He he.

E-R

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/20/hostess-bankruptcy-mediation_n_2168596.html?icid=maing-grid10%7Chtmlws-main-bb%7Cdl1%7Csec1_lnk2%26pLid%3D236870

Too bad we don’t have a POTUS who can explain basic business economics to them.

electric-rascal on November 19, 2012 at 11:56 PM

HFCS is 55% fructose / 45% glucose, whereas table sugar (sucrose) is 50% fructose / 50% glucose. Fructose is metabolized in the liver and tends to kick off related metabolic processes which result in more fat storage. Studies are beginning to show that extra 5% fructose can add to a person’s weight when consumed over long periods of time.

The maker of Twinkies and Ding Dongs is slashing pay for its four highest-paid managers to $1 apiece until Hostess emerges from Chapter 11 or Dec. 31, whichever comes first.

The US population began to get fatter about the time that sugar tariffs caused high-fructose corn syrup to be favored in food and beverages over sugar.

In the rest of the world, obesity rates aren’t accelerating nearly as quickly as in the US, and I think a dearth of corn syrup outside of the US is one of many factors.

The pro-HFCS crowd argues that it all digests the same as sugar, caloricaly-speaking, but I’m convinced that people eat more of HFCS-sweetened products because they just aren’t as satisfying as real sugar.

I also have a suspicion that HFCS is metabolized differently that sucrose, this study would seem to support that notion.

Mt. Dew and Coke made with sugar taste better, IMHO.

E-R

p.s. I’ve noticed that Aldi grocery stores here in the US seem to have many foods that are made with sugar instead of HFCS – and some of the labels mention that fact. Some share of those products come from plants outside of the USA.

…OH OH!…Twinkies is the only thread to go over a hundred comments today?

KOOLAID2 on November 19, 2012 at 6:19 PM

We like Twinkies! :) Or at least like talking about them

Thank you gryphon.

I am a firm believer in “Life isn’t fair”. I tell my 6 year old that we are guaranteed equal opportunity not equal results. It is up to us to make of it what we will. That being said, the plant here in Vegas was not on strike nor was there ever a whisper of one. Signing up with the union was a requirement for employment. My husband had to do it within a certain time frame and he signed up on the very last day.

Chocktopus on November 19, 2012 at 6:00 PM

That is a big worry of mine. Not every union member is a union stooge, though a good number of them (like my uncle, who belongs to a union in a right-to-work state) are. The bad apples make the good ones look bad by association.

Chocktopus on November 19, 2012 at 4:34 PM

Ok, now you are crying and hurt, but did you stand up and say no to unions when there was a vote? Did you try to remove the cancer or did you just go along with everything? I’m sorry, you can’t have it both ways. Good bye jobs, good bye unions. Como estas ustedes?

hip shot on November 19, 2012 at 6:31 PM

Not really fair hip shot, because him and many of the employees likely never had a vote EVER on whether to join the greedy-union or not. They get votes on greedy union ‘leadership’ and probably voice votes on whether to accept a deal or not. The decision to join the greedy-union may have been made a generation or two ago. Then that business is a closed-shop and if you want to work you join the greedy union.

In a right world, there would be a revote every five or ten years on whether to retain the greedy-union, and other greedy-unions would be able to poach companies if they convinced the workers that they could do a better job of representing them.

Once the greedy union is firmly entrenched, if you don’t support the greedy-union you find yourself first on the layoff list, or with zero overtime, or pushed into the worst shift. There’s not much companies can do then because that’s what Wagner and all the pro-greedy-union legislation pushed through since Wagner did. There is a hundred years of pro-greedy-union law on the books.

We aren’t trying to have it both ways. We want HIS job.

Ok, now you are crying and hurt, but did you stand up and say no to unions when there was a vote? Did you try to remove the cancer or did you just go along with everything? I’m sorry, you can’t have it both ways. Good bye jobs, good bye unions. Como estas ustedes?

I am a firm believer in “Life isn’t fair”. I tell my 6 year old that we are guaranteed equal opportunity not equal results. It is up to us to make of it what we will. That being said, the plant here in Vegas was not on strike nor was there ever a whisper of one. Signing up with the union was a requirement for employment. My husband had to do it within a certain time frame and he signed up on the very last day.

Holy cow, I hope they can come to terms.

I know a lot of you guys are rooting for Hostess to go Galt to teach the big bad Unions a lesson and I want that too.

However, I’d like to keep my family off of government assistance more and if my husband can’t get his job back, he will be going on unemployment and trying to find a job in a city that has almost a 12% unemployment rate.

Chocktopus on November 19, 2012 at 4:34 PM

While I relish the thought of anything that makes unions look bad (with my sincere sympathy if your husband was/is a bakers union member), I do not wish for anyone to lose their job. Not even the union members. I may not feel bad about it, and I may believe that the essence of conservatism is “life isn’t fair,” but it is most certainly not fair that for every union member unwilling to budge, there were two more who were willing to go back in and do their jobs.

My thoughts and prayers are with you and your family. I really sincerely do hope that it works out for the best.

Who cares. Those Bimbos in Congress can just keep their noses out of it.

I know a lot of you guys are rooting for Hostess to go Galt to teach the big bad Unions a lesson and I want that too.

However, I’d like to keep my family off of government assistance more and if my husband can’t get his job back, he will be going on unemployment and trying to find a job in a city that has almost a 12% unemployment rate.

Nice bluff, baker’s union… that’s a pretty big pay cut you negotiated…

Greedy union management often makes the claim of “bad management” by the employer when a company fails. If you dig deeper what you often find that what they mean by “bad management” is that the employer erred by agreeing to the company-bankrupting demands of the greedy union. They never take responsibility for those demands and the flawed contracts.

This was true in the Government Motors case.

slickwillie2001 on November 19, 2012 at 4:05 PM

Ever notice the common elements in these stories?

Unions. And union management claiming the problem is the company was mismanaged. But there are invariably unions involved.

Another common element in theses stories is successful profitable competitors whose work force is not unionized. Using union management’s own logic, they must be better managed.