new owners used bankruptcy to get rid of all Hostess’s union contracts

bnw wrote:

Reminds me of the junk bonds equity stripping in the ’80s. This is what you get when politicians are easily bought.

So it’s all on politicians and not on the capitalists actually doing this crap?

To me, this is yet another one of those huge differences between left and right. We leftists are against corruption and the concentration of wealth, power in privilege across the board — in the private sphere and in the public. The right, OTOH, seems incapable of ever holding the private sector responsible for their own venality, instead placing all the blame on the public sector. It’s never their fault, apparently. It’s always the “gubmint’s.”

In reality, it’s both/and. And it’s the capitalist system itself that encourages, incentivizes, enables and maximizes this. It’s capitalists who write our laws. It’s capitalists who control our government.

That was a keeper. Good info.

w
v

Yes it is all on the politicians. It is easy to see the new owners turned the company around to take their windfall profit. They screwed over people they owed money. It is a form of fraud or should be. That is up to the politicians. The politicians who remain easily bought. The value in the company is the product it produced. The company still exists making the same products so those creditors should be paid. Labor under contract should have some value stake in the business but again that is up to the politicians.

It always starts with the politicians.

I guess you and I will just never see things like this the same way. And not saying you believe this, cuz I don’t know, but most people on the right constantly tell us that government should get out of the way, leave business alone, let it do as it pleases. They want our gubmint to be laissez faire. But, at the same time, they’re the first people to blame government when it fails to stop private sector venality. Can’t have it both ways. Do they want the government in or out? If they say out, they can’t then blame it for failing to step in and stop fraud, abuse, exploitation, etc. etc.

Another way to look at this: Rapists and murderers. Government can’t always prevent their actions. When it can’t, is that “all on the politicians,” or is that on the rapists and murderers? Moving over to the actions of business owners, financiers, hedge fund guys, corporate raiders and the like . . . . These are adults. They know right from wrong. They know when their actions hurt workers, their families, the communities and so on, but they still do these things. Shouldn’t they be held responsible for their own choices, and the consequences of those choices? Their own actions, and the repercussions? Is it really the fault of mommy and daddy gubmint for not preventing adults who should know better from doing these things?

• This reply was modified 8 years, 4 months ago by Billy_T.

You’re trying to move between the law and morality. They are not the same. So to stay on topic it is up to the politicians to make this type of action illegal.

But that’s your topic and your frame, not mine.

;>)

I’m saying it’s both. We need to put strong checks on capitalist powers while we suffer under its oppressive yoke. And we need to hold the private sector accountable for their actions, always, with or without proper checks in place. Their responsibilities don’t suddenly vanish because of laissez faire government. They still know they are hurting real human beings via their actions. They still know they should not do so. And we, as a nation, should always call them on it and hold them accountable — as we hold our elected official accountable.

Both/and. The public and the private, not just the public.

And, remember, those who identify as “gun advocates” typically take the other side when it comes to guns. They tell us we don’t need any more laws, regulations or checks on gun violence. That they won’t make any difference. People will just commit gun crimes anyway.

Aren’t you being a bit inconsistent in your stance when we look at the two issues?

Both/and. Personal responsibility. That includes business owners, financiers, corporate raiders and the like, along with the politicians who fail to stop their wrongdoing.

Wait a minute.

So, unless some politician legislates morality, any sort of assholery, douchebagguery and other types of malfeasance are simply “aspects of governmental failings” rather than moral failings of individuals or private institutions???

REALLY???

So, the government has to legislate every possible negative possibility to guide our every action, thus dictating every “good” and “bad” action?

What the literal fuck???

You’re asking to be treated like a damn child. Stop it.

Oh, and as someone very, very familiar with conservatism having formerly been one and greatly admiring conservative thinkers like William F Buckley, Jr for example, I can say definitively that’s not it. Stop it. That’s literally the opposite of conservative thought.

The Hostess situation started because the former CEO decided to kill the company because he wanted to kill the union. The union was willing to make cuts, put in automation, help innovate the product line and make a host of other changes. But the CEO wanted to strip everything and kill the union. Period. There was NOTHING the union could do.

And by killing the company, the CEO got a huge payday in the form of an executive severance package. The hedge funds came in and reformulated to save money (I tried one package of Twinkies and couldn’t finish even one. They were awful. Like New Coke awful). But they did it right to sell them by the truckload, especially here in the South. I dunno if you know how grocery stores work (grocery stores make most of their money not by selling stuff, but by renting space on their shelves to the vendors, so a grocery store is really a rental business and the Hostess folks went in big at first with lots of shelf space and deals like BoGos and sales to entices people to start eating their products. It seems to have worked. Not many people followed the story or even take the time to taste the shit they eat, to be quite honest…

This whole story is pure avarice.

Now, if you expect the government to make avarice illegal… you’re going to have to explain that. Because a) there’s nothing in conservative thought that supports that. In fact, it’s the exact opposite and b) how you do that with anything less than a totalitarian government is nigh on impossible.

bnw wrote:

Yes it is all on the politicians. It is easy to see the new owners turned the company around to take their windfall profit. They screwed over people they owed money. It is a form of fraud or should be. That is up to the politicians. The politicians who remain easily bought. The value in the company is the product it produced. The company still exists making the same products so those creditors should be paid. Labor under contract should have some value stake in the business but again that is up to the politicians.

It always starts with the politicians.

So to stay on topic it is up to the politicians to make this type of action illegal.

These are your quotes in this thread. How could you not think I’m responding to you?

You seem to be expecting politicians to legislate morality which only a totalitarian regime can attempt (be it a dictatorship, theocracy or oligarchy) to do and newsflash, they fail every time.

It’s not possible to make avarice illegal.

Peeps gonna be greedy, yo. And there’s no government big enough or in your business enough to stop that.

So, yes, directly responding to you. I reread everything (I have to because I’m dyslexic, so by definition I reread everything 2-4 times to ensure I read it correctly).

If you meant something different, you’ll have to rephrase because the words you used say something pretty specific and doesn’t really leave much room for alternate meanings

Ford isn’t before my time, so Carter’s fine. Nixon would be stretching it a smidge. LBJ is before my time.

I’m so lost. Are you saying that there should be no income tax on business because private individuals pay an income tax? And some of those private individuals invest in publicly held companies?

Also, I guess we agree that the bankruptcy laws are abused for monetary gain. They are MUCH more robust for corporations than for individuals now. But that’s not really the point. There’s no individual law or even a thousand laws or huge monolithic government that can stop avarice, which is the well font of all of this.

SHOULD we reform or even replace things like our bankruptcy laws and a host of other laws that govern how we see corporations, their legal standing and how they should be allowed to interact within markets, with each other, with legal persons, with the government and be held to account under the law? ABSOLUTELY!!! If you’re saying THAT, then I guess we agree. Otherwise, I’m still lost.

I brought up the two taxes as examples of what politicians can legislate, taxes so egregious as to defy belief. Therefore protecting stakeholders as those in the Hostess Cakes scam would be a step in the right direction.

“So egregious as to defy belief”? Given the fact that American business and rich people in America in general pay the lowest in effective taxes of all but two OECD nations, you might want to dig deeper into that claim. And beyond those low, low effective taxes, no nation on earth is so good to business overall . . . in terms of defending, protecting, bailing out and promoting capitalism, externalizing its costs, supplementing its rotten wages, etc. . . . nor does any other nation on earth spend as much in wars designed to cram capitalism down the throats of nations that don’t want it.

In short, businesses in America pay a tiny fraction of a fraction of what they receive from government. They never come close to giving value for value.

Also, you’ve emphasized Trump’s supposed focus on jobs jobs jobs. But your main concern here appears to be with “stakeholders,” most of whom don’t hold their stocks for more than a day, and none of whom lifts a finger for that company. Labor appears as an after-thought, and you also qualify that with those under contract. Of course, in these situations, hundreds or thousands tend to be fired, so would they be justly compensated as well? Or, better yet, not fired in the first place?

From where I sit, your focus is misplaced and the idea that any American taxes on business and the rich are “egregious beyond belief” really, really baffles me — to put it most gently.

• This reply was modified 8 years, 4 months ago by Billy_T.

Billy_T wrote:

I brought up the two taxes as examples of what politicians can legislate, taxes so egregious as to defy belief. Therefore protecting stakeholders as those in the Hostess Cakes scam would be a step in the right direction.

“So egregious as to defy belief”? Given the fact that American business and rich people in America in general pay the lowest in effective taxes of all but two OECD nations, you might want to dig deeper into that claim. And beyond those low, low effective taxes, no nation on earth is so good to business overall . . . in terms of defending, protecting, bailing out and promoting capitalism, externalizing its costs, supplementing its rotten wages, etc. . . . nor does any other nation on earth spend as much in wars designed to cram capitalism down the throats of nations that don’t want it.

In short, businesses in America pay a tiny fraction of a fraction of what they receive from government. They never come close to giving value for value.

Also, you’ve emphasized Trump’s supposed focus on jobs jobs jobs. But your main concern here appears to be with “stakeholders,” most of whom don’t hold their stocks for more than a day, and none of whom lifts a finger for that company. Labor appears as an after-thought, and you also qualify that with those under contract. Of course, in these situations, hundreds or thousands tend to be fired, so would they be justly compensated as well? Or, better yet, not fired in the first place?

From where I sit, your focus is misplaced and the idea that any American taxes on business and the rich are “egregious beyond belief” really, really baffles me — to put it most gently.

See that is your biggest problem. You read volumes into what is a sentence clearly stating my opinion. I’m not the 1%. Now review your post with an eye towards all the misplaced assumptions you made.

At the very end you began to skate on thick ice regarding labor. Good for you. Jobs are precious and should not be cavalierly thrown away without consequences.

Billy_T wrote:

bnw,

Okay. Well, if I read in volumes, please explain why you made most of your post about “protecting stakeholders,” and not workers. If I misread you, please say specifically what I got wrong. Me misreading someone wouldn’t be the first time, and it won’t be the last. So I’m fine with being corrected.

I view workers under contract as stakeholders too.

Billy_T wrote:

Edit: But that leads to the next part of my confusion. Do you also consider those who are fired as a result of bankruptcies and takeovers as “stakeholders” too? Or just the workers who end up keeping their jobs even after the shenanigans go down?

Good paying secure jobs are everything. That should be the first criteria in anything government interacts with business. The jobs in question must be full time US employees meaning the 50 states and not some Pacific sweatshop technical loophole.

Yes, all that lose their jobs are stakeholders. If by legitimate bankruptcy then some formula would have to be worked out. I don’t consider the Hostess bankruptcy as legitimate. Those stakeholders should be paid from the windfall profit. The issue is one of job security whether the stakeholder is creditor or labor. Labor is obvious, Hostess employees who were let go. Creditors can also be harmed to where they may have to let people go because of the nonpayment by Hostess through bankruptcy.

Tax breaks to companies should only be based upon the number of full time employees. Companies that increase employment should be rewarded. Companies that reduce full time employment should not be rewarded. Companies that reduce their workforce through automation should not be rewarded as well. I would go so far as to make the company pay the taxes lost through automation. So if 100 jobs were automated away then the tax burden formerly paid by those 100 employees is paid by the company. Must be the case in all 50 states. Good paying jobs are everything.