digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Jonesin' for a Soda

mises.org — A fine example of how government works hand-in-hand with established corporate interests to skew markets and thwart entrepreneurs and consumers.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • davidjcrouch, on 10/10/2007, -9/+128The really sad thing about these government-business partnerships is that capitalism and/or the profit motive always seems to get the blame for these type of arrangements.

    Nothing could be further from the truth as it is the illegitimate use of government power via corrupt politicians and rent-seeking business interests that makes these arrangements possible.

    None of this would be possible in a purely capitalistic economy where government is relegated to protecting individuals and their property from force and fraud.
    • kaelspencer, on 10/10/2007, -6/+40Agreed. And most people are aware that there is a problem, yet they believe that government would be the solution.
      • CurtHowland, on 10/10/2007, -8/+29Yep, it's chronic. People call for government to "solve" the problem, yet they never look close enough to notice that government caused the problem in the first place.

        It's like blaming the "free market" for inflation. But....government _prints_the_money_. How can that possibly be blamed upon a "free market"? Or how the Federal Reserve is justified by its ability to prevent recessions and depressions, yet the really nasty depressions have only occurred _since_ the Federal Reserved was established.

        It's like trying to argue with the tide. Just too many people pushed along only by what they were force-fed in government-run public school.
        • wageslaven, on 10/10/2007, -6/+12Sorry, the problem is not "Government". It is corrupt, plutocratic government.

          If you remove Democratic interest (government)in your community, you'll end up with Neo Feudalism, a Plutocratic Monarchy. You're middle class will disappear.

          Life wont be better until you replace your corproate government with one who has middle-class interests at heart.
        • j0keR, on 10/10/2007, -5/+6The problem is definitely government. How long have you socialists been trying to achieve exactly that, "a government who has middle-class interests at heart?"

          Decades. Haven't you learned that it just isn't possible? Politicians are self-serving. Human nature will always drift towards corruption. The only thing that can be done is to make the government as small as possible and to limit their powers. The politicians in office today likely think they're doing the right thing. Voting for a socialist tomorrow will only mean a fascist will replace him when his term is up. Both will continue our downward spiral towards totalitarianism. "Neo Feudalism and Plutocratic Monarchy" are both a form of government and government-backed. Both of which existed in a time where most people were poor and uneducated. Such concepts don't apply today. Your government-school fear tactics about alternative forms of government are based in fantasy.
        • Castronaut, on 10/10/2007, -4/+1God damn joker, all you type is platitudes. Oh and you also type exaggerations. You're also not very coherent. Try sticking to a topic and going with it. What concepts don't apply today? Poverty and lack of education? Neo Feudalism and Plutocratic Monarchy? You seem like you're really excited about teaching us what we need to do about government, so maybe improve on your communication so we can all live right.
      • modestmouse, on 10/10/2007, -4/+6Well, you still need government to police the market. As I understand it, the free market is not all wine and roses. It has its downsides too, like monopolies.

        But government also has it's faults. Lobbying reforms might be a good place to look for solutions.
        • jtlight, on 10/10/2007, -2/+6Any student of the free market would tell you a monopoly exists only when there are barriers to enter the market. That can only happen when a government creates barriers to enter or a competing corporation uses physical force to prevent other entities from entering the market (think mafia).

          Governments should encourage openness in the market and competition. Sadly (as this article shows), this is rarely the case.
          • Dumbledorito, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1So to prevent a corporation from using physical force (as well as monetary. Don't think it's just hiring thugs) you need, what? Government regulation? Oh, noes!!!!
      • thatsmyaibo, on 10/10/2007, -4/+3It's amazing how diggers know everything there is to know about everything.

        /sarcasm
    • bratpack8, on 10/10/2007, -6/+29Nailed it on the head! Free-markets this is not, yet free-markets and capitalism is what gets blamed. I always try and ask people if Wal-Mart, Coke, McDonald's or Nike can force anyone to buy their product or work for them? Of course this is no, but because of these regulations, tariffs and other forms of protectionism, we lean in their directions because they cost less (most of the time).
      • cybermort, on 10/10/2007, -17/+8but free-market and capitalism got us here.
        • curomo, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8No it didn't, representative democracy got us here. Political structure != economic structure.
        • teethman, on 10/10/2007, -0/+31. Government Interference in free-market and capitalism got us here.
          2. Jones Soda is probably the best brand of soda in our world.
      • brad3378, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1This is the kind of ***** that REALLY makes my blood boil. In fact I'm so pissed I already forgot what I was going to say! Oh Well - ***** Big Business Government partnerships.
    • Dumbledorito, on 10/10/2007, -10/+24Uh, who do you think pulls this crap using the government as a tool? That's right: Business interests. So-called "government regulation" is a shout in a hurricane compared to what corporate interests have done to our system of government and laws. Not to mention that a whole lot of "business good, government bad" types have this utopian delusion that large amounts of money AREN'T used to manipulate the so-called "free market."

      Seriously, if the free market worked the way Libertarians claim it does, why is Microsoft doing so well?
      • flatspunk, on 10/10/2007, -5/+22Microsoft does well for many reasons. It is primarily argued they do so well because of their Office suite that penetrated the business world so well. But your question is irrelevant. Businesses (whether you like them or not) fail and succeed for a variety of reasons.

        As far as "what corporate interestes have done to our system of government" -- I gotta say I think you're blaming the wrong people. Government/politicians are the ones with the power to give away. Yes, some corporations take advantage of it -- but the power is not theirs to begin with. If you limit the power that the government has, then the special benefits/interests would be hurt. But corporations certainly aren't the only special interests who pay politicians to help them out. There are a lot of groups (lawyers, unions, non profits, clubs like the NRA) out there stuffing money in pockets -- but there is no one out there trying to stop them. There are no incentives for the politicians to stop taking the money either.

        Yes some corporations have ***** things up, but there's a lot of blame to go around, and they certainly aren't the root cause of the problem.
        • chicofaraby, on 10/10/2007, -8/+14The solution to the problem of bad government isn't no government, the solution is good government.
          • Ysaric, on 10/10/2007, -5/+14Ugh. When you give government the power over something, it is going to attract money and special interests, whether officially or under the table. Less government is preferable. It's analogous to federalism. Having a strong central government is "great" for you, as long as it reflects your politics. Suddenly it's a lot less great when a rival political party gains power and uses the full weight of the federal government to adopt policies you disagree with. You say the solution is "good government", but that is so subjective as to be nearly meaningless.
          • zombies187, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5You have "no government" confused with "good government"
          • j0keR, on 10/10/2007, -5/+4The only "good government" is one that doesn't exist.
          • Castronaut, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1@j0keR

            Thanks for the useless hot topic tshirt political slogan. Let's look at an example of anarchy to see how well it worked. New Orleans during Hurricane Katrina. Oh yeah, great idea pal!
          • geoboy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3The solution to bad government is good government? That sure is a vague solution to a problem. At least I know shrinking government and taking away government's excessive power and restoring that power to the individual human citizens does more for everyone than wishing for a better government ever will. The government is too big and powerful for the citizens to take on and change for the better. We must weaken it first.
          • AgentBuckwald, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2@Castronaut

            What a completely ignorant thing to say. How the hell is New Orleans during Katrina an example of anarchy? It was a state of matrial law. The government, specifically the military, was in complete control. Your example of anarchy is actually the exact opposite of anarchy.
        • zengonzo, on 10/10/2007, -9/+3No, corporations aren't the root cause of the problem. Greed is.

          In this case, the greed takes the form of a corporate interest. It wasn't a religious group or political action committee championing corn syrup.

          Most rational people don't think corporations are evil, but they need ***** oversight.
        • mojibake, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5What you seem to be saying, flatspunk, is that the problem lies in the power itself. When we create a structure which allows men control over the subsistence of others, it will naturally attract those who wish to exploit it.
          The only defenses we have against this are
          A) Limited, transparent government with very clearly enumerated powers
          B) The ability of citizens to have full control over their monetary system and issuance of currency.
          C) The ability for citizens to change the entire system in the event it becomes corrupt beyond efficiency.
          This is exactly what the US was established on, but obviously it has been sorely compromised.
      • Ysaric, on 10/10/2007, -6/+6By doing well do you mean the disappointing adoption rates of Windows Vista, Dell's decision to start shipping products with Linux, or the explosion of Web 2.0+ apps (Zoho, for example) that will likely replace most of Microsoft's offerings over time?

        In areas where markets and capitalism are really allowed to operate, even giants fall. Microsoft was once the giant-killer, and now they are the target.
        • egroeggnik, on 10/10/2007, -4/+4Buried because you can't stay on topic. M$ did well in the past to get to where they are.
          • Ysaric, on 10/10/2007, -4/+4Of course Microsoft did well in the past to get where they are, which is why I said they were the giant-killer. The parent poster said "Why is Microsoft doing so well?", so I brought up several recent issues that shows their present and future to be not-so-rosy. That's is the market at work--innovation, new competition, new models. WTF is off-topic about that unless the parent is also off topic?
        • thugok, on 10/10/2007, -5/+2Buried for "Web 2.0".
      • j0keR, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5Your argument is entirely emotional and has no factual basis, I have no idea how you got dugg up so far, and yet nobody has debunked your claim yet. Microsoft used the exact same kind of protectionism like that discussed in this article to get where they are today. Bill Gates undoubtedly copied just about every idea and piece of code in the original versions of DOS from other sources. He did this in a time that the government's rules regarding software were almost non-existent. As Microsoft got larger it started to acquire software patents that enabled them to use government force in order to crush competition. Microsoft is a coercive monopoly. Google it. Microsoft is in bed with the government and everybody knows it. If Microsoft existed in a free market world, they would have been crushed ages ago. Linux would be able to reverse engineer and use anything that they currently don't use because of current patent laws. Patents and laws hold Linux back, not the free market.
      • TheSpore, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6We are not exactly in a free market. In a truly free market there would be no such thing as copyrights or patents, just whoever makes the best product gets the most money. If Microsoft or Netscape or Apple did something well, everyone else would essentially copy it and we'd have real competition again. Doesn't mean they would go out of business, but it would mean they wouldn't be able to charge an arm and a leg for their products because their competitors could make compatible products easily. None of this "I have to buy Windows because one critical program only runs on Windows, and only Microsoft is allowed to make Window's-compatible software."

        To be fair, our economy does have some self-correcting mechanisms, but I've become convinced that we would be MUCH better off if businesses weren't afraid of getting sued over "intellectual property."
    • IamChrisMcCall, on 10/10/2007, -13/+11What part of the glorious Free Market was it that ended slavery? Prevented the Triangle Shirtwaist Fire? Keeps coal mines safe? Tests drugs to make sure they don't kill you? Brought about the 40-hour work week?

      The natural state of things is the Free Market. Unfettered capitalism existed at the dawn of man. Don't you think it's time we grew up a little bit?
      • asokoloski, on 10/10/2007, -5/+17Slavery was ended because people started to realize it was wrong. Plenty of government owners had slaves, so it wasn't like the government was any more noble than public opinion at the time. In fact, even after slavery was abolished things like Jim Crow laws prevented private businesses from serving blacks the same way as whites. Say what you want about free markets, but when people are looking for green the color of your skin usually doesn't matter.

        Nothing prevented the Triangle Shirtwaist fire, neither market nor government. But you have to ask, what raised the standard of living so much that people could afford to stop sending their kids to work in dangerous conditions? Remember, people chose to work even in unsafe factories (and still do today, in poorer countries) because starving on a farm is worse.

        Coal mines will never be safe, but as long as the market provides much safer alternatives for work, coal miners will get paid a premium because they are risking their lives. And why don't you ask yourself, who keeps roads safe? Why do so many people die in car accidents if the government is in charge of road safety?

        If you're talking about drug testing by the FDA, we could do better without it. Between approving dangerous drugs, driving up the cost of medicine, and keeping dying people from trying experimental treatment, they kill more people than they save.

        Markets provide government-type services *when there is not already a government monopoly*. Ask yourself -- why aren't there inexpensive private schools, or more consumer certification agencies, or more private police forces? When you look at computers, it's obvious the market can provide some amazingly complicated services in an ever-less-expensive way. The problem is, government has already taken away any chance of profiting in certain markets, because they give goods away for "free".

        You're blaming the market for problems caused by lack of technology. Sure, governments have the ability to intervene and "make things better", although if you'll notice this is usually *after* the accident has already happened -- hindsight is 20-20. But government is ruled by another type of market, the political market -- where people buy and sell power. And with a political market, you end up with BS like corn subsidies, that hurt taxpayers not just when they are taxed, but also by making unhealthy foods cheaper than healthy ones.
        • Dumbledorito, on 10/10/2007, -7/+2Wait, wait. You claim that somehow banishing the FDA will make dangerous drugs go away? How does that work? That's like claiming if you abolish the police force, crime would disappear.
          • AggieFalcon01, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4"That's like claiming if you abolish the police force, crime would disappear."
            Hmm ... if we abolished the police, more private citizens would need to arm themselves. Yeah, I think crime would be a much smaller problem, then, if more people were armed.
            So, good point. Thanks for bringing that up!
          • Castronaut, on 10/10/2007, -2/+0Oh yes! Bands of posses without proper law enforcement would be a great idea! That's why Westerns are all about quiet little suburbs where the armed citizenry is always polite to one another.

            You're seriously saying that you want to get rid of law enforcement, that makes you genuinely stupid and insane at the same time. Again, New Orleans shows what a great and wonderfully peaceful civilization occurs when infrastructure (most importantly law enforcement) fails.
          • AgentBuckwald, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2The New Orleans disaster was law enforcement by the military, not individuals. In fact, the military stripped the individuals of the means to defend themselves (guns) during that period of martial law.

            Also, Westerns are movies. Movies are designed to be entertaining. Shoot-outs are entertaining. Fill in the gaps yourself.
        • Castronaut, on 10/10/2007, -6/+4"Nothing prevented the Triangle Shirtwaist fire, neither market nor government."
          No, but regulations after the tragedy prevented it from happening again. The government improved work safety, the market did not.

          "But you have to ask, what raised the standard of living so much that people could afford to stop sending their kids to work in dangerous conditions?"
          An improved economy raised the standard of living. Even with regulations, we still were able to find better work.

          "Remember, people chose to work even in unsafe factories (and still do today, in poorer countries) because starving on a farm is worse."

          How incredibly naive and cynical. Are you aware of the numerous middle american towns where the mine or the factory is one of the only available jobs to the population? Choice is not always available, and if choice is not available, then it would be nice if the government was making sure that companies provided as safe a work-environment as possible, within reason of course.

          "If you're talking about drug testing by the FDA, we could do better without it. Between approving dangerous drugs, driving up the cost of medicine, and keeping dying people from trying experimental treatment, they kill more people than they save."

          This is completely inaccurate. Just take a look at this link, http://sf.metblogs.com/archives/2006/05/the_revigator_nob_hill_goes_nu.phtml. It shows a water jug sold in the 1930s under the guise that it would "revigorate" your water. It was lined with ***** uranium. That's what you get when you don't have the FDA. I'm not a medical chemist, so I like the fact that there is a regulatory agency that is supposed to tell me what will get rid of my allergies and what is *****, and most importantly what is not safe for me to consume. Also go ahead and read a book called "The Jungle", to find out what happens to your meat when you don't have regulation. Then go ahead and look at China to see what the free market does to consumer products.

          You know, there are plenty of libertarian ideas that I agree with, but god damn it everybody on this site takes it to such a ridiculous extreme. Extremism is terrible no matter what the ideology is.
        • IamChrisMcCall, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0"Slavery was ended because people started to realize it was wrong."
          "People" as in companies or "people" as in governments? That's what I thought.
          "Nothing prevented the Triangle Shirtwaist fire, neither market nor government."
          But who was it that made workplaces safe? The market or government intervention? Again, exactly what I thought.
          "Coal mines will never be safe, but as long as the market provides much safer alternatives for work, coal miners will get paid a premium because they are risking their lives.
          You're not allowed to sell your life for a price in this country, you sick *****.
          "If you're talking about drug testing by the FDA, we could do better without it."
          We did do without it, and now we have it. Why do you think that is? It's because HUNDREDS OF UNSAFE PRODUCTS KILLED OR MAIMED THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE.
          "Ask yourself -- why aren't there inexpensive private schools, or more consumer certification agencies, or more private police forces?"
          Why the Hell would I want a private police force? Jesus Christ what the ***** is wrong with you? We have publicly funded education to guarantee the poor get educated. "The problem is, government has already taken away any chance of profiting in certain markets, because they give goods away for "free"."
          And thank God they do. Would you rather have a rich/poor divide that makes anyone with a two-car garage at risk of a kidnapping? Because that's what life is like for those countries without public education.
          If you like anarchy so much, move to Sierra Leone. Jesus, you people are twisted.





      • j0keR, on 10/10/2007, -2/+7Slavery was state-backed. There were plenty of freedom fighters who were willing to fight to free the slaves, and plenty who were willing to help them to safety. It was laws that required the slaves to escape north, and laws that made them "property." Abolitionists were "criminals" in the eyes of the law. Without government intervention slavery would have disappeared on its own, but instead there was this thing called the civil war in which a government killed a lot of people who simply wanted to secede from the union the state had entered into.
        • Castronaut, on 10/10/2007, -6/+1"Without government intervention slavery would have disappeared on its own, but instead there was this thing called the civil war in which a government killed a lot of people who simply wanted to secede from the union the state had entered into."

          That's some beautiful revisionist history you've got there. So you're saying that a few more decades or so of slavery would have been the better choice, cool. You're edgy as *****.
          • teethman, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Not only were there laws to support slavery, there was no way for slaves to fight back without breaking the law. So what can you do when you're legally a piece of property?
          • CurtHowland, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3So, prey tell, how did slavery end in the places and countries that didn't fight a war over it?

            Public opinion changed. That's all. It was happening in the US too, and would have been non-violent if Lincoln hadn't fought a war to "preserve the union".
          • kuzotz, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1because back them is the same as today. Rich people ran the government.

            *****.
      • cmcagle, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6Regarding slavery and the free market:

        Adam Smith, the father of market economics, argued consistently that slavery ought to be abolished, not just on moral grounds, but also on economic grounds. This makes sense considering that Smith was both a moral philosopher and an economist. Adam Smith was heavily influenced by the Physiocrats, a group of French economists who coined the term "Laissez-Faire," and also argued against slavery. This was in an age where industrial capitalism was still an emerging phenomenon, and most of Europe and America were still very agrarian and mercantile. In other words, they were arguing against slavery at a time when slave labor was an accepted fact of life, and considered absolutely necessary to economic well-being. Smith's economic argument was basically that slaves had no positive incentive to work more efficiently, and that the economy as a whole would benefit more from having labor motivated by positive incentives (i.e. wages) than negative incentives (i.e. a Field Master's whip). Smith also pointed out that by only giving laborers the real goods necessary for basic subsistence, the economy lost a very large market for products and services. Adam Smith was good friends with Thomas Jefferson, and often tried to persuade Jefferson to give up his slaves. Unfortunately, this never happened, but Smith's arguments went on to inspire the abolitionist movement of the mid-19th century, which was led by the (relatively) capitalistic, industrial North.

        The next time you feel compelled to spout cynical implications, such as the apathy toward or endorsement of slavery by the free market, you might want to actually just go read a book. If you can't be bothered to do that, wikipedia is also a nice resource.
        • IamChrisMcCall, on 10/10/2007, -2/+0No offense, dude, but did you expect anyone to actually read your entire remark, or did you expect them to just glaze over at "Physiocrats, a group of French economists who coined the term "Laissez-Faire,"". I mean, what does Smith's philosophy have to do with the fact that slavery was a feature of the Southern agricultural market.

          Show me where a law supporting slavery appears in the US Constitution, genius. It doesn't, only one to outlaw it. Slavery was a feature of the market, not a creation of government.
    • seandaly, on 10/10/2007, -4/+15Now, this is why we need Ron Paul as President. He would stop this by bitchslapping them with the Constitution and the beating them over the head with Lady Liberty! Oh, wait... I just realized this wasn't another Ron Paul article. :) I should really start reading these first.

      Serious note, Jones Soda kicks ass! I love that this company has the sack to put cane sugar back into soda. HFCS is a plague that needs to be dealt with. We all want sugar and I doubt anyone here wants to support 1 company that holds a 80% stake in sweetener.
      • mongrel, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1Ron Paul would also not let your girlfriend have an abortion.
        • AgentBuckwald, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Oh, ok. I guess we better shred the Constitution, then.

          Seriously, what's more important to you? Someone's opinion on abortion, or following the Constitution?
    • kuzotz, on 10/10/2007, -10/+5Pure free markets isn't the best thing to do.

      a mixed economy is the best thing to do. In terms of regulating the safety and quality of products, and how things can be transported. This lowers the chances of ***** ups that we saw in the late 19th century when we did have a pure free market.
      In a pure free market companies tend to form monopolies over time, and then you just get one huge mega corporation, and you're screwed in terms of quality, and price, and even at often times wages.

      With government regulation you can counter act these problems because they are quite similar to living in a communist country.

      Now we do this with Mixed Economies today.
      This is a good thing.

      What you read int he article about ADM getting corporate welfare isn't a characteristic of a mixed economy.

      It is a characteristic of a corporatist society in which the corporation is treated as a living human being with rights.

      You typically see these things in fascist nations.
      • Castronaut, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1Corporate welfare also is used to keep millions of people from suddenly becoming unemployed. It isn't without its faults though.

        Also, in reference to the fascism remark: Thanks for the platitude.
      • cmcagle, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5The problem with a "mixed" economy is that once you've granted the government a measure of power beyond protecting against force and fraud, the tendency is for the government to increase it's power, usually with the help of it's corporate allies.

        You say that regulation lowers the chance that we'll repeat the "***** ups of the late 19th century." Since you don't list even one single example, I'm going to take the liberty of providing one: the railroad industry. Without getting into too much of a history lesson, the "Robber Barons" in charge of the railroads were all extremely cozy with the various state governments. Once the feds were brought in to regulate, they got very cozy with the federal government. The Union-Pacific railroad, among others, was granted privileged access to land rights, monopoly control over rail construction, and federal grants, subsidies and loans.

        Your claim that an unfettered free market will lead to monopolies is certainly not new; Karl Marx posited this even before he co-wrote The Communist Manifesto. The idea is as wrong today as it was when Marx first described it. What Marx failed to realize, and what his followers continue to evade, is that in an unfettered free market, a monopoly can only exist so long as it is purely efficient. In other words, a monopoly must be able to provide the maximum possible amount of goods and services in their given field, and they must do it --here's the important part-- without making excessive profits. As soon as a monopoly starts showing signs of excess profits, or if the supply curve diminishes in respect to demand, venture capitalists will see this, and will start funding competitors in anticipation of being able to share some of the "excess" profits.

        Furthermore, your assertion that protectionist tariffs are not characteristic of a mixed economy is either deliberately deceptive, or downright naive. America has had tariffs like this nearly since the Ratification in 1789, and some states had protectionist tariffs under the Articles of Confederation. In fact, the need for uniformity of tariff laws was one of many reasons given for the need to amend the Articles of Confederation, which led to our current Constitution. In the 19th century, South Carolina led the secession movement ultimately because of the Tariff of Abominations. (I say ultimately because this tariff was the final straw; there were many other reasons, such as a perceived increase in federal authority and, of course, the question of slavery.) Protective tariffs are not only "characteristic" of a mixed economy, they are an essential part of defining a mixed economy.
      • kuzotz, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1yea but corporate welfare isn't the by product of a mixed economy that is corporatism, and it only happens when the consumers allow their governments to,.. We are in a republic. We hold those we elect accountable hypothetically speaking. We don't do this in real life thus corporations get corporate welfare.

        there are different conditions, and other crap that has happened that led america into its current status. sorry to say it but corporatism happened because we allowed it to.
        We put our "trust" in them.


        also monopolies can continue to exist if they are hostile and efficient at keeping away competition.

        a purely free market without competition loses its purpose.

        I would use Karl Marx, but I can care less about him...

        Right now a mixed economy is efficient.
    • MaximusD, on 10/10/2007, -5/+2The "Free Market" cannot exist -- there are greedy, evil people who will manipulate any market or system for their own profit, injuring the public interest and even carry out atrocities to human rights. Government is good when it serves public interest and is accountable to the public. Our mechanisms for accountability have been corrupted and ineffective. We need to push for things like public financing for elections and better ethics enforcements against corruption, not the downsizing of valuable government programs like Ron Paul suggests. If you left it up to him, he would butcher services we all appreciate and take for granted.

      BTW, I used to work construction, and as much as we all bitch about inspectors and bureaucracy, you wouldn't want to live in a house built by contractors left to their own devices with only the "free market" regulating them. Trust me -- regulation is flawed, but there for a reason.
      • CurtHowland, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Then I would only buy a house made by a Certified Home Builders member in good standing. My home owner's insurance company would require it in order to cover the house, as well as various inspections.

        If the builder did a shoddy job, not only would he lose his Certified Home Builders membership, he would be personally liable for any damages his negligence caused.

        Just what do you think a "free market" is anyway? Chaos? No, it is the opposite.

        As any warzone shows, it takes a government to create chaos.
    • colberrep, on 10/10/2007, -6/+2the free market is a fallacy. you are a naive libertarian fan boy. get a grip.
  • shakingfist, on 10/10/2007, -24/+6Ayn Rand is rolling in her grave.
    • jthomp3120, on 10/10/2007, -7/+2but isn't this just intellectual determinism?
      • stevenb337, on 10/10/2007, -3/+8No, this is corn farmers forcing us to subsidize their livelihoods. Ayn Rand would have been completely against the restriction of trade. to quote from Reardon's tribunal from Atlas shrugged:

        "But you have admitted that you have broken our regulations controlling the sale of your metal."
        "I do not recognize your right to control the sale of my metal."

        When you put artificial controls like ceilings or floors on markets, the ability of the market to find the proper equilibrium is taken away. And if you look at it on a larger scale, this affects more than just what sweetens your soda. Government subsidies for corn produced ethanol are now affecting the cost of corn-based sweeteners, so the junk food we eat is getting more expensive. It also atrifically affects the cost of Maize, the biggest staple food in Mexico (and other countries I'm sure). Now that the costs are going up across the board, the corn companies will tell you that it is just market forces determining the price. That would be true if the market hadn't been rigged in the first place.

        The sugar controls also prevent us from importing sugar to convert to ethanol, a much cheaper prospect. Brazil is much more energy independent than us due to this fact. Even if it does not allow American energy independence, per se, it at least diversifies our energy portfolio, and we would not be held hostage by OPEC countries and a Russia that is suffering from megalomania thanks to its natural resource reserves.

        So if you deflate the souffle of artificial controls on the import of sugar, and the subsidies for corn-based ethanol (a double-whammy), corn would sink back down to the most efficient price that the market will bear, Mexicans can eat again, gas would be cheaper, and your soda would taste better.
        • tblasko, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Well said:

          "So if you deflate the souffle of artificial controls on the import of sugar, and the subsidies for corn-based ethanol (a double-whammy), corn would sink back down to the most efficient price that the market will bear, Mexicans can eat again, gas would be cheaper, and your soda would taste better."

          And a select handful of "Farmers" would lose profits. But hey, that's the nature of the market, I don't understand why they get a free break. I mean I understand being for America, but it should benefit the whole of America, not the few.


          • Timetheos, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1What you don't realize is it takes years for farmland to become commercially usuable/productive. If there isn't some protection of some local food sources, a single emargo could wreck hell on our lives.
        • mcduckov, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Reardon did not recognize or understand the need for government. I'm only about 1/'2 way through Atlas Shrugged but in some ways I already have concluded that the book does not say what so many people seem to think it does. Reardon is a great example. He is supposed to be this brilliant genius of industry who can save the world yet he is tortured by a supposed inability to understand his wife. He also willfully disregards his desire for Dagny.

          He would control an industry without any mercy or any thought to pollution because he hates himself. He hides that self-hate behind a facade of the "industrial titan" who can make a profit out of nothing but dirt and willpower. THIS is the archetype I'm supposed to have faith in or to hold up a role-model? WTF? The characters are heavy-handed caricatures of real people that Rand used to set up some kind of strawman conflict that exists only in her imagination and the moronic objectivists who take her writing as anything more than satire.
    • archistudent, on 10/10/2007, -5/+4Ayn Rand wrote the same article back in the 1950's. Hers was called Atlas Shrugged.
  • bartscott57, on 10/10/2007, -2/+83We need to repeal the sugar tariffs. What reason is there for us to provide welfare to corn growers at the expense of the public (and the "common good")?
    • CurtHowland, on 10/10/2007, -2/+26> What reason is there...

      Campaign contributions.
      • pintomp3, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1that's always the reason, that's why corporate interests always trump the interests of the people.
        • CurtHowland, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Only when that power is available for purchase.
    • Dhalgren, on 10/10/2007, -11/+9I agree. Will this Ron Paul these people speak of do such a thing?
      • Castronaut, on 10/10/2007, -5/+4Yes. He will also bring about utopia, give everyone the ability to fly, and discover a cure for viruses according to his army on this website. This would all happen, except he won't be elected, he won't even be the Republican nominee.
      • blaaguuu, on 10/10/2007, -2/+7While it is fine if you don't like Ron Paul, to say he is the wrong candidate because "he won't be elected" is circular logic... If people don't support him because he wont get elected, then of course he wont get elected. But if he has enough support, then he may have a fighting chance.
      • kuzotz, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1I have some problems against Ron Paul also.

        I'm sorry but he's a snake, and I hate snakes.

        His fanboys both on digg.com, and in real life act like ***** fanatics. It's like I entered the middle ages again, and people are cheering on some knight that just slain a dragon..
    • vulapine, on 10/10/2007, -0/+17Don't forget the benefit to domestic sugar growers. A guarantee that you can undersell your foreign competitors is a sweet deal.
      • Xanin, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3Dugg for the good comment and the tasty pun
    • Ysaric, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7Sure, the corn industry will be happy to allow the repeal of sugar tariffs . . . once they have legislation guaranteeing massive government-subsidized ethanol production.
    • jeffeb3, on 10/10/2007, -4/+3The tariff raises prices on imported sugar. One big reasons is to help American sugar farmers. Another is to avoid dependence on foreign agriculture. It seems to me like if we are going to talk about cost to consumers to help farmers out, then you need to take a closer look at the farm bill. The farm bill is a much better example of gov't helping big business. The sugar tariff is no big deal.
      • BlackJackJester, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Might have something to do with the fact Sugar is hard to grow in our climate, and corn grows like mad.

        But we must remember, sometimes corn just needs to lay down.
        • kuzotz, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1corn ***** up the soil.
        • Chicken2nite, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1so does sugar. mono cultures in general are a bad idea
    • elhaf, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2The reason to provide welfare to corn growers is that they choose our presidents. Duh.
    • TubaTechno, on 10/10/2007, -5/+3What people don't have is a long term perspective in history about government tarriffs and US companies.

      How did Harley Davidson come to be one of the best US products and a widely known brand? Simple, first they were widely used during the world wars. It wasn't until after the wars that Japanese made bikes began to dominate the market. The US government then put a tarriff on all Japanese bikes until Davidson could get their act together. Then finally Harley Davidson petitioned congress to release the tarriffs and bring on the competition, they've been a winner ever since.

      SOME government regulation can be good.
    • Dumbledorito, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4You're leaving out another aspect of sugar: The rampant and irrational desire to "show them thar commies" by not allowing trade with Castro's Cuba on the one hand, yet having no trouble paying the communist Chinese to poison us with lead.

      I'm sure it'll make sense to me eventually after I drink more HFC laden Coke...
      • CptBuck, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1its not just that he's commie its that he came pretty damn close to nuking all of us. Politics aside tho.

        Once trade resumes with Cuba, for one reason or another, sugar can be expected to regain a major role in both the biodiesel and food industries.
    • Chicken2nite, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1What about those crazy corn subsidies? it forces farmers to grow the subsidy instead of what the market demands. Plus, it's pissing off your biggest trade partner and will cause you to inevitably lose yet another battle with the WTO. By which I am referring to Canadian farmers complaining about the US dumping cheap corn in our markets, much like you complain the Canadian Wheat Board does to you.
  • drxavier, on 10/10/2007, -3/+50Now we know why ADM, a company that doesn't market anything directly to consumers, buys all that "image" advertising on the Sunday morning chat shows. ADM's "market" is the decision-makers who appear on these shows and make policy. Plus, it doesn't hurt to pay off the media.
    • davidjcrouch, on 10/10/2007, -2/+10Excellent observation.
    • GabrielS, on 10/10/2007, -1/+8D. Wayne Andreas introduced Ronald Reagan to Mikhail Gorbechav. This was prior to Gorbechav ascending to Premier of the Soviet Union.

      Former MI6 agent Jack Philby created the union of tribes in the Arabian desert that later became known as the House of Saud.

      There are countless examples of captains of industry and rogue former spooks that have altered the course of history to their own benefit.
      • fuzzmeister, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Captains of industry, sure. But "rogue former spooks"? Do you have any other examples besides that one?
  • CurtHowland, on 10/10/2007, -3/+47I just got back from a run to the grocery store. I wish I'd read this article before going. Oh well, Jones will have to wait for my purchase until tomorrow or the day after.

    http://www.jonessoda.com/

    • billtvshow, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8Juts don't get the holiday pack. Unless you have a strong stomach, you'll find yourself doubled over the ceramic. Anyone who's tried it knows what I'm talking about.
      • herro, on 10/10/2007, -0/+13i was GIVEN a pack of that crap and i didn't drink it.

        'mashed potatoes and butter', 'jolly fruitcake', 'turkey and gravy', 'green bean casserole', and 'cranberry sauce'?

        is there really a market for this? besides families trying to emulate fear factor at the dinner table, i mean.

        i must say though, i am a big fan of apple and the root beer. the mints are rather enjoyable, too.
        • Liair2, on 10/10/2007, -1/+8It's become a long running joke product with the company. It also happens to sell pretty well.
        • andycr512, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1My family bought one for Thanksgiving about 2 years ago. "This should be INTERESTING," we said.

          It still sits in the garage, untasted...
      • MiDri, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7I would say from the sell of vomit harry potter jelly beans, that YES there is a market for green bean casserole soda...
      • KyleGoetz, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Mmm, isn't that turkey and gravy soda TASTY?
    • JonnyTrombone, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2'Mother ***** Grape' (or M.F. Grape) is probably the best thing ever.
    • KyleGoetz, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Jones is ***** amazing. The best drink on the planet is Strawberry Manilow.
    • trentasaurus, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2I wish they made a regular cola. I don't like fruity sodas.
    • Eallan, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Jones Cream Soda is incredible.
    • sldSquirrel, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2As much as I love Jones Soda as a company, I can't stand their actual product. I've only tried their Cream Soda and Root Beer, but both were way too sweet and left a weird aftertaste.


      Unfortunately, after spending a few weeks drinking mexican coke products, I can't drink any HFCS sodas anymore, either.


      I heard they're developing a Cola for the Seahawks Stadium - I would be ecstatic if it was actually good.
    • courtarro, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I agree with sldSquirrel - while I salute Jones for presenting us with sugar-based options, I find the actual product way too sweet. I personally prefer Boylan's sodas, which are also cane-sugar based and not nearly as over sweetened.
  • JeffDaiell, on 10/10/2007, -14/+12 We need to elect pro-free market folks to Congress. Neither tax-subsidized party will provide many such nominees, so advocates of a free market will have to look to the Libertarian Party. -- Jeff Daiell
    • zombies187, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2Do that! All you free marketeers need to get your own party. Or move to Sudan. Theres a free market for you.
      • CurtHowland, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1It's called the Libertarian party.
        Oh, and the country without a strong central government right now is Somalia, not Sudan. Sudan still has governments killing their own people and preventing all that wonderful aid from reaching villages of people the government doesn't like so they'll starve.
    • j0keR, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2That would be great if there weren't so many regulations preventing most states that have a significant number of people from ever electing a third party candidate. The Free State Project is the only path to liberty.
      • fuzzmeister, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1"The Free State Project is the only path to liberty."

        Well, that's an open minded approach.
    • cosmicv, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2You do understand the irony of asking for a group effort towards individualism don't you?
  • docidu, on 10/10/2007, -20/+14ummm...so what your saying...is if we elect Ron Paul we can get sugar back in our coca-cola??? hrmm...mabey even bring back the coca in coca cola....whoot!
    • JackalLord, on 10/10/2007, -4/+10*hits the stopwatch* 17 hours before a Ron Paul post got added to this digg... Come on, I expected better of you Ron Paul supporters!
      • satanatnmtedu, on 10/10/2007, -7/+1This comment was anything but a support comment. This article is *****. Soda tastes just fine. I don't get a Jones soda because it is especially delicious - it is a soda that tastes slightly different with a wider range of flavor selections. The flavor selection drives me more than the overall taste. This article is lame.
        • seandaly, on 10/10/2007, -0/+9Speak for yourself... Have you ever done a side-by-side test of Coca Cola, one having sugar and the other HFCS? It's a WORLD of difference!!! I've done this with a passover bottle of Coke and a plain old 16 ounce from 7-11.

          Let us not forget how Coke pulled the wool over our eyes while shifting to HFCS by introducing "New Coke". Coke prior to "New Coke" was sugar sweetened, "New Coke" was sweetened with HFCS. The completely stopped making / selling the original formula when the released "New Coke". When the brought Coke Classic back, it was no longer sugar, it was HFCS sweetened. Scammed!
          • jasonj75, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2I just bought a bottle of Mexican Coke to do my own little taste test....It's chilling right now, waiting for a round of hot wings to wash down.

            Apparently Costco may be an ally in the fight...

            http://yumsugar.com/239889?sidcheck=1&idcheck=1
          • TubaTechno, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I believe they had the "new coke" for 88 hours before they switched back to "classic coke". They made billions...
    • vulapine, on 10/10/2007, -5/+3There's already coca extract in coca cola. The Coca Cola company can legally import coca.
      • BunnyStrider, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I think some people here are talking about 'cocoa' and some people are talking about 'coke' (cocain)...I personally would like the coke put back in coke...now that would be refreshing.
      • andycr512, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1There's so little cocaine in coca extract that it's legal to import it, says Wikipedia.
  • vault, on 10/10/2007, -14/+8As interesting as this article was, it ironically felt like an ad for Jones Soda.
    • Murdats, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3cant it be both?
    • GabrielS, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5Max Raskin is a high school student in New Jersey. I imagine he hasn't been through an ethics course as of yet.
      • kuzotz, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2"In the absence of sugar quotas, Jones wouldn't have to suffer financially for their decision to give people what they want. They would be allowed to give us more flavors, like Bohemian Raspberry flavored with delicious cane sugar. But instead we are confined to brown, industrial strength soda, capable of loosening rusted nails and removing corrosion from car battery terminals. Ultimately, this is always the choice society must make."

        Yea, he needs to take an ethics course. I've never took one, but I've read, and written enough articles to know that you don't advertise things in your article unless they are sponsoring your ass.

        Yea I said it. I only mention brand names of things in articles if they ***** pay me to say it.
        • GabrielS, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2I would have written the same article when I was in high school. I can't beat the kid up over it. Most of the article is very good, but it does come off like an advertisement for my very beverage.
  • MillionsLivio, on 10/10/2007, -12/+4I'll stick with my Faygo.
  • airiox, on 10/10/2007, -4/+17Sweet, I will have to go and buy the new jones soda and see how it tastes in my adventures today.

    Also the underlying point of the article was that corn syrup makes you fat. Nothing could be more direct to the truth than that. There is a reason why the expression "corn fed" exists. Corn is a great product but in excess it will cause you to gain weight, and when it is refined into this syrup form, instead of the benificial muscle gains, you will just add fat.
    • vulapine, on 10/10/2007, -0/+9Um. I guess I missed the "underlying point". The article seemed to be about Sugar tasting better, but the American public is denied tasty sugar because of the corn lobby.

      I thought that the only mention of HFCS making you 'fat' was when the article states: "Though there has been a controversy over a link between high fructose corn syrup and obesity, van Stolk is a CEO who has little interest in babysitting his clients."

      The only other mention of weight I noticed was "metric tons" and the word fat is nowhere on the page.

      Maybe I read a different article.

      Oh, and corn syrup and high fructos corn syrup are vastly different from one another.
      • kuzotz, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1in Turkey coca cola just uses corn syrup, and there is still a huge difference in taste from the american pop...
    • MrUnderbridge, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2"Also the underlying point of the article was that corn syrup makes you fat. Nothing could be more direct to the truth than that. There is a reason why the expression "corn fed" exists. Corn is a great product but in excess it will cause you to gain weight, and when it is refined into this syrup form, instead of the benificial muscle gains, you will just add fat."

      And if they weren't replacing it with sucrose, which if anything is even simpler and more quickly dissolved, it would make a difference. As it is, I think the sugar makes a better taste argument than a health one. Drinking a bunch of cola isn't a good idea regardless of the sweetener.
  • sportbikepilot, on 10/10/2007, -1/+16Strawberry Lime FTW!
  • Punch405, on 10/10/2007, -2/+40Jones, the only soda that has "Pea" flavor.

    /comes with the Thanksgiving pack
    //no, really
    • bajesus, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Mellow Yellow has been known to taste a little like "Pee".
    • p0s3r, on 10/10/2007, -15/+4/this isn't Fark
      //you're a fag for putting slashes in your comment as if it were Fark
      • KirbyMeister, on 10/10/2007, -0/+11>>p0s3r
        this isn't 4chan
        you're a fag for calling people fags on digg
      • elhaf, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4This isn't Digg. You don't have to put >>'s to indicate who you are replying to.
    • krets, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5I'm more worried about the "Turkey and Gravy" flavor in that pack.

      Geesh.
    • kuzotz, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2yea I just stick with their Root Beer, and Cream Soda.
  • ian87, on 10/10/2007, -0/+58This isn't about whether or not to buy Jones soda. Buy it, it's good.

    While you're in the store take a look at every American snack product you enjoy daily. Nearly every cookie and candy
    bar, soda and potato chip, and so on and so on has high fructose corn syrup. It's wild how prevalent it is.

    Check out Newman's snack products, they don't use corn syrup, are tasty, and Newman gives $ to charity.
    • melonhedd, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Damn, even my Karo has corn syrup!
      • CaptainRotundo, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1The sad part about that is that karo is made with watered down high fructose corn syrup! Its cheaper to unsweeten the high fructose corn syrup to acceptable levels that to use plain corn syrup.
    • vulapine, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1That's because American corporations believe that people are concerned most about price.
      Certainly this is not the case or people wouldn't pay $4 for a cup of coffee.

      Also, in your last line, there is a huge difference between corn syrup and high fructose corn syrup.
    • unknownsoldierX, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Newman's Own pasta sauce is awesome. The ingredients list is short and simple and it tastes great. It's usually about the same price as other brands, if not cheaper. Where I shop, it is on sale more often than the other stuff so it turns out to be pretty economical.
    • rubikscubefreak, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1*nod* Now imagine being allergic to corn--and having to find stuff without the high fructose corn syrup.
  • sweetrelease, on 10/10/2007, -3/+24Hey there's Political commentary in my fun soda article
  • mookiemookie, on 10/10/2007, -1/+30Read "The Omnivore's Dilemma" by Michael Pollan and you'll see just how pervasive corn and corn based products are in our society today, and just how scummy ADM and Cargill really are. You can thank the Nixon administration for that.

    Oh yeah, and Jones soda is friggin GREAT.
    • bremstrong, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1"You can thank the Nixon administration for that."

      They are a product of the current (money driven) political system, why look that far back?
    • GabrielS, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Bullocks. You make it seem like President Carter took a personal interest in the American peanut market just because he was a peanut farmer himself.
  • skiCO, on 10/10/2007, -0/+53Did anyone else notice that the author is in High School?
    • Dhalgren, on 10/10/2007, -16/+3No, but your mom goes to college.
      • dbz253, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1wait, people are still making napoleon dynamite references?
    • whitezombie420, on 10/10/2007, -12/+3so his age makes his research invalid?
      • KirbyMeister, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Yes. There are no kids on the interwebs.
    • MrUnderbridge, on 10/10/2007, -1/+32Wow. With that sort of reasoned analysis and lucid writing, he certainly has no future as a journalist. ;)
    • bremstrong, on 10/10/2007, -0/+17Impressive since it isn't immediately obvious is the implication.
    • capnawesome, on 10/10/2007, -6/+0Yes, in fact while reading the whole article I was reminded heavily of my high school economics class; the analysis really doesn't go beyond that.
    • drxavier, on 10/10/2007, -0/+9Yes, and he writes like someone who is much older.
    • faskippy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Good article. Great insight. So, your point is?
  • Linh, on 10/10/2007, -0/+9jones soda rocks. our local grocer though seems to have limited the selection to just the cream soda :(
    • Yazilliclick, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Agreed, get about 4-5 flavours at my grocery store. When I was still drinking pop it was what I always got, good stuff.
    • ElumEnopee, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0Don't blame your grocer. As good as Jones Soda is, their distribution system sucks. I sell it (or at least try to sell it my store when I can get it). They tend to put too much pressure on a distributor to the point where the distributor says "screw you" and ends up getting Jones taken away from them. I carry just about every flavor they make but now my cooler is empty because we lost our distributor.
  • pegleg1971, on 10/10/2007, -2/+29The article is exceptionally well written, especially for a high schooler. Fantastic!
    • GabrielS, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Except for the error attributing the creation of HFCS to the Japanese. The Japanese researchers 'modernized' the process. By this, I mean they took the original concept from laboratory experiment to the production floor.
  • AJH16, on 10/10/2007, -5/+4While I can see it being a corporate interest and I have issue with the government directly funding an industry that is not profitable, I don't see what the problem is with imposing tariffs or quotas on foreign imports. It is helpful to ensure that we do not have more money going out of the country than comming in (which is not a sustainable economic position.) Ultimatly the more we produce in house, the stronger the economy and the better for everyone. This of course all changes when you have the government actively putting millions or billions in to an otherwise unprofitable industry, but this isn't a case of that.
    • eatbeefjerky, on 10/10/2007, -2/+6Tariffs can be a good thing - to a point. Unfortunately, this case is one that is purely based on corporate interests and defeats the very ideals upon which capitalism is based.
      • CurtHowland, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Adam Smith and every honest economist since has pointed out how tariffs are destructive, and impoverish people on both sides of the tariff line.
    • Liair2, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Or when that same government is putting trillions into a war....
    • MrUnderbridge, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4All that would be great except that the country that you tarriff immediately responds in kind, and you get an escalating war of idiotic protectionist economics that never works. All that happens is that you end up propping up uncompetitive industries in both countries, and both end up the worse for it compared to the rest of the world.
    • JamesTorrence, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Just so happens that sugar cane is grown in sub tropical and tropical climates. Imposing such a heavy tariff to keep sugar imports down is just lazy. That type of imbalance needs to spur new efforts by companies and governments to keep the market competitive. These decisions do not have our best interests at heart. They ruin companies by making them fat idle and lazy, they ruin the market, and they put government in an akward position similar to maintaining a lie.
  • fitzy, on 10/10/2007, -9/+1And I applied for a job there, I'm glad I didn't get it...
  • FREETHINKER2008, on 10/10/2007, -0/+33I try to stay away from anything with high fructose corn syrup listed as one of the first two ingredients.
    • urby86, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3I'm with you on that. I don't usually find it too difficult to find alternatives, even at Wal-Mart. You may pay a bit more, but your body will thank you.
    • GabrielS, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1This is a pretty good rule to follow.

      Try this experiment. The author mentions how HFCS affects mainly the lowest income earners. Go to your standard grocer and examine the products you would normally buy. Note the presence of HFCS. Then go to the nearest discount grocer. Look for the same selection of products. Note the presence of HFCS in the discount chain's products.
  • animus, on 10/10/2007, -17/+0blah blah blah boring story now GTFO
  • Patent, on 10/10/2007, -6/+7Good thing Wholesome Jones soda still uses ***** sodium benzoate preservatives to "protect the taste."
    I used to drink Soda all day growing up and I'm sure it did some damage.
    Try a carbonated, additive free fruit juice beverage like izze or Switch.
    • MadKennyP, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Izze is a tasty treat and not too sweet. Also, what's that cola they sell at Potbelly that contains green tea? They can keep the tea, but it's sweetened with sugar.
      • Rocketbird, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Izze >> Jones

        Jones just tastes..bland to me. Izze 4 Prez 2008
    • jeehalte, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Gah sweetened green tea is just gross.
  • wakesabre, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6I've got a jones for a Jones...wish they sold it here in Australia...
    • kettlechips, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1Mix food colouring into 7-up and you have it.
  • smaki, on 10/10/2007, -1/+9I've been reading articles written by Raskin from f.ex. lewrockwell.com and I only recently noticed that he is indeed a high school student. Which is mind-boggling, because of the generally very high standard of writing and knowledge he portrays.
  • sgglynn, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8Had my first jones about 6 years ago, when the only local place to find it was a Sheetz gas station. Since then, i've always grabbed a Jones when the choice was there, and will continue to do so.
  • senatorpjt, on 10/10/2007, -7/+9Although they claim this is a failure of subsidies, it's also an example of the failure of the free market. They say that the soda companies use corn syrup instead of sugar because it's cheaper due to subsidies. What if it were actually cheaper to produce corn syrup? In a free market, we'd still end up with the inferior product. They're not claiming that the soda producers are using the inferior sweetener because of government regulation - they're using it because of cost. If you look past the reason of the price differential between sugar and corn syrup, you'll see that in the (usual) case of inferior products being cheaper than superior ones, that we'll just end up with the inferior products as the only ones available. It is certainly working for China.
    • SpencerMc, on 10/10/2007, -4/+4A libertarian would say that the customer demand would offset the price difference. I'm not one, though, and I realize that the general public will sacrifice quality for price every time, until the more expensive, quality product is simply not profitable any more. And thats not even getting into what havoc conglomerates and corporations would cause if unchecked by anti-trust and price fixing laws.
      • p0s3r, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2Which is why we only see Kia's on the roads. And, literally, the only store in every town is Wal-Mart. Because people sacrifice quality for price every time.
        • zengonzo, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Perhaps instead of 'every time' he should have said 'in the largest part'.

          If a regulation doesn't work to the benefit of our civilization it should be revised or abolished.
      • jcarrion1976, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Do you sacrifice quality for price every time? I sure don't. Sure there are many uneducated buyers but you can't make that generalization. Every product niche has a high end and a low end with customers in both catagories.
      • j0keR, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2If that's the case then why the ***** does Target exist? Apparently in your little "market-failure" fantasy world they aren't making a profit.
        • SpencerMc, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I'm sure it's too late for anyone to actually read this, but I fail to see your point. Target is just as much a conglomerate as Wal-Mart. Whats more, in a totally free economy, there is nothing that would have stopped Wal-Mart from buying out Target years ago. And yes, it was hyperbole when I said the consumer would sacrifice quality for price every time. I think you all knew that. The fact is, all logic points to this happening in a complete free market economy : Small business does slightly better than its competitors. Becomes slightly bigger business via buyouts and/or taking a hit to profits by lowering prices enough to put competitors out of business. Repeat until market reaches singularity.
    • jeffeb3, on 10/10/2007, -8/+4People buying jones soda because it has sugar instead of corn syrup means that the market is working just fine. This article is Crap.
      • KirbyMeister, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5The article isn't crap. The parent post is, however. Price does not always win out over quality.
    • MrUnderbridge, on 10/10/2007, -3/+4"They're not claiming that the soda producers are using the inferior sweetener because of government regulation - they're using it because of cost"
      But the cost is only lower *because* of governmental regulation, so it ends up being the same thing.
      • zengonzo, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Right, but then, 'What if it were actually cheaper to produce corn syrup? In a free market, we'd still end up with the inferior product.'

        Keep reading, you're almost through the whole paragraph ..
      • jcarrion1976, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3In this case the inferior product cannot be produced lower than the cost to import real sugar. Hence the tarifs. There a lots of products from outside the US that if we had a free market would quickly become standard putting farmings and business under pressure. The govenment taxes us by forcing us to pay at higher prices for inferior products.

        Very much not free market.
    • kn3x, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3It's not just about cost - even if corn syrup was cheaper than sugar, corn syrup still tastes like *****. And no, people don't sacrifice quality for price all the time. FAIL for thinking we all live the Wal-Mart mentality.
    • Ysaric, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3If cost were the sole and only consideration in the purchase price, Coke and Pepsi would be out of business. They are *not* the cheapest soda you can buy--go to the grocery store and check, this comment will still be here when you get back. Ok? Instead, they have a mix of brand loyalty, price, and taste, the combination of which has turned them into cola juggernauts. If tariffs were repealed there would still certainly be high fructose corn syrup colas on the market, but the market would not be so heavily skewed in their favor. You would see more companies like Jones going back partially or fully to sugar, and possibly the major brands introducing sugar-based products. If Jones could switch with a mere 5 percent increase in price, I imagine a business like Coke or Pepsi could do it with no increase in price, or a negligible increase in price.
    • bremstrong, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2This comment by senatorpjt is an arguement for an improved public education system.

      More emphasis should be placed on reasoning.
      • j0keR, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2You mean we should abolish government education and allow people to purchase the education that is right for them on the free market. It would even make special education cheaper and more effective for people like our little friend up there. =)
    • illegalcortex, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2senatorpjt: Just wanted to give you a nod to let you know that at least SOME people understand what you're saying. I find bremstrong's comment incredibly ironic, given that it is basic logic and reasoning that you are providing.
      • Ysaric, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1senatorpjt's comment makes no sense. He seems to be saying that the use of high fructose corn syrup is a failure of the market, when the article itself presents a very factually accurate recounting of how government intervention has artificially propped up the high fructose corn syrup market and made it more expensive for food manufacturers to use sugar. If he's saying that even without government intervention making the price for sugar artificially high all the market leaders would still be using high fructose corn syrup (and therefore that is a market failure), (a) I'd like to see some evidence for that assertion, because that seems especially pulled out of his ass, (b) even if you took that argument completely at face value with all of his implications, it still isn't any worse of a situation than we have with government intrusion into the market, and (c) if that is some kind of half-assed argument that government imposed tariffs are a good thing, it's a complete failure.
        • senatorpjt, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I'm not making that assertion at all. It should be common sense that -in general- inferior products are cheaper than superior ones. The sweetener market is actually an aberration in this sense - the inferior product is more expensive (without subsidies). My problem isn't that the market leaders are using HFCS, it's that the ENTIRE market was using HFCS until Jones switched to cane sugar in January.
        • aynrand22, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Don't ignore supply and demand, it's not that sugar is only more expensive, it's that if coke and pepsi and everyone started using sugar, it would become VERY expensive because of the very limited supply due to this government intervention. It's unsustainable due to government intervention.
      • j0keR, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Socialism and concepts like "market failure" have no basis in reality. Find me an article and I will debunk it point-by-point.
        • senatorpjt, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Neither does the infallibility of the free market. I generally support free market concepts, but I'm under no illusion that it can never fail in specific circumstances.
    • drxavier, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1He also mentions that the govt limits sugar imports. Imagine what would happen to the price of sugar if Pepsi and Coke switched entirely away from HFCS. There wouldn't be enough domestic sugar to go around.
    • Smoove, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1"What if it were actually cheaper to produce corn syrup? In a free market, we'd still end up with the inferior product."

      Um, no. We would if the consumers thought it was "good enough" and chose to buy it. If they preferred the sugar product, they'd buy that. If the higher sugar prices resulted in unmet demand, there would be competition in the soda industry to make cheaper sugar sodas--perhaps by using some sugar and some of another sweetener; perhaps by cutting costs in other areas; perhaps by finding cheaper sources of sugar; etc. It would ALSO promote competition in the SUGAR industry: high demand means high profits, which are an incentive for others to enter the competition. This will tend to drive the price of sugar down, through a combination of simple increased production, and efforts to find cheaper ways to produce the sugar.

      None of those forces can operate now, because sugar imports are themselves restricted. We could grow more sugar in the US, of course, but only at the expense of producing less of other goods--and thus the higher price for sugar.
    • JamesTorrence, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Seems like our relationship with American corn growers is the same as our relationship with china. We've bent over backwards to make their particular products the cheapest and most available products on the market and hurt healthy competition and consumers in the process. I can't believe you guys think there's something to argue about here.

      Go to any poor country in the world. You'll see their options are limited by the very same types of tariffs. There they do it out of necessity. They just simply can't export enough goods/services etc. to offset the amount of money being sent out. But here we're doing it out misunderstanding and laziness. Protecting farmers, industries, and consumers from having to adapt is the worst type of situation you can put them in.
    • escoz, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1The problem is not the price or the taxes on HFCS. The problem is the limitation on importing of regular sugar (read the entire article, if you haven't seen that).
      As a big producer of sugar, and other things controlled by the US government, like orange juice, Brazil has been unable to export to the US for a long time.
  • JirkJiggler, on 10/10/2007, -5/+1An excellent placement for Jones Soda. Note that by placement I don't mean "conspiracy" but simple, legal PR. Decent product but I've only tried one flavour.

    (and yes I recognize that it could have just been a rabid Jones Soda fan since their consumers are the Mac users of the soda world, but much of the profiling of the company reads too consistently with other press I've seen on them)
    • jeffeb3, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1It wouldn't surprise me at all if they had a hand in creating this article, or at least giving some sort of kick back. 1) they point out how awesome Jones cola is. 2) They mentioned that despite all the new features, it's only 5 percent more expensive. 3) they brought up the fact that some soda fans think american soda is poor because of aluminum cans (Jones only uses bottles). 4) The whole article is against sugar tariffs, which I'm sure Jones would love to have lifted.

      For the record, Jones is not a small company, maybe compared to walmart, or cocacola, but those things are everywhere, and they have a ton of products.
    • zombies187, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3An ad that produces a debate on international trade law and domestic political philosophy is acceptable.
  • cbartlett, on 10/10/2007, -7/+10This is why I'm voting for Ron Paul.
    • KirbyMeister, on 10/10/2007, -4/+2Ron Paul will fix all the problems of the world. Is Ron Paul the next Chuck Norris?
    • Bartboy919, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1That is why I am also digging you down. Funny huh?
  • DangerCollie, on 10/10/2007, -0/+31It's more than just ADM. The US sugar industry has an aggressive and well-funded lobby. Always on the offensive, never playing defense is their motto. Several states have significant sugar industry involvement and every interest in protecting that market. The sugar industry and ADM just happen to have similar interests.

    The concept of free markets is pretty much a joke these days. If John Q. needs health insurance or assistance getting food it's labeled welfare. If the big three investment firms need low interest loans to cover their losses in the subprime mortgage follies, that's a "reasoned and sensible response" from the fed. It just depends who's asking for the handout. New Orleans languishes, the airlines get a bailout after 9-11. The airlines didn't have the liquidity to stay in business after a disaster interrupted air travel. Their lack of a rainy day fund became the taxpayers problem to solve. Millions of people who took the promise of a pension in exchange for lower pay watched those promises shrink when companies default on their pension obligations and dump them on the federal government.

    What just boggles my mind is the religious right aligning their interests with those of big business and the rich to perpetuate the fraud we think of as open markets.

    Got apostasy you two-faced hypocrites?
    • GabrielS, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2What is your source to support the notion that "the religious right" has aligned their interests with big business and the rich? Do you presume that Americans with strong religious values somehow doubt the role the free market plays in providing benefits for us all?

      Do you have any idea what Americans with strong religious beliefs actually believe in terms of fiscal policy and trade?
      • JamesTorrence, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0The more important point to make about the religious right is that they are used like a tool by big business and government. They are the most easily duped body of voters in the country. Quick to judgment, to bias, and therefore a liability to us all. Rather than defend them Gabriel, you'd do better to crawl out of your philosophical hole and try and educate them. Then, after you've caught them up to speed, you can come back here and educate the rest of us, because we're fairing only marginally better.
    • zombies187, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1DangerCollie was referring to the Republican party. People with strong religious values are typically thought to have subjugated values like helping the meek and unfortunate in favor of outlawing gay sex and other lightning rod issues. If one had to judge Christianity by Americans alone, it wouldn't be hard to come to the conclusion that Christians first have to judge whether a victim is worthy of help. Charity is a popularity contest here. Your not responsible for the homeless. But if you like one you can help him and congratulate yourself. The free market allows people to die. Religious righters vote for Republicans and their every man for himself philosophy. Sucks to be you! Join a new party or grow thicker skin.
  • ZenFountain, on 10/10/2007, -1/+13I love Jones soda, it's the only soda I drink actually. I am liberal as all hell but I LOVE small companies and entrepreneurship in America. It's what will save America and that is what annoys me so much about people thinking Ron Paul is the only answer to fix our corrupt system that stifles real competition and new business. Buy local produce at farmers markets, buy unique products made by these companies that cater to the consumer, do everything you can to support small American business! Why would you want to drink three awful cans of Pepsi when you can have one really good bottle of Jones soda? Quality > quantity, ***** the consume everything at the lowest price culture.
    • jcarrion1976, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3I whole heartily agree with you about small business. They are the engine to our economy. Nothing cooler than finding a unique small business.

      Large business and governments are threatened by small business. This is one reason they lobby so hard to put up protective barries to entry. If they didn't they would have to compete and given their bad track record at innovation and quality, would quickly find themselves losing business.

      Ron Paul obviously isn't the soul savior of this country. Like you said we must must have an active role in that. But what Ron Paul does bring is the leadership to help communicate that vision and be the spokesman for us. That is what true leadership is about. Communicate the vision and then work to get government out of the way for free people to enact the changes that this country badly needs. All the great leaders do that. They inspire those under them to do their best and provide the tools to make it happen.
  • shiftless, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7HFCS sodas have been eliminated from my home. I've been lucky enough to get a zillion Pure Cane sugar soda flavors for years. Look local, and you might find something nice.
    http://www.nhsoda.com/20478_2387.asp
  • Andyschism, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5For all the people who like Jones Soda or want to check out something else, Virgil's has the best root beer and cream soda I have ever had. http://www.virgils.com/index.html
    • aywwts4, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Virgil's isnt very good, there is a lot better on the market. Bulldog, Hanks, Goose Island, Point, Boylans, Etc.
  • whitezombie420, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6i don't care about the politics here, i just want real soda cheap. here (texas) we can get mexican coke which is made with sugar instead of corn syrup and it tastes hella better than regular. but a 12 ounce bottle costs 1.40 at the store. i buy the ***** anyway when i can, i'm more satisfied from that than a 20 ounce of regular coke. really though i'd prefer to be able to buy at the regular price.

    actually mexican coke tastes so much better than domestic coke that i think they could change the product and make more money because the soda would sell better than their "original formula".
    • sdnakhla, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Absolutely!!! My wife was nice enough to buy me an entire case of the large, glass bottles of Mexican Coke for Father's Day. I couldn't believe the difference in taste! Aside from the fact that the glass bottles taste FAR better than plastic or cans, the cane sugar made such a huge difference in the taste. It's a shame the case cost nearly $50 after shipping.

      Oddly enough, though, I found it kept me up at night far more than domestic Coke does. I don't know if it was the cane sugar or a difference in the amount of caffeine, but every time I drank a bottle of it I had a hard time sleeping.
      • jserio, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Many Costcos sell Mexican Coke now. It was $17.99 for 24 12oz bottles. So about 75 cents each which ain't bad. I gave up regular soda years ago to lose weight so all I drink now is diet (year, I'm losing my mind - literally) so when I tried one of the Mexican Cokes I could not believe how sweet they were! I still bought a case for when I have company over though. Nothing but the finest for my guests.
  • MISDIREK7ED, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Good article about economics...
    Did anyone else think that 8$ is a little too pricey for a stupid coffee mug?
  • joe573, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7Dugg because A) Jones Soda is awesome(really, you should try it) and B) the Mises Institute is located in Auburn, AL.....War Eagle!
    • mattybb, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1jones cream soda kills babies
      (this is not true, though it does taste great!)
  • nrtikman, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1I'm against all forms of capital punishment..

    But in the case of ADM execs..I'll make an exception..(just as long as it is slow)
    • thugok, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Except the real issue here are the politicians who pass laws to benefit corporations like ADM.
    • kuzotz, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I agree ADM isn't at fault because corporations exist to make money at all cost.

      It's the politicians that allowed laws to be passed in order to limit the consumer's choice.
  • ryanwritescopy, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4Even cane sugar is bad for you. But I doubt you'll ever meet someone who was stung by Big Honey.
  • HomelessBrian, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3For economics class in high school. I sold Jones Soda durring all class breaks and lunches. I mad a good bit of money and as much soda as I could drink. Not to mention I aced the class.
    • thebenallen, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0You do know that there are forms of punctuation other than the period, don't you?
  • Petromyzon, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Goose Island brewery from Chicago makes a great grape soda using real sugar. Get it if you can find it, you won't be disappointed. Good beer too!
    • sanotaan, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0True, but the soda also has artificial flavor as the third ingredient, so that might be something to consider as well.

      (Ugh, I can't remember which is the one good beer Goose Island has. Piece on North Ave. is a better microbrewery, for what it's worth.)
      • quietstilldead, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1312 is delicious and fairly cheap, well at least in Chicago it is.
      • kuzotz, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Boulevard wheat brew is a good microbrewery out of Kansas City, Missouri
  • tecpatl, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Pop Soda in Vermont makes some really good stuff too. Their flavors are limited but super delicious.
    http://www.popsodavt.com/index2.htm
  • stroupnp, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4I had never been that impressed with Jones Soda when I had bought it in the past. I'll have to give them another try now that they use real sugar.

    The ADM thing is one great example of how big corporations and corrupt politicians are the ones that really run this country. Of course, it all is systemic to the subsidizing of farmers....
  • MalamuteTX, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2It's about time someone brought this issue to light!
  • TheArticulator, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2You couldn't have said it better davidjcrouch...An idea (capitalism) cannot be to blame for such economic power-raping. The blame lies with human greed. Unfortunately, this factor seems to be to blame for much much more than just corrupt national business policies.
  • integral222, on 10/10/2007, -4/+0Like most of you, NAFTA (along with other moves recently to abandon protection) is heartless.

    Efficiency (and the "appeasement" of consumer preferences) shouldn't be the end goal of a socio-economic system, stupid.
    • sanotaan, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Instead, it should be inefficiency and an epic demonstration of hubris while we try to establish an order that supersedes the natural one.
      • integral222, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0There is nothing natural in laissez-faire capitalism. Primitive societies (presumably closer to the "natural order") are... socialistic.

        The market society is a post-feudal construct built on violent expropriation.
    • thebenallen, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0B..b..b..but it will lock in the policies of the free market. It'll be great for the people of Mexico.
      • integral222, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Until multinational corporations rape them for profit...
  • Sogui, on 10/10/2007, -6/+1I don't care what that article says...

    Dr. Pepper ftw
    • vulapine, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1You can get Dublin Dr. Pepper made with real cane sugar, btw.
      • sportbikepilot, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1it's hard to find, but well worth it. I can occasionally get some here in Tyler Tx
        • HeyaBILL, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0It can be ordered online now. Ive been getting it for years.
      • Sogui, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0I live near Tyler, I get the real cane sugar stuff sometimes, people overstate the difference between the two.
  • megadan76, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Great article. Just goes to show how 'sheepish' we can be without even knowing it.
  • colelt1, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Jones Creme Soda taste JUST like cotton candy, and mixes great with vodka :)
    • analogking, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0Never thought of mixing that. I wonder what turkey and vodka would be like.
  • manicallday, on 10/10/2007, -1/+22I just found out that my wife was suffering from aspartame poisoning, which was ruining our lives. Although this is a chemical is known to cause numerous amount of symptoms, it was still approved by the FDA. The problem is that the FDA selects only those studies which give favorable reviews for aspartame, which all happen to be corporate funded. The FDA even admitted that the ***** has a possible of 92 side effects from normal consumption. But, they still allow corporations to use the crap in almost everything that they possibly can think of.

    So now after 10 years of trying to figure out what was wrong with my wife I was finally able to determine the culprit. The symptoms were just so numerous, that most doctors that she saw were just stumped. I honestly feel that we would have been better off without the FDA involvement because their decision made the other studies that disputed their findings seem unreliable. This is not how this should work.

    • GabrielS, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Fun Fact: Donald Rumsfeld was the chief strategist on Capitol Hill for the alternative sweetener industry.

      Hooray!
    • HappyScrappy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thalidomide

      No, we wouldn't be better off without the FDA. The US was one of the few countries to not approve Thalidomide, because of our regulations.
      • manicallday, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I was only addressing their influence over aspartame. Sorry for the confusion.
      • manicallday, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I was only addressing their influence over aspartame. Sorry for the confusion.
    • thebenallen, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0So, you obviously think the corporation would have taken aspartame if the FDA didn't exist?
  • jason469, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I also dislike how capitalism is blamed. Let's face the truth, capitalism is what keeps our economy going and the thought of finding a new way or invention of doing things and making profit from it(capitalism) is why so many people flood this country. What happens down the line is that those once "average joes" who had the idea to capitalize from their idea become greedy (most of the time) and end up getting an executive team that were already greedy and come from past businesses that have also made them greedy and selfish.

    The bottom line is this, if you have a business and you want it to grow you'll end up with a publicly traded company, that company has share holders who want to make profit from the stock, they don't care what you have to do to get them their money, but the bottom line is that they want a return profit and you have better give them what they want or they will take sell their share and leave you dry.

    My point is this, the greed of others does not make capitalism it's self bad, it makes the people who are trying to capitalize at any cost bad.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 100 of 120 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.