Thread: Twinkies

As a guy with an English degree, other than Machiavelli, Locke, and Kant, I haven't heard any of the names you people mentioned...are you all professors of history, or realllllly don't like spending time with your wives?

Originally Posted by earcutter

Ok you academic snobs!! I am impressed! But if you are that good! Relate it to Twinkies!

OK, you asked for it!

Herodatus (the "father of history") would say that the Twinkie Co. failure was the will of the gods.

Hannah Arendt woud classify the company's failure as "a purposive, elite-directed" attempt at revolution which sought to establish positive freedom by addressing the 2 fundamental criteria of power struggles: the struggle for independent rule, and the struggle for whom will rule.

Toynbee would definitely take the long way around the barn, using 3 volumes just to say that "stuff happens." Purely descriptive without explanation was definitely his modus operendi, and subscribing to labeling theory is his stock in trade.

Vygotsky's principle of the zone of proximal development states that the baker's union sought to achieve the level of managerial compensation in order to overcome its dissonance.

Von Clausewitz is the easiest here. The baker's union engaged in total war, ending with a Pyrrhic victory. They did ultimately defeat management in negotiations, yet left themselves in as desperate an end-state as their adversaries. Truly a zero-sum game, to paraphrase Kissinger.

Had enough yet?

Originally Posted by Cangooner

For those who have not done so before, set aside The Prince. Then read Machiavelli's other works (letters, Discourses on Livi, Florentine Histories for example), and *then* read The Prince. And just consider the possibility that The Prince was written as a satirical piece never intended for widespread publication, but rather for the entertainment of his decidedly non-"Machiavellian" friends.

It gives the thing an entirely new meaning.

It may be written for satire, but it is also amazingly accurate at times.
That is often the strength of satire: to make blindingly obvious what people known but don't want to acknowledge if it is not over the top.

Originally Posted by JimmyHAD

Back in the good old days of a strong US dollar and a strong US economy I ate many a box of Guylain seashells. Too much $ for me to indulge now but I have fond memories.

Pfff ... the stuff we give to elderly relatives we don't really like.

Originally Posted by thebigspendur

You're right. Damn that greedy union. Why I've been told those Union members earn around 200 grand a year and have a Cadillac health care plan and get 2 months vacation. Not only that they can retire after 20 years service with 150% of their pay.

Where can I join?

Originally Posted by 32t

This is depressing. I dug out an old statement that is about 2 years old. As of then the theoretical minimum payment I can receive which is 10 years of payments is 3.46 times the amount I contributed. With that option if I drop over dead 6 months after retirement my wife can still get it for 9.5 years. That is not a very good return for all the years that they have held my money. [Although I admit it is "guaranteed".] By DaveW's numbers concerning the PBGC all I would get is .83 percent.

Similar to Social Security I tend to ignore it as it is out of my control and the rules will change so much by the time I retire I can't plan on any of it.

Fortunately, you should be able to do a little better. Your benefits are contribution related instead of an hourly multiplier, but they equate to something similar to some hourly benefit per year of service.

If your contributions equate to $75 per year of service per month, then you'd have $750 per month of benefits, and the PBGC would cover $11 + $24.75 per month per year of service since your equivalent dollar times service multiplier would be greater than the $11+$33.

At any rate, you'd get some percentage plus any allocation of assets greater than the PBGC maximum, if there was one. You would likely still lose out some.

I'm a little bit hazy on the PBGC multiemployer maximums and how that allocation works, because you just never really see a multiemployer plan default.

We NEED to figure out how to grow the economy in this country and grow profitability, though, because without it, all of us go under water. We should be fighting about who gets the shave of the expenses below the profit line, not fighting to make businesses zero profit, or we'll all be broke whether we think we have any skin in the game or not.

[QUOTE=Cangooner;1070935Discourses on Livi[/QUOTE]

Let's not throw mastro livi under the bus, too!!!

Originally Posted by sheffieldlover

I don't remember learning this part about it in college. How do you know this?

It's not actually something I could say I 'know', but back when I was an undergrad, one of the profs in my honours program gave us a bunch of Machiavelli in one of our reading courses. But he started with his other works before assigning The Prince and suggesting that we approach it embracing the possibility that it was a satire. It has never been proven, but it's a really interesting theory, and one that makes an awful lot of sense when his other works are considered as well. The Prince is really out of character for him when the rest of his writings are considered. It stands out like a Twinkie in a Ding Dong factory. (How's that David?)

Originally Posted by Crotalus

I'm not kidding. Harry Reid says taxes are voluntary.

Paying income tax in America is Voluntary - YouTube