Death of the Twinkie?

[Purron]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tyro Is this the beginning of the "Twinkie Bubble"?

I just hope the guvmint can prevent the "Twinkie Cliff".

[JakeBrake]

I haven't bought Hostess products in years, but on my trip to my (the nearest) Walmart Supercenter yesterday, I thought I would pick up a few Hostess products. It turns out that my Walmart had NO Hostess products that I could find or recognize. Now, I don't know is they have ever had any. There WERE plenty of Hostess knock-offs mainly Little Debbie. I didn't buy any of those, either.

I also shop a couple of discount bread stores, but I've never seen Hostess products there, but plenty of knock-offs.

[ziggy29]

The talk of "Twinkie hoarding" reminds me of what we went through here recently with "Dublin Dr. Pepper". Once the Dublin plant lost the authority to produce this (they were apparently selling outside of their allowed sales territory) and "the end of Dublin Dr. Pepper" was announced, suddenly the price skyrocketed. A 6-pack of bottles, which usually cost something like $4.99, went to $14.99 overnight... while supplies lasted.

[ziggy29]

Quote:

Originally Posted by mickj twinkies | eBay hoarding and price gouging.. the government needs to intervene now!

Gouging for a non-essential item like Twinkies is (IMO) hugely morally different than hoarding water, fuel, batteries and foodstuffs before a major natural disaster with the intent to sell them to victimized families for 10x what you paid for them.

Speculate and price gouge on Ding Dongs all you want.

[ERD50]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ziggy29 I know you take it upon yourself to be this board's "staunch defender of the free market" ...

Wouldn't want to disappoint you, read on...

Quote:

Originally Posted by ziggy29 Gouging for a non-essential item like Twinkies is (IMO) hugely morally different than hoarding water, fuel, batteries and foodstuffs before a major natural disaster with the intent to sell them to victimized families for 10x what you paid for them. Speculate and price gouge on Ding Dongs all you want.

While price gouging does sound morally wrong, if you stand back and analyze it, it can be a positive, and laws against it can be negative. I changed my mind on the subject after reading some of these types of explanations:

Financial Tip of the Week: Price Gouging
Price Gouging Saves Lives in a Hurricane - David M. Brown - Mises Daily
Price gouging - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Quote:

Neoliberal economists Thomas Sowell and Walter E. Williams, among others, argue against laws that interfere with large price changes. According to this view, high prices can be viewed as information for use in determining the best allocation of scarce resources for which there are multiple uses. Many laissez-faire economists oppose price gouging legislation and argue that it prevents goods from going to individuals who value them the most. For example, after a storm has felled numerous trees in a locality, a rise in the price of chain saws will discourage their purchase by people with only a minor need for them, making them more available for those with the strongest need. Problems during the Siege of Paris (1870–1871), which critics attribute to price restrictions, are often held up as another example. With price gouging laws in place, producers are only able to charge a set price, then they have little additional incentive to increase supply to adversely impacted area; if producers are able to make extra profit then they will increase supply.

-ERD50

[ziggy29]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ERD50 While price gouging does sound morally wrong, if you stand back and analyze it, it can be a positive, and laws against it can be negative.

And once again, just because I think something is morally wrong doesn't mean I think it should be *legally* wrong. Not everything that is immoral is, or should be, illegal. Again, you seem to be acting as if any criticism of immoral behavior in the "free market" (or at least what one person considers immoral) is the same as someone advocating that "there ought to be a law." This is presumptuous and false.

There are plenty of things I find immoral which I don't believe should be illegal.

[mystang52]

I can't help but conclude that Twinkies, and the other Hostess products, have enough of a consumer following that their name (and recipe) has significant value. I'm sure there is another bakery company already assessing the value, how much they want to pay etc.
I'll bet we see, in 6-9 months, an advertising blitz promoting their reincarnation.

[NW-Bound]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ziggy29 Gouging for a non-essential item like Twinkies is (IMO) hugely morally different than hoarding water, fuel, batteries and foodstuffs before a major natural disaster with the intent to sell them to victimized families for 10x what you paid for them. Speculate and price gouge on Ding Dongs all you want.

I dunno! What if some consumers are Twinkie addicts, and will go into withdrawal if they do not get their daily fix?


PS. OK, enough joking around for me on this subject. Some people who are not used to this may just take my posts seriously.

[ERD50]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ziggy29 And once again, just because I think something is morally wrong doesn't mean I think it should be *legally* wrong. Not everything that is immoral is, or should be, illegal. Again, you seem to be acting as if any criticism of immoral behavior in the "free market" (or at least what one person considers immoral) is the same as someone advocating that "there ought to be a law." This is presumptuous and false. There are plenty of things I find immoral which I don't believe should be illegal.

But if you read the articles, it would seem that price gouging is not morally wrong. That was the point I was trying to make. (edit/add) Maybe you disagree, but I think they make a pretty strong case - I was 'converted' several years ago.

Of course, if one agrees with that, it would lead to the point that laws against it are morally wrong, but it's all the same thing.

-ERD50

[youbet]

Quote:

Originally Posted by NW-Bound Some people who are not used to this may just take my posts seriously.

Naw....... Little chance of that!

[NW-Bound]

I certainly hope so. However, stranger things have happened. One thing in life I have learned is one never knows.

I tend to mix serious discussions with jokes, and even some of my long-time friends are often confused. One said that he sometimes could not tell if I really meant something or was simply sarcastic. I guess it was my fault as a writer, if I confused the reader.

[Htown Harry]

Beer and Twinkies, anyone?

Pabst Owner Metropoulos Considers Bid for Hostess Brands - Bloomberg

[veremchuka]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ERD50 .... I'm merely pointing out that businesses act the same as us consumers do. We look for the best value at the best price point for our needs. That holds for buying labor, or buying dessert. I have trouble criticizing a business for acting as I do. ...... IME, I have seen very few cases where the free market was not the best solution for allocating resources. Why not defend it? -ERD50

Free market capitalism is the best path to prosperity. Larry Kudlow

There are 2 unions involved, the teamsters accepted modest pay and benefit cuts but the bakers union refused so now 18,500 people will lose their jobs plus all the ancillary jobs related to these products.

This country is filled with people who'd be happy to work for $8 an hour, the products will be bought and made in non union shops as it should be.

I think I ate a Twinkie when I was in 4th or 5th grade, they suck. Ding Dongs and Yodels were edible when I was high (once we couldn't find anything to eat so it was a peanut butter and pickle sandwich but not sure if it was on Wonder Bread) but Hostess doesn't make anything I care to eat.

[MasterBlaster]

It's not over till it's over !

Twinkies hope? Hostess puts off liquidation, agrees to mediation - latimes.com

Quote:

At a bankruptcy court hearing Monday in New York, 82-year-old Hostess had planned to ask permission to start shutting down its business. Instead, Judge Robert Drain urged the company and the Bakery, Confectionery, Tobacco Workers and Grain Millers International union to consider mediation.

[ERD50]

Quote:

Originally Posted by MasterBlaster It's not over till it's over ! Twinkies hope? Hostess puts off liquidation, agrees to mediation - latimes.com

Would be interesting to be a fly on the wall in that room!

I can just picture the CEO - "We told you we'd have to shut down if you didn't compromise. We told you we weren't bluffing. The Teamsters told you the same thing. A bunch of other people lost their jobs because of you. So now you want to talk? Now?!?!? ...... Sure, let's make a deal."


-ERD50

[freebird5825]

Bored? go to youtube and search on "Twinkie song"

[HFWR]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ERD50 Would be interesting to be a fly on the wall in that room! I can just picture the CEO - "We told you we'd have to shut down if you didn't compromise. We told you we weren't bluffing. The Teamsters told you the same thing. A bunch of other people lost their jobs because of you. So now you want to talk? Now?!?!? ...... Sure, let's make a deal." -ERD50

The CEO of a bankrupt company has little room for self-righteous indignation...

[pb4uski]

Quote:

Originally Posted by HFWR The CEO of a bankrupt company has little room for self-righteous indignation...

Perhaps, but I'm thinking that the CEO has more room for self-righteous indignation than the inept union boss who came razor close to getting his 5,000 members jobs lost forever.

[ERD50]

Quote:

Originally Posted by HFWR The CEO of a bankrupt company has little room for self-righteous indignation...

Maybe, maybe not.

I haven't looked into the history of this particular CEO, but it's easy to picture a scenario where that would not be the case:

Company xyz is failing, and has been in and out of BK recently. They ditch the current CEO to get a new one. Gee, competent CEOs are not real excited about taking a job that could be very temporary. So they have to pay big bucks to attract talent.

That CEO might have plenty of room to tell it like it is. Even the old one may have, the problems may not have been his doing.

In most cases, there is usually plenty of blame to go around, it's rarely totally one-sided. But unless that CEO is a real klutz, I think he has plenty of room to talk, considering that the Teamsters were also telling the Bakers Union to compromise, and they were putting other's jobs at risk.

-ERD50

[M Paquette]

Quote:

Originally Posted by HFWR The CEO of a bankrupt company has little room for self-righteous indignation...

At 125,000 a month, I imagine he could make a little room...