Frugal Living: misc.consumers.frugal-living - 25 new messages in 9 topics

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: How to: Live on $12,000 a Year
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/5093baecae696c12?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Fri, Dec 12 2008 11:43 pm
From: Salford1

Makes sense.....Given the current climate!

http://www.osawatch.com/2007/02/can_you_live_on.html

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Sat, Dec 13 2008 6:19 am
From: "Macuser"

This was an excellent article, and I have adopted most of the suggestions
already, e.g., I need a new microwave but don't want to buy one. I'm trying
to get a castoff from freecycle or find a replacement from a thrift shop.

Even though microwaves are cheap, I'd still rather get it free or spend $5
or less.

I think that if you have spent a whole year being cheap and have saved a lot
of money, it's a nice idea to splurge on something you love once in a while.
I use a big screen LCD TV that gives me a lot of enjoyment. This is my own
personal philosophy that blends thriftiness with enjoying money.
--
http://cashcuddler.com

"Thrift is sexy."

"Salford1" <vectispete@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:73040456-f7ec-4cde-b83e-72240e76bfae@k8g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
> Makes sense.....Given the current climate!
>
>
>
> http://www.osawatch.com/2007/02/can_you_live_on.html

==============================================================================
TOPIC: When is it polite to use the word "stingy"?
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/cba5dbae9d5357b6?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sat, Dec 13 2008 3:01 am
From: Clisby

lenona321@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Dec 12, 1:53 pm, Clisby <clis...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> lenona...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>>> I'm also thinking of the Newbery-winning 1967 book, "From the Mixed-Up
>>> Files of Mrs. Basil E. Frankweiler." In that, 12-year-old runaway
>>> Claudia is angry at her parents for not giving her a big enough
>>> allowance for her to run away in luxury for more than a few hours.
>>> (Her allowance, according to the online Inflation Calculator, is under
>>> $3 per week - in Greenwich, CT.) Still not reasonable of her to think
>>> that.
>> Reasonable or not, it has nothing to do with etiquette, so long as young
>> Claudia keeps her thoughts to herself.
>
> Except that she clearly didn't keep her harsh thoughts to herself, so
> to speak. That is, she was callous enough to run away from home
> without warning, take her brother along, and throw her parents into a
> panic - and even act surprised when she hears, second-hand, of their
> reaction, since she'd sent them a letter after running away, saying
> that they were leaving home and not to call the FBI.
>

So she wouldn't have run away from home if she'd had a larger allowance?
From your earlier description, I got the (possibly mistaken)
impression that she was determined to run away anyway. The allowance
was relevant only to how comfortable she would be as a runaway.

Clisby

> Lenona.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: when/where are the Christmas sales?
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/1e540ad7239f670a?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sat, Dec 13 2008 4:41 am
From: clams_casino

Fake ID wrote:

>In article <l0y0l.4$iY3.2@newsfe14.iad>,
>clams_casino <PeterGriffin@DrunkinClam.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Read somewhere that the branded items will likely be shipped / dumped
>>out of the country where the manufacturers won't allow excessive price
>>reductions so they can protect their market pricing.
>>
>>(Better to dump branded electronics, clothing, etc in South America, etc
>>vs. ruining US pricing.)
>>
>>
>
>In the runup to Black Friday I read an article that revealed that
>retailers had already began to dump their inventory to liquidators,
>something that usually happens after Christmas. Mostly clothes, IIRC.
>
>One thing that the spate of recent liquidations make clear is that when
>something gets into the hands of a liquidator the price goes *up*. Took
>the oomph out of bargain hunting, knowing that retailers didn't want
>consumers to get the good deals.
>
>m
>
>

Saw a display of coffee makers at a going-out-of business sale at a
local Linens & Things that were priced 30% off. Several months ago,
they were 40% off.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Is keeping a car 50 years frugal?
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/973c7ade053ebb0f?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 4 ==
Date: Sat, Dec 13 2008 6:04 am
From: "Daniel T."

On Dec 10, 1:02 pm, Dennis <dg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 09 Dec 2008 19:51:15 -0500, "Daniel T."
> <danie...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >Dennis <dg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > "Daniel T." <danie...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > > > Dennis <dg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > "Daniel T." <danie...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > > I'm not so sure about that. Also remember, it is in
> > > > > > Consumer Reports best interest to inflate the differences
> > > > > > in quality between manufactures. If the came out with a
> > > > > > report that said that all car makes were near the same in
> > > > > > quality, no one would need their magizine anymore.
> > > > >
> > > > > Aren't you the same guy who was railing about conspiracy
> > > > > theories in another thread? Sheesh, PKB.
> > > >
> > > > What's your point?
> > >
> > > Just trying to figure out which wild-eyed conspiracy theories
> > > are on your Approved List and which are not.
> >
> > What "wild-eyed conspiracy theory" are you talking about? I've
> > sided with none that I know of.
>
> Perhaps your wild eyes can't see the quoted material above.

Perhaps your wild brain can tell that the quoted material above has
nothing to do with any conspiracy theories.

== 2 of 4 ==
Date: Sat, Dec 13 2008 6:23 am
From: SMS

The Real Bev wrote:

> Something essential that can't be replaced breaks. Case in point: leaf
> springs for a 1960 Ford station wagon. The ones in the wrecking yard
> are just as rotten as the ones you have and you can't find any new ones
> no matter how hard you look.

Lots of places will make obsolete leaf springs for you. It's not too
expensive or complicated. I.e.
"http://www.longbeachspring.com/products.html"

== 3 of 4 ==
Date: Sat, Dec 13 2008 9:02 am
From: Dennis

On Sat, 13 Dec 2008 06:04:37 -0800 (PST), "Daniel T."
<daniel_t@earthlink.net> wrote:

>On Dec 10, 1:02 pm, Dennis <dg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 09 Dec 2008 19:51:15 -0500, "Daniel T."
>> <danie...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> >Dennis <dg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> > > "Daniel T." <danie...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> > > > Dennis <dg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> > > > > "Daniel T." <danie...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>> > > > > > I'm not so sure about that. Also remember, it is in
>> > > > > > Consumer Reports best interest to inflate the differences
>> > > > > > in quality between manufactures. If the came out with a
>> > > > > > report that said that all car makes were near the same in
>> > > > > > quality, no one would need their magizine anymore.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Aren't you the same guy who was railing about conspiracy
>> > > > > theories in another thread? Sheesh, PKB.
>> > > >
>> > > > What's your point?
>> > >
>> > > Just trying to figure out which wild-eyed conspiracy theories
>> > > are on your Approved List and which are not.
>> >
>> > What "wild-eyed conspiracy theory" are you talking about? I've
>> > sided with none that I know of.
>>
>> Perhaps your wild eyes can't see the quoted material above.
>
>Perhaps your wild brain can tell that the quoted material above has
>nothing to do with any conspiracy theories.

I've no doubt that's your perception -- few will concede that their
own moonbat sputterings are conspiracy theories. Which brings us
full-circle back to my original comment: PKB.

Dennis (evil)
--
"There is a fine line between participation and mockery" - Wally

== 4 of 4 ==
Date: Sat, Dec 13 2008 9:19 am
From: Vic Smith

On Sat, 13 Dec 2008 09:02:49 -0800, Dennis <dgw80@hotmail.com> wrote:

>On Sat, 13 Dec 2008 06:04:37 -0800 (PST), "Daniel T."
><daniel_t@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>>On Dec 10, 1:02 pm, Dennis <dg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Tue, 09 Dec 2008 19:51:15 -0500, "Daniel T."
>>> <danie...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>> >Dennis <dg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> > > "Daniel T." <danie...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>> > > > Dennis <dg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> > > > > "Daniel T." <danie...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> > > > > > I'm not so sure about that. Also remember, it is in
>>> > > > > > Consumer Reports best interest to inflate the differences
>>> > > > > > in quality between manufactures. If the came out with a
>>> > > > > > report that said that all car makes were near the same in
>>> > > > > > quality, no one would need their magizine anymore.
>>> > > > >
>>> > > > > Aren't you the same guy who was railing about conspiracy
>>> > > > > theories in another thread? Sheesh, PKB.
>>> > > >
>>> > > > What's your point?
>>> > >
>>> > > Just trying to figure out which wild-eyed conspiracy theories
>>> > > are on your Approved List and which are not.
>>> >
>>> > What "wild-eyed conspiracy theory" are you talking about? I've
>>> > sided with none that I know of.
>>>
>>> Perhaps your wild eyes can't see the quoted material above.
>>
>>Perhaps your wild brain can tell that the quoted material above has
>>nothing to do with any conspiracy theories.
>
>I've no doubt that's your perception -- few will concede that their
>own moonbat sputterings are conspiracy theories. Which brings us
>full-circle back to my original comment: PKB.
>
I wouldn't go so far as to call the questioning of CR's self-selected
survey auto ratings and colored circles a "wild-eyed conspiracy
theory."
But I have high standards.

--Vic

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Saving Money on Calendars
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/9b326729403ee2be?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Sat, Dec 13 2008 6:22 am
From: BillGill

Evelyn Leeper wrote:
> The year 2009 is a non-leap-year starting on a Thursday. The most
> recent identical year was 1998 if you want to recycle an old calendar.
> If not, you can, as you can any year, use May of the previous year for
> January. Then about mid- to late January you can get a new calendar at
> a half or a quarter of what they cost now.
>
> (Frankly, we bought quite a few calendars we really like--mathematics,
> movies, etc.--and now re-use them as the appropriate years come up. The
> one problem, for us anyway, is that the Jewish holidays are completely
> wrong on them.)
>
I don't go for all out savings, but I wait till after Christmas to buy
calendars. They always go to half price then.

Bill

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Sat, Dec 13 2008 6:22 am
From: "Macuser"

I get at least 4 calendars every year from charities that want a donation.
Doesn't everybody? They from groups like the Wildlife Foundation and
they're beautiful. You can make a donation to a likeminded charity and
multiple calendars will start pouring in.

--
http://cashcuddler.com

"Thrift is sexy."

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Why not a holiday from auto buying?
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/9e36c73bdf3daf50?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Sat, Dec 13 2008 7:00 am
From: bhanwaram@netscape.net

On Dec 6, 8:59 pm, "hall...@aol.com" <hall...@aol.com> wrote:
> big 3 saw customers wanted SUVs so they built them, gasoline cost
> skyrocketed, fiancials tanked SUV sales dried up. big 3 now on edge of
> bankruptcy.
>

Well put.

Now the big 3 are run by people who make 400+ times
more than the basic worker, so they are roughly 400+
times wiser, smarter, more ruthless, etc than a basic
human person.

Clearly, they should have seen what would happen when
the gasoline price started to spike. (For that matter,
shouldn't all other CEO's whose companies eventually
suffer from a chain reaction to the price spike, also
see that in advance?)

The gasoline price spike was not a natural demand-supply
thing, it was some sort of a weird unnatural freakish thing.

So the big 3's management, who are 400+ times wiser,
smarter, more ruthless, etc, than a normal human,
should have gotten together and killed this gasoline
price spike before it grew big enough to start killing
their companies. That would have been the time to
go to the congress, kick and screan, hire investigators,
whatever they needed to use their 400+ super-human
abilities to stop the gasoline price spike in its tracks.

Why didn't they?

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Sat, Dec 13 2008 8:06 am
From: clams_casino

bhanwaram@netscape.net wrote:

>
>Now the big 3 are run by people who make 400+ times
>more than the basic worker, so they are roughly 400+
>times wiser, smarter, more ruthless, etc than a basic
>human person.
>
>
>

They can't be all that smart, granting UAW workers 95% pay for staying
home doesn't sound like too smart a move on their part.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Do not purchase a new Big 3 vehicle in 2009.
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/8da7acb0e572db51?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 11 ==
Date: Sat, Dec 13 2008 7:20 am
From: wismel@yahoo.com

It's time to teach the Big 3 and their UAW co-conspirators* that the
American public does not need their products or companies as now
constructed. Buy a used vehicle or repair what you have. (You will
save a lot of money).

ted

*The Companies and the UAW agreed to these very expensive labor
agreement when they jointly felt they had the America public 'by the
balls".

== 2 of 11 ==
Date: Sat, Dec 13 2008 7:54 am
From: Brent

On 2008-12-13, wismel@yahoo.com <wismel@yahoo.com> wrote:
> It's time to teach the Big 3 and their UAW co-conspirators* that the
> American public does not need their products or companies as now
> constructed. Buy a used vehicle or repair what you have. (You will
> save a lot of money).

> *The Companies and the UAW agreed to these very expensive labor
> agreement when they jointly felt they had the America public 'by the
> balls".

The UAW's agreement with those three automakers is essentially
irrelevant to a buyer's purchase decisions. What a buyer goes by is what
the car costs him and what the car is and has. How the automakers deal
with their labor issues may change what the car offers and the price,
but a buyer isn't concerned about how the price of the car breaks down
between labor, materials, shipping, and even taxes, he cares about the
final cost to him.

Now, the used car thing. A used car is something that one has to be very
careful about because how good the car is becomes very dependent on the
previous owner(s). For knowledgable people who want to put the effort
in, it can be big savings if they aren't concerned about getting exactly
the car they want. Used car shopping takes a fair amount of time and
effort that new car shopping doesn't. So it depends on how much one
values his time.

== 3 of 11 ==
Date: Sat, Dec 13 2008 8:11 am
From: clams_casino

Brent wrote:

>On 2008-12-13, wismel@yahoo.com <wismel@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>>It's time to teach the Big 3 and their UAW co-conspirators* that the
>>American public does not need their products or companies as now
>>constructed. Buy a used vehicle or repair what you have. (You will
>>save a lot of money).
>>
>>
>
>
>
>>*The Companies and the UAW agreed to these very expensive labor
>>agreement when they jointly felt they had the America public 'by the
>>balls".
>>
>>
>
>The UAW's agreement with those three automakers is essentially
>irrelevant to a buyer's purchase decisions. What a buyer goes by is what
>the car costs him and what the car is and has. How the automakers deal
>with their labor issues may change what the car offers and the price,
>but a buyer isn't concerned about how the price of the car breaks down
>between labor, materials, shipping, and even taxes, he cares about the
>final cost to him.
>
>

But as you mentioned, their outrageous benefits packages makes their
cars non competitive. For similar pricing one can purchase competing
cars with more options & far superior quality.

Final cost of a Malibu vs Accord, for example may be similar in price
off the lot. but the later will typically go 100k without significant
maintenance and last typically twice as long, making it half the cost in
the long run.

Of course, this is nothing new. The domestic three having been losing
market share (over half) for at least 25 years.

== 4 of 11 ==
Date: Sat, Dec 13 2008 8:47 am
From: Brent

On 2008-12-13, clams_casino <PeterGriffin@DrunkinClam.com> wrote:

> Final cost of a Malibu vs Accord, for example may be similar in price
> off the lot. but the later will typically go 100k without significant
> maintenance and last typically twice as long, making it half the cost in
> the long run.

How much of that is reality and how much of it is perception?

Honda et al. have been very good at convincing buyers to actually TAKE
CARE OF THEIR CARS. This makes a huge difference in the long run.
Equally cared for cars (and the requirements for a Ford or GM product
aren't significantly different than for Honda or Toyota) is what is
required to make the comparison.

There is a huge perception difference with regards to a Honda or Chevy.
An expensive bill to replace a timing belt is well worth it on the
Honda, the Chevy is a POS for requiring the same timing belt change. The
honda owner brings his car in to get the timing belt changed on time
when the dealer sends a card. The Chevy owner ignores the timing belt
and has the belt break on him on the highway well beyond the replacement
interval. Or maybe instead the waterpump goes out on the chevy at 85,000
miles, but the Honda had its waterpump replaced with the timing belt at
60,000 and doesn't have a failure on the road.

Perception is the game these days and GM still doesn't seem to
understand that. Then again the media doesn't help either by acting like
it is still 1968 and 99% of people drive domestic automobiles so they
don't bother covering import recalls and problems for the most part.

== 5 of 11 ==
Date: Sat, Dec 13 2008 9:11 am
From: clams_casino

Brent wrote:

>On 2008-12-13, clams_casino <PeterGriffin@DrunkinClam.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>>Final cost of a Malibu vs Accord, for example may be similar in price
>>off the lot. but the later will typically go 100k without significant
>>maintenance and last typically twice as long, making it half the cost in
>>the long run.
>>
>>
>
>How much of that is reality and how much of it is perception?
>
>

The fact that Honda, Toyota & Nissan produce high quality vehicles is
fact. GM & Ford may have significantly improved quality in recent
years, but the perception is that's probably questionable.

>Honda et al. have been very good at convincing buyers to actually TAKE
>CARE OF THEIR CARS. This makes a huge difference in the long run.
>Equally cared for cars (and the requirements for a Ford or GM product
>aren't significantly different than for Honda or Toyota) is what is
>required to make the comparison.
>
>

What's to take care of? I have the Honda dealer do a servicing at
30k, 60k and 105k miles, just doing my own oil changes in between.

>There is a huge perception difference with regards to a Honda or Chevy.
>An expensive bill to replace a timing belt is well worth it on the
>Honda, the Chevy is a POS for requiring the same timing belt change. The
>honda owner brings his car in to get the timing belt changed on time
>when the dealer sends a card. The Chevy owner ignores the timing belt
>and has the belt break on him on the highway well beyond the replacement
>interval. Or maybe instead the waterpump goes out on the chevy at 85,000
>miles, but the Honda had its waterpump replaced with the timing belt at
>60,000 and doesn't have a failure on the road.
>
>

Accord replacement is at 105k. It was the second repair I had to make
on my 2000 Accord. The first was a burned out tail light lamp, not
counting the original tires that I replaced at 95k.

>Perception is the game these days and GM still doesn't seem to
>understand that. Then again the media doesn't help either by acting like
>it is still 1968 and 99% of people drive domestic automobiles so they
>don't bother covering import recalls and problems for the most part.
>
>
>

So what you are suggesting is that owners of domestic three cars are
just ignorant?

== 6 of 11 ==
Date: Sat, Dec 13 2008 9:31 am
From: Brent

On 2008-12-13, clams_casino <PeterGriffin@DrunkinClam.com> wrote:
> Brent wrote:
>
>>On 2008-12-13, clams_casino <PeterGriffin@DrunkinClam.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>Final cost of a Malibu vs Accord, for example may be similar in price
>>>off the lot. but the later will typically go 100k without significant
>>>maintenance and last typically twice as long, making it half the cost in
>>>the long run.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>How much of that is reality and how much of it is perception?

> The fact that Honda, Toyota & Nissan produce high quality vehicles is
> fact. GM & Ford may have significantly improved quality in recent
> years, but the perception is that's probably questionable.

Fact based on what exactly? The self reporting, that is the perceptions
of owners.

>>Honda et al. have been very good at convincing buyers to actually TAKE
>>CARE OF THEIR CARS. This makes a huge difference in the long run.
>>Equally cared for cars (and the requirements for a Ford or GM product
>>aren't significantly different than for Honda or Toyota) is what is
>>required to make the comparison.

> What's to take care of? I have the Honda dealer do a servicing at
> 30k, 60k and 105k miles, just doing my own oil changes in between.

Exactly. Meanwhile the chevy owner has his car fail on the side of the
road at 75K from things your honda dealer took care of. The chevy has
it's water pump fail at 75K miles but your honda dealer put in a new one
at 60K for you. The chevy is 'crap' and your honda is 'great'.

>>There is a huge perception difference with regards to a Honda or Chevy.
>>An expensive bill to replace a timing belt is well worth it on the
>>Honda, the Chevy is a POS for requiring the same timing belt change. The
>>honda owner brings his car in to get the timing belt changed on time
>>when the dealer sends a card. The Chevy owner ignores the timing belt
>>and has the belt break on him on the highway well beyond the replacement
>>interval. Or maybe instead the waterpump goes out on the chevy at 85,000
>>miles, but the Honda had its waterpump replaced with the timing belt at
>>60,000 and doesn't have a failure on the road.

> Accord replacement is at 105k. It was the second repair I had to make
> on my 2000 Accord. The first was a burned out tail light lamp, not
> counting the original tires that I replaced at 95k.

Talk about missing the point. Anyway, you still had your earlier
bringing it in to the dealer. You don't know what they repaired when it
was in there. Honda amung other japanese makes takes care of various
issues on cars when they are in the dealership for something else and
doesn't say a word about it. I could give similiar glowing reviews about
the lack of any 'repairs' on my mustang too. But see, my replacing the
water pump at well over 100K because it appeared to be weeping slightly
(forget when now, was somewhere around 140K I think) counts as a
failure. Your accord's was replaced automatically at 105K with the
timing belt and doesn't count.

>>Perception is the game these days and GM still doesn't seem to
>>understand that. Then again the media doesn't help either by acting like
>>it is still 1968 and 99% of people drive domestic automobiles so they
>>don't bother covering import recalls and problems for the most part.

> So what you are suggesting is that owners of domestic three cars are
> just ignorant?

Where do you get that? I am suggesting that you might want to look
deeper than the surface.

== 7 of 11 ==
Date: Sat, Dec 13 2008 9:32 am
From: Vic Smith

On Sat, 13 Dec 2008 12:11:56 -0500, clams_casino
<PeterGriffin@DrunkinClam.com> wrote:

>Brent wrote:
>
>>On 2008-12-13, clams_casino <PeterGriffin@DrunkinClam.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>Final cost of a Malibu vs Accord, for example may be similar in price
>>>off the lot. but the later will typically go 100k without significant
>>>maintenance and last typically twice as long, making it half the cost in
>>>the long run.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>How much of that is reality and how much of it is perception?
>>
>>
>
>The fact that Honda, Toyota & Nissan produce high quality vehicles is
>fact. GM & Ford may have significantly improved quality in recent
>years, but the perception is that's probably questionable.
>
In other words, what you said about the Malibu costing twice as much
as an Accord was just bullshit?
Let's try to straighten it out here.

--Vic

== 8 of 11 ==
Date: Sat, Dec 13 2008 9:46 am
From: clams_casino

Brent wrote:

>
>
>
>
>>What's to take care of? I have the Honda dealer do a servicing at
>>30k, 60k and 105k miles, just doing my own oil changes in between.
>>
>>
>
>Exactly. Meanwhile the chevy owner has his car fail on the side of the
>road at 75K from things your honda dealer took care of. The chevy has
>it's water pump fail at 75K miles but your honda dealer put in a new one
>at 60K for you. The chevy is 'crap' and your honda is 'great'.
>
>

Read it again. Honda replaced the water pump at 105k, when they
recommended changing out the timing gear.

>>So what you are suggesting is that owners of domestic three cars are
>>just ignorant?
>>
>>
>
>Where do you get that? I am suggesting that you might want to look
>deeper than the surface.
>
>
>
You suggested the only difference between a Honda vs. Chevy owner is
that the Honda owner is smart enough to have some routine servicing
vs. the Chevy owner who doesn't realize a small amount of routine
servicing goes a long ways to extend the life of a relatively expensive
investment. I'd call that neglect being ignorance, although I'm a
believer that Honda uses superior parts / workmanship vs. Chevy who uses
that cost to fund their UAW benefits...

== 9 of 11 ==
Date: Sat, Dec 13 2008 9:53 am
From: clams_casino

Vic Smith wrote:

>On Sat, 13 Dec 2008 12:11:56 -0500, clams_casino
><PeterGriffin@DrunkinClam.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>>Brent wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>On 2008-12-13, clams_casino <PeterGriffin@DrunkinClam.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Final cost of a Malibu vs Accord, for example may be similar in price
>>>>off the lot. but the later will typically go 100k without significant
>>>>maintenance and last typically twice as long, making it half the cost in
>>>>the long run.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>How much of that is reality and how much of it is perception?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>The fact that Honda, Toyota & Nissan produce high quality vehicles is
>>fact. GM & Ford may have significantly improved quality in recent
>>years, but the perception is that's probably questionable.
>>
>>
>>
>In other words, what you said about the Malibu costing twice as much
>as an Accord was just bullshit?
>Let's try to straighten it out here.
>
>--Vic
>
>
>
>
Not at all. In other words, there's really no way to know if today's
Malibus are equal to the quality of today's Accords without waiting 20
years. History is stacked against the Malibu.

Today's Malibus might be of significantly better quality vs. 10-15 years
ago, but who would be so foolish as to believe / take the chance it's
different today / similar to today's Accord, even if it was possibly
true? Unlike the stock market, expected car quality is very likely
related to past performance.

== 10 of 11 ==
Date: Sat, Dec 13 2008 10:03 am
From: John David Galt

wismel@yahoo.com wrote:
> It's time to teach the Big 3 and their UAW co-conspirators* that the
> American public does not need their products or companies as now
> constructed. Buy a used vehicle or repair what you have. (You will
> save a lot of money).

Unfortunately, the tax man will take our money and give it to them anyway.

== 11 of 11 ==
Date: Sat, Dec 13 2008 10:10 am
From: clams_casino

clams_casino wrote:

> Vic Smith wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 13 Dec 2008 12:11:56 -0500, clams_casino
>> <PeterGriffin@DrunkinClam.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> Brent wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> On 2008-12-13, clams_casino <PeterGriffin@DrunkinClam.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Final cost of a Malibu vs Accord, for example may be similar in
>>>>> price off the lot. but the later will typically go 100k without
>>>>> significant maintenance and last typically twice as long, making
>>>>> it half the cost in the long run.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> How much of that is reality and how much of it is perception?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> The fact that Honda, Toyota & Nissan produce high quality vehicles
>>> is fact. GM & Ford may have significantly improved quality in
>>> recent years, but the perception is that's probably questionable.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> In other words, what you said about the Malibu costing twice as much
>> as an Accord was just bullshit?
>> Let's try to straighten it out here.
>>
>> --Vic
>>
>>
>>
>>
> Not at all. In other words, there's really no way to know if today's
> Malibus are equal to the quality of today's Accords without waiting 20
> years. History is stacked against the Malibu.
>
> Today's Malibus might be of significantly better quality vs. 10-15
> years ago, but who would be so foolish as to believe / take the chance
> it's different today / similar to today's Accord, even if it was
> possibly true? Unlike the stock market, expected car quality is
> very likely related to past performance.

On second thought, I'll stand corrected. Perception was the wrong
word. I should have said way too many owners have the (well earned)
belief that cars by the domestic three lack the quality of their
competition. Having experienced significantly better vehicles, it will
indeed be difficult for GM, Ford & Chrysler to win them back, even if
they were to produce a similar quality vehicle at a similar price.
Having Honda, Toyota, Nissan, etc vehicle lasting twice as long as their
previous domestic three vehicle is a double whammy. Even if the
domestic three can achieve equal cost / quality, it'll likely be
generations before their slide in market share will be halted, never
mind reversed.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Are name-brand low-energy fluorescent "Green" bulbs any brighter than
store brand?
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/16514de0eabde21c?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sat, Dec 13 2008 7:54 am
From: "Macuser"

I personally prefer the name brands because they produce light from a warmer
spectrum, which is closer in appearance to a luminscent bulb. Cheapier
fluorescents from the dollar store are ok for the night light I have in the
front window.

--
http://cashcuddler.com

"Thrift is sexy."

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Folks, this is a real depression, protect your assets
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/cb1cc803cf7130ab?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sat, Dec 13 2008 9:58 am
From: EskWIRED@spamblock.panix.com

In misc.survivalism Macuser <spamisaluncheon@meat.com> wrote:
> If it's happening to other people, it's a recession.
> If it's happening to you, it's a depression.

> Who can argue this isn't true?

Anybody who can see beyond the end of his nose.
Anybody who knows or cares about the meanings of words.
Anybody firmly grounded in reality.

--
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 Russel

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

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

Saturday, December 13, 2008

misc.consumers.frugal-living - 25 new messages in 9 topics - digest

No comments:

Post a Comment