Post Election: MITTigating the damage

[Manfred Hideous]

Ok, you can be a smartass about it if you want. I mean, the title of the thread is "Math you do..." after all. So yes, you are correct, you stated 87m was the Gross.

What I had meant to quote was that you said insurance would cost them between 33m (penalty) and 100+m (coverage). So again, since clearly your math is correct, why would Papa Johns come out and say it is going to cost them 5-8m?

How was I being a smartass? :/

I already said this was back of the napkin math. The 33 Mil I came up with was assuming every one of the 16500 employees lost coverage and LJs was hit with $2000 for each of them. My other figure was an out of my ass number representing a portion of what my own insurance costs are. $6000 isn't that far out of range.

What I can't do is numbers for stuff I'm ignorant of, like what percentage of their people are already part time and exempt. The point of this was to show why the people owning and investing in companies have a good reason to be upset.

[Phey Onat]

Careful manfred, you're on 2,999. Make it count somewhere other than this terrible thread


And my point in asking about the 8m question is that your math, while appearing sound, must be missing a variety of factors because for you to get 33m or even 100m and Papa Johns to get 8m. And so when people see the 33-100m they too are like WTF and that's all they see. But the reality is it's 8m and much more easily absorbed by the business model.

[Manfred Hideous]

Great, now I have performance anxiety for my 3000th post. LOL

I already said I don't have the variables and actual cost structure available to them. I have to do my best with simple math.

That being said, I also pointed out earlier that PJs is not an average restaurant because it has 16000 employees. That gives them the economy of scale I mentioned earlier and I do suspect half their workforce is part time which would totally exempt those employees.

The fact is, nobody should be the least bit surprised that many companies are going to fire workers, cut hours, rais prices, or a combination of these. Many of them will be forced into it because they don't have the flexibility in their wallet not to. Others (the larger but still not monstrously huge) will do so because investors don't like taking a bath after they've held a stock for a while. If these companies don't do something, the stock price will plummet and they'll be in terrible financial shape.

I personally wish I didn't have to wait for my second don to graduate in two years. I'm positive I'm going to miss getting in on the ground floor of the pot market in Colorado. Being a grower might be the only growth industry we have this decade.

Actually, My r/p sucks bad anyway, so I don't really care about my post count.

[Quesa]

I wonder if it had anything to do with this:

"as the company was preparing to file for bankruptcy earlier this year, the then CEO of Hostess was awarded a 300 percent raise (from approximately $750,000 to $2,550,000) and at least nine other top executives of the company received massive pay raises. One such executive received a pay increase from $500,000 to $900,000 and another received one taking his salary from $375,000 to $656,256."

So yeah, maybe they weren't quite so dumb after all. The management awarded themselves incredible pay raises, and cut the workers pay at the same time, even though the company's siituation was not at all the workers' fault. Why would you give a shit about the company in those circumstances?

The factory and the brand will likely be sold to a new owner, who'll need people to work there so many of these guys will probably get their jobs back, and now the retarded parasites who managed the company into bankruptcy and looted the company's cash reserves as a little treat to themselves for doing so are getting kicked out.

http://bctgm.org/2012/11/hostess-con...isinformation/

Perhaps you might want to consider that there are sometimes two sides to a story, eh Manfred?

This has more to do with how bankruptcies work. Employee pay is usually more senior than the banks and such, which means they'll get the payout before the investors. It looks bad, only because people don't really understand a lot of these processes (and I don't always understand them fully) but in reality, this is just a way for the management to get more money of an already failing company.

While this probably had nothing to do with the end result, usually when companies die like this, it's a combined effort. It truly does take two to tango. Unions muscle more stuff from the companies using strong-arm tactics and companies agree to these new agreements without being able to afford them in the end.

So, in the end, what you quoted here looks bad, it has little bearing on who's fault it is.

[Quesa]

If only we could decouple the healthcare industry from employers. Then they wouldn't be responsible for it and you wouldn't lose healthcare by changing/losing jobs.

Oh wait, that's what single payer systems would do. My biggest gripe about Obama is him ditching the single payer in order to appease republicans (which worked out great didn't it).

Single payer got plenty of opposition from D's. D's had legislative majority in both the Senate and the House at the time, iirc. Laying this on R's is just an excuse.

[Fartman]

I'm positive I'm going to miss getting in on the ground floor of the pot market in Colorado. Being a grower might be the only growth industry we have this decade.

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/mar...ry_latest_news

in related news, the Seattle PD has a sense of humor http://spdblotter.seattle.gov/2012/1...se-in-seattle/
they even drop a "TL;DR" in there..

SPD seized a bunch of my marijuana before I-502 passed. Can I have it back?
No.

[Quesa]

I give you, a nation of spoiled whiners:

http://www.examiner.com/article/walm...y-strike-looms

[Fartman]

Walmart worker, Chris Allen said, "I support a family of four and my hours have been cut. I've lost my apartment because of this. Basically, I'm speaking out. We address it to them [supervisors] that we need changes, they silence us."

I guess it never occurred to this guy that working at Walmart wasn't exactly going to support a family of four.

[Quesa]

Complaining about his cut in hours so he plans to strike during a time where you can usually get more hours.

Brilliant.

[Fartman]

Option 1: whine
Option 2: get a better job

decisions, decisions..

[Securitas]

I give you, a nation of spoiled whiners:

http://www.examiner.com/article/walm...y-strike-looms

Much like our corporations and executives whining about tax increases when other countries have much much higher taxes, hmm?

[Hilmar Keller]

So I don't often post walls of text because arguing politics on the internet is probably the least productive thing I could do with my time, especially when I'm not done watching all of Total Recall 2070 and unlike most 90s sci fi shows having it minimized in the background does not do it any justice.

Have you ever wondered why the shit that Wal-Mart sells is so cheap? Is it because it's from China? Some of it is, but not all of it. Is it because they buy in bulk? Sure, but everybody does that. Is it because you have to buy twenty pounds of something to get a deal on it? Somehow, no, even though this is how Costco is so brutally successful.

So why do Costco employees get a living wage and hours when Wal-Mart employees are barely given the means to survive? Because they shop at Wal-Mart. It's a self-sustaining enterprise: Give your employees no buying power and they'll buy everything where they work. And they're not given the paychecks to buy fifty dollars worth of coffee at a time from Costco, which is why they stick with Wal-Mart even though they could technically save money at Costco. What Wal-Mart employees are buying when they shop at Wal-Mart is their own labor. They are paying to work. It's a self-sustaining enterprise.

Worse, the enterprise is endemic: Because Wal-Mart can afford to undercut competitors, they can expand stores to include every corner of the market. You need a computer? Groceries? Condoms? Liquor? Clothing? Books? Name something that isn't sold at Wal-Mart (aside from illegal drugs, of course). They corner their labor force into buying everything from their own stores, which means a greater chunk of that paycheck is spent paying for their own labor.

So the Waltons are sad because they suddenly have to guarantee their employees some rights and protections, and instead of dipping into their multi-billion dollar profits, they take it out on their workforce, which still has no choice but to shop at Wal-Mart. They really don't care if they lose employees or they stop coming to work. Anybody can work at Wal-Mart. They only care that these people will still be unable to afford to shop elsewhere. Mission fucking accomplished.

"Oh Hilmar, step off their nuts, they're deserving of their profits, they're job creators, they worked hard for their money, their employees are just whiny little bitches, they could be working instead of protesting, they did this to themselves." Cut the crap. Wage slavery in no way resembles freedom.

[Quesa]

Much like our corporations and executives whining about tax increases when other countries have much much higher taxes, hmm?

You're missing a key difference, I'll wait for you to figure it out...

Have you ever wondered why the shit that Wal-Mart sells is so cheap? Is it because it's from China? Some of it is, but not all of it. Is it because they buy in bulk? Sure, but everybody does that. Is it because you have to buy twenty pounds of something to get a deal on it? Somehow, no, even though this is how Costco is so brutally successful.

So why do Costco employees get a living wage and hours when Wal-Mart employees are barely given the means to survive? Because they shop at Wal-Mart. It's a self-sustaining enterprise: Give your employees no buying power and they'll buy everything where they work. And they're not given the paychecks to buy fifty dollars worth of coffee at a time from Costco, which is why they stick with Wal-Mart even though they could technically save money at Costco. What Wal-Mart employees are buying when they shop at Wal-Mart is their own labor. They are paying to work. It's a self-sustaining enterprise.

Worse, the enterprise is endemic: Because Wal-Mart can afford to undercut competitors, they can expand stores to include every corner of the market. You need a computer? Groceries? Condoms? Liquor? Clothing? Books? Name something that isn't sold at Wal-Mart (aside from illegal drugs, of course). They corner their labor force into buying everything from their own stores, which means a greater chunk of that paycheck is spent paying for their own labor.

Costco and Wal-Mart have very different models. Yes, they are both retailers, but alot of the similarities end there. Costco does sell bulk products and those bulk items generally have a higher markup. Add to that the drastically reduced cost in displays and employee time to merchandise those items. Places like Wal-Mart or Target have a much higher employee overhead due to their merchandising model, even though Target seems to be weathering better than Wal-Mart.

Wal-Mart doesn't corner their labor force into anything. Their labor force is performing very low-skilled labor to which that sector of the labor market determines the cost of the labor at that level. Wal-Mart, just like any other business, tries to minimize their costs while maximizing their profit. It's all too easy for people to play the blame game in these types of situations but it's not Wal-Marts' job to improve their employees living situation. It's the employees' job to improve his own living situation and this may seem harsh but welcome to life.

So the Waltons are sad because they suddenly have to guarantee their employees some rights and protections, and instead of dipping into their multi-billion dollar profits, they take it out on their workforce, which still has no choice but to shop at Wal-Mart. They really don't care if they lose employees or they stop coming to work. Anybody can work at Wal-Mart. They only care that these people will still be unable to afford to shop elsewhere. Mission fucking accomplished.

"Oh Hilmar, step off their nuts, they're deserving of their profits, they're job creators, they worked hard for their money, their employees are just whiny little bitches, they could be working instead of protesting, they did this to themselves." Cut the crap. Wage slavery in no way resembles freedom.

I personally think Wal-Mart should fire anyone who walks off the job. If people don't like who they work for, they should find somewhere else to live. If they can't, I guess they'll have to HTFU until they get better educated or find a better job.

So yeah, you're a little too far into the conspiracy weeds here.

[Scroobius Pip]

People are lazy scum, corporations & $$$ are awesome etc...

Can just see you in plus fours & a riding crop on the plantation that most upstanding of institutions, or maybe the bitter, grizzled overseer with the 'correction' stick.

PS do you have a mortgage &/or a family?

[Quesa]

Can just see you in plus fours & a riding crop on the plantation that most upstanding of institutions, or maybe the bitter, grizzled overseer with the 'correction' stick.

PS do you have a mortgage &/or a family?

I suppose we should just give everything anyone needs to live. I can't see how that could possibly go wrong.

[Scroobius Pip]

I suppose we should just give everything anyone needs to live. I can't see how that could possibly go wrong.

No & also

PS do you have a mortgage &/or family?

Guessing that's a no then. Not that your opinion is any less relevant but it does put extreme comment into perspective. You are usually quite a considered poster.

[Quesa]

One extreme deserved another.

I have compassion for people but that doesn't mean I'm going to demonize a business in trade. The problem isn't whether or not Wal-Mart pays x but that the people who work there may not be educated or skilled enough to get a better job. If people are in the shits, that sucks and there are programs out there to help those in the dumper. You can demonize Wal-Mart all you want but they do provide jobs but those jobs are extremely low-skilled jobs and people can be replaced by others who want said job.

No, I don't have a family and you're right, it doesn't make my opinion any less relevant but gives you the excuse to blow if off as not really meaning anything which is what the other portion of that sentence attempts to do. Just because someone needs a job that pays more doesn't mean it's Wal-Marts' fault or their problem if they don't want to make it their problem.

To comment on my original post about the subject, it was intended to point out that a guy was complaining about not getting enough hours so he's possibly joining a group who will be walking off the job during a time where getting more (holiday) hours is likely. Additionally, the Wal-Mart, and other retailer workers, are walking off the job because they want to open earlier for Black Friday. Ok, you don't like to work holidays - well, you're in the wrong type of job. When working at a retail store for my college years, I routinely worked all holidays along with my other managers and store managers, it was just part of working in that industry.

TLR, if you don't like the job you have, HTFU and get another otherwise, again, HTFU and deal with it until you can. Going after Wal-Mart because of this is ridiculously retarded and trying to point out how evil and greedy the company is for wanting to sell their stuff is equally retarded.

[Scroobius Pip]

One extreme deserved another.

I have compassion for people but that doesn't mean I'm going to demonize a business in trade. The problem isn't whether or not Wal-Mart pays x but that the people who work there may not be educated or skilled enough to get a better job. If people are in the shits, that sucks and there are programs out there to help those in the dumper. You can demonize Wal-Mart all you want but they do provide jobs but those jobs are extremely low-skilled jobs and people can be replaced by others who want said job.

No, I don't have a family and you're right, it doesn't make my opinion any less relevant but gives you the excuse to blow if off as not really meaning anything which is what the other portion of that sentence attempts to do. Just because someone needs a job that pays more doesn't mean it's Wal-Marts' fault or their problem if they don't want to make it their problem.

To comment on my original post about the subject, it was intended to point out that a guy was complaining about not getting enough hours so he's possibly joining a group who will be walking off the job during a time where getting more (holiday) hours is likely. Additionally, the Wal-Mart, and other retailer workers, are walking off the job because they want to open earlier for Black Friday. Ok, you don't like to work holidays - well, you're in the wrong type of job. When working at a retail store for my college years, I routinely worked all holidays along with my other managers and store managers, it was just part of working in that industry.

TLR, if you don't like the job you have, HTFU and get another otherwise, again, HTFU and deal with it until you can. Going after Wal-Mart because of this is ridiculously retarded and trying to point out how evil and greedy the company is for wanting to sell their stuff is equally retarded.

Nice hole filling.

No need to get emo, asking whether you had a mortgage/family & the comment about you usually being a considered poster was a genuine one not some back handed put-down. I don't always agree with what you say but was surprised to see you seemingly join the 'hang 'em, flog 'em' brigade.

You are so lets leave it there then. Businesses Good/People baad.

I didn't demonise Wal-Mart. They are a massive employer providing vital jobs to relatively low skilled people. Labour disputes are rarely straightforward however & neither you nor I know the ins & outs & without knowing that casually saying "yeah, I'd just fire them" is retarded. Don't sound too compassionate to me so who's demonising who?

PS Whilst the relevance of your opinion on the subject on bringing up a family on a low budget isn't affected, until you have it can kiss my ass

[Manfred Hideous]

WoT

I don't know that I've heard them complaining much about Obamacare, tbh. That store might not be doing well at the moment. I don't know.

What I do know is that Walmart was one of the first to get an Obamacare waiver, so the law won't hit them quite as hard in the first place.

My Ex is working at a Walmart now. Why? Because nobody else wants someone with a record and no skills to speak of. She's lucky to have that job, IMO.

[Quesa]

Nice hole filling.

No need to get emo, asking whether you had a mortgage/family & the comment about you usually being a considered poster was a genuine one not some back handed put-down. I don't always agree with what you say but was surprised to see you seemingly join the 'hang 'em, flog 'em' brigade.

You are so lets leave it there then. Businesses Good/People baad.

I didn't demonise Wal-Mart. They are a massive employer providing vital jobs to relatively low skilled people. Labour disputes are rarely straightforward however & neither you nor I know the ins & outs & without knowing that casually saying "yeah, I'd just fire them" is retarded. Don't sound too compassionate to me so who's demonising who?

PS Whilst the relevance of your opinion on the subject on bringing up a family on a low budget isn't affected, until you have it can kiss my ass

Emo, really? I don't think so. Business is not always good and people are not always bad, all you've done is answer me in sarcastic extremes and it deserved the same in kind.

I'm calling the whole thing beyond retarded because they actually added "and requirements to work on Thanksgiving Day" to the reasoning for the walkout. The other stuff, "unfair pay, alleged racism, harassment, hostile working conditions", started in LA and spread coincidentally near the time the hours for Black Friday were announced.

Late edit: if there was one thing I actually do hate, it would be Unions.

[Agathor]

You guys know me, I love tinfoil. I wonder what you guys think?



Karl Rove was unusually angry that night.

[Fix Lag]

He was fired. Resignation is something they all do for each other in circumstances like this. He also ackowledged he was either a part of or aware of a coverup of the immediate knowledge it was terrorists, not a riot. That's no conspiracy, that's his testimony. Whether there is more to it than just telling the ambassador to lie to the press is yet to be seen.

Gonna go with Manfred on this one. I don't know how you never grasped how so many people magically retire when something bad that they've done comes out, but allow me to connect the dots for you: resignations like this are an official way to leave "honorably" and without problems associated with being fired as opposed to voluntarily leaving.

[Agathor]

Good interview, Thom. I? think Dr. Wolff articulated the duelling economic theories at play pretty well. Does the economy grow from the bottom up (wage growth) or does economic growth occur from the top down (tax cuts for the rich)? Although I feel pretty certain in saying that the folks who currently promote tax cuts for the wealthy know FULL WELL that tax cuts for the wealthy do NOT stimulate job growth; this is about pure naked GREED by, as Dr, Wollf says, a tiny group of CEO's.

Fantastic? interview with Wolff who is by far the greatest Marxian economist in history. Absolutely brilliant.

[Some Market Dude]

I'm not sure why there is the illussion of "debate" among the American populace about the basics of economic management; there definitely is not among economists. They might disagree on the particulars and there are always some fringe outliers, which is a good thing, but the basics of how the business cycle, inflation, fiscal and monetary policy, and so on work is all pretty orthodox.

In a natural recession, part of the natural business cycle of boom and bust, you use monetary policy to boost investment by lowering interest rates, and sometimes fiscal policy to boost demand. The reason you don't use fiscal policy all the time is that the boost is only temporary, and eventually turns into inflation that must eventually be brought down by raising interest rates and lowering investment. However, in a major recession, government spending is textbook. Tax cuts in a recession are also textbook, and are the mirror of government spending; government spending is more effective than tax cuts, but we don't need to understand why here because it doesn't really matter in the big picture.

The only qualifier in the current American case is that you have a booming defecit, not debt which is for now still in a reasonable range, which threatens your long term stability through a higher debt. This booming defecit is a product of the fiscal mismanagement under Bush, with the recession only exacerbating the problem. Therefore, the textbook application of government spending and tax cuts should be qualified by the need to account for the previous fiscal mismanagement, hence the tax hike on the rich.

All very simple.

I think the only qualifier to all of this is how that government spending was done. The financial bailouts were an unfortunate necessity, the auto-industry I don't know enough about. Obamacare is a fucking disastrous policy to implement now, and not very good policy in general. Fiscal stimulus is about building roads, bridges, schools, hiring teachers, building up the military (though in the American case you don't need any more of that), not cutting big cheques to the guys who just oversaw your financial ruin. Obama's economics team is doing everything right, but I believe the Dems took advantage of the post-Bush blowback to oversee this standard policy in a politically irresponsible way in terms of implementation.

Unfortunately, with the Reps spouting raw bad economics, bad implementation is better than bad policy.

[Agathor]

The second part was nice also.

[Stronke]

Fuck the poor, you can not survive? then just die! Survival of the fittest mutha fuckas.

Welcome to earth.

[Iratus]

Fuck the poor, you can not survive? then just die! Survival of the fittest mutha fuckas.

Welcome to earth.

Viva la Rand!

[Stronke]

[Agathor]

That was fucking epic Stronke. I got repmilk gussing out of mah rep titties after that vid.

[Agathor]

Since we are on that road. Here is a good vid for the Americans.

[Malcanis]

Ever noticed that those who are loudest in defending a corporation's right - duty - to be amoral, soulless profit-machines are the first to complain when the corp is called evil?

[Quesa]

Ever noticed that those who are loudest in defending a corporation's right - duty - to be amoral, soulless profit-machines are the first to complain when the corp is called evil?

I suppose I could go on with things like, it is their right to be those things but then again, in order to have a true discussion, we'd probably have to ignore all the positives corporations bring because it's the hip thing to bash corporations until the DNC finds something else to demonize by which time you'll probably swap to that.

[Iratus]

I suppose I could go on with things like, it is their right to be those things but then again, in order to have a true discussion, we'd probably have to ignore all the positives corporations bring because it's the hip thing to bash corporations until the DNC finds something else to demonize by which time you'll probably swap to that.

Do we corporation-bashing foreigners follow the DNC too?

[Malcanis]

Do we corporation-bashing foreigners follow the DNC too?

You're not on their talking point mailing list? I'll send you a link to sign up with (I get points if you use it)

[Manfred Hideous]

Do we corporation-bashing foreigners follow the DNC too?

You must not be following the DNC since it would seem the DNC is the party of the wealthy and the biggest corporations.

[Quesa]

Save the Twinkies
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/pet...ustry/cJz0ngJR

[Stronke]

The fuck?

[Phey Onat]

Not hard to find 25,000 idiots. I'm surprised the petition is only at 3k

[Manfred Hideous]

http://news.yahoo.com/twinkie-return...pQgngARuLQtDMD

Will the twink workers get their jobs back after liquidation?

Only if they like living in Mexico.

[Quesa]

Wouldn't be surprised. The ironic thing is, the bakers union was banking on the plant re-opening quickly after the liquidation (they thought maybe 1 week) but I wouldn't be surprised to see the manufacturing move outside of the country to save the brand.

[Manfred Hideous]

Wouldn't be surprised. The ironic thing is, the bakers union was banking on the plant re-opening quickly after the liquidation (they thought maybe 1 week) but I wouldn't be surprised to see the manufacturing move outside of the country to save the brand.

There is a silver lining for them. Now they won't have to worry about paying for health care since they'll be on medicaid for a good long time.

[Phey Onat]

Obama's plan to get everyone on medicaid is slowly working!

[Some Market Dude]

Overly-aggressive union bargaining tanks mismanaged business producing outdated fructose cakes hampered by archaic farm tariffs.

I'm gonna chalk this one up to creative destruction.

[Fartman]

Will the twink workers get their jobs back after liquidation? Only if they like living in Mexico.

a new job for Iratus!

[Iratus]

I seriously don't get the wailing. Twinkies are a fucking abomination.

a new job for Iratus!

Meh. Mexico-manufactured twinkies would be both tastier and healthier. Sugar cane being cheaper than overly subsidized corn does that to your food.

[Raketefrau]

With the Twinkies, they'll most likely be bought by Binbo and be made in Mexico.

Screw our jerbs, they're stealin' our snack cakes.

Oh, and look, this segues perfectly into the anti-corporation argument, because the reason everyone hates corporations nowadays is executive compensation, where you get people like the CEO of Hostess getting a raise to over 2.2m/year, and several others approaching a million, with a few breaking it.

But it's those damn greedy laborers! Stealin' their own jerbs!

The anti-corporation hatred stems from the same issue as the 1% issue -- greedy fuckwads sitting at the top grabbing every penny they can get their hands on while arguing against raising the minimum wage, as seen here:



So yeah, you're going to have unwashed masses angry at corporations.

[Iratus]

With the Twinkies, they'll most likely be bought by Binbo and be made in Mexico.

Screw our jerbs, they're stealin' our snack cakes.

Oh, and look, this segues perfectly into the anti-corporation argument, because the reason everyone hates corporations nowadays is executive compensation, where you get people like the CEO of Hostess getting a raise to over 2.2m/year, and several others approaching a million, with a few breaking it.

But it's those damn greedy laborers! Stealin' their own jerbs!

The anti-corporation hatred stems from the same issue as the 1% issue -- greedy fuckwads sitting at the top grabbing every penny they can get their hands on while arguing against raising the minimum wage, as seen here:



So yeah, you're going to have unwashed masses angry at corporations.

Didn't you hear? That's how liquidations are done. Aparently is = ought.

[Manfred Hideous]

I seriously don't get the wailing. Twinkies are a fucking abomination.



Meh. Mexico-manufactured twinkies would be both tastier and healthier. Sugar cane being cheaper than overly subsidized corn does that to your food.

I look specifically for the Mexican produced Coca Cola for the rare times I want a soda. Goddamn they're good, like the pre coke classic scam good. All that's missing the the coca.

With the Twinkies, they'll most likely be bought by Binbo and be made in Mexico.

Screw our jerbs, they're stealin' our snack cakes.

Oh, and look, this segues perfectly into the anti-corporation argument, because the reason everyone hates corporations nowadays is executive compensation, where you get people like the CEO of Hostess getting a raise to over 2.2m/year, and several others approaching a million, with a few breaking it.

But it's those damn greedy laborers! Stealin' their own jerbs!

The anti-corporation hatred stems from the same issue as the 1% issue -- greedy fuckwads sitting at the top grabbing every penny they can get their hands on while arguing against raising the minimum wage, as seen here:

The Union was offered a 25% shareholder stake as well as representation on the board. They would have had a real voice in the future of the company.

Actually, I guess they did have a voice. RIP twinks.

[Iratus]

I look specifically for the Mexican produced Coca Cola for the rare times I want a soda. Goddamn they're good, like the pre coke classic scam good. All that's missing the the coca.

I can totally understand that. I'm a big soda drinker, but I used to doubt the people saying that sugar-cane-based coke was better. Then I went to the US and almost puked when I took my first sip of that sludgy beberage. Seriously, I could feel the syrup sticking to the top of my mouth.

[Raketefrau]

I can totally understand that. I'm a big soda drinker, but I used to doubt the people saying that sugar-cane-based coke was better. Then I went to the US and almost puked when I took my first sip of that sludgy beberage. Seriously, I could feel the syrup sticking to the top of my mouth.

At least Coke doesn't have brominated vegetable oil like Mt. Dew.

Even if you get past the fact that it's bromine, it's fucking VEGETABLE OIL IN YOUR SODA.

And if you get past the vegetable oil in your soda, it's still a fucking BROMINE COCKTAIL.