November 16, 2012

"Nut up or shut up"

"Someday very soon, life's little Twinkie gauge is gonna go ... empty."

Prophetic.

Is it too late to get Twinkies added to the endangered species list? Where's the EPA when we really NEED it!

Don't Demand the Unearned Food and Wine Humor Posted by JohnGalt at November 16, 2012 11:29 AM

Mondo heh!

However, this being ThreeSources, I am going to warn good people not to allow non-union animus to cloud their economic thinking.

Greedy Bakers (Lochner v New York anybody?) may have hastened the demise of the yellow alleged food. But -- as Governor Romney tried to explain -- plants and brands of value will survive bankruptcy. If somebody wants to invest in Chrysler or Hostess, they can; else the assets will be put to greater use.

And if they are not wanted, it is the loud voice of the free market saying "we are wealthier now and have access to better tasting snacks."

Posted by: jk at November 16, 2012 12:23 PM

New hashtag trending on Twitter, to the certain delight of readers and authors here:

#HostessShrugged

Posted by: Keith Arnold at November 16, 2012 12:57 PM

Cloud? The movie clip tie-in is two-fold: First as evidence that the Zombie Apocalypse is surely nigh. Second, not to lament the demise of the Twinkie, but to celebrate the fungibility of capital, recipes and trademark rights. I fully expect, in due time, the Twinkie to be reborn. Perhaps even with the original brand name but under new ownership and not a whiff of union labor.

Posted by: johngalt at November 16, 2012 1:50 PM

Apologies if I misconstrued. We're into that C-word "Conservatism" again. I see some, if not y'all, waxing poetic about a snack of their youth at the expense of realizing that demand might be a bigger issue than bakers' benefits.


Posted by: jk at November 17, 2012 11:03 AM

Waning demand may have soon sent Twinkies the way of buggy whips but free men willingly risked their capital on the bet that it would not. By refusing to make bakers' pension payments no longer the most expensive ingredient, the labor union's "consistently poor management" has decided the bet before it was placed.

And why does the union refuse to accomodate? Because doing so is an admission that everything free-market advocates have been saying is sustainably true - and everything the redistributionists say only works for as long as the faith holds out. In the case of Hostess the music has stopped and it's time to scramble for a seat. I look forward to seeing how the public reacts when the workers are left standing, despite the "protection" offered by their unionization.

Posted by: johngalt at November 17, 2012 2:44 PM | What do you think? [5]