with that of competitors. And Hostess still had ludicrous work rules: The Teamsters had separate drivers for deliveries of such goodies as Yankee Doodles and Nature's Pride Nutty Oat. (Of course this jobs-preserving work rule was agreed to by Hostess in the last labor negotiation.)

The Free Market at the Grocery Store with Competition

Kaplan points out further that the market was not enjoying their Ding Dongs the way it used to:

By late 2011, Hostess was getting, well, creamed. Its sales last year — $2.5 billion — were down about 11% from 2008 and down 28% from 2004. (Twinkies remain the best individual seller — 323 million of them in the 52-week period ending June 29, give or take a splurt.) Overall, Hostess lost $341 million in fiscal 2011, 2½ times the loss of the prior year — and by early 2012, primarily because of burgeoning interest obligations, its debt had grown to about $860 million.

There is so much competition now in the grocery store for bakery products, much more than in Hostess’ heyday. Does anybody actually still eat Wonder Bread?

Doug Mataconis at Outside the Beltway notes that maybe the days of Hostess are simply over, regardless of any debts, protectionist union agreements or creaky factories:

There’s no doubt that labor costs were a huge problem for the company, but it’s also clear that there were a number of other factors that appear to have contributed to their troubles. Among these are what seems to be a rather antiquated distribution system and the fact that consumer tastes have changed significantly over the years. Most importantly, these aren’t the 1970s when Hostess snacks were a ubiquitous part every kids’ lunch box, at least in my neck of the woods. (I was a fan of the fruit pies personally)  The bread side of the business was likely suffering from the fact that that particular market is saturated right now and that a lot of grocery store consumers are preferring to purchase breads made fresh on-site rather than branded products. So, yes, the Union was the proximate cause of today’s decision to shut down the business but my feeling is that it would’ve happened anyway.

The Sugar Lobby in the Halls of Congress with Tariffs

The Christian Science Monitor, pulling from a Cato Institute report, questions whether America’s protectionist racket with sugar growers bears responsibility:

Since 1934, Congress has supported tariffs that benefit primarily a few handful of powerful Florida families while forcing US confectioners to pay nearly twice the global market price for sugar.

One telling event: When Hostess had to cut costs to stay in business, it picked unions, not the sugar lobby, to fight.

“These large sugar growers ... are a notoriously powerful lobbying interest in Washington,” writes Chris Edwards of the Cato Institute in a 2007 report. “Federal supply restrictions have given them monopoly power, and they protect that power by becoming important supporters of presidents, governors, and many members of Congress.”

Some food manufacturers have moved facilities to Mexico and Canada. While the assumption may be the move is to save money on labor costs, it allows companies to buy sugar on the world market for a cheaper price than they would in the United States.

If Hostess is either liquidated or sold, one of the big names being bounced around is Mexico’s Groupo Bimbo, which already manufactures and distributes Wonder Bread south of the border.

Rich People on Giant Yachts with Their Armies of Servants

Checking in from some other planet is alleged economist Paul Krugman, who participates in no actual analysis of Hostess whatsoever despite writing a column that is allegedly about it and instead engages in class warfare via nostalgia about how even the rich people during the ‘50s were so much better than the class of rich people we get today. Also unions had a lot more power:

Nor were high taxes the only burden wealthy businessmen had to bear. They also faced a labor force with a degree of bargaining power hard to imagine today. In 1955 roughly a third of American workers were union members. In the biggest companies, management and labor bargained as equals, so much so that it was common to talk about corporations serving an array of “stakeholders” as opposed to merely serving stockholders.

Eh, what? Hostess’ failure is almost assuredly in part to caving into the unions on unsustainable pensions and work protection regulations, a disaster that all sides played a role in. Is there anybody outside Krugman who thinks Hostess failed because the bakers union wasn’t powerful enough?

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • DEATFBIRSECIA||

    I shouted out,
    Who killed the Twinkies?
    When after all
    It was you and me.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Where are you, you spongy, yellow, delicious bastards?

  • Vapourwear||

    "One of these days, life's little Twinkie gauge is going to go.....empty."

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Richard Trumka: I'm worried, Barack. All my readings point to something big on the horizon.

    Barack Obama: What do you mean, big?

    Richard Trumka: Well, let's say this Twinkie represents the normal amount of anti-union animus in the United States. Based on this morning's reading, it would be a Twinkie thirty-five feet long, weighing approximately six hundred pounds.

    Barack Obama: That's a big Twinkie.

  • NihilistZerO||

    One of the best movies of the 80's, if not all time :-)

  • SKR||

    I've worked in the private sector. They expect results.

  • Hopfiend||

    "That's a big twinkie", one of the best delivered lines in movies history.

  • ||

    Yes it's true... that man has no twinkie.

  • Julio Cesar Samper Uribe||

    Well-written article, Shackford,

    Four excellent, well-argued reasons. I'd say they're all complementary, but that's redundant.

    And our daily reminder that Kruggy is a damn idiot.

  • ||

    Krugman at this point is such a douche.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    His role has morphed from the incompetent villain to comedic relief.

  • AlmightyJB||

    My only complaint is this " Is there anybody outside Krugman who thinks....". This is implying that Krugman has the capacity for thought what is just crazy talk.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    I blame George Bush.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    You think it's a coincidence that buckyballs and Twinkies go belly up in the same week? Huh?

  • fish||

    Buckyballs? Belly up?

  • InlineSkate||

    Yep. Thanks to the CPSC.

    Another victim of the bureaucrats.

  • ||

    And I lost one of my magnets. Now I only have 215.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Twinkies and buckyballs: One product totally destroys your intestines if you swallow it, and the other one is made of shiny magnets.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Ha! The Krugernaut of stupid doesn't even rate his own reason post on this one.

  • CE||

    He does call wistfully for a return to 90 percent marginal rates on income, and 70 percent on inheritances (with 175K exempted, rather than 5 million). Minus the deductions of yesteryear, of course.

    Yeah, hurricanes and higher taxes. That'll fix 'er for good.

  • Generic Stranger||

    It all depends on your definition of "fix". If it's "six feet under" then it will fix it real good.

  • Cliché Bandit||

    No Ding Dongs? WTF Scott?

    MEDIA BIAS!!!!

  • ShagNasty||

    Alleged economist is the perfect description of Krugman.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    Can we just say that Krugman had a stroke and pity him for his lost ability to cogitate?

    I remember back when I used to recommend his macroeconomics textbook with enthusiasm.

  • Bill Dalasio||

    Or can we just say the truth - that Krugman is a full-fledged hypocrite? To this day, when he writes for an academic audience that knows better, he takes a hedged, center-left line. When he writes for the Times, he's spouts far left economic idiocy.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    as the company was preparing to file for bankruptcy earlier this year, the then CEO of Hostess was awarded a 300 percent raise (from approximately $750,000 to $2,550,000) and at least nine other top executives of the company received massive pay raises. One such executive received a pay increase from $500,000 to $900,000 and another received one taking his salary from $375,000 to $656,256.

    Let them eat clawbacks.

  • ||

    It's ridiculous they did that.

  • Sudden||

    Actually not. Quite the opposite, it was 100% necessary.

    No one wants to captain a sinking ship. The executives at Hostess were well aware of the company's issues (being in it's second bankruptcy in a decade and whatnot), and were probably aware of the union's rumblings and expectations. The writing was on the wall. In order to maintain the handful of people who know the product, the key members of the union, and other such facets, it is often necessary to reward them considerably in order to keep them on board, especially in light of the knowledge that they have indicating that job may not exist a year or two hence.

  • Sevo||

    Sudden| 11.19.12 @ 8:40PM |#
    "Actually not. Quite the opposite, it was 100% necessary."
    ^This.
    Union 'bakers' are a dime a dozen; take a hike.

  • BMFPitt||

    Ah, the theory that the guy who hit the iceberg is the only guy that can save the ship.

  • Teaching Student||

    The implication is that the guy who hit the iceberg was the only one willing to steer. Hence the need for the high compensation as an incentive to stay.

  • Cbalducc||

    I remember when Hostess sponsored the Charlie Brown Specials via its Dolly Madison subsidiary. I miss those Zingers!

  • Hopfiend||

    Red zingers = a little slice of heaven

  • WWNGD?||

    I remember the stickers or something like that inside Wonder Bread and the packages of Zingers.

  • Thomas O.||

    I remember seeing "plain" Zingers, which were pretty much Twinkie clones.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    There's a lot of talk about Hostess not upgrading equipment, but I'm not sure why the union would really be in favor of replacing old antiquated machines which require lots of people to maintain and operate them with shiny new stuff which can be overseen by a couple of guys in a booth looking out a window and watching a bunch of gauges.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS

    A common feature in unionized workforces is a resistance to attempts by management to substitute labor for capital, regardless of how advantageous or logical such a substitution would be for the company's well-being.

  • ||

    Unions resist change like bitches.

  • ThatSkepticGuy||

    That's Progressivism for ya.

    Advancement and technology are wrong. We need to "progress" back to the way things were done five hundred years ago.

  • Tman||

    What bothers me is that even if the CEO's got their massive pay increases (they didn't) why does that even matter? If a company is stupid enough to pay its executives lavish undeserved salaries then that's their problem.

    I don't understand when this stupidity of blaming "greedy CEO's" for the downfall of businesses or economies started up as fashinable again (I do have some ideas, say around spring 2007), but it is just as stupid now as it was decades ago. The CEO's pay isn't a drop in bucket next the Union pension costs ALONE, never mind the market reality that Shackelford brings up.

  • ||

    My seven year-old daughter said it best:

    What's a Twinkie?

  • Marshall Gill||

    Monster!

    Oh, my kids don't seem to know what one is either.

  • Generic Stranger||

    You are both awful parents.

  • Scarecrow Repair||

    323M Twinkies in one year. That's one per person in the entire country. If they still come in two-packs, that's even more pathetic.

  • AlmightyJB||

    "What's a Twinkie?"

    Exactly. Why are we blaming anyone? A product no one wants being produced by overpaid unskilled labor and poorly marketed by incompetant management goes the way of the dodo. What's the problem? That's exactly what is supposed to happen.

  • ||

    My seven year-old daughter said it best:

    What's a Twinkie?

    "What an old queen calls fresh young stuff, though usually they drop the 'ie'."

  • VG Zaytsev||

    I don't understand when this stupidity of blaming "greedy CEO's" for the downfall of businesses or economies started up as fashinable again...

    Bad management is far and away the number one reason for business failure and it is possible to learn from other peoples mistakes.

    Having said that. The only people that should actually care about bad management killing a business are the shareholders.

    The idea that workers have a right to a particular job is a major peeve of mine. It so fucking retarded and yet commonly held.

    I'm a merchant, do I have a right to my customer dollars, regardless of their desires? No? then why does any employee have a right to mine?

  • BMFPitt||

    They're apparently 8 of the 10 biggest secured creditors, so I have no problem with this complaint.

    Of course the numbers aren't anywhere near the absurd levels seen elsewhere, but it appears to be undeserved regardless.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    Eh, Little Debbie's is better anyway.

    And LOL at people claiming that Hostess' downfall was due to "increased health awareness." Funny how the same people making this claim tend to be the ones mocking our expanding national waistline and arguing how a diabetes epidemic will take down our healthcare system SO IMPLEMENT SINGLE PAYER RIGHT NOW PLEASE AND THANK YOU. :librage:

  • Sevo||

    "Is there anybody outside Krugman who thinks Hostess failed because the bakers union wasn’t powerful enough?"

    Reich? Friedman? The ghost of JKG?

  • The Derider||

    Krugman doesn't make this argument. Shack ford just can't rtfa.

  • Sevo||

    The Derider| 11.19.12 @ 6:59PM |#
    "Krugman doesn't make this argument. Shack ford just can't rtfa."

    Reading comprehension is a basic skill, unfortunately not mastered by brain-dead lefties.
    Stuff it, deidiot.

  • ||

    Krugman doesn't make this argument. Shack ford just can't rtfa.

    Someone is suffering from reading comprehension, but his handle ends in "Derider":

    "Surely, then, the far less plutocrat-friendly environment of the 1950s must have been an economic disaster, right? ...

    Strange to say, however, the oppressed executives Fortune portrayed in 1955 didn’t go Galt and deprive the nation of their talents. On the contrary, if Fortune is to be believed, they were working harder than ever. And the high-tax, strong-union decades after World War II were in fact marked by spectacular, widely shared economic growth: nothing before or since has matched the doubling of median family income between 1947 and 1973."

    Krugman explicitly argues that high taxes and unions don't hurt productivity at all, they just squeeze those EVUL capitalist CEOs and make them take lower salaries and work harder.

  • Bill Dalasio||

    So, the guy "The Derider" assures us knows about economics can't grasp the basic concepts of marginalism or holding other things equal.

  • The Derider||

    Reason writers get butthurt about krugman, because he understands economics and they understand a shitty novel about trains.

    His article made no attempt to explain why hostess is failing. He did however make a joke about the lack of people going Galt in the1950s, despite 90percent top marginal rates, so of course reason rushes to Rand's defense.

  • Tman||

    Reason writers get butthurt about krugman, because he understands economics

    Krugman clearly understands certain elements of economics, but he is a dishonest hack. I've never read any Ayn Rand.

    His article was a clear defense of Keynesian economics, which are flawed and have proven to be detrimental to the vast majority when fully implemented. His refusal to admit this is what makes him a dishonest hack.

  • T o n y||

    What's the alternative that has provided so much widely enjoyed prosperity?

  • Tman||

    Capitalism and the free market.

  • T o n y||

    Keynesianism presupposes capitalism. There's never been an ideal free market, but we have existed on a gradient. Turns out the more laissez-faire periods were bad for most people, while the more egalitarian (activist government) period (and there has been only one in this country) produced the most prosperous people and biggest economy in history. So I was talking about the real world.

  • Tman||

    Turns out the more laissez-faire periods were bad for most people, while the more egalitarian (activist government) period (and there has been only one in this country) produced the most prosperous people and biggest economy in history.

    Tony, your view of history is so completely at odds with reality it's not even worth debating with you. You take any point that shows the success of the free market system and somehow twist in to a triumph of centralized government. And you NEVER EVER EVER admit the failures of centralized big government policies that were singlehandedly responsible for more deaths from starvation in the last century than all wars COMBINED.

    You are also a worthless hack.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Turns out the more laissez-faire periods were bad for most people, while the more egalitarian (activist government) period (and there has been only one in this country) produced the most prosperous people and biggest economy in history.

    I'm assuming that you are referring to WWII - the Keynesian paradise. Unfortunately for your narrative that was a period of rationing and misery for consumers. But it was a glorious time for bureaucrats, politicians and crony capitalists.

  • Jordan||

    Turns out the more laissez-faire periods were bad for most people, while the more egalitarian (activist government) period (and there has been only one in this country) produced the most prosperous people and biggest economy in history.

    Prove it. Keynesian has driven millions into unsustainable debt and created a bubble the likes of which we've never seen. The day of reckoning when all that illusory wealth vanishes is coming. Prosperity is built on savings, not debt. People are going to re-learn that the hard way.

  • T o n y||

    We haven't applied Keynesian measures except in a too-mild way since 2008. Bush was supposed to be saving. We wouldn't have nearly the debt problem we do if he had followed Keynes.

  • Calidissident||

    The problem is that politicians (and voters) in both parties will never accept the cuts in times of prosperity that are supposed to take place. Keynes was wrong, but he wasn't a complete moron like the so-called Keynesians of today.

    And what exactly would you call a spending increase of nearly 30 percent that took place after FY 2008 and deficits around 10 percent year after year? How high do those numbers have to go until they're sufficiently Keynesian?

  • Sevo||

    T o n y| 11.19.12 @ 8:05PM |#
    "We haven't applied Keynesian measures except in a too-mild way since 2008.."

    Shithead, if you had any knowledge at all, you'd know Keynesian 'measures' have never been 'applied'; they required a government to balance a budget in good times.

  • Calidissident||

    It's funny how liberals love to hold up the 1950's and 60's as some sort of egalitarian, big government paradise that we need to emulate, and then conveniently forget that there were almost no federal welfare programs during that time period, until the mid to late 60's, when the Great Society programs got going

  • ||

    Actually, the 50s were not as economically stable as liberals remember it.

    As for Keynes, not even he would agree with how his theory has become a means to an end now.

    To me, his idea works provided the economy, you know, isn't in debt and is capable of paying back whatever they borrow.

    In other words, as I understand it, a person with say, $10 000 cash wants to expand. Rather than spend their own capital, they borrow $5000. They can cover it because they have liquidity somewhere.

    In this way, I totally dig Keynes.

    But the way The Takers use it, they demean the whole concept.

    A bunch of yahoos have expropriated a valid theory for their own grand social project. Or as Tony puts it, "real world" thinking.

    Therein lies the frightening part.

    They think they make sense.

  • Calidissident||

    "Actually, the 50s were not as economically stable as liberals remember it."

    Oh I know, I'm just showing how different their idealized past was from the paradise they're trying to bring about, even if we ignore results. And it's funny, since in other contexts, liberals love to criticize conservatives for trying to drag the country back to the 1950's

  • Sevo||

    Rufus J. Firefly| 11.19.12 @ 8:08PM |#
    "In this way, I totally dig Keynes."

    The problem with Keynes is the same as the problem with Marx; both require humans to act against their interest.
    Keynes requires a government to act as a disinterested party, rather than a collection of people who really want all that money and the benefits.
    Marx requires individuals to act as the same disinterested party rather than....

  • Bill Dalasio||

    Meh, I have some pretty significant questions about whether it can work even when you are solvent. Fundamentally, Keynesian economics relies on the notion that the government can fool market participants into confusing a borrowed spending spree with real long-term gains in demand. The more that's tried the less likely it is to work.

  • mgd||

    Right on. In addition, it assumes a few hundred or a thousand Top Men better know how to spend money effectively than millions of citizens. Money that these Top Men spend on their Top Project is taken directly out of the economy (in the form of some combination of taxes, borrowing, and inflation) and is no longer available to the rest of the country to pursue their ends.

  • PapayaSF||

    No kidding, Calidissident. Plus a distinct lack of women in the workforce and few illegal aliens, both of which kept unemployment down and wages up.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    It's funny how liberals love to hold up the 1950's and 60's as some sort of egalitarian, big government paradise that we need to emulate

    Especially considering that they spent the late 60s - the 70s lamenting and rebelling against the stifling conformity, sexism, militarism and racism of that period.

  • Sevo||

    Calidissident| 11.19.12 @ 7:36PM |#
    "It's funny how liberals love to hold up the 1950's and 60's as some sort of egalitarian, big government paradise that we need to emulate, and then conveniently forget that there were almost no federal welfare programs during that time period,..."

    Nostalgianomics!
    Our resident shithead isn't alone in ignoring those conditions, let alone:
    * The US had no global competition; our future competitors were recovering from WWII.
    * Blacks and other minorities were excluded from participation by those same 'oh, so, wonderful' unions.
    * Those in the south of the US were largely excluded from the prosperity
    Whether this is truly ignorance or dishonesty is open to question, but the result isn't.
    Right, you slimy turd?

  • OldMexican||

    Re: Tony,

    Turns out the more laissez-faire periods were bad for most people,


    Where the hell did you get this? This is totally inaccurate, pure poppycock. The only time the U.S. enjoyed the slowest period of growth was precisely the more fascistic period (i.e. with more government intervention) and that was the period between 1930-1946.

    Instead, the period from after the Civil War to the beginning of WWI, the Roaring 20's, the 50's and 60's saw the greatest levels of prosperity and increase in personal wealth for a lot of Americans, so much so that the country became a magnet for so many Europeans that suffered from intrusive and still feudally-minded governments.

    while the more egalitarian (activist government) period (and there has been only one in this country) produced the most prosperous people and biggest economy in history.


    Your dislexia is flaring up, Tony, because you're reading shit that never happened.

  • Jordan||

    Also, the standard of living increased faster pre-Fed than post-Fed.

  • ||

    Exactly. When I was a broker it was then I broke loose - excuse the pun - from all that I learned in Canadian public schools about how fucking great FDR was. I actually had to examine past performances. That's why I mentioned the 50s and 60s were NOT as liberals remembered it.

    When pure, hard evidence showed otherwise. Notably the eras you bring up.

  • T o n y||

    Der... what? The Great Depression was not caused by Keynesianism in the 30s. The biggest boom ever, the postwar period you cite, followed the biggest federal government spending programs ever.

    The roaring 20s, in terms of economic policy, was the antecedent of the Great Depression--"pro-business" deregulatory zeal led to an economy-wide speculative bubble. (We could refer as well to the roaring 90s).

  • Calidissident||

    What deregulation took place in the 1920's? Aside from maybe getting rid of whatever wartime controls were left over from WWI. And while income taxes were cut, it's important to note that until 7 years prior, the income tax didn't even exist at all. Their Roaring 20's was artificially inflated by Federal Reserve monetary policy, which led to the inevitable crash. That did not, however, lead to a 17 year Depression. The 1920 Depression was a sharper downturn, but it was over very quickly, despite virtually no government intervention. Hoover increased spending by 50% in 3 years (and even more in real terms). How is that not Keynesian. He also drastically raised taxes and tariffs (the Depression wasn't even historically all that bad until late 1930, about a year after the crash). Admittedly, raising taxes in a recession isn't Keynesian, but that doesn't stop progressives then and now from advocating for it. Roosevelt essentially took Hoover's policies and put them on steroids. Both men regulated more than any prior president. The government intervened far more from Day 1 in the Great Depression than in any prior recession. Imagine, Tony, if it had been the opposite; the government has historical intervention in 1920, followed by a quick recovery and boom. And then the government does nothing in 1929, the 30's, and 40's, resulting in a 17 year downturn. Just ponder how people like you would interpret those facts.

  • Calidissident||

    And the postwar boom coincided with a spending cut of two-thirds over three years, and major deregulation due to the end of many wartime economic controls

  • Jordan||

    Just ponder how people like you would interpret those facts.

    They would flat out lie. Like they did when stagflation showed up. And like they've done with respect to Japan's current state. And our current state.

  • Jordan||

    The biggest boom ever, the postwar period you cite, followed the biggest federal government spending programs ever.

    That boom followed a government spending cut of over 35% of GNP.

    The roaring 20s, in terms of economic policy, was the antecedent of the Great Depression--"pro-business" deregulatory zeal led to an economy-wide speculative bubble. (We could refer as well to the roaring 90s).

    Completely false. Both were caused by a massive credit buildup and artificially low interest rates.

  • Sevo||

    T o n y| 11.19.12 @ 8:14PM |#
    "Der... what? The Great Depression was not caused by Keynesianism in the 30s. The biggest boom ever, the postwar period you cite, followed the biggest federal government spending programs ever."

    Hey, shithead! Trying to lower the bar farther?
    Sorry, war does not increase prosperity. But as an ignorant turd, you're not expected to know that.

  • Bill Dalasio||

    They didn't "cause" the stock market panic. That much is true. But, they did cause what would have been a nasty but short retrenchment in 1929-1930 to metastasize into a giant morass of suck for the next decade.

  • Sevo||

    T o n y| 11.19.12 @ 7:20PM |#
    "Keynesianism presupposes capitalism."

    Shithead, Keynesianism *preys* on capitalism.

  • Sevo||

    T o n y| 11.19.12 @ 7:20PM |#
    "Keynesianism presupposes capitalism. There's never been an ideal free market, but we have existed on a gradient. Turns out the more laissez-faire periods were bad for most people,"

    Shithead, you sleazy turd, please compare and contrast Hong Kong vs. the PRC under Mao.
    Let's see it, shithead.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    Hong Kong's experiment in laissez-faire economics wasn't swallowed up into the center of the Earth while I wasn't looking, was it?

  • Marshall Gill||

    Free to Choose isn't that fucking long but it has that icky "free" word so Tony couldn't bother.

  • OldMexican||

    Re: The Dehydrated,

    Reason writers get butthurt about krugman, because he understands economics and they understand a shitty novel about trains.


    Sounds exactly like a true believer describing L. Ron Hubbard.

    He did however make a joke about the lack of people going Galt in the 1950s, despite 90 percent top marginal rates, so of course reason rushes to Rand's defense.


    It wasn't such a good joke, especially considering the fact that no one paid 90 percent of their income in taxes.

    As for no one going Galt in the 1950s, he as well as YOU seem to forget the fact that the tax increases of 1937 did in fact make a lot of businesspeople go Galt, which contributed to the Great Depression inside the Great Depression, and the spike in unemployment that could've cost FDR his 3rd reelection bid if it wasn't for WWII.

  • Lewisite||

    "Sounds exactly like a true believer describing L. Ron Hubbard."

    LOL...+1

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    Anyone -- Nobel Prize-winning economist or no -- who says that US prosperity from the 50s onwards was due to unions is a goddamned idiot, or thinks that you are.

  • Bill Dalasio||

    It's the latter. He's writing for The Times. So, he's not necessarily wrong.

  • Julio Cesar Samper Uribe||

    Yeah, minuscule joe, because the reasons given for Hostess' demise came out of the writer's ass.

    You, on the contrary, seem to enthusiastically enjoy what comes out of Krugman's ass. Wipe your face after you're finished.

  • Sevo||

    The Derider| 11.19.12 @ 6:56PM |#
    "Reason writers get butthurt about krugman, because he understands economics and they understand a shitty novel about trains."

    He might, but that doesn't stop the constant lies and prevarications.
    Sorta like deidiot.

  • Jordan||

    Reason writers get butthurt about krugman, because he understands economics and they understand a shitty novel about trains.

    The former Enron adviser understands economics so well that he cheered on the housing bubble and wants to re-inflate it. He also thinks that war, terrorism, and hurricanes are a path to prosperity.

  • Marshall Gill||

    Don't forget alien invasion!!!

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    Reason writers get butthurt about krugman, because he understands economics

    Unfortunately, he doesn't seem to understand 5th grade math and longs for another World War 2, but no big whoop.

    He did however make a joke about the lack of people going Galt in the1950s, despite 90percent top marginal rates, so of course reason rushes to Rand's defense.

    Yeah, kind of like lefties failing to note that over half the national budget in the 1950s was spent on defense, and that the average revenue to GDP during the 1950s was 17.1%, which is about the historical average since the end of WW2.

    http://www.whitehouse.gov/site.....s/hist.pdf

    But then, some people understand the difference between marginal rates and effective rates.

  • John C. Randolph||

    because he understands economics

    Then why is he so consistently wrong? You do realize that he's the clown who advocated the housing bubble as a remedy for the NASDAQ bubble, and who thought he was clever by proposing an alien invasion as a twist on the broken window fallacy?

    -jcr

  • OldMexican||

    If Hostess is either liquidated or sold, one of the big names being bounced around is Mexico’s Groupo Bimbo, which already manufactures and distributes Wonder Bread south of the border.


    Pretty soon Americans will also learn to worship Bimbo Bear.

  • T o n y||

    The proximate cause must always be a failure to meet economic demand. A foods company stubbornly hanging onto its legacy of selling white bread and junk food in a health-conscious era? And it has problems??

    Pensions, in my opinion, should be required overhead. Or, even more efficient, make social security more generous. The baseline problem for all companies is a depressed demand situation. One major cause of that long-building economic reality is the demise of unions and the resultant redistribution of wealth from workers to CEOs, creating a society-wide demand glut.

  • Sevo||

    T o n y| 11.19.12 @ 7:01PM |#
    "The proximate cause must always be a failure to meet economic demand."

    Sleazy hypocrite shithead now claims supply and demand mean something.

  • T o n y||

    YOU are the ones who misunderstand supply and demand, even while worshiping the market. You are the ones who say supply creates its own demand, who think that supply and demand math adds up to a robust market when wealth is concentrated in the hands of the few. Was Henry Ford better off because his workers could afford his product? Is an economy better or worse off if that ethos is applied to it?

  • Sevo||

    T o n y| 11.19.12 @ 7:09PM |#
    "YOU are the ones who misunderstand supply and demand, even while worshiping the market."

    Sleazy hypocrite shithead now claims *mastery* of econ, while posting some of the most ignorant comments imaginable.
    Stuff it up your ass, shithead. You are beneath contempt.

  • T o n y||

    You're beneath noticing.

  • Sevo||

    T o n y| 11.19.12 @ 7:13PM |#
    "You're beneath noticing."

    More lies from shithead.

  • OldMexican||

    Re: Tony,

    You are the ones who say supply creates its own demand,


    No, we were wrong! Clearly, demand goes around chasing and harrasing manufacturers with money on hand so they can conjure up goods that did not exist before! Why were we so wrong?

    who think that supply and demand math adds up to a robust market when wealth is concentrated in the hands of the few.


    Yeah, sure. Only rich people buy goods.

    Was Henry Ford better off because his workers could afford his product?


    He didn't have 15 million workers. This is the same ridiculous and historically inaccurate canard that morons like you keep bringing up. Ford did not offer a higher wage to his workers so they could buy cars, nitwit. He offered higher wages to stop worker rotation, which is a true and very serious cost.

    Is an economy better or worse off if that ethos is applied to it?


    It was NEVER applied to it in the first place.

    Moron!

  • T o n y||

    No, we were wrong! Clearly, demand goes around chasing and harrasing manufacturers with money on hand so they can conjure up goods that did not exist before! Why were we so wrong?

    There will always be industrious people. What is required for them to succeed and prosper is a customer base. You reduce the spending power of 95% of the country, it's just not made up by increasing that of the other 5%, no matter how egregiously.

    Ford did not offer a higher wage to his workers so they could buy cars, nitwit. He offered higher wages to stop worker rotation, which is a true and very serious cost.

    Ford was a pioneer in what's sometimes called "welfare capitalism," the basic premise being that the bigger the share of the nation's wealth in the hands of the working class, the more productive the economy as a whole.

    I realize you have your pat response to the Ford "canard" but the underlying point is that he saw it as good business practice to pay his workers more. Presumably you have no problem with this (and he was against unions). But it was good business sense for macroeconomic reasons you reject.

  • Calidissident||

    It was a good business practice, but not because it gave his workers enough money to buy the product.

    You can go and on about the 95% and the 5%, yet you are completely silent about policies that exasperate wealth inequality, like bailing out failed companies, subsidies (as long as they go to the right kind of companies), regulations that suppress competition and entrench big businesses, not to mention the Federal Reserve system that enriches large financial companies at the expense of everybody else

  • T o n y||

    All of the plutocracy-enabling outcomes you describe are symptoms of wealth inequality, among the causes being especially anti-union policies. I'm perfectly happy if you don't want to consider union busting and management coddling policies libertarian, but they were sold as such, and it's the rare libertarian at least in this place who doesn't spend all of his breath defending the wealth distribution status quo.

  • Sevo||

    T o n y| 11.19.12 @ 7:48PM |#
    "All of the plutocracy-enabling outcomes you describe are symptoms of wealth inequality,"

    Yes, shithead, and the "equality" you propose is the equality of poverty.
    See, oh, the Soviet Union. China under Mao.
    Shithead, ignoring history is your greatest talent. Well, that an lying, shithead.

  • Jordan||

    but they were sold as such, and it's the rare libertarian at least in this place who doesn't spend all of his breath defending the wealth distribution status quo.

    I see you're still a lying piece of shit.

  • Calidissident||

    No Tony, the policies I'm describing are causes of wealth inequality, not symptoms

  • Sevo||

    T o n y| 11.19.12 @ 7:35PM |#
    "There will always be industrious people. What is required for them to succeed and prosper is a customer base. You reduce the spending power of 95% of the country..."

    Yes, shithead, tax them sufficiently to reduce their spendable income and there will be problems.
    See shithead, it's not that difficult.

  • OldMexican||

    Re: Tony,

    There will always be industrious people. What is required for them to succeed and prosper is a customer base.


    No matter how much you click your heels, Tony, you cannot conjure a "customer base" just by giving away money, which is whay you're getting to.

    You reduce the spending power of 95% of the country, it's just not made up by increasing that of the other 5%, no matter how egregiously.


    There's only ONE agent that reduces the spending power of people and that has NOTHING to do with accumulating wealth.

    Ford was a pioneer in what's sometimes called "welfare capitalism,"


    Ford? THE Henry fucking Ford?

    THis is what happens when the results of the Amerikan Pulbic Skool Seistem obtain their history from those old Radio Shack comic books.

  • OldMexican||

    Re: Tony,

    the basic premise being that the bigger the share of the nation's wealth in the hands of the working class, the more productive the economy as a whole.


    The premise is wrong, because you keep thinking wealth = money.

    the underlying point is that he [Ford] saw it as good business practice to pay his workers more.


    But not to make them customers, Tony. That's ridiculous, historically inaccurate and economic balderdash. Ford increased the hourly rate to keep more workers because the work was grueling and they tended to move on to easier things after a while, taking with them training and experience. Ford's decision was made entirely as a cost of opportunity analysis and nothing to do with so-called "welfare capitalism."

  • Jordan||

    Ford's decision was made entirely as a cost of opportunity analysis and nothing to do with so-called "welfare capitalism."

    Opportunity cost, like logic, is a foreign concept to Keynesian clowns.

  • T o n y||

    you cannot conjure a "customer base" just by giving away money, which is whay you're getting to.

    Why the heck not? A large component of demand is having money to spend.

    Ford? THE Henry fucking Ford?

    Yes. As one of the innovators in the project of increasing workers' rights, his insights were primitive, but the underlying premise is there: the better off workers are, the better off the economy is, thus the better off your business is likely to be.

  • Calidissident||

    Tony, how exactly is that a successful business model? Even if they spend all that money buying the company's products, you're only right back where you started. It was a good business decision, but it had nothing to do with giving the workers enough money to buy his cars

  • T o n y||

    Well we're talking a specific industry--the standard at Hostess certainly shouldn't be whether the workers can afford the product. The point, whether Ford knew he was making it or not, was that more spending power on the part of the middle class made more productivity overall possible. Ford's other innovation, the assembly line, certainly contributed to the success of his business model. No need for mass production if you have an elite customer, though. Hence the macroeconomic insight: the virtuous cycle. More middle class income = more production = more middle class income.

  • Calidissident||

    Circular logic Tony. Rising wages aren't the cause of prosperity, they're a symptom. Why not just raise the minimum wage to $1000 an hour and we'll have all the prosperity we need? It's not like that would affect unemployment

  • anon||

    Why the heck not? A large component of demand is having money to spend.

    Because no matter how much money I have Tony, I'm never buying the bullshit you're selling.

  • ||

    That's just common sense - and HIS choice. If another guy saw otherwise, so be it too. I don't think Ford was paying people more so they can go get a bigger car.

    Fuck me.

    I pay a couple of my girls more because I have to compete with the pigs on the subsidized side so I can't risk losing them. I pay them more base on various calculations of this sort - all rational.

  • ||

    We need to get off this stupid argument about "supply" and "demand".

    Supply IS demand. Everything is a TRADE.
    I produce one thing, you produce something else, and we make an exchange.
    The only way an exchange is possible is if both of us are producing something someone else want.

    If one person is losing money and the other is gaining it, that's because Person A is not producing something that a lot of people want. It's not about paying workers more so they can demand more shit. It's about everyone using their brains to come up with shit that someone else actually wants to buy. If you just want to be a zombie worker drone and wait for someone to tell you what to do, you're not going to make much money. Tough shit. Go figure out what skills are in demand and learn them. If you don't want to learn actual skills that are used to produce things people actually want, go work at a McDonalds for minimum wage and shut the fuck up.

  • Rasilio||

    "There will always be industrious people. What is required for them to succeed and prosper is a customer base. You reduce the spending power of 95% of the country, it's just not made up by increasing that of the other 5%, no matter how egregiously.

    "

    The point you and all your leftist buddies seem to forget is that wealth inequality is not the same thing as reducing the purchasing power of the poorer ends of the economic spectrum.

    Assume if you will an economy with a total wealth of X distributed as follows...

    .2x - top 1%
    .2x - 2nd - 10th percentiles
    .2x 11th - 50th percentiles
    .2x everyone else

    Now we have economic growth that increases inequality, the new economy is worth 1.5x (after adjusting for inflation) and is distributed as follows

    .5x - top 1%
    .4x - 2nd - 10th percentiles
    .3x 11th - 50th percentiles
    .3x everyone else

    Inequality has increased massively and yet EVERYONE has more money to spend. This is exactly what has happened in the real world over the last 40 years

  • Rasilio||

    Correction the initial distribution should have been...

    .3x - top 1%
    .3x - 2nd - 10th percentiles
    .2x 11th - 50th percentiles
    .2x everyone else

  • TheAstorian||

    If Ford was a pioneer, then presumably no one else was practicing welfare capitalism. Where then did everyone not working for Ford get the money to buy a car from Ford?

  • Bill Dalasio||

    There will always be industrious people. What is required for them to succeed and prosper is a customer base.


    No, what is required for them to succeed and prosper is a customer base of others providing goods and services of commensurate value. Otherwise, they've done nothing but squander their time, effort and leisure.

  • Bill Dalasio||

    Henry Ford did not succeed because he paid his workers enough to demand his cars. For that to work out even running even, his workers would have to buy nothing with their budgets than Ford cars. Otherwise he's worse off. Ford succeeded paying his people a top wage because it bought him top talent and becuase, as OldMexican notes, it stopped worker rotation. Not coincidentally, Ford also resisted unionism in the auto industry viciously.

  • Julio Cesar Samper Uribe||

    IOW, make ALL companies in GM's image.

    Good going, Spacebar,

  • OldMexican||

    Re: Tony,

    The proximate cause must always be a failure to meet economic demand.


    Please continue, Governor.

    A foods company stubbornly hanging onto its legacy of selling white bread and junk food in a health-conscious era?


    You mean amid all those delicious and highly desirable healthy snacks?

    Pensions, in my opinion, should be required overhead.


    Thank you for letting me know. If I see your resume when searching for managerial accountants, I will know immediately who is not going to be called for an interview.

    "Required" overhead. Idiot.

    Or, even more efficient, make social security more generous.


    Stupid, stupid, stupid. What do you mean "generous" if SS is supposed to be the money you put in, in the first place?

    Go back to your embroidery, honey. Leave these boring subjuects to us, men.

  • T o n y||

    SS isn't supposed to be the money you put in. The money you put in pays for current retirees. Simple concept meant to address a social reality. The young pay to support the old, and they get the support when they get old. It's better than the alternative. And the young could afford it a lot more if most of the country's wealth hadn't been looted by the top few percent by lobbying for economic, workplace rights, and tax policies every libertarian endorses.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    Exactly how much of the national GDP do you think goes into lobbying efforts, really?

  • T o n y||

    I should think not a lot. The only point is if there is a good ROI.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    Then you already realize that this statement is so much piffle:

    "And the young could afford it a lot more if most of the country's wealth hadn't been looted by the top few percent by lobbying for economic, workplace rights, and tax policies every libertarian endorses."

  • T o n y||

    To me more correct I should say "...by the legislative results of lobbying..."

  • Sevo||

    T o n y| 11.19.12 @ 7:51PM |#
    "To me more correct I should say "...by the legislative results of lobbying..."

    To be more correct, shithead, you should admit you haven't a clue.

  • ||

    Yeah.

    I've learned ROI and Liberals are mutually exclusive because if we look at the grand scheme of things, liberal ROI on their ideas has been disastrous.

    If we were shareholders, Liberal Inc. would have gone under long ago.

  • T o n y||

    It's a good thing that the engine of the marketplace of ideas is not profit motive. Not that the supreme court isn't trying.

  • Sevo||

    T o n y| 11.19.12 @ 8:28PM |#
    'It's a good thing that the engine of the marketplace of ideas is *driven by the* profit motive.'

    FIFY, you slimy turd. I'm sure what you believe to be 'ideas' are considered by most to be drunken reverie.

  • Generic Stranger||



    It's a good thing that the engine of the marketplace of ideas is not profit motive. Not that the supreme court isn't trying.

    Actually, it's a crying fucking shame.

    Ideas that drive the destruction of wealth and the lowering of the standards of living deserve to be driven out of the marketplace of ideas. Liberalism, socialism, communism, fascism, all of them destroy wealth and standard of living. And yet they keep turning up, like a fungus or a particularly malignant cancer.

  • Generic Stranger||

    Actually, I should substitute "Progressivism" for "Liberalism". It is unfortunate that the progressives have taken over and corrupted what used to be a good label.

  • Tman||

    Holy shit that is stupid.

    The money you put in pays for current retirees.

    So what happens when there are more retirees than people paying in? Your "Simple concept meant to address a social reality" neither is simple nor realistic, thus why it has a several trillion dollar shortfall today.

    Every time I think you are going to say something even more retarded than before you never cease to deliver. Well done dummy.

  • T o n y||

    Just google the social security issue and discover that it really is not in crisis anytime soon and is relatively simply fixed.

    Offer an alternative that is not, at its heart, putting old people into poverty.

  • Tman||

    http://www.ssa.gov/oact/trsum/index.html

    "Social Security’s expenditures exceeded non-interest income in 2010 and 2011, the first such occurrences since 1983, and the Trustees estimate that these expenditures will remain greater than non-interest income throughout the 75-year projection period. The deficit of non-interest income relative to expenditures was about $49 billion in 2010 and $45 billion in 2011, and the Trustees project that it will average about $66 billion between 2012 and 2018 before rising steeply as the economy slows after the recovery is complete and the number of beneficiaries continues to grow at a substantially faster rate than the number of covered workers.........After 2020, Treasury will redeem trust fund assets in amounts that exceed interest earnings until exhaustion of trust fund reserves in 2033, three years earlier than projected last year. Thereafter, tax income would be sufficient to pay only about three-quarters of scheduled benefits through 2086.

    That's ok though, right Tony? Because we can go in to the trust fund where all that money has been saved. The one that Congress keeps in a "locked box", right?

    YOU. ARE. NOT. WORTH. DEBATING.

  • ||

    Tony, wow. Is this how full of shit you've become?

    Not a crisis?

    My buddy is a pension fund analyst and the shit he sees has him wondering how North America functions at all.

    With people like you fighting to the death, it's no wonder nothing gets done.

    At this point you're no better than Baghdad Bob.

  • Sevo||

    T o n y| 11.19.12 @ 7:25PM |#
    "Offer an alternative that is not, at its heart, putting old people into poverty."

    Shithead, doing nothing would be better at keeping people prosperous.
    And if you had a brain cell, you'd understand that.

  • John C. Randolph||

    Over at Nocturnal Aviation Inc., the CEO has assured the beneficiaries of their retirement plan that everything's just dandy, because all of the retirement contributions have been "invested" in Nocturnal Aviation bonds. After all, who cares about Nocturnal Aviation's workers more than their own management? Surely, there's no chance at all of those bonds ever being in default, or devalued by a vote of the company's management, is there?

    Tony, I hope that the parable above might possibly make a dent in your extremely thick blanket of denial, even as abysmally stupid as you are.

    -jcr

  • OldMexican||

    Re: Tony,

    SS isn't supposed to be the money you put in.


    Oh, it IS supposed to be the money you put in. The fact that it isn't, is only because of government largess.

    The money you put in pays for current retirees.


    Yes, NOW. It wasn't created that way.

    The young pay to support the old, and they get the support when they get old.

    \
    You're accepting that the current SS system is a Ponzi scheme, then?

    It's better than the alternative.


    What? Saving for the future? That alternative?

    Oh, don't tell me - savers' paradox?

    And the young could afford it a lot more if most of the country's wealth hadn't been looted by the top few percent by lobbying for economic, workplace rights, and tax policies every libertarian endorses.


    Now you resort to downright lying.

    Go back to your embroidery, honey. Please, if your mouth doesn't move, you look prettier.

  • ||

    I don't get this obsession with Social Security. Here in Canada, our reliance on OAS (Old Age Security) has been removed largely by RRSPs. The government recognized long ago it couldn't fund OAS down the road.

    Americans can't seem to face this reality. Well, people like Tony.

    Save. Your. Money. Be wise.

    Don't listen to enablers like Warren and Obama. They're a sure, one-way ticket to nowhereville and into the arms of the state.

    Work. Live within your means. Plan ahead. Save.

    What pisses me off to no end is talk of giving free tuition to students here in Quebec or to illegals in Massachusetts while my wife and I painstakingly put money aside for our daughter in RESPs.

    We started this WHEN SHE WAS BORN.

    Why can't people do this anymore?

    Alas, planning is such a lost art now even that will soon be in the hands of a bureaucrat.

  • Sevo||

    T o n y| 11.19.12 @ 7:17PM |#
    "SS isn't supposed to be the money you put in. The money you put in pays for current retirees. Simple concept meant to address a social reality."

    Simple concept AKA Ponzi Scheme, shithead.

  • CE||

    That works until people start living longer and having fewer kids.

  • Redmanfms||

    The money you put in pays for current retirees.

    Just like a Ponzi scheme.

  • ||

    Tony said:

    The money you put in pays for current retirees. Simple concept meant to address a social reality. The young pay to support the old, and they get the support when they get old. It's better than the alternative.

    This concept seems a little too simple: was each generation of elderly supported by the young through SS? It's turtles, all the way down?

    Another great reason to never do programs like this again: one generation gives itself benefits it never paid for at the younger generation's expense, and the program can then never die, since it would deny the current elderly the opportunity to screw its progeny.

    Pointing the guns of government at people and forcing them against their will to participate in a system in which the richest generation in history forces the poor, working young to make its retirement easier...sucks.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    A foods company stubbornly hanging onto its legacy of selling white bread and junk food in a health-conscious era?

    It's not a health-conscious era, bub. Vending machines around the world are stuffed with that stuff. Why? Because it sells like ribbed rubbers.

  • T o n y||

    As much or more so than it did 20 years ago?

    Hostess products stuffed my childhood kitchen, but I haven't had one in at least a decade.

  • Sevo||

    T o n y| 11.19.12 @ 7:53PM |#
    "As much or more so than it did 20 years ago?"

    Turd, please tell us of sugary snack sales.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    The "all men are Tony" fallacy.

    I don't watch American Idol, so its ratings must be crap.

  • T o n y||

    And I'm not saying health consciousness has produced results. Just that it's at least motivated enough to reduce white bread and twinkie intake.

  • Sevo||

    T o n y| 11.19.12 @ 7:55PM |#
    "And I'm not saying health consciousness has produced results."

    So, shithead, you just admit to lying? Good.

  • ||

    Coke still has healthy sales. McDonald's too. Entemann's, I think, may also be ok.

    There are plenty of "bad" foods that, thankfully, sell well. Shit, I still buy Froot Loops from time to time.

  • John C. Randolph||

    The proximate cause must always be a failure to meet economic demand.

    Tony, I've told you this before, but for heaven's sake make sure that you NEVER attempt to start a business. It doesn't matter if you meet demand, if you can't do so on a profitable basis. Hostess's unions made it impossible to operate at a profit, so they're going belly-up.

    -jcr

  • SIV||

    Does anybody actually still eat Wonder Bread?

    It's cosmotarians all the way down...

  • Sevo||

    Anyhow, Hostess is the equity equivalent of junk bonds. It came out of bankruptcy some years back under private ownership; I'm sure the hope was the value of the brands made it a good buy at the time (sorta like WB's 'cigar butt with one puff left'). But I'd bet the calcs also included getting concessions from labor.
    Well, the Teamsters can read, but the bakers seem to be learning the most dangerous words in English:
    'Go ahead and shoot!'

  • UnionBuiltOhioRoads||

    Michael Feeney would say that Hostess isnt where it is today because it spent too much money.

  • UnionBuiltOhioRoads||

    ******Matthew Feeney

  • The Late P Brooks||

    'Go ahead and shoot!'

    Where do ya want it?

  • Sevo||

    Right in the paycheck!

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Pensions should be required overhead.

    I agree; in the sense that full compensation should be paid up front, with the employee responsible for his own retirement planning.

  • T o n y||

    It's my practice never to assume people of capable, universally, of doing something they are not biologically wired to do. Saving for retirement is just not something people do very well on their own. The 401K system is crap compared to more guaranteed systems, but at least it's organized in such a way to make saving easy. With only personal responsibility, the fact is you'd have an outcome of lots and lots of destitute old people. That is a fact, and thus it is a state of society you endorse.

  • Jordan||

    With only personal responsibility, the fact is you'd have an outcome of lots and lots of destitute old people.

    Keynesian economics guarantees that outcome, by forcing people into debt and destroying their wealth. Amazing how the savings rate was so much higher pre-Keynes. I guess America was populated by Moonmen at that time.

  • Sevo||

    T o n y| 11.19.12 @ 7:23PM |#
    "It's my practice never to assume people of capable, universally, of doing something they are not biologically wired to do."

    As if you, you sleazy turd, had any idea of what people are 'wired' to do.

  • Calidissident||

    So Daddy Government, led by Top.Men such as yourself, has to swoop in to protect the idiots that form the masses from the consequences of their own decisions?

    Pretty much sums up Tony's philosophy

  • T o n y||

    That's an insulting way of saying it, but yes, in a way. People don't always make long-term rational economic decisions. (Even if they did, there would always be some who are incapable of fulfilling long-term rational economic desires, since they are poor.)

    Government exists to make life better off for people within its jurisdiction (you agree with this even if you think you don't, so don't bother). It mitigates the risks of the "natural" human environment including the social environment. One of the facts of nature it exists to manage for the purpose of social welfare is natural disasters. Another is the human propensity not to save for retirement when not motivated sufficiently. We gotta play the cards we're dealt. It wouldn't matter on a planet whose intelligent species was well adapted to long-term planning, but that isn't our planet.

  • Calidissident||

    "That's an insulting way of saying it, but yes, in a way. People don't always make long-term rational economic decisions."

    Ok, I just wanted to hear you say it.

    I'll just leave this little quote for anyone who may like it:

    “Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”

  • Jordan||

    Tony is the fascist fuck who supports mandatory birth control. Don't bother trying to shame him; he has none.

  • T o n y||

    That's an argument for anarchy, of course. Minarchism must admit that government should do some things "for our own good." Or is protecting individual rights not a good thing?

  • Calidissident||

    You don't see a distinction between, say, forcing someone into a retirement program because you know better than him how to manage his money, and say, making murder or robbery illegal?

    In any case, I'm of the opinion that government is pretty much inevitable in any large scale society, and that anarchy wouldn't last long, so I don't really care what the ideal government would do or whether it would exist, but rather what is the minimum a government will possibly do? And any government is going to have some sort of law enforcement, defense, criminal justice system, etc. Those things are inevitable IMO

  • Sevo||

    T o n y| 11.19.12 @ 8:43PM |#
    "That's an argument for anarchy, of course."

    No, shithead, it is nothing of the sort. One more innuendo from the turd.

  • Sevo||

    T o n y| 11.19.12 @ 8:26PM |#
    "Government exists to make life better off for people within its jurisdiction..."

    No, you slimy turd, government exists to protect my rights.
    And, shithead, you're too stupid to agree with that.

  • T o n y||

    To protect your rights to what end? Not to make your life worse off, I presume.

  • Sevo||

    T o n y| 11.19.12 @ 8:42PM |#
    "To protect your rights to what end? Not to make your life worse off, I presume."

    Shithead, the end is none of your or the government's business.
    You might try to learn to be a competent moral agent rather than a slimy turd before you presume to advise others.
    Right now, you're worthy of flushing.

  • ||

    Government doesn't always make rational long-term economic decisions. Is it a rational economic decision for the long term to borrow 40% of the budget every year? Is it rational to promise old people that you'll pay for all their health care needs with no limits?

    Isn't government really *creating* a massive risk for ourselves and future generations by borrowing so much money and by findinging it politically impossible to actually cut back on spending?

    Government is driven by short term thinking as much, or maybe more than individual human beings. They are driven by the needs of the next election cycle, and by the demands of people to get something for nothing. They are driven by the psychology of concentrated benefits and distributed costs.

    The government is not run by benevolent wise men who are planning for your future, Tony. It is run by people who have their personal short term political interests at heart. Whether you're going to have money to retire on in 40 years is the last thing on their minds.

  • ||

    Holy shit, Tony. You just made the case for communism. Well, they'd better damn learn because in the end, it really isn't my or your or anyone else's problem if they can't. Especially if they're utterly irresponsible - buying Bimmers they can't afford for example - and lack discipline.

    Every responsible parent teaches their kid to go open a bank account to save money. Don't try and tell me adults can't be conditioned to do so.

    NOTHING IS GUARANTEED ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU RELY ON OTHERS - IN THIS CASE THE STATE - TO MANAGE YOUR MONEY.

    Loud enough for you?

  • Jordan||

    Funny how the savings rate was higher before the government started wiping people's asses for them. I think the thing that assholes like Tony fear the most is that they might have to help care for their parents in their old age instead of pointing a gun at someone else and making them do it.

  • T o n y||

    But some things are guaranteed with no social safety net, including widespread poverty among the elderly.

  • Sevo||

    T o n y| 11.19.12 @ 8:42PM |#
    "But some things are guaranteed with no social safety net, including widespread poverty among the elderly"

    No, turd. That's all: No.

  • ||

    Out come the appeal to emotions.

  • Sevo||

    Shithead has no other.

  • ||

    Saving for retirement is just not something people do very well on their own.

    And you think it's something that corporate pensions or the government ARE wired to do?

    Have you NOTICED that corporate pensions fund go belly up all the time? Have you NOTICED that Social Security is going broke?
    Have you NOTICED that the "trust fund" was loaned out to the rest of the government to finance past expenditures?

    What on earth make you think that the government is capable of saving money for anything beyond the next election cycle?

  • Rasilio||

    "Saving for retirement is just not something people do very well on their own"

    Your evidence for this?

    See just as society started getting rich enough and life spans getting long enough that the average man could actually have a retirement the government jumped in with Social Security.

    Go back much more than a single generation prior to Social Security and the majority of people did not save much for retirement because the majority of people lived and worked at subsistance farming and fully expected to work that farm till they died. In the cities of that time the majority largely did not save because they did not earn enough money to adequately feed and cloth themselves today, forget worrying about the future. However when you got up into the middle classes of the time savings rates were through the roof compared to where they are today and they saved quite effectively for their retirement.

  • waaminn||

    Thats all Unions do, suck the life blood out of companies! Sad!

    www.Gotz-Anon.tk

  • Lewisite||

    A pearl of wisdom from Anonobot..Hmmm...go figure.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    even if the CEO's got their massive pay increases (they didn't) why does that even matter?

    If the managers are treating the corporate treasury as their own little piggy bank instead of meeting their obligations to their investors (like, you know, operating the business at a profit, in order to repay those investors) I see that as a problem.

  • Tman||

    If the managers are treating the corporate treasury as their own little piggy bank instead of meeting their obligations to their investors (like, you know, operating the business at a profit, in order to repay those investors) I see that as a problem.

    It's a problem to the investors and the employees, sure, but so fucking what? Plenty of companies had made bad salary decisions in hiring and maintaining staff. It's not anyone's job to make sure companies don't pay people too much. If you run a company poorly you go out of business, that's simply the way it is.

  • ||

    Oh Lord, how many politicians earn six digits and have six digit pensions again?

    And that's PUBLIC money.

    Corporations are run on the private side so buyer, worker and investor beware. No one owes anyone anything.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Plenty of companies had made bad salary decisions in hiring and maintaining staff.

    I'm surprised that no one has noted the irony of a union complaining about poor employees being over paid.

  • Sevo||

    The Late P Brooks| 11.19.12 @ 7:23PM |#
    "If the managers are treating the corporate treasury as their own little piggy bank instead of meeting their obligations to their investors (like, you know, operating the business at a profit, in order to repay those investors) I see that as a problem."

    Uh, it's privately held.
    They checked with the 'investors'; they said: "Self, what should we do here?"

  • Rasilio||

    just a little tip, managers != investors so it was not themselves they were asking but their bosses who owned the company.

  • Sevo||

    Rasilio| 11.20.12 @ 10:14AM |#
    "just a little tip, managers != investors..."
    OK, it was a bit of hyperbole on my part, but the fact is it is a privately held company and the investors are far closer to the management than most all publicly-held firms.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    SS isn't supposed to be the money you put in. The money you put in pays for current retirees.

    It recognizes Social Security is a Ponzi scheme. Very good.

    You win a cookie.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    This blog deserves a better class of troll.

  • Jordan||

    Quality trolls are a human right!

  • Sevo||

    Equality demands it!

  • The Late P Brooks||

    It's not anyone's job to make sure companies don't pay people too much.

    Not even the investors? Not even the Board of Directors?

  • Tman||

    No, I'm saying that is their responsibility, they are part of the company. Not the governments, not mine, not anyone who is not actually a part of the business.

  • Sevo||

    The Late P Brooks| 11.19.12 @ 7:45PM |#
    "Not even the investors? Not even the Board of Directors"
    See above; it is privately held.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    No, I'm saying that is their responsibility, they are part of the company. Not the governments, not mine, not anyone who is not actually a part of the business.

    Then we agree. Although, as an interested observer, I can have an opinion; I just don't expect anybody very inportant to care.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Uh, it's privately held.

    They didn't pay cash. The people whose money they used have a reasonable expectation of repayment.

  • Sevo||

    The Late P Brooks| 11.19.12 @ 8:07PM |#
    "They didn't pay cash. The people whose money they used have a reasonable expectation of repayment."

    The people whose money was used bet on that management/ownership. Neither the FDIC nor the SEC was involved.
    What is involved is the record of the m/o, and they seem to think that they're doing the right thing.
    Nothing else matters. You are welcome to an opinion, but you're a third party in a two-party matter.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    I guess they can't claw back the money that the cashier stole from the register either, since they "bet on" that employee?

  • Sevo||

    Tulpa (LAOL-PA)| 11.19.12 @ 8:39PM |#
    "I guess they can't claw back the money that the cashier stole from the register either, since they "bet on" that employee?"

    You're not seriously proposing that equivalence, right? I mean, you really do want an 'edit' function just about now, right?
    If you are serious:
    Ha and ha.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Right, because cashiers wear aprons and executives wear suits.... obviously it's not the same thing.

  • Sevo||

    Tulpa (LAOL-PA)| 11.19.12 @ 10:20PM |#
    "Right, because cashiers wear aprons and executives wear suits.... obviously it's not the same thing."

    Uh, does tenure cause brain death? Are you seriously suggesting some sort of equivalence? Are you really that stupid? Where do you work? I want to make sure none of my contributions get anywhere close to those of such stupidity.

  • Lewisite||

    "the cashier stole"

    'Exorbitant' salaries == theft?

    From Marx's lips to your ear, I suppose.

  • Sevo||

    Tulpa claims to be a prof. I'm sure it's possible; there is no guarantee that a prof is brighter than the average bum.
    And Tulpa seems to be trying to confirm that.

  • CE||

    The picture left out Ding Dongs.

  • Lewisite||

    'Cause they're 'brown'

  • AlmightyJB||

    There afraid a picture of a ding dong might piss off the Islamist. Ding dong would be an obvious methaphor for the profit.

  • Calidissident||

    This thread is a classic example of Tony's dishonesty. Reading through it, you observe that EVERY single time someone responds to Tony's arguments and claims with actual facts and data, he scurries away and starts posting in a different part of the thread.

    And I know that a lot of you will say "This is why we shouldn't respond to the sockpuppet!" and while you have a point, I do think refuting his arguments and exposing his intellectual dishonesty is worth it, because it can help convince people who may be visiting this site who are either on the fence about libertarianism, or don't know much about it.

  • anon||

    There is no "on the fense" about libertarianism; you either want freedom for yourself (and by virtue, others) or you want someone to do shit for you. At least that's what I've learned.

    Anyone that would read Tony's endless appeals to emotion and authority and think "Oh, he has a good point!" has such a looong way to go that there's nothing anyone here says that will pierce the veil of perpetual ignorance.

  • Calidissident||

    There most definitely is. Most people don't start out as libertarians. I know I didn't it. It was a gradual process to change.

    I wasn't referring so much to Tony's emotional appeals, but to stuff like "We didn't try Keynesianism in the Great Depression" or "The greatest prosperity has been when we had the most government, and the worst times when we had laissez faire." Claims that are just factually wrong and should be corrected for third party viewers.

  • ||

    I noticed that too. He doesn't stand and fight. I keep waiting for a response for questions asked but none are forthcoming.

    And when he does...sophistry.

  • Sevo||

    Calidissident| 11.19.12 @ 9:22PM |#
    "This thread is a classic example of Tony's dishonesty. Reading through it, you observe that EVERY single time someone responds to Tony's arguments and claims with actual facts and data, he scurries away and starts posting in a different part of the thread."

    IMO, shithead (aka t o n y) is not a troll.
    Shithead is a slimy turd whose comments should be argued at every opportunity.
    Shithead represents all that is harmful to individuals and is ignorant enough not to recognize that.
    Shithead is not worthy of contempt but is worthy of correction, for obvious reasons.

  • anon||

    Here's why Hostess failed:

    Every time I go to the grocery store, their bread is easily a dollar more than like *every* other brand available.

    Wonder bread doesn't *taste* a dollar better.

    That is all.

  • anon||

    Woops, I left out that it expires like 3 days sooner than it's competition's bread too.

  • ||

    They simply believed in their branding a tad too much.

    Tastes change. Some make health choices.

    I notice companies come up with 'secondary' lines to hedge, expand and protect their product line.

    For example, they offer they're original recipe and a more 'healty' or organic one.

    Personally, I moved away from breads made with vegetable oil and contain glucose-fructose and to one made with olive oil and no glucose.

    Eat that for a while. You won't go back.

    I won't buy stuff with 'hydrogenated' stuff either. My choice though.

  • Almanian.||

    Nice "Clue" reference. The important thing about "Clue" was the movie, and the fact that Leslie Ann Warren never looked better.

    Carry on.

  • AlmightyJB||

    I still hear clue references all the time. Just heard one a couple weeks ago on American Horror.

  • ||

    Thing is if you are in the mood for cake or pie, you can get it at the grocery store or at a bakery where it will be fresher.

    Even most conveneience stores have a small rack for fresh pastries these days so there is no reason to buy something wrapped in plastic.

  • MadIdahoMan||

    "Obama saved our jobs!" Said nobody at Hostess...

  • Lewisite||

    "Obama saved our jobs!" Said 'vulture' capitalists, circling Hostess’s carcass

  • Ken Shultz||

    Yeah, who killed Hostess?

    What kind of retarded union leadership strikes while a company is in bankruptcy?

    How much more stupid can you get?

    The only thing dumber than union leaders pushing for a strike against a company in bankruptcy, is a bunch of union members voting to strike...

    Those union members voted to lay themselves off! They're the stupidest people on the face of the earth. It's amazing they survived to adulthood without wandering into traffic and getting hit by a car.

  • Lewisite||

    "What kind of retarded union leadership strikes while a company is in bankruptcy?"

    From what I can gather, killing off Hostess was all part of the union's stupi.. risky gamble. Hostess was to fold, sell off their bakeries, 'some other' sucke..company was to buy it up, and negotiate a new union contract, but...that isn’t really going to happen that way, at all. The terrible part is that, management said that was implausible, the union said...fuckkkk youuuuu!, and took the non-strikers down with them. I bet they hope 'bum fights' is still hiring.

  • Ken Shultz||

    To be abused by the union that was supposed to be representing them though, in such a big way...

    The union leadership treated their own workers like cannon fodder. They drove them into the meat grinder.

    I guess those unions' leaderships have nothing to worry about from their members working for other companies because if I were a union member somewhere else, I'd be fighting to get rid of their leadership at this point.

    Somebody has to be thinking to themselves that the union leadership isn't on their side right about now. I mean, if that teamster I quoted below is thinking it, the people who are getting the axe inside the striking unions must be thinking it, too.

    Maybe there's just nothing they can do about it. I think unions are probably a lot less democratic than corporations are. You hear about board members and CEOs getting the axe all the time. I bet it's harder to fire a union leader than it is to fire a union member.

  • Ken Shultz||

    The idea that you can't sell something profitably anymore because some of your market went away is just plain stupid.

    Just because you need to shrink your scale doesn't mean you can't operate profitably. People who operate on a scale much smaller than Hostess operate profitably. They just don't have the same cost structure--becasue they don't have legacy obligations to unions...

    Oh, and striking your employer while it's in bankruptcy?!

    How stupid can you be?

    Oh, and I noticed we didn't hear any quotes directly from affected union members in this post, but I've got one:

    "I don't really feel betrayed" by the bakery workers, said Teamster Luigi Peruzzi, a Hostess driver in Detroit for 25 years. "I think they made a terrible choice based solely on terrible information from their leadership."

    The 48-year-old, who has worked continuously since he was 16, said he hoped a new owner would rehire him but was pessimistic. "Right now," he said, "I'm scared to death" about supporting his family of five."

    http://professional.wsj.com/ar.....73980.html

    Blame whoever you want. That teamster blames the unions.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Any union member that votes down an agreement and votes to stay on strike--while the company is in bankruptcy?!

    Deserves to be unemployed.

    They don't even deserve to collect unemployment--as far as I'm concerned, the ones that voted to stay on strike--while the company was in bankruptcy court--they aren't being laid off.

    They quit.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "U.K. Talks Deregulation While Americans Await More Red Tape"

    Barack Obama is a retard.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Wrong thread and yet still relevant!

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Careful Ken, you're scaring away teh moderates.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Okay...maybe you're right...um...

    Piling on more red tape as the rest of the world slows down economically, which is what Obama has done and continues to do, is the behavior of someone with developmental disabilities.

    I mean, I can say it nicer, but I still have to tell the truth!

    P.S. Barack Obama is a shit-eating aardvark.

  • waaminn||

    Meanwhile the greedy top executives rake in BILLIONS.

    www.Goin-Anon.tk

  • Danno||

    They have not updated those trucks since the late 1980's, about the last time I had Twinkies or Wonderbread. (In fact, I don't eat wheat much anymore.) Now that the powers changed sugar to HFCS and waving wheat to 18 inches tall, companies like this should all just go away do to market forces. It is truly crap. And mRNA is jump starting babies who now are obese at under 6 months.

  • Sevo||

    So the judge required mediation. At this stage, the union has two choices; make do, or do without.
    The union chooses to do without.
    Happy holidays, you idiots!

  • ||

    Clowns.

  • joey89924||

    If a company is stupid enough to pay its executives lavish undeserved salaries then that's their problem.
    LM250

  • getreal||

    No more Twinkies? I blame marijuana prohibition.

  • nikea||

    And some of the more placid scenes that http://www.nikefootballcleatstrade.com/ follow—Pi’s boat becalmed on a mirror-smooth sea, and lit up at night by an armada of bioluminescent jellyfish—have a radiant beauty. As Pi struggles to stay alive, there are also leaping porpoises, a squadron of flying fish (sushi is served!), and a http://www.drdrebeatsbydreau.com/ gargantuan whale rocketing up from the depths.

  • eikimart||

    "In the biggest companies, management and labor bargained as equals, so much so that it was common to talk about corporations serving an array of “stakeholders” as opposed to merely serving stockholders."

    I always thought of "stakeholder" as a much more recent phrase, so I plugged it into google's ngram viewer and found this:

    http://books.google.com/ngrams.....=3&share;=

    Sure enough, it doesn't really register before the 1980s.

  • benji||

    Interesting. Glad I late-read this late-post to this thread.

  • benji||

    [quote]The stakeholder concept was first used in a 1963 internal memorandum at the Stanford Research Institute. It defined stakeholders as "those groups without whose support the organization would cease to exist."[1] The theory was later developed and championed by R. Edward Freeman in the 1980s.[/quote]
    [quote]In 1984, R. Edward Freeman published Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach. While the term ‘stakeholder’ was then hardly used, it became one of the central concepts in the business ethics revival since the 1990s and quickly gained currency in mainstream management discourse. Today it is practically a household term used by many different types of actors in a very diverse set of fields. Although many reasons might be attributed to its popularity, Freeman’s definition from 1984 is by far the most often referred to.[/quote]

  • benji||

    The stakeholder concept was first used in a 1963 internal memorandum at the Stanford Research Institute. It defined stakeholders as "those groups without whose support the organization would cease to exist."[1] The theory was later developed and championed by R. Edward Freeman in the 1980s.


    In 1984, R. Edward Freeman published Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach. While the term ‘stakeholder’ was then hardly used, it became one of the central concepts in the business ethics revival since the 1990s and quickly gained currency in mainstream management discourse. Today it is practically a household term used by many different types of actors in a very diverse set of fields. Although many reasons might be attributed to its popularity, Freeman’s definition from 1984 is by far the most often referred to.
  • Rene||

    The City Mouse and the Country Mouse .Once there were two mice. They were friends. One mouse lived in the country; the other mouse lived in the city. After many years the Country mouse saw the City mouse; he said, RuneScape Gold "Do come and see me at my house in the country." So the City mouse went. The City mouse said, "This food is not good, and your house is not good. Why do you live in a hole in the field? You should come and live in the city. You would live in a nice house made of stone. You would have nice food to eat. You must come and see me at my house in the city." The Country mouse went to the house of the City mouse. It was a very good house. Nice food was set ready for them to eat. But just as they began to eat they heard a great noise. The City mouse cried, "Run! Run! The cat is coming!" They ran away quickly and hid. After some time they came out. When they came out, the Country mouse said, "I do not like living in the city. I like living in my hole in the field. For it is nicer to be RS2 Gold poor and happy, than to be rich and afraid."Do not throw good things away; you may be glad to have them at some other time.

  • Make money online||

    This is one question that all force in USA needs to answer, and most especially, all Policemen in USA.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement