Frugal Living: Apr 30, 2010

misc.consumers.frugal-living
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living?hl=en

misc.consumers.frugal-living@googlegroups.com

Today's topics:

==============================================================================
TOPIC: WALL STREET CASINO
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/bee8637e9faa2b39?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 10 ==
Date: Thurs, Apr 29 2010 3:40 pm
From: "F. Kurgan Gringioni"

"Les Cargill" <lcargill99@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:hrcu1j$jno$1@news.eternal-september.org...
> F. Kurgan Gringioni wrote:
>>
>> "Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS" <betaxxx@earthlink.net> wrote
>> in message
>> news:0d304a88-4d55-4b05-b2dd-e4c017b2dc9e@s4g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>> Wall street is worse than a casino since a casino is at least legal.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> The big problem is that most of what they did WAS legal.
>>
>
> That is actually a really good question, not a statement
> per se :) Derivatives themselevs are fairly old-school;
> they were invented by a member of the Chicago Board
> of Trade, where offsetting futures contracts were commonplace
> forever.
>
>> That's why Congress needs to reregulate the deriviatives market.
>
>
> This is much harder than it looks. I believe ( but could
> easily be wrong )that derivatives are fixing to be put on
> exchanges as part of the Dodd bill.
>
> Stocks crashed when on exchanges, so it won't be perfect by
> any stretch. IMO, counterparty risk works like any
> model of a network failure - like blackouts in electric
> power. There is only so much instrumentation you can
> add, and only so much control you have once a failure mode
> begins.

That's not what the problem was.

In the "Commodities Futures Modernization Act", which in the 11th hour was
inserted into an omnibus spending bill by then Senator Phil Gramm in 2000,
the trading of mortagage credit default swaps was suddenly legal again. They
were not legal since 1934 since the passing of the Glass-Steagal Act.

After Gramm's little sleight of hand, the investment banks could suddenly
sell "insurance" against a mortgage default. That's not a problem, but they
were allowed to do so WITHOUT COLLATERAL. They didn't have to show that they
had assets in reserve to back up the mortage defaults in the event that they
did fail.

It was almost like a license to print money. The higher ups in those
companies made huge bonuses by selling the credit default swaps in a
positive housing market because none of the loans were defaulting. It was
pure profit. The problem came when the housing market declined, the policies
came due and there were no assets to back up the policies. The banks were so
big that the financial system would grind to a halt if they failed, so the
government was forced to step in and bail them out. In the meantime, the
people who sold those deriviatives got to keep their bonuses.

The system is incentivized in such a way that it's bound to happen again if
it's not regulated.

== 2 of 10 ==
Date: Thurs, Apr 29 2010 4:19 pm
From: Les Cargill

F. Kurgan Gringioni wrote:
>
> "Les Cargill" <lcargill99@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:hrcu1j$jno$1@news.eternal-september.org...
>> F. Kurgan Gringioni wrote:
>>>
>>> "Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS" <betaxxx@earthlink.net> wrote
>>> in message
>>> news:0d304a88-4d55-4b05-b2dd-e4c017b2dc9e@s4g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
>>>
>>>> Wall street is worse than a casino since a casino is at least legal.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The big problem is that most of what they did WAS legal.
>>>
>>
>> That is actually a really good question, not a statement
>> per se :) Derivatives themselevs are fairly old-school;
>> they were invented by a member of the Chicago Board
>> of Trade, where offsetting futures contracts were commonplace
>> forever.
>>
>>> That's why Congress needs to reregulate the deriviatives market.
>>
>>
>> This is much harder than it looks. I believe ( but could
>> easily be wrong )that derivatives are fixing to be put on
>> exchanges as part of the Dodd bill.
>>
>> Stocks crashed when on exchanges, so it won't be perfect by
>> any stretch. IMO, counterparty risk works like any
>> model of a network failure - like blackouts in electric
>> power. There is only so much instrumentation you can
>> add, and only so much control you have once a failure mode
>> begins.
>
>
>
>
> That's not what the problem was.
>
> In the "Commodities Futures Modernization Act", which in the 11th hour
> was inserted into an omnibus spending bill by then Senator Phil Gramm in
> 2000, the trading of mortagage credit default swaps was suddenly legal
> again. They were not legal since 1934 since the passing of the
> Glass-Steagal Act.
>

I did not know that. Thanks! This point is
very seldom brought up. There it is, too:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramm–Leach–Bliley_Act
"
Contrary to Phil Gramm's claim that "GLB didn't deregulate anything"
(see Defense), the GLB Act that he co-authored explicitly exempted
security-based swap agreements (a derivative financial product based on
another security's value or performance) from regulation by the SEC by
amending the Securities Act of 1933, Section 2A, and similarly the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Section 3A, to read, in part:[28] [29]

1. The definition of "security" in section 2(a)(1) does not include
any security-based swap agreement (as defined in section 206B of the
Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act [15 USCS § 78c note]).
2. The Commission is prohibited from registering, or requiring,
recommending, or suggesting, the registration under this title of any
security-based swap agreement[.] ...
"

> After Gramm's little sleight of hand, the investment banks could
> suddenly sell "insurance" against a mortgage default. That's not a
> problem, but they were allowed to do so WITHOUT COLLATERAL. They didn't
> have to show that they had assets in reserve to back up the mortage
> defaults in the event that they did fail.
>
> It was almost like a license to print money.

Almost? This sounds a lot like the old pre-central-bank version
of fractional reserve banking. That *is* a license to print money,
literally when they were "bank notes."

> The higher ups in those
> companies made huge bonuses by selling the credit default swaps in a
> positive housing market because none of the loans were defaulting. It
> was pure profit. The problem came when the housing market declined, the
> policies came due and there were no assets to back up the policies. The
> banks were so big that the financial system would grind to a halt if
> they failed, so the government was forced to step in and bail them out.
> In the meantime, the people who sold those deriviatives got to keep
> their bonuses.
>
> The system is incentivized in such a way that it's bound to happen again
> if it's not regulated.

Agreed. Although slapping reserve requirements on derivatives
will probably slow the economy down, and nobody seems to
have a handle on how much. I'm beginning to think
the Fed just needs to sell insurance on the insurance, and
in a manner that will generate revenue for the government.

Obviously, that's an unsettling prospect, but it might be
the lesser of the evils. That could be considered a "leased"
version of a demand-based capital reserve requirement. If
a claim would negatively affect the counter party's rating,
then there's a feedback leg.

And thanks again - I had previously missed the tie to GLB.

--
Les Cargill

== 3 of 10 ==
Date: Thurs, Apr 29 2010 4:24 pm
From: "Rod Speed"

Les Cargill wrote:
> F. Kurgan Gringioni wrote:
>>
>> "Les Cargill" <lcargill99@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:hrcu1j$jno$1@news.eternal-september.org...
>>> F. Kurgan Gringioni wrote:
>>>>
>>>> "Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS" <betaxxx@earthlink.net>
>>>> wrote in message
>>>> news:0d304a88-4d55-4b05-b2dd-e4c017b2dc9e@s4g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
>>>>
>>>>> Wall street is worse than a casino since a casino is at least
>>>>> legal.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The big problem is that most of what they did WAS legal.
>>>>
>>>
>>> That is actually a really good question, not a statement
>>> per se :) Derivatives themselevs are fairly old-school;
>>> they were invented by a member of the Chicago Board
>>> of Trade, where offsetting futures contracts were commonplace
>>> forever.
>>>
>>>> That's why Congress needs to reregulate the deriviatives market.
>>>
>>>
>>> This is much harder than it looks. I believe ( but could
>>> easily be wrong )that derivatives are fixing to be put on
>>> exchanges as part of the Dodd bill.
>>>
>>> Stocks crashed when on exchanges, so it won't be perfect by
>>> any stretch. IMO, counterparty risk works like any
>>> model of a network failure - like blackouts in electric
>>> power. There is only so much instrumentation you can
>>> add, and only so much control you have once a failure mode
>>> begins.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> That's not what the problem was.
>>
>> In the "Commodities Futures Modernization Act", which in the 11th
>> hour was inserted into an omnibus spending bill by then Senator Phil
>> Gramm in 2000, the trading of mortagage credit default swaps was
>> suddenly legal again. They were not legal since 1934 since the
>> passing of the Glass-Steagal Act.
>>
>
> I did not know that. Thanks! This point is
> very seldom brought up. There it is, too:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramm–Leach–Bliley_Act
> "
> Contrary to Phil Gramm's claim that "GLB didn't deregulate anything"
> (see Defense), the GLB Act that he co-authored explicitly exempted
> security-based swap agreements (a derivative financial product based
> on another security's value or performance) from regulation by the
> SEC by amending the Securities Act of 1933, Section 2A, and similarly
> the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Section 3A, to read, in
> part:[28] [29]
> 1. The definition of "security" in section 2(a)(1) does not
> include any security-based swap agreement (as defined in section 206B
> of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act [15 USCS § 78c note]).
> 2. The Commission is prohibited from registering, or requiring,
> recommending, or suggesting, the registration under this title of any
> security-based swap agreement[.] ...
> "

Trouble with that line is that even if the Gramm exemption had not applied,
it would have happened outside the country, in Britain where it was allowed.

>> After Gramm's little sleight of hand, the investment banks could
>> suddenly sell "insurance" against a mortgage default. That's not a
>> problem, but they were allowed to do so WITHOUT COLLATERAL. They
>> didn't have to show that they had assets in reserve to back up the
>> mortage defaults in the event that they did fail.
>>
>> It was almost like a license to print money.
>
> Almost? This sounds a lot like the old pre-central-bank version
> of fractional reserve banking. That *is* a license to print money,
> literally when they were "bank notes."
>
>> The higher ups in those
>> companies made huge bonuses by selling the credit default swaps in a
>> positive housing market because none of the loans were defaulting. It
>> was pure profit. The problem came when the housing market declined,
>> the policies came due and there were no assets to back up the
>> policies. The banks were so big that the financial system would
>> grind to a halt if they failed, so the government was forced to step
>> in and bail them out. In the meantime, the people who sold those
>> deriviatives got to keep their bonuses.
>>
>> The system is incentivized in such a way that it's bound to happen
>> again if it's not regulated.
>
>
> Agreed. Although slapping reserve requirements on derivatives
> will probably slow the economy down, and nobody seems to
> have a handle on how much. I'm beginning to think
> the Fed just needs to sell insurance on the insurance, and
> in a manner that will generate revenue for the government.
>
> Obviously, that's an unsettling prospect, but it might be
> the lesser of the evils. That could be considered a "leased"
> version of a demand-based capital reserve requirement. If
> a claim would negatively affect the counter party's rating,
> then there's a feedback leg.
>
> And thanks again - I had previously missed the tie to GLB.

== 4 of 10 ==
Date: Thurs, Apr 29 2010 4:48 pm
From: "F. Kurgan Gringioni"

"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:83uiqaF37gU1@mid.individual.net...
>
> Trouble with that line is that even if the Gramm exemption had not
> applied,
> it would have happened outside the country, in Britain where it was
> allowed.

I kinda doubt it.

Selling credit default swaps in the UK on mortgages in the US?

If it were to happen that readily, why didn't it happen before Gramm's
legislative sleight of hand?

== 5 of 10 ==
Date: Thurs, Apr 29 2010 4:51 pm
From: "F. Kurgan Gringioni"

"Les Cargill" <lcargill99@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:hrd47e$rur$1@news.eternal-september.org...
>
> I did not know that. Thanks!

No, thank YOU.

I've had discussions on this topic before with some other people on usenet
and usually they won't even consider the information I present.

It's a complicated topic and to have any sort of reasonable discourse takes
smart and open minded individuals.

== 6 of 10 ==
Date: Thurs, Apr 29 2010 4:58 pm
From: Les Cargill

F. Kurgan Gringioni wrote:
>
> "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:83uiqaF37gU1@mid.individual.net...
>>
>> Trouble with that line is that even if the Gramm exemption had not
>> applied,
>> it would have happened outside the country, in Britain where it was
>> allowed.
>
>
> I kinda doubt it.
>
> Selling credit default swaps in the UK on mortgages in the US?
>

As I understand it, this absolutely happened. The story is that Lehman
sent a pallet of (electronic) money to the UK desk daily, and
the day they went under, that didn't happen.

This has been presented as a constraint on certain classes of
regulation.

I absolutely take your meaning though - how can US deregulation
cause that level of change in Britain, unless there was
parallel change in Britain? And I simply don't know.

> If it were to happen that readily, why didn't it happen before Gramm's
> legislative sleight of hand?

Good question.

--
Les Cargill

== 7 of 10 ==
Date: Thurs, Apr 29 2010 5:04 pm
From: Les Cargill

F. Kurgan Gringioni wrote:
>
> "Les Cargill" <lcargill99@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:hrd47e$rur$1@news.eternal-september.org...
>>
>> I did not know that. Thanks!
>
>
>
> No, thank YOU.
>
> I've had discussions on this topic before with some other people on
> usenet and usually they won't even consider the information I present.
>
> It's a complicated topic

Blindingly. It's a real challenge to stay out of our normal
tendency to ideology. Macroeconomics has a severe and profound
dualism right now, and that doesn't make it any easier.

I read Eugene Fama saying "I used to think I knew what a bubble
was" and despair :)

> and to have any sort of reasonable discourse
> takes smart and open minded individuals.

Oh, you're talking to somebody else then :)

--
Les Cargill

== 8 of 10 ==
Date: Thurs, Apr 29 2010 5:35 pm
From: "Rod Speed"

F. Kurgan Gringioni wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote

>> Trouble with that line is that even if the Gramm exemption had not applied,
>> it would have happened outside the country, in Britain where it was allowed.

> I kinda doubt it.

It happened with other stuff that the SEC did not allow.

> Selling credit default swaps in the UK on mortgages in the US?

Yep, just like CDOs on mortgages in the US were sold all over the entire world.

> If it were to happen that readily, why didn't it happen before Gramm's legislative sleight of hand?

Essentially because that sort of thing never got up a head of steam.

== 9 of 10 ==
Date: Thurs, Apr 29 2010 5:41 pm
From: "Rod Speed"

Les Cargill wrote
> F. Kurgan Gringioni wrote
>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote

>>> Trouble with that line is that even if the Gramm exemption had not applied,
>>> it would have happened outside the country, in Britain where it was allowed.

>> I kinda doubt it.

>> Selling credit default swaps in the UK on mortgages in the US?

> As I understand it, this absolutely happened. The story is that Lehman sent a pallet of (electronic) money to the UK
> desk daily,

Precisely, and that was done because those transactions werent allowed in the US.

> and the day they went under, that didn't happen.

> This has been presented as a constraint on certain classes of regulation.

And that is precisely what it is, and why Brown has been going on about
joint action on increased regulation right across all the economys that matter.

> I absolutely take your meaning though - how can US deregulation cause that level of change in Britain, unless there
> was parallel change in Britain?

Didnt need to, there was no equivalent of Glass-Steagal
in Britain that needed any parallel change there.

> And I simply don't know.

>> If it were to happen that readily, why didn't it happen before Gramm's legislative sleight of hand?

> Good question.

It wasnt the fashion before that. Even in Britain where it was always legal.

== 10 of 10 ==
Date: Thurs, Apr 29 2010 6:30 pm
From: Billy

In article <hrd1t5$g20$1@news.eternal-september.org>,
"F. Kurgan Gringioni" <kgringioni@hotmail.com> wrote:

> "Les Cargill" <lcargill99@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:hrcu1j$jno$1@news.eternal-september.org...
> > F. Kurgan Gringioni wrote:
> >>
> >> "Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS" <betaxxx@earthlink.net> wrote
> >> in message
> >> news:0d304a88-4d55-4b05-b2dd-e4c017b2dc9e@s4g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
> >>
> >>> Wall street is worse than a casino since a casino is at least legal.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> The big problem is that most of what they did WAS legal.
> >>
> >
> > That is actually a really good question, not a statement
> > per se :) Derivatives themselevs are fairly old-school;
> > they were invented by a member of the Chicago Board
> > of Trade, where offsetting futures contracts were commonplace
> > forever.
> >
> >> That's why Congress needs to reregulate the deriviatives market.
> >
> >
> > This is much harder than it looks. I believe ( but could
> > easily be wrong )that derivatives are fixing to be put on
> > exchanges as part of the Dodd bill.
> >
> > Stocks crashed when on exchanges, so it won't be perfect by
> > any stretch. IMO, counterparty risk works like any
> > model of a network failure - like blackouts in electric
> > power. There is only so much instrumentation you can
> > add, and only so much control you have once a failure mode
> > begins.
>
>
>
>
> That's not what the problem was.
>
> In the "Commodities Futures Modernization Act", which in the 11th hour was
> inserted into an omnibus spending bill by then Senator Phil Gramm in 2000,
> the trading of mortagage credit default swaps was suddenly legal again. They
> were not legal since 1934 since the passing of the Glass-Steagal Act.
>
> After Gramm's little sleight of hand, the investment banks could suddenly
> sell "insurance" against a mortgage default. That's not a problem, but they
> were allowed to do so WITHOUT COLLATERAL. They didn't have to show that they
> had assets in reserve to back up the mortage defaults in the event that they
> did fail.
>
> It was almost like a license to print money. The higher ups in those
> companies made huge bonuses by selling the credit default swaps in a
> positive housing market because none of the loans were defaulting. It was
> pure profit. The problem came when the housing market declined, the policies
> came due and there were no assets to back up the policies. The banks were so
> big that the financial system would grind to a halt if they failed, so the
> government was forced to step in and bail them out. In the meantime, the
> people who sold those deriviatives got to keep their bonuses.
>
> The system is incentivized in such a way that it's bound to happen again if
> it's not regulated.

Nice concise explanation. Thank you.
--
- Billy
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the
merger of state and corporate power." - Benito Mussolini.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Arn3lF5XSUg
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Zinn/HZinn_page.html

==============================================================================
TOPIC: deciding to buy new stove - drop in or free standing?
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/62736bc44392b08a?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Thurs, Apr 29 2010 5:20 pm
From: "Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds"

In article
<hrcutt$qr7$1@news.albasani.net>,
Jeff Thies <jeff_thies@att.net> wrote:

> Malcom "Mal" Reynolds wrote:
> > In article
> > <df202608-0b77-459a-ae9b-fbf2f26f1bef@t2
> > 1g2000yqg.googlegroups.com>,
> > aj <alg3210@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> We have an old GE drop in 27 inch stove that needs to be replaced.
> >> After doing the preliminary research, we found the following: The new
> >> 27 inch one costs $1100. However, a 30 inch drop in is around $640 or
> >> a 30 inch free standing is around $350. We are looking for a cheap one
> >> as we will leave this place in a few years. To get that extra 3 inch,
> >> we need to hire carpenter. Carpentry work is more for free standing
> >> than for drop in. For free standing, the extra electrical work is
> >> needed for box and pigtail.
> >>
> >> Thanks for your suggestions.
> >
> > What's wrong with your current unit?
> > Would it pay to have it repaired? Have
> > you gone to Scratch and Dent Stores
> > (Sears Outlet comes to mind), but almost
> > all appliance stores have Scratch and
> > Dents (and/or discontinued stock) for
> > substantial discounts. Another option is
> > Freecycle.org, Craigslist or even eBay.
> > I would also suggest fatwallet.com
>
>
> I've seen a lot of beautiful drop in stoves that the store just
> wanted to get rid of. Home Depot and BrandSmart seem to do this when
> they change out their product line. About the $100 range, so to speak.
> Often less.
>
> Jeff

I've never seen them this cheap in the
stores. I have seen a lot of
discontinued items that seem to fall
below some magical price point donated
to a Habitat for Humanity re-use store

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur
adipiscing elit. Cras lobortis volutpat
commodo. Morbi lobortis, massa fringilla
adipiscing suscipit, velit urna pharetra
neque, non luctus arcu diam vitae justo.
Vivamus lacinia scelerisque ultricies.
Nunc lobortis elit ligula. Aliquam
sollicitudin nunc sed est gravida ac
viverra tellus ullamcorper. Vivamus non
nisi suscipit nisi egestas venenatis.
Donec vitae arcu id urna euismod
feugiat. Vivamus porta lobortis
ultricies. Nulla adipiscing tellus a
neque vehicula porta. Maecenas volutpat
aliquet sagittis. Proin nisi magna,
molestie id volutpat in, tincidunt sed
dolor. Nullam nisi erat, aliquet
scelerisque sagittis vitae, pretium
accumsan odio. Sed ut mi iaculis eros
rutrum tristique ut nec mi. Aliquam nec
augue dui, in mattis urna. In pretium
metus eu diam blandit accumsan. Ut eu
lorem sed odio porttitor blandit.

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Thurs, Apr 29 2010 5:27 pm
From: Jeff Thies

Malcom "Mal" Reynolds wrote:
> In article
> <hrcutt$qr7$1@news.albasani.net>,
> Jeff Thies <jeff_thies@att.net> wrote:
>
>> Malcom "Mal" Reynolds wrote:
>>> In article
>>> <df202608-0b77-459a-ae9b-fbf2f26f1bef@t2
>>> 1g2000yqg.googlegroups.com>,
>>> aj <alg3210@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> We have an old GE drop in 27 inch stove that needs to be replaced.
>>>> After doing the preliminary research, we found the following: The new
>>>> 27 inch one costs $1100. However, a 30 inch drop in is around $640 or
>>>> a 30 inch free standing is around $350. We are looking for a cheap one
>>>> as we will leave this place in a few years. To get that extra 3 inch,
>>>> we need to hire carpenter. Carpentry work is more for free standing
>>>> than for drop in. For free standing, the extra electrical work is
>>>> needed for box and pigtail.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for your suggestions.
>>> What's wrong with your current unit?
>>> Would it pay to have it repaired? Have
>>> you gone to Scratch and Dent Stores
>>> (Sears Outlet comes to mind), but almost
>>> all appliance stores have Scratch and
>>> Dents (and/or discontinued stock) for
>>> substantial discounts. Another option is
>>> Freecycle.org, Craigslist or even eBay.
>>> I would also suggest fatwallet.com
>>
>> I've seen a lot of beautiful drop in stoves that the store just
>> wanted to get rid of. Home Depot and BrandSmart seem to do this when
>> they change out their product line. About the $100 range, so to speak.
>> Often less.
>>
>> Jeff
>
> I've never seen them this cheap in the
> stores. I have seen a lot of
> discontinued items that seem to fall
> below some magical price point donated
> to a Habitat for Humanity re-use store
>
It's been a while since I've gone looking, perhaps a year, but they
were turning up everywhere. It's possible the improved home improvement
market has run the prices back up, I haven't been looking. It's also
possible the market here, is different.

But as you have put it, they are a widespread commodity, the stand
alone, much less so.

So, to the OP, go look around!

Jeff

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Tomatoes and Cheap Labor
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/db8979631456e844?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Thurs, Apr 29 2010 4:50 pm
From: "Rod Speed"

liberal wrote:
> On Apr 29, 4:54 pm, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Michael Coburn wrote:
>>> On Tue, 27 Apr 2010 13:26:26 -0700, coldrenkler wrote:
>>
>>>> On Tue, 27 Apr 2010 12:54:45 -0500, "Gewart" <gew...@hotmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>
>>>>> Cheap Tomatoes
>>
>>>>> Tomatoes and Cheap Labor
>>
>>>>> CHEAP TOMATOES?
>>>>> This should make everyone think, be you Democrat, Republican or
>>>>> Independent
>>
>>>>> From a California school teacher - - -
>>
>>>>> "As you listen to the news about the student protests over illegal
>>>>> immigration, there are some things that you should be aware of:
>>
>>>>> I am in charge of the English-as-a-second-language department at a
>>>>> large southern California high school which is designated a Title
>>>>> 1 school, meaning that its student s average lower socioeconomic
>>>>> and income levels
>>
>>>>> Most of the schools you are hearing about, South Gate High, Bell
>>>>> Gardens , Huntington Park , etc., where these students are
>>>>> protesting, are also Title 1 schools.
>>
>>>>> Title 1 schools are on the free breakfast and free lunch program.
>>>>> When I say free breakfast, I'm not talking a glass of milk and
>>>>> roll -- but a full breakfast and cereal bar with fruits and
>>>>> juices that would make a Marriott proud. The waste of this food
>>>>> is monumental, with trays and trays of it being dumped in the
>>>>> trash uneaten.
>>
>>>>> I estimate that well over 50% of these students are obese or at
>>>>> least moderately overweight. About 75% or more DO have cell
>>>>> phones. The school also provides day care center s for the unwed
>>>>> teenage pregnant girls (some as young as 13) so they can attend
>>>>> class without the inconvenience of having to arrange for
>>>>> babysitters or having family watch their kids.
>>
>>>>> I was ordered to spend $700,000 on my department or risk losing
>>>>> funding for the upcoming year even though there was little need
>>>>> for anything; my budget was already substantial. I ended up
>>>>> buying new computers for the computer learning center, half of
>>>>> which, one month later, have been carved with graffiti by the
>>>>> appreciative students who obviously feel humbled and grateful to
>>>>> have a free education in America ..
>>
>>>>> I have had to intervene several times for young and substitute
>>>>> teachers whose classes consist of many illegal immigrant students,
>>>>> here in the country less then 3 months, who raised so much hell
>>>>> with the female teachers, calling them "Putas"(whores) and
>>>>> throwing things, that the teachers were in tears.
>>
>>>>> Free medical, free education, free food, free day care etc., etc,
>>>>> etc. Is it any wonder they feel entitled to not only be in this
>>>>> country but to demand rights, privileges and entitlements?
>>
>>>>> To those who want to point out how much these illegal immigrants
>>>>> contribute to our society because they LIKE their gardener and
>>>>> housekeeper and they like to pay less for tomatoes: spend some
>>>>> time in the real world of illegal immigration and see the TRUE
>>>>> costs.
>>
>>>>> Higher insurance, medical facilities closing, higher medical
>>>>> costs, more crime, lower standards of education in our schools,
>>>>> overcrowding, new diseases. For me, I'll pay more for tomatoes.
>>
>>>>> Americans, We need to wake up.
>>
>>>>> It does, however, have everything to do with culture: It involves
>>>>> an American third-world culture that does not value education,
>>>>> that accepts children getting pregnant and dropping out of school
>>>>> by 15 and that refuses to assimilate, and an American culture
>>>>> that has become so weak and worried about"political correctness"
>>>>> that we don't have the will to do anything about it.
>>
>>>>> If this makes your blood boil, as it did mine, forward this to
>>>>> everyone you know.
>>
>>>>> CHEAP LABOR? Isn't that what the whole immigration issue is about?
>>
>>>>> Business doesn't want to pay a decent wage.
>>
>>>>> Consumers don't want expensive produce.
>>
>>>>> Government will tell you Americans don't want the jobs.
>>
>>>>> But the bottom line is cheap labor. The phrase "cheap labor" is a
>>>>> myth, a farce, and a lie. There is no such thing as "cheap labor."
>>
>>>>> Take, for example, an illegal alien with a wife and five children.
>>>>> He takes a job for $5.00 or 6.00/hour. At that wage, with six
>>>>> dependents, he pays no income tax, yet at the end of the year, if
>>>>> he files an Income Tax Return, he gets an "earned income credit"
>>>>> of up to $3,200 free.
>>
>>>>> He qualifies for Section 8 housing and subsidized rent.
>>
>>>>> He qualifies for food stamps.
>>
>>>>> He qualifies for free (no deductible, no co-pay) health care.
>>
>>>>> His children get free breakfasts and lunches at school.
>>
>>>>> He requires bilingual teachers and books.
>>
>>>>> He qualifies for relief from high energy bills.
>>
>>>>> If they are, or become, aged, blind or disabled, they qualify for
>>>>> SSI. If qualified for SSI they can qualify for Medicaid. All of
>>>>> this is at (our) taxpayer's expense.
>>
>>>>> He doesn't worry about car insurance, life insurance, or
>>>>> homeowners insurance.
>>
>>>>> Taxpayers provide Spanish language signs, bulletins and printed
>>>>> material.
>>
>>>>> He and his family receive the equivalent of $20.00 to $30.00/hour
>>>>> in benefits.
>>
>>>>> Working Americans are lucky to have $5.00 or $6..00/hour left
>>>>> after paying their bills and his.
>>
>>>>> Cheap labor? YEAH RIGHT!
>>
>>>>> THESE ARE THE QUESTIONS WE SHOULD BE ADDRESSING TO THE
>>>>> CONGRESSIONAL MEMBERS OF EITHER PARTY. 'AND WHEN THEY LIE TO US
>>>>> AND DON'T DO AS THEY SAY, WE SHOULD REPLACE THEM .
>>
>>>>> Please pass this on to as many as possible. Immigration
>>>>> legislation is to be considered in 2010. This is important to
>>>>> working Americans, our economy and our American culture and
>>>>> heritage..
>>
>>>> Good post.
>>> Health care is not what will unwind the Democratic party. This is
>>> the
>>> issue that could destroy the Democrats. "Free trade", offshoring,
>>> and
>>> immigration are destroying the middle class of this country.
>>
>> Like hell it is. The real middle class has very little
>> involvement in any of the areas affected by that stuff.
>>
>> The main exception is immigrant doctors, but even there,
>> the middle class is nothing even remotely resembling
>> anything like destroyed, whatever fools like you claim.
>>
>> And some fool that ended up driving a truck quite literally
>> isnt anything even remotely resembling anything like
>> middle class anyway. Thats WORKING CLASS, stupid.
>>
>>> It is not possible to have social insurance systems for
>>> the entire world paid for by the American producers.
>>
>> Having fun thrashing that straw man ?
>>
>>> America must "nit up" or truly "lose its living standards".
>>
>> It hasnt lost any living standards at all, fool.
>>
>> There might just be a reason why so many legal and illegal
>> immigrants move there.
>>
>>> The Republicans see it as "just don't have social insurance and
>>> we can have brown skinned robots tending our lawns, the Japanese
>>> can make the cars, and the Chinese can make everything else".
>>
>> Another bare faced lie, most obviously with PC software, movies,
>> TV series, music, aircraft, military hardware, pharmaceuticals,
>> and the full commercialisation of almost all technology first.
>>
>>> And according to Republicans, the Americans that "follow
>>> the leader and do what the leader says is riiiiiiiiiiiight" will
>>> have jobs in offices counting beans and lending money".
>>
>> Those that were part of the 4.x% unemployment rate with an
>> immense legal and illegal immigration rate just before those
>> clowns were stupid enough to allow the complete implosion
>> of the entire world financial system, AGAIN, did a hell of a
>> lot more than just count beans and lend money, fool.
>>
>>> As to immigration: We must address the issue of swarms of illegals
>>> that
>>> have entered the country in the last 20 years following the Reagan
>>> amnesty
>>
>> Not even possible now, stupid.
>>
>>> and we must insure that the flow stops
>>
>> Fat chance, King Canute.
>>
>>> or that the immigrants can contribute to the prosperity of the
>>> American middle class.
>>
>> The real world is about a hell of a lot more than just the american
>> middle class, fool.
>>
>>> The first cut at immigration reform had some good points
>>> in that it allowed people who had been here for a very
>>> long time and who had not caused any problems to stay.
>>
>> Its just not feasible to send everyone else back, fool.
>>
>>> It insisted that people who had arrived after to 2002
>>> would have to leave the country and apply for reentry.
>>
>> Completely impractical.
>>
>>> But it had no "card check" or "e-verify" and no fines for employers
>>> who broke the laws.
>>
>> That wouldnt have stopped those who had no alternative but not
>> employ anyone.
>>
>>> It also granted Social Security qualifications for
>>> years worked while illegal to those allowed to stay.
>>
>> Thats the only thing that makes any sense as long as they had paid
>> their FICO.
>>
>>> The House of Representatives rightfully voted that bill down.
>>> It was not a war between Republicans and Democrats. It
>>> was a class war between employers and the common people.
>>
>> Only in your pathetic little pig ignorant fantasyland.
>>
>> In the real world, most of the middle class are the employers, fool.
>>
>>> The Republicans will march in lock step as rightarded on this one.
>>> The Democrats have to do what is sane and rational.
>>
>> No point in asking fools like you what is sane and rational.
>>
>> You cant even manage to work out who the real middle class is.
>>
>>> The politics of the current economic situation do not bode well
>>> for rationality and Democrats. But that is really nothing new.
>>> The left wing moonbats will continue to be the foot shooting
>>> segment of the Democratic party.
>>
>> Corse some fool that couldnt manage anything better than
>> a fucking truck driver never ever does anything like that, eh ?

> Geez, in love with the sound of your own words much?

Corse you never ever have that sort of problem yourself, eh ?

> So what if the pp used the term "middle class".
> The point is the damage illegals do to the US.

> 1) The US can no longer afford a growing population,

That is a bare faced pig ignorant lie. Very little of the
US is at anything like the density of HongKong etc.

> new farmland isn't being created

Some of it is, and there is plenty of much more intensive
use of land like with greenhouses etc and feedlotting etc.

> and US food production is breakeven.

Pigs arse it is.

> One significant crop infection and food prices
> will spiral into famine for many Americans.

How odd that that has never ever happened.

> The entire world is at a breakeven point,

Pigs arse it is.

NOT ONE modern first world country is even self
replacing if you take out immigration now and thats
true of quite a bit of the second world too.

> which is why China is limiting family size.

Its not the first world.

> 2) Illegals underbid American citizens and legal residents for jobs

Only in the dregs of the jobs. Doesnt happen with the
middle class he is mindlessly hyperventilating about.

> 3) Illegals would go home of their own accord if their jobs disappeared.

Yes, but thats just a tad hard to achieve.

And it would fuck the economy very comprehensively indeed
if anyone was actually stupid enough to go that route.

> 4) Their jobs would end if there was an reward of $25,000 -
> $100,000 for turning in the employer of an illegal.

Sure, but that would be one hell of a cost.

> Even the illegal would get the reward, and take it home with him/her.

Fuck all would be stupid enough to take it.

> 5) Cheap labor discourages technological substitution.

Not in the modern first world it doesnt, essentially because computerisation
leaves even cheap labor for dead. You're never going to see massive
rooms full of illegals manually typing out monthly statements again.

> China and Rome had the first stirrings of "industrialization" more than a
> thousand years ago but it was uneconomical compared to cheap slave labor.

And then the world moved on and the industrial revolution
happened regardless of hordes of slaves still around at that time.

The computer revolution happened regardless of
the hordes of illegals in the US at that time too.

> Research is on-going today to build robots (robots, not remotely
> operated devices) that have the dexterity, mobility, and decision-
> making capability needed by NASA but would also be useful as a
> replacement for Mexican cheap/semi-slave labor.

How odd that we havent even got one that can sweep the streets
by itself, let alone wipe little kids arses or bed ridden geriatrics either.

> Maybe you hate Mexicans

Or maybe I dont give a flying red fuck about them.

> and have no problem with giving them jobs that end up crippling them.

No one is holding a gun to their head and forcing them to come to the US illegally.

> Yeah, "stoop" laborers end up crippled with spinal problems by their forties.

Their problem. They end up a lot worse than that back where they come from, often dead.

And even just the US SS scheme would be fucked without the huge numbers
of legals and illegals paying their FICO to pay for unemployable fools like you.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Surprise: North Korea is part of the Kyoto Protocol!
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/03272d9bdfc3535d?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Thurs, Apr 29 2010 6:32 pm
From: "TibetanMonkey, the-Monkey-with-the-Bag-of-Shit"

On Apr 29, 3:01 pm, Larry <no...@home.com> wrote:
> "TibetanMonkey, the-Monkey-with-the-Bag-of-Shit"
> <comandante.ban...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:8a6cc55c-a9c4-442f-9746-
> 173aae21d...@e1g2000yqe.googlegroups.com:
>
> > Airplanes only account for 3% of pollution according to my sources.
> > SUVs though have become a common household, so they become a bigger
> > problem than airplanes....
>
> Ah, but they are the ones closest to the ionosphere destroying it, a much
> more important thing to worry over then stupid CO2 emissions.
>
> --

So tell me, Larry, you are an atheist that denies science. Funny thing
that is.

I hope you don't. But can we do about airplanes? Maybe shipping from
China is even worse, don't you think?

I can't cross the Pacific in my canoe, but I can use my bicycle
nearby.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Factory Promotion Special Offer Blar Lable tshirts for sale at low
price,paypal payment
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/ebeae032813cf128?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Thurs, Apr 29 2010 6:50 pm
From: cherry

Our products are of good quality but reasonable price,and the price
depends on the quantity.The more you order,the better price you
get.Please visit our website www.shoesdisplay.net More options
please check our products catalogue,or contact us directly !

We have brand Affliction,Aftful Dodger,Christian Audigie,Coogi,ED
Hardy,Evisu,G-star,GGG,
LRG,POLO
Shirts,Armani,D&G,LV,BBC,Gucci,Ecko,Versace,Burberry,Prada,AF,Dior,Obama,CR,
Dsquared,Baby,Smet,Juciy,Coach,Crown Holder,CA T-Shirts with 100%
cotton.We will give you the competitive price,best service and safe
delivery.

All shirts are in stock

Sizes available are from M to XXXL.

If wholesale,buyers can MIX colors and sizes!

website:www.shoesdisplay.net

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Discount AF men shorts,low price but best quality,paypal payment
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/4cbea1807aec5429?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Thurs, Apr 29 2010 7:17 pm
From: cherry

ed hardy board shorts,ed hardy denim shorts,ed hardy shorts,ed hardy
capri shorts,discount ed hardy mens shorts,ed hardy board shorts death
or glory,ed hardy demin shorts,ed hardy mens shorts,ed hardy shorts
discount,ed hardy true love board shorts,ed hardy women's
shorts.
true religion emma shorts,true religion shorts,true religion riley
shorts,true religion taylor shorts on sale,true religion cuffed
shorts,true religion cargo shorts,true religion maternity shorts,true
religion riley shorts 'riley',cuffed denim true religion shorts.

polo shorts,replica ralph lauren polo shorts,discount polo
shorts,water polo shorts,fake ralph lauren polo shorts,mens cotton
ralph lauren polo shorts,mens ralph lauren polo shorts elastic
waistband,polo andrew shorts,polo board shorts,polo boxer shorts,polo
cargo shorts,polo cargo shorts ralph lauren,polo golf shorts,polo
ralph lauren cargo shorts,polo ralph lauren
shorts.
beach shorts,beach girl bermuda shorts,palm beach reflex shorts,womans
beach shorts,beach dick shorts large,cuffed denim beach shorts,tents
in beach shorts. www.shoesdisplay.net
short skirts,short skirt,short shorts,very short
shorts,shorts,short,tight shorts,skimpy shorts,shorts sale,boy
shorts,board shorts,very short skirts,women's board shorts,cut off
shorts,spandex shorts,girls in short shorts,women short shorts,girls
bending over in shorts,girls board shorts,short girls,short
dresses. www.shoesdisplay.net

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Discount coach,fendi,d&g,versace,miumiu,AF,bikenstock spring shoes
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/8cc99c22220bcd9b?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Thurs, Apr 29 2010 7:51 pm
From: cherry

Cheap Nike Dunk sb shoes Wholesale,paypal payment
Cheap Dunk low shoes Wholesale,paypal payment
Cheap Dunk high shoes Wholesale,paypal payment
Cheap Adidas shoes Wholesale,paypal payment
www.shoesdisplay.net
Cheap Adidas Running shoes Wholesale,paypal payment
Cheap Adidas 35 year shoes Wholesale,paypal payment
Cheap Adidas City shoes Wholesale,paypal payment
Cheap Adidas Goodyear shoes Wholesale,paypal payment

Cheap Adidas NBA shoes Wholesale,paypal payment
Cheap Adidas Y-3 shoes Wholesale,paypal payment
Cheap Adidas country shoes Wholesale,paypal payment
Cheap T-MAC shoes Wholesale,paypal payment
www.shoesdisplay.net
Cheap Rift shoes Wholesale,paypal payment
Cheap BapeStar shoes Wholesale,free shipping
Cheap Football shoes Wholesale,free shipping
Cheap Timberland boots shoes Wholesale,free shipping

Cheap Hardaway shoes Wholesale,free shipping
Cheap James shoes Wholesale,free shipping
Cheap Puma shoes Wholesale,free
shipping www.shoesdisplay.net
Cheap Prada shoes Wholesale,free shipping

Cheap Prada low shoes Wholesale,free shipping
Cheap Prada high shoes Wholesale,free shipping
Cheap Dsquared shoes Wholesale,free shipping
Cheap Gucci shoes Wholesale,free shipping
www.shoesdisplay.net

==============================================================================
TOPIC: 2010!!!!!!!!Nike shoes wholesale other sport shoes
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/0cf7d72f1acf24e1?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Thurs, Apr 29 2010 10:36 pm
From: huangrong

For more information,please contact karen, MSN:huangyousu@hotmail.com
Minimum order is one,factory price also!Paypal payment free
shipping,ship time will take 4-7 working days.

Nike wholesale - Nike shoes wholesale.
www.shoesdisplay.net
Nike shoes: Nike shox air force1 jordan TL NZ R4 Turbo Monster
shoes,Nike air max 95 360 97 2003 TN Plus shoes,Nike air jordan
shoes,Nike air dunk shoes.

We sale wholesale Nike shoes(Nike trainers,Nike sneakers,Nike
basketball shoes,Nike running shoes,Nike Men's shoes,Nike women's
shoes,Nike mens shoes,Nike womens shoes,nike cheap discount
shoes). www.shoesdisplay.net

Nike shox shoes wholesale(Nike shox tl-shox tl 3 III,Nike shox nz,Nike
shox r4,Nike shox r5,Nike shox turbo,nike shox monster,nike shox VC OZ
Ride shoes).

Nike air max shoes wholesale(Nike air max tn plus,Nike air max
360,Nike air max 95,Nike air max 97,Nike air max 2003,Nike air max
2004,Nike air max 90).

Nike shoes wholesale other sport shoes(retro nike air jordan 21 XXI 11
XI 13 20,nike air dunk low min high,Nike air rift,Nike air force 1
one). www.shoesdisplay.net

China Nike factory sale and wholesale nike shoes to your nike shop &
nike store,Nike wholesale nike shoes to United States America and
England and United Kingdom and Europe at Nike Shoes.

Wholesale - Nike Air Dunk: www.shoesdisplay.net
Nike Dunk,Nike Dunks,Nike Air Dunk,Nike Air Dunks,Nike Dunks Dunk
low,Nike Air Dunks Dunk High,Nike Dunk mid Shoes.

==============================================================================

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

Frugal Living

Blog Archive

Friday, April 30, 2010

misc.consumers.frugal-living - 18 new messages in 8 topics - digest