Limiting Choices - Page 3

bhunter · #21 05-23-2012, 03:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by noonereal

Interesting.

So they changed the packaging, got good press and will be selling more candy than ever in one package.

This now makes perfect sense now. The OP missed this obviously.

No, I didn't miss it. The people that will pay are the consumers. Though here there is no direct legislation, the implied threat and negative publicity by Michelle Obama certainly had an effect. Interestingly, portion shrinkage serves as a good cover for the inflation caused by so-called quantitative easing.

bhunter · #22 05-23-2012, 03:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by d-ray657

It seems to me that the candy company freely made a choice to alter its product line.

Regards,

D-Ray

That depends on what your definition of "freely" is.

bhunter · #23 05-23-2012, 03:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bobabode

Just buy a box of 'em BH. This thread epitomizes the scraping of the bottom of the barrel.

I concur. It demonstrates just how far the federal government progressives will go in the name of protecting individuals from themselves while eliminating the free choice of something as simple as a candy bar. How'd they arrive at 250 calorie portions? If 250 is good, then why not go for 125. Ultimately, consumers will pay more for their candy because of these tacitly compelled changes.

icenine · #24 05-23-2012, 03:44 PM

Rugged individualism done in by a candy bar....

noonereal · #25 05-23-2012, 03:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bhunter

No, I didn't miss it. The people that will pay are the consumers. Though here there is no direct legislation, the implied threat and negative publicity by Michelle Obama certainly had an effect. Interestingly, portion shrinkage serves as a good cover for the inflation caused by so-called quantitative easing.

I can't quite understand why you are upset by this? Someone in the free market/free country launched a campaign to help people become healthier.

What is the rub you perceive? I just can't seem to understand your gripe.

This company is as free to sell whatever it's cares to as it was before this educational campaign.

bobabode · #26 05-23-2012, 04:27 PM

This thread reminds me of my yuppy conservative neighbor who loudly bitched that the community volunteer day the HOA sponsored here was compulsory and an insult to the membership. GASP!!

All we did was a little minor landscaping updates. There were 8 people that showed up for a couple of hours of light work and free hot dogs and lemonade. We even ensnared a couple of renters in our subversive and lefty leaning endeavors. I grilled the dogs and managed to score exactly zero converts to my commie inspired mission to destroy modern civilization.

I'll refrain from any strawman comments although to clarify my expression that this thread is scraping the bottom of the barrel, the barrel I was refering to was the anti President Obama one not rhe First Lady's endeavor to reverse the trend in this country towards supersizing everything including ourselves.