Skip to comments.
Did Congress kill the Twinkie? The tariff tale behind the Hostess demise.(+video)
Christian Science Monitor ^
| November 16, 2012
| Patrik Jonsson
Posted on 11/19/2012 8:12:59 PM PST by grundle
Edited on 11/19/2012 8:17:46 PM PST by Admin Moderator.
[history]
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-27 next last
1
posted on
11/19/2012 8:13:02 PM PST
by
grundle
To: grundle
Did Congress Kill the Twinkie? Nope. It was still the unions. next question?
2
posted on
11/19/2012 8:23:52 PM PST
by
PGR88
To: PGR88
But Congress passed the laws which gave the unions so much power.
IMHO Unions should be considered a business and as such must abide by all laws and regulations including the anti- monopoly laws.
Why Unions are not considered just another employment agency puzzles me.
3
posted on
11/19/2012 8:35:43 PM PST
by
Harmless Teddy Bear
(Fate plays chess and you don't find out until too late that he's been using two queens all along)
To: PGR88
“Did Congress Kill the Twinkie?
Nope. It was still the unions. next question? “
Right, but The Congress “helped.” They always make a bad thing worse! The breadth and depth of governmental corruption is just stunning!
4
posted on
11/19/2012 8:36:30 PM PST
by
vette6387
To: PGR88
Congress merely hamstrung the Twinkie. The Union killed it.
To: grundle
6
posted on
11/19/2012 8:37:46 PM PST
by
Colonel_Flagg
("Don't be afraid to see what you see." -- Ronald Reagan)
Well, there’s a Ding Dong in charge of the Senate, a Twinkie in charge of the House, and a Ho Ho as House minority leader.
7
posted on
11/19/2012 8:38:48 PM PST
by
Enterprise
("Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." Voltaire)
Comment #8 Removed by Moderator
To: PGR88
I agree that regardless of the price of sugar, the unions unwillingness to compromise was, in the end, responsible for Hostess’ decision to shut it down. OTOH, there were other cost increases that also contributed to the demise of Hostess, some of which could probably have been prevented or at least decreased.
IMO, it’s way past time for Congress to take a look at how much the regulations they pass and tariffs drive up the cost of a product and then determine who their proposed plan of action will really benefit. Of course, this is expecting them to approach their task from a business perspective so I’m not holding out much hope for any of this happening.
9
posted on
11/19/2012 8:42:43 PM PST
by
Grams A
(The Sun will rise in the East in the morning and God is still on his throne.)
To: grundle
The sugar beet was killed in Sacramento valley by Congress many years ago.
To: Domangart
Don’t forget the unintended effects of all those corn subsidies too....
11
posted on
11/19/2012 8:58:39 PM PST
by
GraceG
To: grundle
The fact remains that a tariff is a tax and that means money flowing into the federal coffers where politicians get to dole it out. It is this doling out money process (power) that corrupts Congress. The best thing this country could do is throw out the Tax Code and replace it with a flat tax. (Note I did not say Fair Tax.) Friedman suggested 17% on personal income would put us at the inflection point of the Laffer Curve...good enough for me. Now everybody has something in the game and your tax bill is known. No diverting of resources for political gain.
12
posted on
11/19/2012 9:16:41 PM PST
by
econjack
(Some people are as dumb as soup.)
To: Grams A
Uh, Little Debbie and Tastykake don’t use sugar?
13
posted on
11/19/2012 9:18:33 PM PST
by
fhayek
To: grundle
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.
I would argue that whatever the intent of the original 1934 tariff was, that the MUCH more powerful corn lobby is benefitting as well.
Think of all that products that use high-fructose corn syrup and the regular kind instead of sugar because of these tariffs. We can start with sweetened soft drinks. Obviously, these HFCS sweetened drinks don' help the sugar lobby, but the sugar tariffs encourage use of the cheaper stuff, which is why the Mexican soft drinks use regular sugar, and the U.S. beverage industry is about 90% HFCS. Who benefits? Cargill and ADM.
14
posted on
11/19/2012 9:45:59 PM PST
by
Dr. Sivana
(There is no salvation in politics.)
To: vette6387
Never underestimate Congress’ ability to make a bad situaton worse.
15
posted on
11/19/2012 9:59:50 PM PST
by
Secret Agent Man
(I can neither confirm or deny that; even if I could, I couldn't - it's classified.)
To: grundle
Sugar? Hostess is out of business because of the price of sugar? That is a stupid statement.
To: PGR88
Did Congress Kill the Twinkie?
Nope.
It was still the unions. next question?Nope. They both did.
Creating artificially high prices with the absolute power of government, for a primary ingredient in a product, is a tough hurdle to overcome and remain competitive.
17
posted on
11/19/2012 10:52:12 PM PST
by
publius911
(Formerly Publius 6961, formerly jennsdad)
To: grundle
Lifesavers candy abandons U.S. plant - June 2002
Manufacturer says high cost of sugar in U.S. prompted exit. Several hundred workers at the Lifesavers candy plant in Holland, Michigan are losing their jobs, as the company moves production to Canada.
18
posted on
11/19/2012 11:08:27 PM PST
by
Cboldt
To: Grams A
Of course, this is expecting them to approach their task from a business perspective But they do consider it from the business perspective, theirs and not ours.
19
posted on
11/19/2012 11:37:27 PM PST
by
itsahoot
(Any enemy, that is allowed to have a King's X line, is undefeatable. (USS Taluga AO-62))
To: PGR88
The unions delivered the final coup de grace, but hostess was on the way down -- the stuff that they make is very unhealthy and in these health-conscious times it was doomed to be a smaller business than it was
It could have survived as a smaller business by keeping costs low, but the unions preferred 0% employment...
20
posted on
11/20/2012 1:29:52 AM PST
by
Cronos
(**Marriage is about commitment, cohabitation is about convenience.**)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-27 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson