http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living?hl=en
misc.consumers.frugal-living@googlegroups.com
Today's topics:
* OT - Survivalism Retail Style - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/da641b3711ca2726?hl=en
* Bubbles are caused by excessive credit. - 10 messages, 5 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/d06a55cb7610180d?hl=en
* Boston Globe humor: "Just splurge a little" - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/3d0295583fed36ba?hl=en
* Doorbell, etc. - Saving $2.50 per month! - 5 messages, 5 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/f28ae8d29331218e?hl=en
* Car Insurance - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/0743cd326690fd99?hl=en
* Living in CO - 4 messages, 4 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/6530b80539a24694?hl=en
* America is doomed without industrial restoration - 3 messages, 3 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/3ac833194943bee0?hl=en
==============================================================================
TOPIC: OT - Survivalism Retail Style
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/da641b3711ca2726?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 15 2009 11:11 am
From: "Ed Huntress"
<EskWIRED@spamblock.panix.com> wrote in message
news:gn9ouf$nem$7@reader1.panix.com...
> In misc.survivalism Ed Huntress <huntres23@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>> "Winston_Smith" <not_real@bogus.net> wrote in message
>
>> > Still the market deflates. Esk will
>> > explain why this isn't really happening in his little world.
>
>> I don't know about his world. What I'm talking about is the economic
>> world
>> as it's presently understood and how it influences policy.
>
> Thanks, Ed. You suffer fools more gladly than I.
I don't think the main problem here is fools, although there are a few very
weird ones -- or ones wearing very weird personnas. The main problem is...
...too much to get into. d8-)
>
> --
> The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so
> certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.
> -- Bertrand Russell
Maybe that's it.
--
Ed Huntress
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Bubbles are caused by excessive credit.
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/d06a55cb7610180d?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 10 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 15 2009 11:27 am
From: "Rod Speed"
Bill Bonde { No matter what happens, it's caused by global warming )
wrote:
> "John A. Weeks III" wrote:
>>
>> In article
>> <0f7f84fa-962a-4b26-892c-d347ebdd8dfd@j35g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
>> "(David P.)" <imbibe@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>
>>> The main cause of the Population Bubble is also
>>> excessive credit,
>>
>> If that were true, then the highest birth rate should be
>> in countries that have the most available consumer credit.
>> But the facts show the countries with more available credit
>> actually have lower birth rates, and the highest birth rates
>> are in countries with little or no consumer credit available.
>> Therefore, your assertion is 100% wrong.
> High birth rates in general are caused by the uncertainty
> that the children you've already had will survive.
It hasnt been like that for a long time now.
> Of course negative birth rates can be seen as related to the cost
> of having children. In the first world, the cost can be enormous.
Thats not the reason not one of the modern first world countrys is
even self replacing on population now if you take out immigration.
== 2 of 10 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 15 2009 11:52 am
From: "(David P.)"
Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfre...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> "(David P.)" <imb...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> >The main cause of the Population Bubble is also
> >excessive credit
>
> The main cause is food production and advances in medicine.http://www.commondreams.org/views07/0118-33.htm
Stopping the suppression of influenza would
be a good first step in the right direction.
.
.
--
== 3 of 10 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 15 2009 12:03 pm
From: Klaus Schadenfreude
In talk.politics.guns "(David P.)" <imbibe@mindspring.com> wrote:
>Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfre...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> "(David P.)" <imb...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>
>> >The main cause of the Population Bubble is also
>> >excessive credit
>>
>> The main cause is food production and advances in medicine.http://www.commondreams.org/views07/0118-33.htm
>
>Stopping the suppression of influenza would
>be a good first step in the right direction.
If your intent would be to cause untold and widespread suffering, I
suppose it would. Wouldn't a nuke be quicker?
== 4 of 10 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 15 2009 12:20 pm
From: "Rod Speed"
(David P.) wrote:
> Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfre...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> "(David P.)" <imb...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>
>>> The main cause of the Population Bubble is also
>>> excessive credit
>>
>> The main cause is food production and advances in
>> medicine.http://www.commondreams.org/views07/0118-33.htm
> Stopping the suppression of influenza would be a good first step in the right direction.
Stopping drunks would be MUCH better.
== 5 of 10 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 15 2009 1:33 pm
From: bw@barrk.net (B1ackwater)
On Sun, 15 Feb 2009 18:53:59 +0000, "Bill Bonde { No matter what
happens, it's caused by global warming )"
<tributyltinpint@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>B1ackwater wrote:
>>
>> "(David P.)" <imbibe@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>
>> >The main cause of the Population Bubble is also
>> >excessive credit, i.e., saying that everyone is a
>> >valuable asset as long as they live.
>> >L I K E H E L L T H E Y A R E ! !
>> >Hordes are no longer viable, due to infirmity,
>> >and become a drag on the system.
>>
>> Been watching "Logans Run" too much I see .....
>>
>> However, you're not ENTIRELY wrong.
>>
>> A deliberate effort to poop on the value/virtue
>> of mega-motherhood is needed. Breeding alone ought
>> not earn anyone any favors or respect.
>>
>The problem is that the people who should be reproducing either
>aren't or aren't reproducing enough and the ones who should be kind
>of holding back on the megasized families aren't holding back. Much
>of the first world is seeing either zero population growth or
>negative growth, excluding immigration.
First of all, be very careful with how you use that
"should/shouldn't be reproducing" notion. Too often it
has devolved into a sort of eugenic/pseudo-Darwinistic
line of thinking - most recently exploited in the film
"Idiocracy".
Todays success stories - business, science, arts - were
the products of yesterdays pig-ignorant turnip-munching
sheep-molesting witch-burning world-flattening medieval
dirt farmers who presented every sign of genetic mental
retardation. However the *potential* was always there,
simply masked by cultural circumstances. Given time and
the right tools, they straightened up, smartened up, and
took us to the moon and beyond.
"Should not" needs to be qualified - and bean-counter
arguments about 'resources' and 'bang per pound of
manflesh' aren't always adequate qualification because
they are inevitibly biased by the CURRENT model of
'successful societies'.
Frankly, lots of good company, living kinda poor, can be
just as 'successful' as a few people with lots of cash,
luxuries and free time.
It's a matter of perspective.
Only the extreme end of 'should not' - ie "far more
people than can possibly be fed" deserves consideration.
There ARE regions of the world where such situations
exist, and the size and scope of such grim circumstances
CAN grow as global resources are consumed faster than
thay can be produced. There's a real possibility of
extinction lurking there - if not through actual, total,
global stavation then more through resource wars that
eventually go the WMD route.
>The idea that old people are a drag on society is wrong. Of course
>old people who are very sick or whose mentally facilities have been
>lost are a cost, but it might take people until old age before they
>figure something important out.
Quite true. OFTEN true.
But the current model is money & youth oriented.
"Wisdom" and 'perspective' are less valued than
they used to be. Yesterdays ideas seem dated,
antique, irrelevant, worthless.
Of course a big global economic crash or two might
change that.
I wonder how many people bothered to listen to Granny
when she explained at length about how they managed to
live poor during the Depression and how, in retrospect,
she thinks they might have done even better. Seems like
that might be very VALUABLE information today, and for
tomorrow especially :-)
== 6 of 10 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 15 2009 3:35 pm
From: "Bill Bonde { No matter what happens, it's caused by global warming )"
Rod Speed wrote:
>
> Bill Bonde { No matter what happens, it's caused by global warming )
> wrote:
> > "John A. Weeks III" wrote:
> >>
> >> In article
> >> <0f7f84fa-962a-4b26-892c-d347ebdd8dfd@j35g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
> >> "(David P.)" <imbibe@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> The main cause of the Population Bubble is also
> >>> excessive credit,
> >>
> >> If that were true, then the highest birth rate should be
> >> in countries that have the most available consumer credit.
> >> But the facts show the countries with more available credit
> >> actually have lower birth rates, and the highest birth rates
> >> are in countries with little or no consumer credit available.
> >> Therefore, your assertion is 100% wrong.
>
> > High birth rates in general are caused by the uncertainty
> > that the children you've already had will survive.
>
> It hasnt been like that for a long time now.
>
Not in the first world, and in the first world the reproductive
rates are at or below replacement. But try out the third or fourth
world.
> > Of course negative birth rates can be seen as related to the cost
> > of having children. In the first world, the cost can be enormous.
>
> Thats not the reason not one of the modern first world countrys is
> even self replacing on population now if you take out immigration.
>
The cost of raising children and the knowledge that if you have one
child even, that child is likely to not die in childhood. Of course
it could happen, but it isn't anywhere near as likely as it was.
These two reasons are important reasons. Of course birth control
availability and abortion are important factors.
--
He and Evie soon fell into a conversation of the "No, I didn't;
yes, you did" type--conversation which, though fascinating to those
who are engaged in it, neither desires nor deserves the attention
of others.
-+E.M. Forster, "Howards End"
== 7 of 10 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 15 2009 3:36 pm
From: "Bill Bonde { No matter what happens, it's caused by global warming )"
"(David P.)" wrote:
>
> Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfre...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > "(David P.)" <imb...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >
> > >The main cause of the Population Bubble is also
> > >excessive credit
> >
> > The main cause is food production and advances in medicine.http://www.commondreams.org/views07/0118-33.htm
>
> Stopping the suppression of influenza would
> be a good first step in the right direction.
>
People who are fearful that their children won't live to adulthood
reproduce *more* than those who are relatively sure they will live.
Leaving aside the moral issues of serviing Irish babies at table,
your plan is not going to reduce anything.
--
He and Evie soon fell into a conversation of the "No, I didn't;
yes, you did" type--conversation which, though fascinating to those
who are engaged in it, neither desires nor deserves the attention
of others.
-+E.M. Forster, "Howards End"
== 8 of 10 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 15 2009 4:09 pm
From: "Rod Speed"
Bill Bonde { No matter what happens, it's caused by global warming ) wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Bill Bonde { No matter what happens, it's caused by global warming ) wrote
>>> John A. Weeks III wrote
>>>> David P. <imbibe@mindspring.com> wrote
>>>>> The main cause of the Population Bubble is also excessive credit,
>>>> If that were true, then the highest birth rate should be
>>>> in countries that have the most available consumer credit.
>>>> But the facts show the countries with more available credit
>>>> actually have lower birth rates, and the highest birth rates
>>>> are in countries with little or no consumer credit available.
>>>> Therefore, your assertion is 100% wrong.
>>> High birth rates in general are caused by the uncertainty
>>> that the children you've already had will survive.
>> It hasnt been like that for a long time now.
> Not in the first world, and in the first world the reproductive rates
> are at or below replacement. But try out the third or fourth world.
Not in the rest of the world either, essentially because child mortality is now so low.
>>> Of course negative birth rates can be seen as related to the cost
>>> of having children. In the first world, the cost can be enormous.
>> Thats not the reason not one of the modern first world countrys is
>> even self replacing on population now if you take out immigration.
> The cost of raising children and the knowledge that if you
> have one child even, that child is likely to not die in childhood.
That isnt the reason not one modern first world country is even self replacing on population now.
It appears to mostly be due to so many married women working now.
> Of course it could happen, but it isn't anywhere near as likely as it was.
In fact the infant mortality is now so low its an irrelevant consideration.
> These two reasons are important reasons.
Nope.
> Of course birth control availability and abortion are important factors.
Those are by far the most important factors in the modern first world.
== 9 of 10 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 15 2009 4:11 pm
From: "Rod Speed"
Bill Bonde { No matter what happens, it's caused by global warming ) wrote
> David P. wrote
>> Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfre...@yahoo.com> wrote
>>> David P. <imb...@mindspring.com> wrote
>>>> The main cause of the Population Bubble is also excessive credit
>>> The main cause is food production and advances in
>>> medicine.http://www.commondreams.org/views07/0118-33.htm
>> Stopping the suppression of influenza would
>> be a good first step in the right direction.
> People who are fearful that their children won't live to adulthood
> reproduce *more* than those who are relatively sure they will live.
Nope, there is no correlation between infant mortality and the number of children people have anymore.
The real driver is cultural now.
> Leaving aside the moral issues of serviing Irish babies at table, your plan is not going to reduce anything.
== 10 of 10 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 15 2009 4:26 pm
From: "(David P.)"
Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfre...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> "(David P.)" <imb...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfre...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> "(David P.)" <imb...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >The main cause of the Population Bubble is also
> >> >excessive credit
> >>
> >> The main cause is food production and advances in medicine.http://www.commondreams.org/views07/0118-33.htm
> >
> >Stopping the suppression of influenza would
> >be a good first step in the right direction.
>
> If your intent is to cause untold & widespread suffering,
> I suppose it would. Wouldn't a nuke be quicker?
It's better to let Mother Nature control population.
If you put people in charge of that, you're asking
for trouble.
.
.
--
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Boston Globe humor: "Just splurge a little"
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/3d0295583fed36ba?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 15 2009 11:35 am
From: lenona321@yahoo.com
Not terribly funny.......
http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2009/02/08/just_splurge_a_little/
One thing the writer doesn't mention is how good it feels to have the
money you need for a rainy day, whether your methods are "extreme" or
not. As I wrote in a copy of "The Complete Tightwad Gazette" that I
gave to a relative a few years ago: "The great thing about frugality
is that you never have to lower your standard of living!"
There are 18 comments that follow. I smiled at the one by rick1954 at
February 08, 5:26 AM, even though *I* never considered "throwing them
away"!
And from this thread:
http://glennsacks.com/blog/?p=1553&cp=all#comments
(my posts were 11 and 14)
I wanted to add that regarding presents that are "too expensive," I
think there's almost always another good reason not to buy something,
so parents would do well to focus on that instead of saying "we can't
afford it." The only times it's really OK to say that, IMHO, are when
you're explaining why you can't pay for your kids to go to college or
go on school field trips, or why you can't get an apartment with more
than one bedroom, or why you can't afford more than two meals a day,
or why you can't even buy clothes from Goodwill. I.e., parents are not
obligated to "afford" luxuries, and if kids don't want something
enough to work for it, why should the parents?
(Check out the 1st post in the thread - it's by a father whose fifth-
grader(!) was distraught to hear from her teacher that Santa is a
myth! Sheesh.)
Lenona.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Doorbell, etc. - Saving $2.50 per month!
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/f28ae8d29331218e?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 5 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 15 2009 12:41 pm
From: "DGDevin"
Bill wrote:
> Anyway my electric bill is now $2.50 per month less and will be so
> for the rest of my life. That's $30 a year or being as my electric
> bill is now under $30 a month - one month of free electricity!
And how much did you say you spent on power strips, switches, wiring etc.?
== 2 of 5 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 15 2009 1:36 pm
From: albundy2@mailinator.com
On Feb 15, 1:36 pm, "Jon Danniken" <jondanSPAMni...@yaSPAMhoo.com>
wrote:
> "aemeijers" wrote:
> > Oh, please don't encourage the guy. Of course what he is doing is not time
> > or cost effective, but if it gives him the illusion of having some control
> > over his universe, so what?
>
> It's no problem with the fellow in question, but often folks like that tend
> to want to spread their "blessings" onto other people who have not become so
> "enlightened", and often by force. That's when it no longer becomes cute
> and quirky.
>
> Jon
Plus, his reported savings are likely do to general cutbacks then
using power strips without the tiny neon light. It's like when people
go on a diet or start concentrating on auto mileage, they start making
more and more changes. When his house burns down from using a cheap
power strip or running wires on the floor, he won't be posting that
event here.
== 3 of 5 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 15 2009 2:15 pm
From: "John Grabowski"
"Bill" <billnomailnospamx@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:6vqu7pFl4f65U1@mid.individual.net...
>I previously posted about re-wiring my doorbell so it would use electricity
>only when the button was pressed. I also went through my house and placed
>everything I could find which was "always on" on a switch or power strip.
>
> I replaced power strips which had lights on them with power strips which
> have no light. I wired switches to all GFCI outlets so I can turn them off
> when not in use. I have a rooftop TV antenna amplifier which was "always
> on" and I wired a switch to that.
>
> I placed my entertainment center things on 4 individual power strips (no
> lights) so I could turn on only what I was using. (Like just TV and DVD,
> or playstation, or satellite TV - don't need to have on components which
> are not being used.)
>
> I placed several power strips on my computer stuff. So just computer on -
> printer on separate power strip and off when not in use. Everything
> totally off when not in use.
>
> Placed outlet switches on HEPA air cleaners (have always on timers for
> filter replacement).
>
> Placed power strips (no power on light) on bedroom, garage small stereos.
> Etc.
>
> Anyway my electric bill is now $2.50 per month less and will be so for the
> rest of my life. That's $30 a year or being as my electric bill is now
> under $30 a month - one month of free electricity!
*What is the payback time for the expenses that were outlayed to do all this
switching and changes? If you spent $100.00 the payback would be in 40
months based on the $2.50 per month savings.
== 4 of 5 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 15 2009 2:33 pm
From: "K"
clams_casino wrote:
> Tony Hwang wrote:
>
>>>
>>>
>> Hi,
>> My electricity costs 7 cents per KWh locked for 5 years. What if you
>> keep powering up/down multiple devices and a surge cause a damage.
>> The repair cost may far exceed the 2.00 per month. If I wanted to
>> save electric energy my way would be using more efficient devices or
>> minimize the usage by careful planning ahead.
>
>
> I'm envious. My last electric bill was 18.5 cents / KWhr.
Connecticut?
== 5 of 5 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 15 2009 5:06 pm
From: clams_casino
K wrote:
>clams_casino wrote:
>
>
>>Tony Hwang wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>Hi,
>>>My electricity costs 7 cents per KWh locked for 5 years. What if you
>>>keep powering up/down multiple devices and a surge cause a damage.
>>>The repair cost may far exceed the 2.00 per month. If I wanted to
>>>save electric energy my way would be using more efficient devices or
>>>minimize the usage by careful planning ahead.
>>>
>>>
>>I'm envious. My last electric bill was 18.5 cents / KWhr.
>>
>>
>
>Connecticut?
>
>
>
>
RI
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Car Insurance
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/0743cd326690fd99?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 15 2009 11:51 am
From: Coffee's For Closers
In article <ec12c14d-cc1e-406f-8d17-
57234ac8e827@x10g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>, bm3719@gmail.com
says...
> If someone has enough money in the bank to cover damages in accidents,
> is it possible to not pay car insurance? If so, how would I go about
> doing so, and proving this fact if I got pulled over?
If you are in the US, contact your state's insurance commission
(or similar named agency.) Ask about options for "self-
insurance."
My understanding is that, this involves posting a large bond.
Meaning that you hand over the money to be held in case of a
claim. The amount would probably need to be at least equal to
the minimum coverage (e.g. $30K.) I expect that there are some
small administration fees.
You would receive a certificate of self-insurance, similar to the
proof document that an insurance company gives to its customers.
It might not be allowed in all states.
--
Get Credit Where Credit Is Due
http://www.cardreport.com/
Credit Tools, Reference, and Forum
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Living in CO
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/6530b80539a24694?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 4 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 15 2009 3:12 pm
From: The Real Bev
clams_casino wrote:
> Our son recently took a job between Denver & Boulder CO. It's been some
> 30 years since we vacationed in the area, but still have fond memories,
> having enjoyed that memorable vacation very much.
>
> When doing a Best Places comparison, the quality of life, taxes, climate
> & cost of living look appear very attractive. Sales and income taxes
> appear moderate while property taxes appear very reasonable. As I
> approach SS, income taxes have a minimal concern where property taxes
> will likely be the biggest (tax) cost after retirement. Downside
> appears to be the 100 inches/yr of snow,
This is a PLUS if you're a skier! Think about it...
--
Cheers, Bev
-----------------------------------------------------------
"Don't you wish there were a knob on the TV to turn up the
intelligence? There's one marked "brightness", but it
doesn't work." -- Gallagher
== 2 of 4 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 15 2009 3:47 pm
From: "LoveToMove"
"clams_casino" <PeterGriffin@DrunkinClam.com> wrote in message
news:ErXll.4436$_U5.728@newsfe20.iad...
> Our son recently took a job between Denver & Boulder CO. It's been some
> 30 years since we vacationed in the area, but still have fond memories,
> having enjoyed that memorable vacation very much.
>
> When doing a Best Places comparison, the quality of life, taxes, climate &
> cost of living look appear very attractive. Sales and income taxes appear
> moderate while property taxes appear very reasonable. As I approach SS,
> income taxes have a minimal concern where property taxes will likely be
> the biggest (tax) cost after retirement. Downside appears to be the 100
> inches/yr of snow, but the number of sunny days & moderate temperatures
> for most of the year appear attractive. General cost of living, quality
> of life and housing costs appear attractive.
>
> Any one have thoughts / experience with retirement living in towns just
> northwest of Denver?
We lived there for 3 years. Before I got pregnant with our first child, we
had a Summit pass and skied every weekend. We often would get home in the
early evening, put on shorts and a t-shirt and run. If you like being
active, this is one of the best places to be. They have fitness centers all
over the Denver-Boulder corridor. But, one thing I missed terribly is the
lack of oaks and maples and birds! Aspens are OK, but I longed for the
oranges and reds. Colorado seems to have 2 real seasons: winter and summer,
with some crazy days in between (70s in the afternoon and 30s just a few
hours later). To cool our home, we used a "swamp cooler". It goes on the
roof of the house and is a large fan that blows a mist of tiny water
particles through the house (you have to leave at least 1 window open a tiny
bit to force the drier air out). It was amazing how cold the house got! And
it was much cheaper than air-conditioning to run.
== 3 of 4 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 15 2009 4:08 pm
From: William Boyd
Joan F (MI) wrote:
> To each his own, I don't understand how people can stand to live in Florida.
>
> --
> Retired in Michigan
>
>
> William Boyd wrote:
> |
> | I can not understand why some one would retire in a cold climate.
>
>
I suppose you are right, if you weren't there would be no one in Alaska.
I spent many years in the south Pacific and never had airconditioning,
only ceiling fans. Maybe I spoiled my body Climate Control. Actually the
seasons are only two, hot and wet and hot and dry.
I spent a 4th of July down in Rock Port Texas, on the coast. As long
as you could move the air you could stay cool.
But in the cold climate areas, you must either bundle up or have heat. I
spent several years in Newfoundland, never did get warm.
BP
== 4 of 4 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 15 2009 4:30 pm
From: clams_casino
Joan F (MI) wrote:
>To each his own, I don't understand how people can stand to live in Florida.
>
>
>
When my grandparents retired (CT), they thought about moving to FL. My
parents convinced them to spend time there in the spring, summer and
fall - not just in the winter.
A year later, they retired to NH.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: America is doomed without industrial restoration
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/3ac833194943bee0?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 15 2009 3:57 pm
From: "Bill Bonde { No matter what happens, it's caused by global warming )"
Rod Speed wrote:
>
> Bill Bonde wrote
> > John A. Weeks III wrote
> >> wismel@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> >>> In the long run it all comes down to loss of US productivity.. the loss of US created wealth.
>
> >> Ummm, worker productivity has been at an all time high for quite
> >> some time, and has been surging ahead over the past few months.
> >> There is no issue with productivity.
>
> >>> Unless the US can rebuild its manufacturing capability it will be a
> >>> long slide into a third world level of subsistence.
>
> >> Ummm, the US is at an all time high for manufacturing at the moment.
> >> We manufacture far more than we did in 15 years ago. That is now
> >> an issue right now.
>
> >>> The only solution is to withdarw from the WTO and allow US workers -
> >>> and only US workers - the ability to make this country into a
> >>> powerhouse again
>
> >> That sounds like the old burry you head in the sand and hope it
> >> goes away theory. Good luck with that.
>
> > There is an issue with regards to the balance of trade.
> > For some reason the Chinese economy is tanking,
>
> Because the world economy is tanking and so exports are dropping.
>
I know that, the issue is why are their imports also dropped
quickly even as they have a trade surplus? Why not export $30bn a
month in food to China and balance things up? They could eat and
the US would be slightly less in trouble.
> > imports are going down,
>
> Because the chinese economy is tanking.
>
But they still have $30bn a month.
> > and yet they are still running about a $30bn a month trade surplus.
>
> Yep, because even when the world economy is tanking, that does not mean zero exports.
>
> People still need to buy lots of stuff.
>
But why are the Chinse starving when they get $30bn a month in
surplus?
> > Meanwhile the people are starving.
>
> Nope, no chinese are starving.
>
I bet you claim that Americans are.
> > How about employing Americans to grow some food and sell it to China?
>
> They do.
>
I'm talking about to make up the trade difference.
> > The blackhole that this money is going into needs to stop.
>
> Easier said than done.
>
People could start talking about it.
--
He and Evie soon fell into a conversation of the "No, I didn't;
yes, you did" type--conversation which, though fascinating to those
who are engaged in it, neither desires nor deserves the attention
of others.
-+E.M. Forster, "Howards End"
== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 15 2009 4:20 pm
From: "Rod Speed"
Bill Bonde { No matter what happens, it's caused by global warming ) wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Bill Bonde wrote
>>> John A. Weeks III wrote
>>>> wismel@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>>> In the long run it all comes down to loss of US productivity..
>>>>> the loss of US created wealth.
>>>> Ummm, worker productivity has been at an all time high for quite
>>>> some time, and has been surging ahead over the past few months.
>>>> There is no issue with productivity.
>>>>> Unless the US can rebuild its manufacturing capability it
>>>>> will be a long slide into a third world level of subsistence.
>>>> Ummm, the US is at an all time high for manufacturing at the
>>>> moment. We manufacture far more than we did in 15 years ago.
>>>> That is now an issue right now.
>>>>> The only solution is to withdarw from the WTO and allow US workers - and
>>>>> only US workers - the ability to make this country into a powerhouse again
>>>> That sounds like the old burry you head in the sand
>>>> and hope it goes away theory. Good luck with that.
>>> There is an issue with regards to the balance of trade.
>>> For some reason the Chinese economy is tanking,
>> Because the world economy is tanking and so exports are dropping.
> I know that, the issue is why are their imports also dropped quickly
Because so many of them have lost their jobs and hordes more worry about
how long they will have their jobs for, and so they dont buy whats imported.
> even as they have a trade surplus? Why not export
> $30bn a month in food to China and balance things up?
Because they arent interested in importing US food.
> They could eat and the US would be slightly less in trouble.
Yes, but they arent interested in importing US food.
>>> imports are going down,
>> Because the chinese economy is tanking.
> But they still have $30bn a month.
Yes, because the economy is taking and thats affecting both imports
and exports, and they still have a massive trade surplus in their favour.
>>> and yet they are still running about a $30bn a month trade surplus.
>> Yep, because even when the world economy is tanking, that does not mean zero exports.
>> People still need to buy lots of stuff.
> But why are the Chinse starving
No chinese are starving. They havent done that since the cultural revolution.
> when they get $30bn a month in surplus?
>>> Meanwhile the people are starving.
>> Nope, no chinese are starving.
> I bet you claim that Americans are.
Nope, I have in fact said repeatedly that the only americans who
are starving are those with mental conditions like anorexia etc.
They cant be starving with so many obscenely obese americans around.
When was the last time you saw an american with its ribs sticking out
like you see with concentration camps except those with anorexia etc ?
>>> How about employing Americans to grow some food and sell it to China?
>> They do.
> I'm talking about to make up the trade difference.
They grow enough of their own food to not need to import that much from america.
>>> The blackhole that this money is going into needs to stop.
>> Easier said than done.
> People could start talking about it.
They are, no one has been able to come up with any way to stop it happening.
== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 15 2009 5:52 pm
From: Aviroce
You remind me of a logical fallacy I would like to entertain you
with. Mark Twain, not one of my favorite as he is a racist, wrote:
One time, a group of citizens were fighting the board of education
until one guy among them yelled, "I read it in the Holly Book."
Every body stopped and listened.
He continued, "God created all idiots. And that was for practice.
Then he created the board of education." Everyone was perplexed as
well excited to hear him. Everyone had a laught or two and left the
gathering.
On Feb 15, 8:20 am, Hiccum Blurpaedius <hic...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 12, 6:26 am, wis...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > All the bailouts... and the stimulii...all the hot air....the debt...
> > the debt servicing... they DON"T MATTER
>
> > In the long run it all comes down to loss of US productivity.. the
> > loss of US created wealth.
> > Unless the US can rebuild its manufacturing capability it will be a
> > long slide into a third world level of subsistence.
>
> > Generating paper has never saved a country from its expoitators.
>
> > The only solution is to withdarw from the WTO and allow US workers -
> > and only US workers - the ability to make this country into a
> > powerhouse again
>
> > This morning I was reading Sen. Leathy's comments supporting
> > immigration "reform". The old degenerate wants more immigrants!
>
> >http://www.numbersusa.com/ Numbers USA
>
> >http://www.wvwnews.net/ Western Voices World News
>
> > ted
>
> That is the solution.
>
> We manufature criminals.
> Then we manufacture drugs to sedate the voters.
> Then we allow illegal immigrants into the country.
> Then we sedate the voters. Those that refuse will be prosecuted.
>
> Now all we have yo do is sedate the rest of the world so we cam allow
> aliens from other planets to work for social security.
>
> Reganomics and the trickle down economy.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
==============================================================================
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
