http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living?hl=en
misc.consumers.frugal-living@googlegroups.com
Today's topics:
* Purchase All Available US Autos - 22 messages, 8 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/8da7acb0e572db51?hl=en
* A Sign of the Times - 2 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/d8ebb8d9fdd5bbd9?hl=en
* How to: Live on $12,000 a Year - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/5093baecae696c12?hl=en
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Purchase All Available US Autos
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/8da7acb0e572db51?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 22 ==
Date: Sun, Dec 14 2008 6:17 pm
From: Dave Head
On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 20:55:02 -0500, Nate Nagel <njnagel@roosters.net> wrote:
>Dave Head wrote:
>> On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 10:56:43 -0500, Nate Nagel <njnagel@roosters.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Dave Head wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 07:59:56 -0500, Nate Nagel <njnagel@roosters.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Dave Head wrote:
>>>>>> On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 06:16:00 -0500, necromancer
>>>>>> <55_sux@worldofnecromancer_NO-SPAM_NO-WAY.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Sat, 13 Dec 2008 16:13:54 -0800 (PST), lorad <lorad474@cs.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Rather than sending your dollars to Tokyo or Seoul, try to help your
>>>>>>>> neighbors and yourself by buying a US made automobile. As is well
>>>>>>>> known.. keeping one dollar in your local economy, generates even more
>>>>>>>> dollars as that money recirculates creating compounded wealth.
>>>>>>> Kia is spending US$1.2 Billion of its own money (not DC bailout,
>>>>>>> "loans," that the big 3 are asking for) to bulid a major manufacturing
>>>>>>> facility in West Point, GA that is estimated to employ up to 6000 of
>>>>>>> my neighbors. This a few years after FORD bailed out of Georgia by
>>>>>>> closing its Atlanta assembly line.
>>>>>> Yeah, and the money made there is going right back to Korea. Talk about
>>>>>> myopia.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Fuck Detroit. Fuck Wall Street. And Fuck Bush.
>>>>>> Why don't you start hating your own foot? Advocating the destruction of
>>>>>> American manufacturing capability is pretty much shooting yourself in the foot.
>>>>>> The less manufacturing we have here, the less prosperity we have here. Wonder
>>>>>> why wages have stagnated since the 70's, and studies claim that our parents in
>>>>>> the 70's actually had a better standard of living than we do today? Well, its
>>>>>> because we have lost a lot of manufactuering. There's 3 ways to make wealth -
>>>>>> grow something (farming), dig something (mining), and build something
>>>>>> (manufacturing.) Any one of these three that we lose should be done only in
>>>>>> spite of everyone in the country doing everything we can do retain it, as if
>>>>>> our own personal financial well-being depends on it, because it does.
>>>>> The problem is that the Big Three feel entitled to that kind of
>>>>> attention and indeed have been riding on it since the early 70's, all
>>>>> the while producing new model after new model that is just as
>>>>> uninspiring,
>>>> I dunno, the Liberty that I just investigated I fould to be fairly exciting. I
>>>> was only looking for a price comaparison with something similar from Toyota,
>>>> and ended up wanting to buy it. It looks really sweet.
>>>>
>>>>> overpriced,
>>>> The Liberty was similarly priced to the Toyota equivalent.
>>>>
>>>>> and unreliable as the one it replaces.
>>>> My '98 Jeep Cherokee has been pretty reilable. I've taken it on lots of long
>>>> drives, and it hasn't let me down yet. I would expect a 2008 to do no worse.
>>>>
>>>>> Goodwill only goes so far and the Big Three have made little effort to
>>>>> produce appealing products.
>>>> Disagree. The Jeep Cherokee was, I think, the best answer to a snow-going SUV
>>>> that I could have bought at the time, and the Liberty looks like the answer
>>>> today. At 22 mpg, it beat the Toyota's 20 mpg as well. That's 10 percent
>>>> better than the Toyota.
>>>>
>>>>> nate
>>> I don't share your opinion of the Liberty, and the Cherokee is not a big
>>> three product (it's actually a leftover AMC design.) The Cherokee is
>>> one of the few "recent" (not really) American vehicles that I would buy
>>> without reservation.
>>>
>>> nate
>>
>> Up until last night when I went to their web page and actually investigated the
>> Liberty, I also didn't like it. I based my opinion on what I learned when they
>> 1st came out. One of the car magazines said, "It's getting us 13 miles per
>> gallon, but nobody seems to care." That's about the best word-for-word that I
>> remember for that review. I saw the Liberty as bigger, heavier, and with
>> poorer mileage. I looked at one on the lot and it had 3 rows of seats and NO
>> cargo area. It was essentially a small 4-wheel drive minivan. I seriously
>> didn't want it.
>>
>> The car I saw on the web last night is just the opposite. 2 rows of seats,
>> lots of cargo space, 22 mpg on the highway (my Cherokee gets about 18 tops) and
>> those 22 mpg are measured under a new measurement scheme that has seen the
>> ratings for a lot of cars drop severly. My Subaru WRX was 27 mpg under the old
>> measuring system. Coming back from vacation last winter, I was getting 26.9
>> coming across the Appalacians and a lot of that was done about 77 mph, not 55.
>> They've also redesigned the WRX so that there's no way to compare it now, so
>> I'm not. (This new gas mileage rating scheme, I think, will make the new CAFE
>> of 35 mpg to be met by, I think 2020, unattainable by any company but Harley
>> Davidson and maybe the various go-kart manufacturers. But that's another
>> thread.)
>>
>> Go look at the Liberty again:
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/6832bh
>>
>> But be careful. You may end up wanting one.
>>
>> PS - There is supposed to be a diesel version coming. If so... WOW. That will
>> be really exciting, and, I think, a winner. Not on the web page yet,
>> unfortunately.
>
>Meh, I'm not really in the market for that kind of vehicle. If a cheap
>Cherokee fell into my lap, I'd probably buy it and sell the Ugly Truck,
>but I need a truck so seldom that I wouldn't buy a new anything. I *do*
>question the wisdom of replacing a proven, dead-nuts-reliable straight
>six for a new-design V-6; I'm definitely an inline snob when it comes to
>sixes.
>
>nate
Hey, I hear ya' - I really liked that straight 6 myself. But if that V6 can
get 22 mpg on the highway, then it's worth _something_!
== 2 of 22 ==
Date: Sun, Dec 14 2008 6:22 pm
From: lorad
Alan Baker wrote:
> In article
> <4c6caec7-939e-4297-8cf5-0f84e0ea25b8@s1g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
> lorad <lorad474@cs.com> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 13, 3:57�pm, clams_casino <PeterGrif...@DrunkinClam.com> wrote:
> > > Brent wrote:
> > >
> > > >Track record? What is the track record? It's a series of people's
> > > >perceptions. Try to get someone who got a honda lemon to buy one again.
> > >
> > > Don't know of any. � I do, however, know many who will likely never
> > > again consider a GM product.
> >
> > And I know manay who just love their US made cars and would never buy
> > asian crap.
>
> That doesn't make them (or you) rational.
>
Of course it does.. they would rather buy less expensive american cars
to keep America wealthy, than pay more for over-priced foreign crap to
make America poor.
It's your jap motorized-egg-looking crap buyers who are completely
irrational.
Mindless traitors, even.
== 3 of 22 ==
Date: Sun, Dec 14 2008 6:25 pm
From: Brent
On 2008-12-15, Dave Head <rally2xs@att.net> wrote:
>>Meh, I'm not really in the market for that kind of vehicle. If a cheap
>>Cherokee fell into my lap, I'd probably buy it and sell the Ugly Truck,
>>but I need a truck so seldom that I wouldn't buy a new anything. I *do*
>>question the wisdom of replacing a proven, dead-nuts-reliable straight
>>six for a new-design V-6; I'm definitely an inline snob when it comes to
>>sixes.
> Hey, I hear ya' - I really liked that straight 6 myself. But if that V6 can
> get 22 mpg on the highway, then it's worth _something_!
There is no reason an I6 couldn't get 22mpg on the highway. Least the
'75 200cid 6 maverick I had could manage numbers like that.
== 4 of 22 ==
Date: Sun, Dec 14 2008 6:25 pm
From: never@millions.com
On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 17:56:35 -0800 (PST), lorad <lorad474@cs.com>
wrote:
>On Dec 14, 1:43 pm, ne...@millions.com wrote:
>> On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 15:59:51 -0500, "Dave" <no...@nohow.not> wrote:
>> >>>OK, tell me... of the 2009 or 2008 model years, which automobiles do you
>> >>>believe are obsolete by the time the buyers drive off the sales lot? I
>> >>>don't care who designed it or where it was built. Just name one model of
>> >>>automobile that is obsolete by the time it is purchased. (this should be
>> >>>good) -Dave
>>
>> >> All of the makes and modles. Can you name just one model that is
>> >> produced and priced exactly the same the following year?
>>
>> >So let me get this straight... it is your argument that when toyota changes
>> >the tail-light design of the Camry, the previous tail-light design meant the
>> >previous model Camry is suddenly obsolete? Often the only change from one
>> >model year to the next is cosmetic, such as different style tail-lights.
>> >But other than hybrids, automobile technology hasn't changed significantly
>> >in ummmm, over a century? That's why there are no cars released in current
>> >model year that are obsolete. -Dave
>>
>> That's a good start!
>>
>> In regard to the technology issue, doesn't play into the reasons the
>> Big three sent their CEO's via private Lear Jets to Washington to
>> plead for a bailout? Their products are obsolete. Play it one way or
>> the other, it all comes out the same. Today's cosmetic is tomorrow's
>> yesterdday.
>>
>> DCI-
>
>Please translate your jap propaganda.
>Did you mean to say anything intelligible?
Lorad, I'll certainly try. But you can go ahead and pay the sticker
prices for the crap that comes off the assembly lines.
DCI
== 5 of 22 ==
Date: Sun, Dec 14 2008 6:28 pm
From: lorad
On Dec 14, 6:00 pm, Alan Baker <alangba...@telus.net> wrote:
> In article
> <35f81536-8ab6-47f9-8318-253902390...@b41g2000pra.googlegroups.com>,
> lorad <lorad...@cs.com> wrote:
> > On Dec 14, 2:24 pm, Alan Baker <alangba...@telus.net> wrote:
> > > In article <b0r9k4l04n8fleoqds62m9s749ida9k...@4ax.com>,
> > > Dave Head <rally...@att.net> wrote:
>
> > > > On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 06:16:00 -0500, necromancer
> > > > <55_sux@worldofnecromancer_NO-SPAM_NO-WAY.com> wrote:
>
> > > > >On Sat, 13 Dec 2008 16:13:54 -0800 (PST), lorad <lorad...@cs.com>
> > > > >wrote:
>
> > > > >>Rather than sending your dollars to Tokyo or Seoul, try to help your
> > > > >>neighbors and yourself by buying a US made automobile. As is well
> > > > >>known.. keeping one dollar in your local economy, generates even more
> > > > >>dollars as that money recirculates creating compounded wealth.
>
> > > > >Kia is spending US$1.2 Billion of its own money (not DC bailout,
> > > > >"loans," that the big 3 are asking for) to bulid a major manufacturing
> > > > >facility in West Point, GA that is estimated to employ up to 6000 of
> > > > >my neighbors. This a few years after FORD bailed out of Georgia by
> > > > >closing its Atlanta assembly line.
>
> > > > Yeah, and the money made there is going right back to Korea. Talk about
> > > > myopia.
>
> > > Really. The money earned by those 6000 people goes back to Korea, does
> > > it? The money made by all the local suppliers goes back to Korea, does
> > > it?
>
> > > LOL
>
> > Of course not...
> > Just the PROFITS go back to asia.. to build their capital resources
> > there - not here.
> > You silly goose.
>
> What percentage of the price that an auto manufacturer gets for its cars
> is profit?
> --
> Alan Baker
That part that exceeds production and promotion costs, goofy..
Or did you think to infer your japanese masters made cars for
charity?
== 6 of 22 ==
Date: Sun, Dec 14 2008 6:28 pm
From: Dave Head
On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 17:48:42 -0800, Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote:
>In article <3tcbk4d4bgj7q14ujpb50uk6d0sp9rs17r@4ax.com>,
> Dave Head <rally2xs@att.net> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 16:56:30 -0800, Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <69aak4pid0brfjpee6shhi95st3jrl5g07@4ax.com>,
>> > Dave Head <rally2xs@att.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 10:02:57 -0500, edward ohare
>> >> <edward_ohare@nospam.yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 11:24:11 GMT, Dave Head <rally2xs@att.net> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >>Why don't you start hating your own foot? Advocating the destruction of
>> >> >>American manufacturing capability is pretty much shooting yourself in
>> >> >>the
>> >> >>foot.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >Who is advocating? Its happened.
>> >>
>> >> Advocating would be opposing measures required to help them survive.
>> >> America
>> >> needs _more_ manufactuing, not less.
>> >> >
>> >> >>The less manufacturing we have here, the less prosperity we have here.
>> >> >>Wonder
>> >> >>why wages have stagnated since the 70's, and studies claim that our
>> >> >>parents
>> >> >>in
>> >> >>the 70's actually had a better standard of living than we do today?
>> >> >>Well,
>> >> >>its
>> >> >>because we have lost a lot of manufactuering. There's 3 ways to make
>> >> >>wealth -
>> >> >>grow something (farming), dig something (mining), and build something
>> >> >>(manufacturing.) Any one of these three that we lose should be done
>> >> >>only
>> >> >>in
>> >> >>spite of everyone in the country doing everything we can do retain it,
>> >> >>as
>> >> >>if
>> >> >>our own personal financial well-being depends on it, because it does.
>> >> >
>> >> >Subsidizing anything is a loser.
>> >>
>> >> Oh, really? The French subsidized the snot out of Airbus, and look where
>> >> it
>> >> is. It is now threatening Boeing, which not only is _not_ getting
>> >> subsidies
>> >> from the gov't, but is operating in the 2nd highest corporate tax
>> >> structure
>> >> on
>> >> the planet. And look where they are. That's not fair, and it doesn't
>> >> reflect
>> >> the worth of the product.
>> >
>> >If you think Boeing isn't subsidized by the U.S. government, you're
>> >dreaming. The subsidies are just hidden in how much they get paid for
>> >things like the C-17.
>>
>> Yeah, sure... but likely, Airbus didn't have to deliver _anything_ to their
>> gov't to get the money...
>>
>> >> The US Gov't subsidizes the hell out of the trucking industry, and you can
>> >> see
>> >> what happens by just looking ahead of you and see what's at the front of
>> >> that
>> >> line that is holding up traffic on the interstate. They subsidize it by
>> >> building the roads that the trucks run upon, without doing the same thing
>> >> for
>> >> railroads. Those damn big "We Pay X Tax" on the trucks doesn't begin to
>> >> cover
>> >> the cost, since an 18 wheeler at 80,000 lbs does 10,000 times the damage
>> >> of a
>> >> car to the interstates (and now they want to be allowed to go to 100,000
>> >> lbs.
>> >> Transportation suicide. The roads would be continuously under repair.)
>> >
>> >Reference for that claim....
>>
>> Well, its sorta common knowledge, but here's one reference:
>>
>> http://www.co.sauk.wi.us/dept/UW/pink_lady/_media/Sauk%20Co_tax07.pdf
>>
>> Have been hearing this for about 20 years.
>
>Sorry, but I don't find a publication of Sauk County to be very
>authoritative on the subject. It looks very much like a self-serving
>assumption on their part. Certainly, they cite no actual source for that
>figure.
Fine, don't believe it if you like - I spent 45 minutes looking for that little
scrap. Its a fact, nevertheless, and generally, even if God says something is
true, no one on usenet ever accepts the other person's source.
>> >> >Because of world wide overcapacity
>> >> >and because they are the weakest of the large automakers, Detroit
>> >> >requires permanent subsidies to survive... unless capacity is reduced
>> >> >by letting some of them fail.
>> >>
>> >> If something is going to fail, let it be something other than US
>> >> companies.
>> >> We
>> >> need them here - if all three go TU, the economy is going to be devastated
>> >> in
>> >> the short term, and we will _never again_ reach the level of prosperity
>> >> that
>> >> we
>> >> have even now. There will be more people below the poverty line, more
>> >> people
>> >> living / trying to live on credit alone, etc. as one of the 3 significant
>> >> engines of wealth is lost forever. We'll never be able to restart a
>> >> competitive auto industry. Right now, we have a chance, and the American
>> >> built
>> >> cars have just been getting better and better over the last 20 years.
>> >
>> >I love how some Americans brag about how the free market works until one
>> >of they're companies is in danger...
>>
>> Yeah, we're all supposed to suffer because the market swings toward hideously
>> expensive fuel, and then the damn banks go TU because of politicians
>> mistakes...
>
>GM, Ford and Chrysler are supposed to suffer because they've failed to
>get with the program and build vehicles that their customers wanted to
>buy.
Not true. They did. Their customers wanted SUV's and big trucks for decades.
They just suddenly changed their minds recently, and it takes a while to change
over the factories to building the small stuff. Meanwhile, GM has a dozen
hybrids on the way.
>> Well, when things go to hell, Americans have a tradition of helping each
>> other
>> out.
>
>As individuals, Dave.
Not true. Any sort of National threat, be it a common enemy or forces of
nature, is met by a wall of Americans determined to help each to either victory
or recovery as the case requires. And if we don't treat this as some kind of
aggression (by whom is unspecified and unimportant) we will eventually have to
treat it as a recovery.
>When the government gives a corporation a handout,
>that really is theft from all the taxpayers who don't think they deserve
>it.
The taxpayers haven't quite thought this through yet, and don't have a clue how
bad things are going to get if we lose that much manufacturing capability.
Plus, a _lot_ of this is based on hate - half hating the unions, half hating
the companies. That's no valid reason to make such an important decisions.
== 7 of 22 ==
Date: Sun, Dec 14 2008 6:39 pm
From: Harold Burton
In article
<73cbc8d4-c09e-415f-96d1-3c06766009d3@s9g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
lorad <lorad474@cs.com> wrote:
> Alan Baker wrote:
> > In article
> > <4c6caec7-939e-4297-8cf5-0f84e0ea25b8@s1g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
> > lorad <lorad474@cs.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Dec 13, 3:57?pm, clams_casino <PeterGrif...@DrunkinClam.com> wrote:
> > > > Brent wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >Track record? What is the track record? It's a series of people's
> > > > >perceptions. Try to get someone who got a honda lemon to buy one again.
> > > >
> > > > Don't know of any. ? I do, however, know many who will likely never
> > > > again consider a GM product.
> > >
> > > And I know manay who just love their US made cars and would never buy
> > > asian crap.
> >
> > That doesn't make them (or you) rational.
> >
> Of course it does.. they would rather buy less expensive american cars
> to keep America wealthy, than pay more for over-priced foreign crap to
> make America poor.
Ya got it backwards, fool, it's Ford, GM, and Chrsyler who are selling
overpriced cars, not selling them, actually, it's why they're whining.
snicker.
== 8 of 22 ==
Date: Sun, Dec 14 2008 6:40 pm
From: Dave Head
On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 21:12:31 -0500, Marsha <mas@xeb.net> wrote:
>Dave Head wrote:
>> Well, I'm for taking that option away from them. Its not good for our nation.
>>
>
>Dude, you can't be serious.
>
>Marsha
Oh, please... you wait for a conversation like this to come up with that? What
about the option to buy the car you really want to buy? Can't do that, eh? I
want one without and air bag and without antilock brakes and without the heavy
safety stuff and, starting in 2012 I want to buy them without antilock brakes
and without stability control. I can't / won't be able to buy any of those
cars.
Hell, I want to buy a '69 Corvette Stingray with 427, 4-speed and a 4.11 rear
gear, with a great big filler neck in the center of the rear deck that accepts
highly leaded, high octane gas and is so damn fast it scares you just starting
it. That's what I want to buy.
But I can't...
== 9 of 22 ==
Date: Sun, Dec 14 2008 6:42 pm
From: Dave Head
On Mon, 15 Dec 2008 02:25:07 +0000 (UTC), Brent
<tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On 2008-12-15, Dave Head <rally2xs@att.net> wrote:
>
>>>Meh, I'm not really in the market for that kind of vehicle. If a cheap
>>>Cherokee fell into my lap, I'd probably buy it and sell the Ugly Truck,
>>>but I need a truck so seldom that I wouldn't buy a new anything. I *do*
>>>question the wisdom of replacing a proven, dead-nuts-reliable straight
>>>six for a new-design V-6; I'm definitely an inline snob when it comes to
>>>sixes.
>
>> Hey, I hear ya' - I really liked that straight 6 myself. But if that V6 can
>> get 22 mpg on the highway, then it's worth _something_!
>
>There is no reason an I6 couldn't get 22mpg on the highway. Least the
>'75 200cid 6 maverick I had could manage numbers like that.
>
Yeah, but this one has to push around a 2 ton Jeep Liberty that has a fairly
pronounced frontal area...
== 10 of 22 ==
Date: Sun, Dec 14 2008 6:47 pm
From: Brent
On 2008-12-15, Nate Nagel <njnagel@roosters.net> wrote:
> Brent wrote:
>> On 2008-12-14, Nate Nagel <njnagel@roosters.net> wrote:
>>> Dave Head wrote:
>>
>>>> They've _been_ producing great cars for quite a while now. I bought my '98
>>>> Jeep Cherokee used, at 45,000 miles (it was a leased car, someone else leased
>>>> it) and it has been a great car for as long as I've had it. At 11 years old,
>>>> it needs the air conditioner charged, but otherwise, it's great. I drove it
>>>> 800 miles to a hunting cabin up by Traverse City, Mi from Virginia last month,
>>>> no problems at all. And there isn't much that goes thru snow the way it does -
>>>> I pull _other_ cars and trucks off of snowdrifts, etc. that my Jeep just laughs
>>>> at.
>>>>
>>>> I'm _really_ gonna miss the option of buying a Jeep if our maufacturers go
>>>> away.
>>> You've already lost that option. The new Jeeps have no resemblance to
>>> the old. I think the little, square Cherokee was the last "real" Jeep.
>>
>> That's the mass market effect. Cheapen and dull for the masses. When the
>> SUV thing finally goes away JEEP will need to return to its roots to
>> survive. Problem is it will likely die instead.
>
> Bring back the International Scout :) (actually a Scout Terra would
> just about fit my needs perfectly, and it has a spiffy removable hardtop
> to boot... dang I would love to find one that's not rusted to heck.)
Yes, the scout and all the other real vehicles that used to be in what
is now the SUV class. Since I had CL open, I searched for scout:
http://chicago.craigslist.org/wcl/cto/951455229.html
BTW, did you see the feb 2009 issue of Collectible Automobile? Big
article on V8 performance Studes.
== 11 of 22 ==
Date: Sun, Dec 14 2008 6:48 pm
From: Brent
On 2008-12-15, Dave Head <rally2xs@att.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Dec 2008 02:25:07 +0000 (UTC), Brent
><tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>On 2008-12-15, Dave Head <rally2xs@att.net> wrote:
>>
>>>>Meh, I'm not really in the market for that kind of vehicle. If a cheap
>>>>Cherokee fell into my lap, I'd probably buy it and sell the Ugly Truck,
>>>>but I need a truck so seldom that I wouldn't buy a new anything. I *do*
>>>>question the wisdom of replacing a proven, dead-nuts-reliable straight
>>>>six for a new-design V-6; I'm definitely an inline snob when it comes to
>>>>sixes.
>>
>>> Hey, I hear ya' - I really liked that straight 6 myself. But if that V6 can
>>> get 22 mpg on the highway, then it's worth _something_!
>>
>>There is no reason an I6 couldn't get 22mpg on the highway. Least the
>>'75 200cid 6 maverick I had could manage numbers like that.
>>
> Yeah, but this one has to push around a 2 ton Jeep Liberty that has a fairly
> pronounced frontal area...
The I6 should actually be better than the V6 in the mpg department all
other things equal.
== 12 of 22 ==
Date: Sun, Dec 14 2008 6:55 pm
From: Dave Head
On Mon, 15 Dec 2008 02:48:38 +0000 (UTC), Brent
<tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On 2008-12-15, Dave Head <rally2xs@att.net> wrote:
>> On Mon, 15 Dec 2008 02:25:07 +0000 (UTC), Brent
>><tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On 2008-12-15, Dave Head <rally2xs@att.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>Meh, I'm not really in the market for that kind of vehicle. If a cheap
>>>>>Cherokee fell into my lap, I'd probably buy it and sell the Ugly Truck,
>>>>>but I need a truck so seldom that I wouldn't buy a new anything. I *do*
>>>>>question the wisdom of replacing a proven, dead-nuts-reliable straight
>>>>>six for a new-design V-6; I'm definitely an inline snob when it comes to
>>>>>sixes.
>>>
>>>> Hey, I hear ya' - I really liked that straight 6 myself. But if that V6 can
>>>> get 22 mpg on the highway, then it's worth _something_!
>>>
>>>There is no reason an I6 couldn't get 22mpg on the highway. Least the
>>>'75 200cid 6 maverick I had could manage numbers like that.
>>>
>> Yeah, but this one has to push around a 2 ton Jeep Liberty that has a fairly
>> pronounced frontal area...
>
>The I6 should actually be better than the V6 in the mpg department all
>other things equal.
>
Well, maybe it oughta be, but mine never goes above 18 mpg just shoving the
3400 lb Cherokee around...
== 13 of 22 ==
Date: Sun, Dec 14 2008 7:00 pm
From: Marsha
Dave Head wrote:
> On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 21:12:31 -0500, Marsha <mas@xeb.net> wrote:
>
>> Dave Head wrote:
>>> Well, I'm for taking that option away from them. Its not good for our nation.
>>>
>> Dude, you can't be serious.
>>
>> Marsha
>
> Oh, please... you wait for a conversation like this to come up with that? What
> about the option to buy the car you really want to buy? Can't do that, eh? I
> want one without and air bag and without antilock brakes and without the heavy
> safety stuff and, starting in 2012 I want to buy them without antilock brakes
> and without stability control. I can't / won't be able to buy any of those
> cars.
>
> Hell, I want to buy a '69 Corvette Stingray with 427, 4-speed and a 4.11 rear
> gear, with a great big filler neck in the center of the rear deck that accepts
> highly leaded, high octane gas and is so damn fast it scares you just starting
> it. That's what I want to buy.
>
> But I can't...
Non sequiter. I can't believe we're having this conversation, being
we're in America and all that. You actually want to tell Americans they
shouldn't have a choice on what to buy? My God, you voted for Obama and
his socialist BS, didn't you?
Marsha
== 14 of 22 ==
Date: Sun, Dec 14 2008 7:01 pm
From: Nate Nagel
Dave Head wrote:
> On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 21:12:31 -0500, Marsha <mas@xeb.net> wrote:
>
>> Dave Head wrote:
>>> Well, I'm for taking that option away from them. Its not good for our nation.
>>>
>> Dude, you can't be serious.
>>
>> Marsha
>
> Oh, please... you wait for a conversation like this to come up with that? What
> about the option to buy the car you really want to buy? Can't do that, eh? I
> want one without and air bag and without antilock brakes and without the heavy
> safety stuff and, starting in 2012 I want to buy them without antilock brakes
> and without stability control. I can't / won't be able to buy any of those
> cars.
>
> Hell, I want to buy a '69 Corvette Stingray with 427, 4-speed and a 4.11 rear
> gear, with a great big filler neck in the center of the rear deck that accepts
> highly leaded, high octane gas and is so damn fast it scares you just starting
> it. That's what I want to buy.
>
> But I can't...
Well, if we're gonna go down that road, I want...
- a '71 Demon with 340/4-speed, every HD suspension/brake option, and
not much else.
- an International Harvester Travelall, with a 392/4V, 4-speed stick,
and a front bumper from a tow truck, when I get sick of actually
bothering to avoid the morons (or need to tow/haul something.)
nate
--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel
== 15 of 22 ==
Date: Sun, Dec 14 2008 7:05 pm
From: Brent
On 2008-12-15, Dave Head <rally2xs@att.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Dec 2008 02:48:38 +0000 (UTC), Brent
><tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>On 2008-12-15, Dave Head <rally2xs@att.net> wrote:
>>> On Mon, 15 Dec 2008 02:25:07 +0000 (UTC), Brent
>>><tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On 2008-12-15, Dave Head <rally2xs@att.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>Meh, I'm not really in the market for that kind of vehicle. If a cheap
>>>>>>Cherokee fell into my lap, I'd probably buy it and sell the Ugly Truck,
>>>>>>but I need a truck so seldom that I wouldn't buy a new anything. I *do*
>>>>>>question the wisdom of replacing a proven, dead-nuts-reliable straight
>>>>>>six for a new-design V-6; I'm definitely an inline snob when it comes to
>>>>>>sixes.
>>>>
>>>>> Hey, I hear ya' - I really liked that straight 6 myself. But if that V6 can
>>>>> get 22 mpg on the highway, then it's worth _something_!
>>>>
>>>>There is no reason an I6 couldn't get 22mpg on the highway. Least the
>>>>'75 200cid 6 maverick I had could manage numbers like that.
>>>>
>>> Yeah, but this one has to push around a 2 ton Jeep Liberty that has a fairly
>>> pronounced frontal area...
>>
>>The I6 should actually be better than the V6 in the mpg department all
>>other things equal.
>>
> Well, maybe it oughta be, but mine never goes above 18 mpg just shoving the
> 3400 lb Cherokee around...
Probably because it's not equal. fuel system, engine management, etc and
so on.
== 16 of 22 ==
Date: Sun, Dec 14 2008 7:06 pm
From: Nate Nagel
Brent wrote:
> On 2008-12-15, Nate Nagel <njnagel@roosters.net> wrote:
>> Brent wrote:
>>> On 2008-12-14, Nate Nagel <njnagel@roosters.net> wrote:
>>>> Dave Head wrote:
>>>>> They've _been_ producing great cars for quite a while now. I bought my '98
>>>>> Jeep Cherokee used, at 45,000 miles (it was a leased car, someone else leased
>>>>> it) and it has been a great car for as long as I've had it. At 11 years old,
>>>>> it needs the air conditioner charged, but otherwise, it's great. I drove it
>>>>> 800 miles to a hunting cabin up by Traverse City, Mi from Virginia last month,
>>>>> no problems at all. And there isn't much that goes thru snow the way it does -
>>>>> I pull _other_ cars and trucks off of snowdrifts, etc. that my Jeep just laughs
>>>>> at.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm _really_ gonna miss the option of buying a Jeep if our maufacturers go
>>>>> away.
>>>> You've already lost that option. The new Jeeps have no resemblance to
>>>> the old. I think the little, square Cherokee was the last "real" Jeep.
>>> That's the mass market effect. Cheapen and dull for the masses. When the
>>> SUV thing finally goes away JEEP will need to return to its roots to
>>> survive. Problem is it will likely die instead.
>> Bring back the International Scout :) (actually a Scout Terra would
>> just about fit my needs perfectly, and it has a spiffy removable hardtop
>> to boot... dang I would love to find one that's not rusted to heck.)
>
> Yes, the scout and all the other real vehicles that used to be in what
> is now the SUV class. Since I had CL open, I searched for scout:
> http://chicago.craigslist.org/wcl/cto/951455229.html
yeesh, are they going for that much now? My dad has a '76 almost
exactly like that, but very rusty. (as in, won't pass inspection rusty)
I wish I had the time/energy to put a 'glass tub in it, but then I'd
still need to find a less rusty roof for it.
> BTW, did you see the feb 2009 issue of Collectible Automobile? Big
> article on V8 performance Studes.
>
I did; actually the author of that article (very active over on the SDC
forums) clued me that it was coming out, so I specifically searched out
that issue. Pretty cool to see that kind of press and the author is a
real Stude expert so most of the facts should actually be accurate
(something that you don't always see when a lesser-known make is covered.)
nate
--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel
== 17 of 22 ==
Date: Sun, Dec 14 2008 7:36 pm
From: Alan Baker
In article <3dfbk41s0cgsnr1dsa6tg8q6u32ofirttl@4ax.com>,
Dave Head <rally2xs@att.net> wrote:
> On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 17:49:09 -0800, Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote:
>
> >In article <vrdbk4lkhtn4c4fpu8eja55ocl08b4nc6s@4ax.com>,
> > Dave Head <rally2xs@att.net> wrote:
> >
> >> On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 16:59:30 -0800, Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >In article <vs9bk4pqnq46e62ngk2vultcvhif2rrhet@4ax.com>,
> >> > Dave Head <rally2xs@att.net> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> I've bought 3 Jeeps, and each has been a better vehicle than the last.
> >> >> I'm
> >> >> happy with the most recent one, and wouldn't hesitate to buy this one
> >> >> _if_
> >> >> I
> >> >> was assured there would be warranty, parts and service continued into
> >> >> the
> >> >> term
> >> >> of ownership.
> >> >
> >> >If it actually was built to the quality of the Toyota, you'd be a lot
> >> >less concerned about those things.
> >>
> >> No, I wouldn't. You can go out and high-center any offroad SUV on a damn
> >> big
> >> rock and bust the tranny case, or otherwise screw it up and then you need
> >> parts
> >> and service.
> >
> >And that involves "warranty", how?
>
> It doesn't, but it sure involves parts availability.
>
> Any car can have a problem no matter how high quailty. My buddy's car, a Kia,
> had a problem and stopped dead in the driveway just a few days after he got
> it.
> I think it was a fuel pump or fuel filter or something like that. But, it
> could be a turbocharger like the one that went south on my Mitsubishi Eclipse
> at 27,000 miles.
>
> There are no perfect cars.
Never said there were. Some are just a lot closer too it than others.
Alas, nothing made by the big three (except *maybe* by an oversees
subsidiary).
--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
<http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg>
== 18 of 22 ==
Date: Sun, Dec 14 2008 7:37 pm
From: Alan Baker
In article
<7111710d-39d8-479d-b92d-563fc91502be@o4g2000pra.googlegroups.com>,
lorad <lorad474@cs.com> wrote:
> On Dec 14, 6:00 pm, Alan Baker <alangba...@telus.net> wrote:
> > In article
> > <35f81536-8ab6-47f9-8318-253902390...@b41g2000pra.googlegroups.com>,
>
> > lorad <lorad...@cs.com> wrote:
> > > On Dec 14, 2:24 pm, Alan Baker <alangba...@telus.net> wrote:
> > > > In article <b0r9k4l04n8fleoqds62m9s749ida9k...@4ax.com>,
> > > > Dave Head <rally...@att.net> wrote:
> >
> > > > > On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 06:16:00 -0500, necromancer
> > > > > <55_sux@worldofnecromancer_NO-SPAM_NO-WAY.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > > >On Sat, 13 Dec 2008 16:13:54 -0800 (PST), lorad <lorad...@cs.com>
> > > > > >wrote:
> >
> > > > > >>Rather than sending your dollars to Tokyo or Seoul, try to help
> > > > > >>your
> > > > > >>neighbors and yourself by buying a US made automobile. As is well
> > > > > >>known.. keeping one dollar in your local economy, generates even
> > > > > >>more
> > > > > >>dollars as that money recirculates creating compounded wealth.
> >
> > > > > >Kia is spending US$1.2 Billion of its own money (not DC bailout,
> > > > > >"loans," that the big 3 are asking for) to bulid a major
> > > > > >manufacturing
> > > > > >facility in West Point, GA that is estimated to employ up to 6000 of
> > > > > >my neighbors. This a few years after FORD bailed out of Georgia by
> > > > > >closing its Atlanta assembly line.
> >
> > > > > Yeah, and the money made there is going right back to Korea. Talk
> > > > > about
> > > > > myopia.
> >
> > > > Really. The money earned by those 6000 people goes back to Korea, does
> > > > it? The money made by all the local suppliers goes back to Korea, does
> > > > it?
> >
> > > > LOL
> >
> > > Of course not...
> > > Just the PROFITS go back to asia.. to build their capital resources
> > > there - not here.
> > > You silly goose.
> >
> > What percentage of the price that an auto manufacturer gets for its cars
> > is profit?
> > --
> > Alan Baker
>
> That part that exceeds production and promotion costs, goofy..
>
> Or did you think to infer your japanese masters made cars for
> charity?
And how much do you suppose that is? Give us a figure, smart guy.
--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
<http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg>
== 19 of 22 ==
Date: Sun, Dec 14 2008 7:41 pm
From: Alan Baker
In article <eqfbk45a2tjj2t0co95p63qm5mbn5p6501@4ax.com>,
Dave Head <rally2xs@att.net> wrote:
> On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 17:48:42 -0800, Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote:
>
> >In article <3tcbk4d4bgj7q14ujpb50uk6d0sp9rs17r@4ax.com>,
> > Dave Head <rally2xs@att.net> wrote:
> >
> >> On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 16:56:30 -0800, Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >In article <69aak4pid0brfjpee6shhi95st3jrl5g07@4ax.com>,
> >> > Dave Head <rally2xs@att.net> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 10:02:57 -0500, edward ohare
> >> >> <edward_ohare@nospam.yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 11:24:11 GMT, Dave Head <rally2xs@att.net> wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >>Why don't you start hating your own foot? Advocating the destruction
> >> >> >>of
> >> >> >>American manufacturing capability is pretty much shooting yourself in
> >> >> >>the
> >> >> >>foot.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Who is advocating? Its happened.
> >> >>
> >> >> Advocating would be opposing measures required to help them survive.
> >> >> America
> >> >> needs _more_ manufactuing, not less.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >>The less manufacturing we have here, the less prosperity we have
> >> >> >>here.
> >> >> >>Wonder
> >> >> >>why wages have stagnated since the 70's, and studies claim that our
> >> >> >>parents
> >> >> >>in
> >> >> >>the 70's actually had a better standard of living than we do today?
> >> >> >>Well,
> >> >> >>its
> >> >> >>because we have lost a lot of manufactuering. There's 3 ways to make
> >> >> >>wealth -
> >> >> >>grow something (farming), dig something (mining), and build something
> >> >> >>(manufacturing.) Any one of these three that we lose should be done
> >> >> >>only
> >> >> >>in
> >> >> >>spite of everyone in the country doing everything we can do retain
> >> >> >>it,
> >> >> >>as
> >> >> >>if
> >> >> >>our own personal financial well-being depends on it, because it does.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Subsidizing anything is a loser.
> >> >>
> >> >> Oh, really? The French subsidized the snot out of Airbus, and look
> >> >> where
> >> >> it
> >> >> is. It is now threatening Boeing, which not only is _not_ getting
> >> >> subsidies
> >> >> from the gov't, but is operating in the 2nd highest corporate tax
> >> >> structure
> >> >> on
> >> >> the planet. And look where they are. That's not fair, and it doesn't
> >> >> reflect
> >> >> the worth of the product.
> >> >
> >> >If you think Boeing isn't subsidized by the U.S. government, you're
> >> >dreaming. The subsidies are just hidden in how much they get paid for
> >> >things like the C-17.
> >>
> >> Yeah, sure... but likely, Airbus didn't have to deliver _anything_ to
> >> their
> >> gov't to get the money...
> >>
> >> >> The US Gov't subsidizes the hell out of the trucking industry, and you
> >> >> can
> >> >> see
> >> >> what happens by just looking ahead of you and see what's at the front
> >> >> of
> >> >> that
> >> >> line that is holding up traffic on the interstate. They subsidize it
> >> >> by
> >> >> building the roads that the trucks run upon, without doing the same
> >> >> thing
> >> >> for
> >> >> railroads. Those damn big "We Pay X Tax" on the trucks doesn't begin
> >> >> to
> >> >> cover
> >> >> the cost, since an 18 wheeler at 80,000 lbs does 10,000 times the
> >> >> damage
> >> >> of a
> >> >> car to the interstates (and now they want to be allowed to go to
> >> >> 100,000
> >> >> lbs.
> >> >> Transportation suicide. The roads would be continuously under repair.)
> >> >
> >> >Reference for that claim....
> >>
> >> Well, its sorta common knowledge, but here's one reference:
> >>
> >> http://www.co.sauk.wi.us/dept/UW/pink_lady/_media/Sauk%20Co_tax07.pdf
> >>
> >> Have been hearing this for about 20 years.
> >
> >Sorry, but I don't find a publication of Sauk County to be very
> >authoritative on the subject. It looks very much like a self-serving
> >assumption on their part. Certainly, they cite no actual source for that
> >figure.
>
> Fine, don't believe it if you like - I spent 45 minutes looking for that
> little
> scrap. Its a fact, nevertheless, and generally, even if God says something
> is
> true, no one on usenet ever accepts the other person's source.
Sorry, but I accept sources all the time. But unattributed statistical
claims in self-serving government leaflets? Not so much.
>
> >> >> >Because of world wide overcapacity
> >> >> >and because they are the weakest of the large automakers, Detroit
> >> >> >requires permanent subsidies to survive... unless capacity is reduced
> >> >> >by letting some of them fail.
> >> >>
> >> >> If something is going to fail, let it be something other than US
> >> >> companies.
> >> >> We
> >> >> need them here - if all three go TU, the economy is going to be
> >> >> devastated
> >> >> in
> >> >> the short term, and we will _never again_ reach the level of prosperity
> >> >> that
> >> >> we
> >> >> have even now. There will be more people below the poverty line, more
> >> >> people
> >> >> living / trying to live on credit alone, etc. as one of the 3
> >> >> significant
> >> >> engines of wealth is lost forever. We'll never be able to restart a
> >> >> competitive auto industry. Right now, we have a chance, and the
> >> >> American
> >> >> built
> >> >> cars have just been getting better and better over the last 20 years.
> >> >
> >> >I love how some Americans brag about how the free market works until one
> >> >of they're companies is in danger...
> >>
> >> Yeah, we're all supposed to suffer because the market swings toward
> >> hideously
> >> expensive fuel, and then the damn banks go TU because of politicians
> >> mistakes...
> >
> >GM, Ford and Chrysler are supposed to suffer because they've failed to
> >get with the program and build vehicles that their customers wanted to
> >buy.
>
> Not true. They did. Their customers wanted SUV's and big trucks for
> decades.
> They just suddenly changed their minds recently, and it takes a while to
> change
> over the factories to building the small stuff. Meanwhile, GM has a dozen
> hybrids on the way.
Riiiiight. That's why Honda and Toyota got so successful: selling SUVs
and big trucks...
...no wait.
The truth is that that was just the last corner of the market where the
big three had a toehold. It doesn't excuse their utter failure to make
ordinary sedans, etc. that matched the value of the Hondas, Toyotas, and
so on.
Hell, Hyundai went from building crap to building better cars with *far*
less resources than the Detroit 3.
>
> >> Well, when things go to hell, Americans have a tradition of helping each
> >> other
> >> out.
> >
> >As individuals, Dave.
>
> Not true. Any sort of National threat, be it a common enemy or forces of
> nature, is met by a wall of Americans determined to help each to either
> victory
> or recovery as the case requires. And if we don't treat this as some kind of
> aggression (by whom is unspecified and unimportant) we will eventually have
> to
> treat it as a recovery.
Ohhhhhh...
Now it's about "threats" and "enemies". Are the americans who work in
Honda plants collaborators, then?
>
> >When the government gives a corporation a handout,
> >that really is theft from all the taxpayers who don't think they deserve
> >it.
>
> The taxpayers haven't quite thought this through yet, and don't have a clue
> how
> bad things are going to get if we lose that much manufacturing capability.
>
> Plus, a _lot_ of this is based on hate - half hating the unions, half hating
> the companies. That's no valid reason to make such an important decisions.
Companies fail. Propping up bad companies doesn't work.
--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
<http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg>
== 20 of 22 ==
Date: Sun, Dec 14 2008 7:53 pm
From: Harold Burton
In article <b0r9k4l04n8fleoqds62m9s749ida9ke83@4ax.com>,
Dave Head <rally2xs@att.net> wrote:
> On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 06:16:00 -0500, necromancer
> <55_sux@worldofnecromancer_NO-SPAM_NO-WAY.com> wrote:
>
> >On Sat, 13 Dec 2008 16:13:54 -0800 (PST), lorad <lorad474@cs.com>
> >wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>Rather than sending your dollars to Tokyo or Seoul, try to help your
> >>neighbors and yourself by buying a US made automobile. As is well
> >>known.. keeping one dollar in your local economy, generates even more
> >>dollars as that money recirculates creating compounded wealth.
> >
> >Kia is spending US$1.2 Billion of its own money (not DC bailout,
> >"loans," that the big 3 are asking for) to bulid a major manufacturing
> >facility in West Point, GA that is estimated to employ up to 6000 of
> >my neighbors. This a few years after FORD bailed out of Georgia by
> >closing its Atlanta assembly line.
>
> Yeah, and the money made there is going right back to Korea.
Why not, they earned it, Detroit didn't.
== 21 of 22 ==
Date: Sun, Dec 14 2008 7:53 pm
From: Harold Burton
In article
<1632a96d-2982-4282-8688-7248db34659d@t39g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
lorad <lorad474@cs.com> wrote:
> On Dec 13, 7:20 am, wis...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> Asian auto-maker propaganda [snipped]
>
> Rather than sending your dollars to Tokyo or Seoul, try to help your
> neighbors and yourself by buying a US made automobiles.
Nope, don't by pieces of shit, at least not since being burned twice.
== 22 of 22 ==
Date: Sun, Dec 14 2008 7:54 pm
From: Harold Burton
In article <69aak4pid0brfjpee6shhi95st3jrl5g07@4ax.com>,
Dave Head <rally2xs@att.net> wrote:
> On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 10:02:57 -0500, edward ohare
> <edward_ohare@nospam.yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
>
> >On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 11:24:11 GMT, Dave Head <rally2xs@att.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Why don't you start hating your own foot? Advocating the destruction of
> >>American manufacturing capability is pretty much shooting yourself in the
> >>foot.
> >
> >
> >Who is advocating? Its happened.
>
> Advocating would be opposing measures required to help them survive. America
> needs _more_ manufactuing, not less.
> >
> >>The less manufacturing we have here, the less prosperity we have here.
> >>Wonder
> >>why wages have stagnated since the 70's, and studies claim that our parents
> >>in
> >>the 70's actually had a better standard of living than we do today? Well,
> >>its
> >>because we have lost a lot of manufactuering. There's 3 ways to make
> >>wealth -
> >>grow something (farming), dig something (mining), and build something
> >>(manufacturing.) Any one of these three that we lose should be done only
> >>in
> >>spite of everyone in the country doing everything we can do retain it, as
> >>if
> >>our own personal financial well-being depends on it, because it does.
> >
> >Subsidizing anything is a loser.
>
> Oh, really? The French subsidized the snot out of Airbus, and look where it
> is. It is now threatening Boeing...
Hahahahahahahahah.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: A Sign of the Times
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/d8ebb8d9fdd5bbd9?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Sun, Dec 14 2008 6:32 pm
From: tweeny90655@mypacks.net
On Oct 18, 8:26 pm, George <geo...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> I almost bought cranberry juice blend the other day. It was "Ocean
> Spray" brand in the usual packaging except I noticed it said
> "Cranjuice" instead of "Cranberry" as I was putting it in the cart. It
> was only 15% juice and a blend of cheaper juice and cranberry juice.
One hundred percent cranberry juice is prob. about 20 bucks a quart
now - I used to see it in small bottles for 6 or 7 bucks in health
food stores. "Cocktail" was the key word to it not being 100%.
== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Sun, Dec 14 2008 7:59 pm
From: dennism3@dennism3.invalid (Dennis M)
In article
<c1573708-8eb6-4db3-a839-391a1d76bc9a@r15g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
angelia_t@earthlink.net wrote:
>Hot Spots for Coins:
>Hess parking lot, any time
>Any parking lot, near the car's door and trunk area
Below the drive-thru window of a fast food joint (especially Burger King
for some reason) is also great place.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: How to: Live on $12,000 a Year
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/5093baecae696c12?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sun, Dec 14 2008 6:48 pm
From: meow2222@care2.com
Salford1 wrote:
> Makes sense.....Given the current climate!
>
>
> http://www.osawatch.com/2007/02/can_you_live_on.html
Does it? I thought some of the points quite trivial, and it fails to
address the real issues.
If someone is unable to live on 12k a year, really they need to go
back to basic principles and learn them. Its not difficult.
NT
==============================================================================
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "misc.consumers.frugal-living"
group.
To post to this group, visit http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living?hl=en
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to misc.consumers.frugal-living+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
To change the way you get mail from this group, visit:
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/subscribe?hl=en
To report abuse, send email explaining the problem to abuse@googlegroups.com
==============================================================================
Google Groups: http://groups.google.com/?hl=en
