Frugal Living: misc.consumers.frugal-living - 25 new messages in 7 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:

* Electric tea kettle - 2 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/49a87501c53db580?hl=en
* OT - Survivalism Retail Style - 17 messages, 8 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/da641b3711ca2726?hl=en
* classic Mobile Home q. - 2 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/64184a7b40f05c3d?hl=en
* free pattern crochet a crayon tote using a milk jug - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/e22e51451467655a?hl=en
* don't gas stations have bathrooms any more? - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/104c548907eef340?hl=en
* www.cicigogo.cn NFL Jerseys=15$ NBA=12$ www.cicigogo.cn - 1 messages, 1
author
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/8d6e9092f94d357d?hl=en
* Where do you get your best buys in cat food? - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/0890e14d22167708?hl=en

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Electric tea kettle
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/49a87501c53db580?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Fri, Jan 9 2009 4:26 pm
From: haranjoe@lycos.com

On Jan 9, 5:23 pm, art...@gmail.com wrote:
> A recent Consumers Reports article on coffee makers seemed to be
> saying that a good cup of coffee depends upon reaching high water
> temperature.
>
> I have been thinking of getting an electric tea kettle and would
> appreciate any recommendations.
>
> Thank you.

I have one and LOVE it for making tea - gets the water boiling FAST -
need to have at least 2 cups in it though. It is more efficient
electrically than a microwave. i believe the brand is Betty Crocker.

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Fri, Jan 9 2009 11:08 pm
From: JimL

On Jan 9, 6:26 pm, haran...@lycos.com wrote:
> On Jan 9, 5:23 pm, art...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > A recent Consumers Reports article on coffee makers seemed to be
> > saying that a good cup of coffee depends upon reaching high water
> > temperature.
>
> > I have been thinking of getting an electric tea kettle and would
> > appreciate any recommendations.
>
> > Thank you.
>
> I have one and LOVE it for making tea - gets the water boiling FAST -
> need to have at least 2 cups in it though. It is more efficient
> electrically than a microwave. i believe the brand is Betty Crocker.

Coffee should never be boiled.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: OT - Survivalism Retail Style
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/da641b3711ca2726?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 17 ==
Date: Fri, Jan 9 2009 4:32 pm
From: EskWIRED@spamblock.panix.com

In misc.survivalism Curly Surmudgeon <CurlySurmudgeon@live.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 09 Jan 2009 18:16:26 +0000, EskWIRED wrote:

> > Not nearly. Inflation is not in the double-digits. Indeed, many folks
> > are worried about deflation instead.

> Only because energy costs have dropped by >50%. Real costs are rising
> sharply, go grocery shopping or look at your health care premiums. Big
> ticket items, such as cars and homes have disintegrated. That is
> moderating the index otherwise the rates would be more indicative of cost
> of living.

All of those items are factored in. They are all a part of "real costs".

--
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

== 2 of 17 ==
Date: Fri, Jan 9 2009 5:03 pm
From: "John R. Carroll"

"Ed Huntress" <huntres23@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:4967de06$0$14315$607ed4bc@cv.net...
>
> "Too_Many_Tools" <too_many_tools@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:22b0401b-544f-468d-8f3d-f07cf72f31ec@x16g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
> On Jan 9, 3:32 pm, "Ed Huntress" <huntre...@optonline.net> wrote:
>> "Too_Many_Tools" <too_many_to...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> <snip>
>
>> >How about once those hundreds of billions of dollars that are being
>> >printed enter the economy?
>>
>> We'll see. The dollar has been flat or rising against most other
>> currencies,
>> so it's unlikely that inflation would take right off with even a large
>> increase in money supply. At some point, yes, it will cause inflation --
>> but
>> not before velocity increases (in other words, before people start buying
>> stuff).
>>
>> What will matter is the point from which inflation occurs. Right now it
>> appears we've just crossed the zero point into deflation. If it's six
>> months
>> before the trend turns up, a little inflation will be a very welcome
>> thing.
>>
>> --
>> Ed Huntress- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>>Could it be that the banks holding on to their 350 billion bailout
>>(except for bonuses of course) be a good thing? If the masses can't
>>access credit, they can't spend and without money in the system there
>>is no inflation.
>
>>TMT
>
> To answer the question you're really asking, no, it's not a good thing.
> With no credit, there's little consumption; with little consumption,
> there's declining or flat production; with declining or flat production,
> there's no increase in employment; and so on, around the circle. No
> credit, no economy. We wind up raising chickens in our SUVs. <g>
>
> To answer a question you didn't ask, having the banks sit on that money or
> use it to buy other banks, while it causes wailing and gnashing of teeth
> in Congress and in the press, may be good in the longer term, because the
> banks are ripe for some consolidation and will wind up stronger, and will
> be a lot less vulnerable to downturns. They'll raise their reserves and
> they'll be choosy about their loans. This is the good side, which
> compensates to some degree for the bad side.
>
> My guess, only from reading the experts and not from any real knowledge of
> it, is that the people in Treasury think the good side is worth it. The
> people in Congress don't think it's worth it. I have no way of knowing who
> is right.
>
> Now, forget you heard that, and don't tell anyone you heard it from me.
> d8-)

Congress understands this pretty well.
Actually, they are getting an education but that will prove to be a
distinction without any difference.

== 3 of 17 ==
Date: Fri, Jan 9 2009 5:30 pm
From: Dan

Curly Surmudgeon wrote:
> On Fri, 09 Jan 2009 18:16:26 +0000, EskWIRED wrote:
>
>> In misc.survivalism Curly Surmudgeon <CurlySurmudgeon@live.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Early in Reagan's term we were worried about stagflation, it seem to be
>>> upon us now.
>> Not nearly. Inflation is not in the double-digits. Indeed, many folks
>> are worried about deflation instead.
>
> Only because energy costs have dropped by >50%. Real costs are rising
> sharply, go grocery shopping or look at your health care premiums. Big
> ticket items, such as cars and homes have disintegrated. That is
> moderating the index otherwise the rates would be more indicative of cost
> of living.
>
> There is a latency, as shown historically, between opening the spigot of
> Fed printing press, and inflation of 12-18 months. In other words
> inflation begins a year or so after the Federal Government begins
> printing money out of nothingness. Those presses went into overdrive
> about 6 months ago, do the math.
>
> It's hard to determine just how much green is being printed since Bush
> eliminated M3 statistics a couple of years ago, it can only be inferred
> and is very inexact.
>

As you say, looking at the real world of personal finance, price
inflation has been with us big time for at least 6 years, most likely
more, and has been systematically underreported since at least Reagan,
perhaps Nixon. During that entire time, in real terms, the economy has
been stagnant.

Stagflation. What kept the economy from collapsing sooner was massive
borrowing at the personal and business levels, including, but not
limited to, mortgages and the parlaying of derivatives.

Dan

== 4 of 17 ==
Date: Fri, Jan 9 2009 6:25 pm
From: Too_Many_Tools

On Jan 9, 5:30 pm, "Ed Huntress" <huntre...@optonline.net> wrote:
> "Too_Many_Tools" <too_many_to...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:22b0401b-544f-468d-8f3d-f07cf72f31ec@x16g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
> On Jan 9, 3:32 pm, "Ed Huntress" <huntre...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
> > "Too_Many_Tools" <too_many_to...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> <snip>
>
>
>
>
>
> > >How about once those hundreds of billions of dollars that are being
> > >printed enter the economy?
>
> > We'll see. The dollar has been flat or rising against most other
> > currencies,
> > so it's unlikely that inflation would take right off with even a large
> > increase in money supply. At some point, yes, it will cause inflation --
> > but
> > not before velocity increases (in other words, before people start buying
> > stuff).
>
> > What will matter is the point from which inflation occurs. Right now it
> > appears we've just crossed the zero point into deflation. If it's six
> > months
> > before the trend turns up, a little inflation will be a very welcome
> > thing.
>
> > --
> > Ed Huntress- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
> >Could it be that the banks holding on to their 350 billion bailout
> >(except for bonuses of course) be a good thing? If the masses can't
> >access credit, they can't spend and without money in the system there
> >is no inflation.
> >TMT
>
> To answer the question you're really asking, no, it's not a good thing. With
> no credit, there's little consumption; with little consumption, there's
> declining or flat production; with declining or flat production, there's no
> increase in employment; and so on, around the circle. No credit, no economy.
> We wind up raising chickens in our SUVs. <g>
>
> To answer a question you didn't ask, having the banks sit on that money or
> use it to buy other banks, while it causes wailing and gnashing of teeth in
> Congress and in the press, may be good in the longer term, because the banks
> are ripe for some consolidation and will wind up stronger, and will be a lot
> less vulnerable to downturns. They'll raise their reserves and they'll be
> choosy about their loans. This is the good side, which compensates to some
> degree for the bad side.
>
> My guess, only from reading the experts and not from any real knowledge of
> it, is that the people in Treasury think the good side is worth it. The
> people in Congress don't think it's worth it. I have no way of knowing who
> is right.
>
> Now, forget you heard that, and don't tell anyone you heard it from me. d8-)
>
> --
> Ed Huntress- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Chickens in our SUVs....I like that. ;<)

I can hear the questions now..."How many eggs per gallon do you get?"

Instead of number of cup holders it will be "how many hen holders do
you have?"

I do understand the need for consolidation in the financial sector...I
hear the insider stories all the time and it is an industry long over
due for consolidation.

But as you mention...stronger banks and no economy means one is
putting all your chickens in one SUV.

TMT

== 5 of 17 ==
Date: Fri, Jan 9 2009 6:29 pm
From: Too_Many_Tools

On Jan 9, 7:03 pm, "John R. Carroll"
<jcarroll@ubu,machiningsolution.com> wrote:
> "Ed Huntress" <huntre...@optonline.net> wrote in message
>
> news:4967de06$0$14315$607ed4bc@cv.net...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Too_Many_Tools" <too_many_to...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >news:22b0401b-544f-468d-8f3d-f07cf72f31ec@x16g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
> > On Jan 9, 3:32 pm, "Ed Huntress" <huntre...@optonline.net> wrote:
> >> "Too_Many_Tools" <too_many_to...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> > <snip>
>
> >> >How about once those hundreds of billions of dollars that are being
> >> >printed enter the economy?
>
> >> We'll see. The dollar has been flat or rising against most other
> >> currencies,
> >> so it's unlikely that inflation would take right off with even a large
> >> increase in money supply. At some point, yes, it will cause inflation --
> >> but
> >> not before velocity increases (in other words, before people start buying
> >> stuff).
>
> >> What will matter is the point from which inflation occurs. Right now it
> >> appears we've just crossed the zero point into deflation. If it's six
> >> months
> >> before the trend turns up, a little inflation will be a very welcome
> >> thing.
>
> >> --
> >> Ed Huntress- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> >>Could it be that the banks holding on to their 350 billion bailout
> >>(except for bonuses of course) be a good thing? If the masses can't
> >>access credit, they can't spend and without money in the system there
> >>is no inflation.
>
> >>TMT
>
> > To answer the question you're really asking, no, it's not a good thing.
> > With no credit, there's little consumption; with little consumption,
> > there's declining or flat production; with declining or flat production,
> > there's no increase in employment; and so on, around the circle. No
> > credit, no economy. We wind up raising chickens in our SUVs. <g>
>
> > To answer a question you didn't ask, having the banks sit on that money or
> > use it to buy other banks, while it causes wailing and gnashing of teeth
> > in Congress and in the press, may be good in the longer term, because the
> > banks are ripe for some consolidation and will wind up stronger, and will
> > be a lot less vulnerable to downturns. They'll raise their reserves and
> > they'll be choosy about their loans. This is the good side, which
> > compensates to some degree for the bad side.
>
> > My guess, only from reading the experts and not from any real knowledge of
> > it, is that the people in Treasury think the good side is worth it. The
> > people in Congress don't think it's worth it. I have no way of knowing who
> > is right.
>
> > Now, forget you heard that, and don't tell anyone you heard it from me.
> > d8-)
>
> Congress understands this pretty well.
> Actually, they are getting an education but that will prove to be a
> distinction without any difference.
>
> JC- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Well it may help.

Congress has control over the other 30 billion of dollars of the
bailout...which is why Bush hasn't spent it yet.

It is also why the White House was bitching so much about giving the
car companies any money...it was coming out of the 350 billion dollars
that he had control of and what little he had left after giving the
mjority to the banks.

Congress isn't as dumb as conservatives would like us to think.

TMT

== 6 of 17 ==
Date: Fri, Jan 9 2009 6:32 pm
From: Too_Many_Tools

On Jan 9, 7:30 pm, Dan <dnada...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Curly Surmudgeon wrote:
> > On Fri, 09 Jan 2009 18:16:26 +0000, EskWIRED wrote:
>
> >> In misc.survivalism Curly Surmudgeon <CurlySurmudg...@live.com> wrote:
>
> >>> Early in Reagan's term we were worried about stagflation, it seem to be
> >>> upon us now.
> >> Not nearly. Inflation is not in the double-digits. Indeed, many folks
> >> are worried about deflation instead.
>
> > Only because energy costs have dropped by >50%. Real costs are rising
> > sharply, go grocery shopping or look at your health care premiums. Big
> > ticket items, such as cars and homes have disintegrated. That is
> > moderating the index otherwise the rates would be more indicative of cost
> > of living.
>
> > There is a latency, as shown historically, between opening the spigot of
> > Fed printing press, and inflation of 12-18 months. In other words
> > inflation begins a year or so after the Federal Government begins
> > printing money out of nothingness. Those presses went into overdrive
> > about 6 months ago, do the math.
>
> > It's hard to determine just how much green is being printed since Bush
> > eliminated M3 statistics a couple of years ago, it can only be inferred
> > and is very inexact.
>
> As you say, looking at the real world of personal finance, price
> inflation has been with us big time for at least 6 years, most likely
> more, and has been systematically underreported since at least Reagan,
> perhaps Nixon. During that entire time, in real terms, the economy has
> been stagnant.
>
> Stagflation. What kept the economy from collapsing sooner was massive
> borrowing at the personal and business levels, including, but not
> limited to, mortgages and the parlaying of derivatives.
>
> Dan- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I agree...and if the amount of credit is available at more saner
levels the "good old days" that we just went through are over...time
to pay the piper.

I think the recession will last longer than anyone thinks it will and
the recovery will much more subdued than we are used to.

Kindna like a hangover after the party...

TMT

== 7 of 17 ==
Date: Fri, Jan 9 2009 7:00 pm
From: cavelamb

Ed Huntress wrote:
>
> To answer the question you're really asking, no, it's not a good thing. With
> no credit, there's little consumption; with little consumption, there's
> declining or flat production; with declining or flat production, there's no
> increase in employment; and so on, around the circle. No credit, no economy.
> We wind up raising chickens in our SUVs. <g>
>
> To answer a question you didn't ask, having the banks sit on that money or
> use it to buy other banks, while it causes wailing and gnashing of teeth in
> Congress and in the press, may be good in the longer term, because the banks
> are ripe for some consolidation and will wind up stronger, and will be a lot
> less vulnerable to downturns. They'll raise their reserves and they'll be
> choosy about their loans. This is the good side, which compensates to some
> degree for the bad side.
>
> My guess, only from reading the experts and not from any real knowledge of
> it, is that the people in Treasury think the good side is worth it. The
> people in Congress don't think it's worth it. I have no way of knowing who
> is right.
>
> Now, forget you heard that, and don't tell anyone you heard it from me. d8-)
>
> --
> Ed Huntress
>
>

That has been my numba one question for quite a while, Ed.

"How far back do we get knocked?"

1970s?

1950s?

1930s?

1900?

And what population level does that economy support?

Or, in other words, how many people have to go bye bye???

== 8 of 17 ==
Date: Fri, Jan 9 2009 7:58 pm
From: "Ed Huntress"

"Too_Many_Tools" <too_many_tools@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:2f23e3bb-7938-41ce-84a9-c4b281931cef@w1g2000prk.googlegroups.com...
On Jan 9, 5:30 pm, "Ed Huntress" <huntre...@optonline.net> wrote:

<snip>

> My guess, only from reading the experts and not from any real knowledge of
> it, is that the people in Treasury think the good side is worth it. The
> people in Congress don't think it's worth it. I have no way of knowing who
> is right.
>
> Now, forget you heard that, and don't tell anyone you heard it from me.
> d8-)
>
> --
> Ed Huntress- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

>Chickens in our SUVs....I like that. ;<)

>I can hear the questions now..."How many eggs per gallon do you get?"

>Instead of number of cup holders it will be "how many hen holders do
>you have?"

You just put a little straw in the holders.

>I do understand the need for consolidation in the financial sector...I
>hear the insider stories all the time and it is an industry long over
>due for consolidation.

>But as you mention...stronger banks and no economy means one is
>putting all your chickens in one SUV.

>TMT

I'll vote for the economy and screw the consolidation, but I wouldn't know
about trying to run a bank, either.

--
Ed Huntress

== 9 of 17 ==
Date: Fri, Jan 9 2009 8:02 pm
From: "Ed Huntress"

"cavelamb" <cavelamb@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:I-6dnVjF5O_OkvXUnZ2dnUVZ_hIAAAAA@earthlink.com...
> Ed Huntress wrote:
>>
>> To answer the question you're really asking, no, it's not a good thing.
>> With no credit, there's little consumption; with little consumption,
>> there's declining or flat production; with declining or flat production,
>> there's no increase in employment; and so on, around the circle. No
>> credit, no economy. We wind up raising chickens in our SUVs. <g>
>>
>> To answer a question you didn't ask, having the banks sit on that money
>> or use it to buy other banks, while it causes wailing and gnashing of
>> teeth in Congress and in the press, may be good in the longer term,
>> because the banks are ripe for some consolidation and will wind up
>> stronger, and will be a lot less vulnerable to downturns. They'll raise
>> their reserves and they'll be choosy about their loans. This is the good
>> side, which compensates to some degree for the bad side.
>>
>> My guess, only from reading the experts and not from any real knowledge
>> of it, is that the people in Treasury think the good side is worth it.
>> The people in Congress don't think it's worth it. I have no way of
>> knowing who is right.
>>
>> Now, forget you heard that, and don't tell anyone you heard it from me.
>> d8-)
>>
>> --
>> Ed Huntress
>
> That has been my numba one question for quite a while, Ed.
>
> "How far back do we get knocked?"
>
> 1970s?
>
> 1950s?
>
> 1930s?
>
> 1900?
>
> And what population level does that economy support?
>
> Or, in other words, how many people have to go bye bye???

We start by putting all the anti-regulatory economists on cakes of ice and
shoving them off from Pier 88 in Manhattan -- in warm weather.

--
Ed Huntress

== 10 of 17 ==
Date: Fri, Jan 9 2009 8:46 pm
From: terryc

On Fri, 09 Jan 2009 18:25:42 -0800, Too_Many_Tools wrote:

> Instead of number of cup holders it will be "how many hen holders do
> you have?"

In this country, we have farmers who take their stock out into the long
paddock, aka droving on he stock routes to get feed. wonder how many
people with chickens in the SUV will take them out for picnics in the
country side
{:-).

> But as you mention...stronger banks and no economy means one is putting
> all your chickens in one SUV.

Naah, even this country still has competition, even if 2 of the big four
banks are merging. There are other banks growing all the time. Plus the
government hasn't shut off competition from other sources. In our
country, it is just harder for any idiot with a big lottery win to set up
as a bank, which seems to be the problem USA wise.

> TMT

== 11 of 17 ==
Date: Fri, Jan 9 2009 10:16 pm
From: cavelamb

Ed Huntress wrote:
> "cavelamb" <cavelamb@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:I-6dnVjF5O_OkvXUnZ2dnUVZ_hIAAAAA@earthlink.com...
>> Ed Huntress wrote:
>>> To answer the question you're really asking, no, it's not a good thing.
>>> With no credit, there's little consumption; with little consumption,
>>> there's declining or flat production; with declining or flat production,
>>> there's no increase in employment; and so on, around the circle. No
>>> credit, no economy. We wind up raising chickens in our SUVs. <g>
>>>
>>> To answer a question you didn't ask, having the banks sit on that money
>>> or use it to buy other banks, while it causes wailing and gnashing of
>>> teeth in Congress and in the press, may be good in the longer term,
>>> because the banks are ripe for some consolidation and will wind up
>>> stronger, and will be a lot less vulnerable to downturns. They'll raise
>>> their reserves and they'll be choosy about their loans. This is the good
>>> side, which compensates to some degree for the bad side.
>>>
>>> My guess, only from reading the experts and not from any real knowledge
>>> of it, is that the people in Treasury think the good side is worth it.
>>> The people in Congress don't think it's worth it. I have no way of
>>> knowing who is right.
>>>
>>> Now, forget you heard that, and don't tell anyone you heard it from me.
>>> d8-)
>>>
>>> --
>>> Ed Huntress
>> That has been my numba one question for quite a while, Ed.
>>
>> "How far back do we get knocked?"
>>
>> 1970s?
>>
>> 1950s?
>>
>> 1930s?
>>
>> 1900?
>>
>> And what population level does that economy support?
>>
>> Or, in other words, how many people have to go bye bye???
>
> We start by putting all the anti-regulatory economists on cakes of ice and
> shoving them off from Pier 88 in Manhattan -- in warm weather.
>
> --
> Ed Huntress
>
>

Great Idea.

But I think we are too civilized (i.e. pussies) to actually do that.

== 12 of 17 ==
Date: Fri, Jan 9 2009 10:21 pm
From: Curly Surmudgeon

On Fri, 09 Jan 2009 17:30:18 -0800, Dan wrote:

> Curly Surmudgeon wrote:
>> On Fri, 09 Jan 2009 18:16:26 +0000, EskWIRED wrote:
>>
>>> In misc.survivalism Curly Surmudgeon <CurlySurmudgeon@live.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Early in Reagan's term we were worried about stagflation, it seem to
>>>> be upon us now.
>>> Not nearly. Inflation is not in the double-digits. Indeed, many
>>> folks are worried about deflation instead.
>>
>> Only because energy costs have dropped by >50%. Real costs are rising
>> sharply, go grocery shopping or look at your health care premiums. Big
>> ticket items, such as cars and homes have disintegrated. That is
>> moderating the index otherwise the rates would be more indicative of
>> cost of living.
>>
>> There is a latency, as shown historically, between opening the spigot
>> of Fed printing press, and inflation of 12-18 months. In other words
>> inflation begins a year or so after the Federal Government begins
>> printing money out of nothingness. Those presses went into overdrive
>> about 6 months ago, do the math.
>>
>> It's hard to determine just how much green is being printed since Bush
>> eliminated M3 statistics a couple of years ago, it can only be inferred
>> and is very inexact.
>>
>>
> As you say, looking at the real world of personal finance, price
> inflation has been with us big time for at least 6 years, most likely
> more, and has been systematically underreported since at least Reagan,
> perhaps Nixon. During that entire time, in real terms, the economy has
> been stagnant.
>
> Stagflation. What kept the economy from collapsing sooner was massive
> borrowing at the personal and business levels, including, but not
> limited to, mortgages and the parlaying of derivatives.
>
> Dan

Would you like a home equity line of credit to buy your new $60k Cadillac
Escalade with those fries?

--
Regards, Curly
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
11 Days More of George Walker Bush Plundering the Economy
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

== 13 of 17 ==
Date: Fri, Jan 9 2009 10:24 pm
From: Curly Surmudgeon

On Sat, 10 Jan 2009 00:32:52 +0000, EskWIRED wrote:

> In misc.survivalism Curly Surmudgeon <CurlySurmudgeon@live.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, 09 Jan 2009 18:16:26 +0000, EskWIRED wrote:
>
>> > Not nearly. Inflation is not in the double-digits. Indeed, many
>> > folks are worried about deflation instead.
>
>> Only because energy costs have dropped by >50%. Real costs are rising
>> sharply, go grocery shopping or look at your health care premiums. Big
>> ticket items, such as cars and homes have disintegrated. That is
>> moderating the index otherwise the rates would be more indicative of
>> cost of living.
>
> All of those items are factored in. They are all a part of "real
> costs".

True. And as the property prices level off inflation will become more
apparent. As people cease buying cars at any price inflation will be
driven up. As the printing presses continue to smoke, inflation will
soar. I see no mitigating indicators in the near term to replace those
which will inevitably peter out.

Then the inflating prices of commodities, cost of livign, may finally be
seen clearly.

== 14 of 17 ==
Date: Fri, Jan 9 2009 10:27 pm
From: Too_Many_Tools

On Jan 9, 9:00 pm, cavelamb <cavel...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Ed Huntress wrote:
>
> > To answer the question you're really asking, no, it's not a good thing. With
> > no credit, there's little consumption; with little consumption, there's
> > declining or flat production; with declining or flat production, there's no
> > increase in employment; and so on, around the circle. No credit, no economy.
> > We wind up raising chickens in our SUVs. <g>
>
> > To answer a question you didn't ask, having the banks sit on that money or
> > use it to buy other banks, while it causes wailing and gnashing of teeth in
> > Congress and in the press, may be good in the longer term, because the banks
> > are ripe for some consolidation and will wind up stronger, and will be a lot
> > less vulnerable to downturns. They'll raise their reserves and they'll be
> > choosy about their loans. This is the good side, which compensates to some
> > degree for the bad side.
>
> > My guess, only from reading the experts and not from any real knowledge of
> > it, is that the people in Treasury think the good side is worth it. The
> > people in Congress don't think it's worth it. I have no way of knowing who
> > is right.
>
> > Now, forget you heard that, and don't tell anyone you heard it from me. d8-)
>
> > --
> > Ed Huntress
>
> That has been my numba one question for quite a while, Ed.
>
> "How far back do we get knocked?"
>
> 1970s?
>
> 1950s?
>
> 1930s?
>
> 1900?
>
> And what population level does that economy support?
>
> Or, in other words, how many people have to go bye bye???- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Didn't you get the memo?

That is why we had Election Day 2008...anyone who voted Republican was
marked for culling.

All the Republicans are slated for termination January 21th 2009.

TMT

== 15 of 17 ==
Date: Fri, Jan 9 2009 10:29 pm
From: Curly Surmudgeon

On Fri, 09 Jan 2009 18:32:38 -0800, Too_Many_Tools wrote:

> On Jan 9, 7:30 pm, Dan <dnada...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Curly Surmudgeon wrote:
>> > On Fri, 09 Jan 2009 18:16:26 +0000, EskWIRED wrote:
>>
>> >> In misc.survivalism Curly Surmudgeon <CurlySurmudg...@live.com>
>> >> wrote:
>>
>> >>> Early in Reagan's term we were worried about stagflation, it seem
>> >>> to be upon us now.
>> >> Not nearly. Inflation is not in the double-digits. Indeed, many
>> >> folks are worried about deflation instead.
>>
>> > Only because energy costs have dropped by >50%. Real costs are
>> > rising sharply, go grocery shopping or look at your health care
>> > premiums. Big ticket items, such as cars and homes have
>> > disintegrated. That is moderating the index otherwise the rates
>> > would be more indicative of cost of living.
>>
>> > There is a latency, as shown historically, between opening the spigot
>> > of Fed printing press, and inflation of 12-18 months. In other words
>> > inflation begins a year or so after the Federal Government begins
>> > printing money out of nothingness. Those presses went into overdrive
>> > about 6 months ago, do the math.
>>
>> > It's hard to determine just how much green is being printed since
>> > Bush eliminated M3 statistics a couple of years ago, it can only be
>> > inferred and is very inexact.
>>
>> As you say, looking at the real world of personal finance, price
>> inflation has been with us big time for at least 6 years, most likely
>> more, and has been systematically underreported since at least Reagan,
>> perhaps Nixon. During that entire time, in real terms, the economy has
>> been stagnant.
>>
>> Stagflation. What kept the economy from collapsing sooner was massive
>> borrowing at the personal and business levels, including, but not
>> limited to, mortgages and the parlaying of derivatives.
>>
>> Dan- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> I agree...and if the amount of credit is available at more saner levels
> the "good old days" that we just went through are over...time to pay the
> piper.
>
> I think the recession will last longer than anyone thinks it will and
> the recovery will much more subdued than we are used to.
>
> Kindna like a hangover after the party...
>
> TMT

One of my favorite talking heads programs is the McLaughlin Report. The
mix of guests runs the gamut from wacko right to wacko left, seeing them
interact one can often see where reality lies.

Tonite all four seemed resigned to about 6, or more, years before
recovery with trillion dollar deficits each of those six years. And that
was the average minimum time anticipated, implying that recovery might be
signficantly longer.

Pat Buchanan mentioned that the Great Depresssion wasn't really over
until the 50's, a 25 year span... Even Eleanor, the leftist, realized
that Obama is not going to fix what Bush broke alone and with the
anticipated obstructionism of the Republican Congress might not get all
that much done at all.

== 16 of 17 ==
Date: Fri, Jan 9 2009 10:30 pm
From: Too_Many_Tools

On Jan 9, 10:02 pm, "Ed Huntress" <huntre...@optonline.net> wrote:
> "cavelamb" <cavel...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>
> news:I-6dnVjF5O_OkvXUnZ2dnUVZ_hIAAAAA@earthlink.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > Ed Huntress wrote:
>
> >> To answer the question you're really asking, no, it's not a good thing.
> >> With no credit, there's little consumption; with little consumption,
> >> there's declining or flat production; with declining or flat production,
> >> there's no increase in employment; and so on, around the circle. No
> >> credit, no economy. We wind up raising chickens in our SUVs. <g>
>
> >> To answer a question you didn't ask, having the banks sit on that money
> >> or use it to buy other banks, while it causes wailing and gnashing of
> >> teeth in Congress and in the press, may be good in the longer term,
> >> because the banks are ripe for some consolidation and will wind up
> >> stronger, and will be a lot less vulnerable to downturns. They'll raise
> >> their reserves and they'll be choosy about their loans. This is the good
> >> side, which compensates to some degree for the bad side.
>
> >> My guess, only from reading the experts and not from any real knowledge
> >> of it, is that the people in Treasury think the good side is worth it.
> >> The people in Congress don't think it's worth it. I have no way of
> >> knowing who is right.
>
> >> Now, forget you heard that, and don't tell anyone you heard it from me.
> >> d8-)
>
> >> --
> >> Ed Huntress
>
> > That has been my numba one question for quite a while, Ed.
>
> > "How far back do we get knocked?"
>
> > 1970s?
>
> > 1950s?
>
> > 1930s?
>
> > 1900?
>
> > And what population level does that economy support?
>
> > Or, in other words, how many people have to go bye bye???
>
> We start by putting all the anti-regulatory economists on cakes of ice and
> shoving them off from Pier 88 in Manhattan -- in warm weather.
>
> --
> Ed Huntress- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I will help you on that.

TMT

== 17 of 17 ==
Date: Fri, Jan 9 2009 11:08 pm
From: "Ed Huntress"

"cavelamb" <cavelamb@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:LZadnYDyw6rToPXUnZ2dnUVZ_r6dnZ2d@earthlink.com...
> Ed Huntress wrote:
>> "cavelamb" <cavelamb@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>> news:I-6dnVjF5O_OkvXUnZ2dnUVZ_hIAAAAA@earthlink.com...
>>> Ed Huntress wrote:
>>>> To answer the question you're really asking, no, it's not a good thing.
>>>> With no credit, there's little consumption; with little consumption,
>>>> there's declining or flat production; with declining or flat
>>>> production, there's no increase in employment; and so on, around the
>>>> circle. No credit, no economy. We wind up raising chickens in our SUVs.
>>>> <g>
>>>>
>>>> To answer a question you didn't ask, having the banks sit on that money
>>>> or use it to buy other banks, while it causes wailing and gnashing of
>>>> teeth in Congress and in the press, may be good in the longer term,
>>>> because the banks are ripe for some consolidation and will wind up
>>>> stronger, and will be a lot less vulnerable to downturns. They'll raise
>>>> their reserves and they'll be choosy about their loans. This is the
>>>> good side, which compensates to some degree for the bad side.
>>>>
>>>> My guess, only from reading the experts and not from any real knowledge
>>>> of it, is that the people in Treasury think the good side is worth it.
>>>> The people in Congress don't think it's worth it. I have no way of
>>>> knowing who is right.
>>>>
>>>> Now, forget you heard that, and don't tell anyone you heard it from me.
>>>> d8-)
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Ed Huntress
>>> That has been my numba one question for quite a while, Ed.
>>>
>>> "How far back do we get knocked?"
>>>
>>> 1970s?
>>>
>>> 1950s?
>>>
>>> 1930s?
>>>
>>> 1900?
>>>
>>> And what population level does that economy support?
>>>
>>> Or, in other words, how many people have to go bye bye???
>>
>> We start by putting all the anti-regulatory economists on cakes of ice
>> and shoving them off from Pier 88 in Manhattan -- in warm weather.
>>
>> --
>> Ed Huntress
>
> Great Idea.
>
> But I think we are too civilized (i.e. pussies) to actually do that.

Now, having gotten that out of our system, how far back will we be knocked?
There is no going back, but you mean what level of income and what kind of
living it will support. This is a WAG: We'll be out of the recession and GDP
will be back about where it was two years ago in four more years. Pure
guesswork, so don't throw it back at me in four years. <g>

There are a lot of things that can go wrong and we can wind up like the
Japanese did for a decade, but with even worse unemployment problems and a
vast number of underemployed. I doubt it, not because of any particular
trend, but because of the ability of this economy to keep recreating itself.
It's more like faith based on experiences of the past. But if you just
project trends, it's a definite possibility.

A recovering GDP does not mean happy times are here again. We could have an
even worse income divide, which will be a parasite eating us up from the
inside. And the accumulating debt could throw a wrench into the whole thing
if interest rates on Treasury bills go way up. And they probably will go up.
If we chug along with 3% or 4% underlying growth, debt service on the
national debt could leave our net growth at zero, and the economy will stay
flat for a long time. We'd eventually have to inflate our way out of that.
If it comes, don't complain about inflation. It will be a poison we'll have
to take, and hope it doesn't kill us. It will be just like taking poison to
get rid of intestinal worms.

Meantime, we need some really big reforms if we're going to come up smelling
like roses within a decade. I don't doubt that it's possible -- that
re-creation thing has served us very well. But it's going to be harder than
hell to do it, given the present state of politics.

If our national debt doubles to $20 trillion and our GDP stays where it is,
we'll have about the same debt/GDP ratio that the Japanese have right now.
That's right -- their national debt is twice what ours is, in relation to
GDP, or individual incomes. Each person in Japan is saddled with twice as
much public debt as we are. But that isn't what has stalled Japan's economy,
so our increasing national debt is not, in itself, a disaster. It just thins
the ice under us and makes us vulnerable to other forces.

You can look at it as a challenge or get depressed about it. I think there's
a better than even chance we'll get over this and come out better, so I see
it as a challenge.

That and a dollar will get you a cup of coffee. I hope that, in two years,
it doesn't buy three cups of coffee. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

==============================================================================
TOPIC: classic Mobile Home q.
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/64184a7b40f05c3d?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Fri, Jan 9 2009 5:06 pm
From: MSfortune@mcpmail.com

On Jan 9, 12:15 am, doc marten <georgewks...@humboldt1.com> wrote:
> we have a '59 Rex Mobile home and we love it. but I was curious.
> why does it have complete running lights , two permanent axles , electric
> brakes and hitch . It is 45 x 10 ?
> No ones going traveling with this monster. It's a long , long long
> trailer. It features a lot on built ins. like cabinets and a full
> kitchen not the construction office type.
> --
> When the Power of Love,replaces the Love of Power.
> that's Evolution.

You are truly living life large, Doc.
That's 450 square feet not counting the deduction for partitions and
the 1" wall thickness, kitchen cabinets and such.

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Fri, Jan 9 2009 6:55 pm
From: doc marten

In article
<dcef1912-1217-4241-8eca-32e2319aade9@f40g2000pri.googlegroups.com>,
MSfortune@mcpmail.com wrote:

> On Jan 9, 12:15 am, doc marten <georgewks...@humboldt1.com> wrote:
> > we have a '59 Rex Mobile home and we love it. but I was curious.
> > why does it have complete running lights , two permanent axles , electric
> > brakes and hitch . It is 45 x 10 ?
> > No ones going traveling with this monster. It's a long , long long
> > trailer. It features a lot on built ins. like cabinets and a full
> > kitchen not the construction office type.
> > --
> > When the Power of Love,replaces the Love of Power.
> > that's Evolution.
>
> You are truly living life large, Doc.
> That's 450 square feet not counting the deduction for partitions and
> the 1" wall thickness, kitchen cabinets and such.

well, the first thing we did was additions and various outbuildings. Of
course. but ya know I have no idea what the total sq. footage is.
--
When the Power of Love,replaces the Love of Power.
that's Evolution.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: free pattern crochet a crayon tote using a milk jug
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/e22e51451467655a?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Fri, Jan 9 2009 5:59 pm
From: kingerik777

Check out my monthly contest -the best idea using a certain recyclable
wins a great prize. very green of course.
http://trashyside.blogspot.com/

==============================================================================
TOPIC: don't gas stations have bathrooms any more?
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/104c548907eef340?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Fri, Jan 9 2009 6:45 pm
From: Brian Elfert

"John A. Weeks III" <john@johnweeks.com> writes:

>I think you should call both Marathon and the state Attorney General.
>The building code probably requires a bathroom for the public.

I don't think public bathrooms are required in Minnesota. The state
either passed or was considering a law that required stores and the like
to allow people with a certain malady to use any bathroom including
private employee only bathrooms.

I don't think such a law would be required if public bathrooms were
required.

>I travel extensively, and I have not seen any kind of trend towards
>eliminating bathrooms from convenience stores or gas stations. I
>have seen more and more have these rooms locked where you have
>to ask for a key.

I have run into quite a few gas stations with no restrooms. There is at
least one near me and it happens to have gone out of business recently.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: www.cicigogo.cn NFL Jerseys=15$ NBA=12$ www.cicigogo.cn
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/8d6e9092f94d357d?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Fri, Jan 9 2009 8:35 pm
From: cicitrade300@yahoo.cn

www.cicigogo.cn NFL Jerseys www.cicigogo.cn

Arizona Cardinals Atlanta Falcons Baltimore Ravens Buffalo Bills
Cincinnati Bengals Cleveland Browns Carolina Panthers Chicago Bears
Denver Broncos Dallas Cowboys Detroit Lions Houston Texans
Indianapolis Colts Jacksonville Jaguars Kansas City Chiefs Green Bay
Packers Miami Dolphins Minnesota Vikings New England Patriots New York
Jets New York Giants New Orleans Saints Oakland Raiders Pittsburgh
Steelers Philadelphia Eagles San Diego Chargers San Francisco 49ers
Seattle Seahawks St Louis Rams Tennessee Titans Tampa Bay Buccaneers
Washington Redskins
www.cicigogo.cn Nhl hockey jerseys www.cicigogo.cn

Atlanta Thrashers Anaheim Mighty Ducks Boston Bruins Buffalo Sabres
Calgary Flames Carolina Hurricanes Chicago Blackhawks Colorado
Avalanche Columbus Blue Jackets Dallas Stars Detroit Red Wings
Edmonton Oilers Florida Panthers Los Angeles Kings Minnesota Wild
Montreal Canadians Nashville Predators New Jersey Devils NY Islanders
NY Rangers Ottawa Senators Philadelphia Flyers Phoenix Coyotes
Pittsburgh Penguins San Jose Sharks St Louis Blues Tampa Bay Lightning
Toronto Maple Leafs Washington Capitals Vancouver Canucks
www.cicigogo.cn Mlb jerseys www.cicigogo.cn

Anaheim Angels Arizona Diamondbacks Atlanta Braves Baltimore Orioles
Boston Red Sox Chicago Cubs Chicago White Sox Cincinnati Reds
Cleveland Indians Colorado Rockies Detroit Tigers Florida Marlins
Houston Astros Kansas City Royals Los Angeles Dodgers Milwaukee
Brewers Minnesota Twins New York Mets New York Yankees Oakland
Athletics Philadelphia Phillies Pittsburgh Pirates San Diego Padres
San Francisco Giants Seattle Mariners St Louis Cardinals Tampa Bay
Devil Rays Texas Rangers Toronto Blue Jays Washington Naationals

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Where do you get your best buys in cat food?
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/0890e14d22167708?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Fri, Jan 9 2009 9:30 pm
From: "Spot"

You get what you pay for. I never feed any of my animals economy food. The
only time I ever did this my dog lost his hair. Never again.

I stick with brand names and look for sales and coupons. You can even buy
coupons for pet food and other items you use at the following web site.
I've been buying from them for years they are legit.
http://www.thecouponclippers.com/

Celeste

--
Save 25% or more on your eBay® auctions
Snipe eBay Auctions with Bidnip
http://www.bidnip.com/a.php?id=39019

"James" <j0069bond@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:c9dd5a61-e68e-4579-8aec-4b19df2e7977@g1g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
On Jan 6, 3:31 pm, Too_Many_Tools <too_many_to...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jan 5, 4:20 pm, James <j0069b...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Is it K Mart, Wal Mart, Target or big box pet stores? Now that gas
> > is reasonalbe it may be worth it for me to drive to one of the stores
> > to buy cat food.
>
> > I used to get the 7 lb. Purina One but it seems expensive lately.
>
> Mice? ;<)
>
> In all seriousness, good food is cheaper in the long run as other
> posters are noting.
>
> Buying it in bulk also helps.
>
> How many cats are we talking about?
>
> TMT

We just have one pussy. BTW I went to the feed store to buy some hay
and rabbit food.. They had a close out on their economy cat food. So
I bought a 40 pound bag for $10. It was 1/2 price and so cheap I
couldn't resist. I could use the $10 saved to give her 20 pounds of
chicken legs.

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

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, January 9, 2009

misc.consumers.frugal-living - 25 new messages in 7 topics - digest

No comments: