Saturday, February 20, 2010
misc.consumers.frugal-living - 25 new messages in 10 topics - digest
This summary is not available. Please
click here to view the post.
misc.consumers.frugal-living - 10 new messages in 5 topics - digest
misc.consumers.frugal-living
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living?hl=en
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living?hl=en
misc.consumers.frugal-living@googlegroups.com
Today's topics:
* Cutting down the cost of washing machine powder - 5 messages, 4 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/3b767149103b33f0?hl=en
* Big duh - 2 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/e406cd0060cc116b?hl=en
* E-book scam: Publisher wants you to pay MORE for the DRM, crippled, shit e-
book copy than the phy$ical version - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/10fb7c5a15d86bc3?hl=en
* Pay mortage payment before due date? - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/3228aec93fd86575?hl=en
* DIY Pizza: Cheaper, Tastier, More Fun - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/613a0e6c1881d403?hl=en
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Cutting down the cost of washing machine powder
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/3b767149103b33f0?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 5 ==
Date: Fri, Feb 19 2010 3:09 pm
From: "Bob F"
me@privacy.net wrote:
> "Bob F" <bobnospam@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I've never used liquid detergents, and I never use detergents with
>> scents.
>>
>> When I've calculated it in the past, powdered detergents are way
>> cheaper where I've shopped.
>
> what is the brand you use?
Tide currently.
== 2 of 5 ==
Date: Fri, Feb 19 2010 6:09 pm
From: JIMMIE
On Feb 19, 8:10 am, "john bently" <bluest...@mail.invalid> wrote:
> I remember reading a while ago that it costs the washing machine powder
> manufacturers more to make the carboard box than it does to make the washing
> power inside the box. In all events having to pay between £4.50 and £6.50
> odd for a box weighing 2.4Kg week after week mounts up to a big expenditure.
>
> There is all this endless chat from manufacturers in their adverts about how
> white etc, etc, but do they really know what they are doing? It was not so
> long ago that it was found some of these powders actually cause the clothes
> fabrics to rot.
>
> Since most peoples clothes are not really that dirty as a general rule, is
> there not a simpler less expensive alternative that could be made up to put
> in a washing machine? Thanks for any advice.
I use the detergent depending on how soiled the clothes are. On my
regular office clothes about 1/4 of the suggested amount. When Ive
been working in the yard about 1/2. Wifes undies...double strength.
Seriously though I use about 1/4 the amount unless something is really
dirty or greasy. Rubbing a little Octagon soap into the dirty spots on
my work clothes really helps. I didnt realize how much we were paying
for laundry powders until I had to go off for training for 6wks.
Jimmie
== 3 of 5 ==
Date: Fri, Feb 19 2010 10:33 pm
From: terry
On Feb 19, 10:10 am, "john bently" <bluest...@mail.invalid> wrote:
> I remember reading a while ago that it costs the washing machine powder
> manufacturers more to make the carboard box than it does to make the washing
> power inside the box. In all events having to pay between £4.50 and £6.50
> odd for a box weighing 2.4Kg week after week mounts up to a big expenditure.
>
> There is all this endless chat from manufacturers in their adverts about how
> white etc, etc, but do they really know what they are doing? It was not so
> long ago that it was found some of these powders actually cause the clothes
> fabrics to rot.
>
> Since most peoples clothes are not really that dirty as a general rule, is
> there not a simpler less expensive alternative that could be made up to put
> in a washing machine? Thanks for any advice.
======================================================================
Wow! Between 4 and 7 UK pounds for slightly over five pounds of
laundry detergent; that's something of the order, in North America,
of seven to ten dollars!!!! Or $2.50 per pound.
Just how much is used each wash load and in what kind of washer;
because UK and European style washers I have encountered in Britain
and the Middle East, in recent years are smallish front loaders? Less
than half a small cup??????
Here a couple of kilos of the cheaper 'house brand' powder laundry
detergent in my 20+ year old North American style washer with a couple
to three loads per week, which include the odd heavy item like a very
large towel, bed blankets etc. etc. lasts for at least several weeks
to a couple of months plus. Only think have bought laundry detergent
once, since Christmas and there is at least a third to half a box
left!
Sometimes wash in warm water, if anything greasy and at other times in
cold water. Washed a load tonight which included four or more towels,
several shirts and socks and a pile of male underwear; wasn't a
particularly heavy load btw, and used one small measure, about a
cupful, of detergent.
== 4 of 5 ==
Date: Fri, Feb 19 2010 11:24 pm
From: "Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds"
In article
<7u84noFem7U1@mid.individual.net>,
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com>
wrote:
> > Thanks for any advice.
>
> Even advice to shove you head up a dead bear's arse ?
what other advice has rod speed ever
given?
== 5 of 5 ==
Date: Fri, Feb 19 2010 11:26 pm
From: "Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds"
In article
<7u8620Fmb4U1@mid.individual.net>,
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Not in some situations. I wash in cold water and wear dark blue
> T shirts all year round and find that you get a sort of scum with
> powders which appears to be due to the soap not dissolving entirely.
IOWs you use too much
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Big duh
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/e406cd0060cc116b?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Fri, Feb 19 2010 5:37 pm
From: "The Henchman"
"Michael Black" <et472@ncf.ca> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.64.1002191500010.18671@darkstar.example.net...
> On Thu, 18 Feb 2010, Camellia Sinensis wrote:
>
>> There was a news story on Northwest News today stating that banks were
>> trying to figure out ways to get people to save more money. Do you think
>> that maybe if they paid more than .4 percent interest on a regular
>> savings account or .8 on a "long term CD" people might be more tempted?
>> I mean, we are talking less than ONE PERCENT! Banks have no problem
>> charging their customers outrageous fees for everything from using
>> another banks ATM, overdraft fees, late fees, over limit fees or up to
>> 29% interest on credit cards, but seem surprised that we aren't racing to
>> the bank to pour more money into savings accounts. That isn't rocket
>> science. I can remember banks paying 4 1/2% interest on a passbook
>> saving account back in the 50's and early 60's. If the banks weren't so
>> damned greedy now people might think about saving a little money. At
>> today's interest rates you might as well stuff it under your mattress.
> Huh?
>
> You're saying it's better to spend money than get little interest. But,
> if the point is to have money, you are better off saving it whatever
> the interest than spending it.
He didn't say anything about spending money.
I Invest it into index funds or a bond fund with a few stocks on the side.
Savings accounts cost you money because of inflation. I keep about 4 months
savings cash in a bank account and the rest is invested. Savings account
interest is taxed at the highest income rate. Capital gains are taxed at
50% less of income and dividends are taxed 75% less of income , at least in
Canada. Keeping most of your savings in a savings account is the worst
investment choice one can make for mid to long term investing in this day
and age.
== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Fri, Feb 19 2010 7:32 pm
From: "Rod Speed"
Vic Smith wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Feb 2010 13:02:13 -0800 (PST), BigDog1
> <bigdog811@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Feb 18, 5:34 pm, "Camellia Sinensis" <csgreen...@hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>> There was a news story on Northwest News today stating that banks
>>> were trying to figure out ways to get people to save more money. Do
>>> you think that maybe if they paid more than .4 percent interest on
>>> a regular savings account or .8 on a "long term CD" people might be
>>> more tempted? I mean, we are talking less than ONE PERCENT! Banks
>>> have no problem charging their customers outrageous fees for
>>> everything from using another banks ATM, overdraft fees, late fees,
>>> over limit fees or up to 29% interest on credit cards, but seem
>>> surprised that we aren't racing to the bank to pour more money into
>>> savings accounts. That isn't rocket science. I can remember banks
>>> paying 4 1/2% interest on a passbook saving account back in the
>>> 50's and early 60's. If the banks weren't so damned greedy now
>>> people might think about saving a little money. At today's interest
>>> rates you might as well stuff it under your mattress.
>>
>> Well, your statement that it isn't rocket is correct, but not in your
>> context. People who have to pay overdraft fees, late fees, and over
>> limit fees lack discipline and are financially irresponsible. And
>> anyone who is using a credit card with a 29% interest rate must have
>> a pretty crumby FICO score.
>>
>> What's not rocket science is that if you live within your means, pay
>> your bills on time, and plan your cash needs properly, you won't need
>> to worry about any of those charges. And, as Michael pointed out,
>> not saving in light of low interest is about as foolish a theory as
>> I've ever heard (see my comment above).
>
> I doubt he's personally worried about the fees.
> His beef is with the low interest rates, which *do* discourage savings
> *in a bank.*
> If your getting hardly any return for your money there isn't much
> difference in keeping it in a bank or under a mattress.
> What you're all missing is that Wall Street guys are in charge of
> monetary policy and interest rates.
Like hell they are.
> The lower the interest rate in banks, the more likely people are to
> gamble their money in the stock market, and keep the stock market
> bubble inflated.
Utterly mangled all over again.
> Of course they can say they want to keep rates down to avoid the
> continuing wave of variable rate home loan foreclosures.
'Wall Street guys' dont determine those interest rates either.
> And that argument does hold some water.
> The economy is between a rock and a hard place.
Nope, it will recover fine, just like it did the last time you clowns
completely imploded the entire world financial system.
> Current interest rates are an unnatural joke, and
> anybody who's been around a while knows it.
You're a joke.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: E-book scam: Publisher wants you to pay MORE for the DRM, crippled,
shit e-book copy than the phy$ical version
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/10fb7c5a15d86bc3?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Fri, Feb 19 2010 6:38 pm
From: zeez
"Imagine trying to buy a book from Big Generic Bookstore and watching
the cashier add $5 to the sticker price. "What are you doing?!" you
cry out, waving a fist menacingly at him. "You look like you can
afford it," he says back to you with a hint of entitltement. That's
basically what a publishing industry expert said in a piece he wrote
last week about ebook pricing.
Michael Cader's piece was aimed at publishers (it's only available
behind a pay wall, but you can read a summary of it here), and it laid
out a strategy for how publishers should frame the ebook pricing
discussion so that they can wrest control of the issue away from the
dumb old media. A lot of it, in fact, is advice on how to get out of
Amazon's PR chokehold on topics like average price, consumer
purchasing habits, and fair value. Cader is a publisher himself, and a
smart guy who tends to be ahead of the curve in marketplace trends, so
publishing types pay attention when he speaks. Among his advice to the
industry is this one:
"People who can afford an ereading device can afford all proposed
ebook prices."<snip>
Great, so I won't by *anything* that has this loser's company even
remotely attached to it
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Pay mortage payment before due date?
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/3228aec93fd86575?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Fri, Feb 19 2010 11:20 pm
From: "Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds"
In article
<7u71tiF5lkU1@mid.individual.net>,
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Malcom "Mal" Reynolds wrote:
> > In article
> > <7u5jb0F4lfU1@mid.individual.net>,
> > "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Malcom "Mal" Reynolds wrote:
> >>> In article
> >>> <7u44kaFurcU1@mid.individual.net>,
> >>> "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Malcom "Mal" Reynolds wrote:
> >>>>> In article
> >>>>> <7u1hmnF9cpU1@mid.individual.net>,
> >>>>> "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com>
> >>>>> wrote:
> <reams of your puerile shit any 2 year old could leave for dead flushed
> where it belongs>
why is it that fools like you think
censoring responses makes you seem more
"intelligent" old fella
--
ELOQUIDIOT (n) A highly educated,
sophisticated, and articulate person who
has absolutely no clue concerning what
they are talking about.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: DIY Pizza: Cheaper, Tastier, More Fun
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/613a0e6c1881d403?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Fri, Feb 19 2010 11:20 pm
From: "Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds"
In article
<7u7237F6h7U1@mid.individual.net>,
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com>
wrote:
> >>
<reams of your puerile shit any 2 year
old could leave for dead flushed
> where it belongs>
==============================================================================
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)