Frugal Living: misc.consumers.frugal-living - 25 new messages in 8 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: OT - Survivalism Retail Style
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/da641b3711ca2726?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 14 ==
Date: Sun, Jan 11 2009 9:51 am
From: EskWIRED@spamblock.panix.com

In misc.survivalism Jones <jones@jones.com> wrote:

> > I see no mitigating indicators in the near term to replace those which will inevitably peter out.

> Because you dont have a clue about the basics.

That is increasing apparent.

Winston - this stuff interests you. But you are confused about basic
relationships. You'd enjoy these discussion more if you were on
solid ground.

--
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 14 ==
Date: Sun, Jan 11 2009 10:05 am
From: EskWIRED@spamblock.panix.com

In misc.survivalism Curly Surmudgeon <CurlySurmudgeon@live.com> wrote:

> "House prices" wasn't in the statement to which I responded nor are they
> a component of official inflation figures.

Curly - your ignorance of facts colors your conclusions. Look at the BLS
website. Indeed, housing is one of the eight major groups of products and
services that is considered when computing the number.

I can find a more precise cite if that would help you.

--
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

== 3 of 14 ==
Date: Sun, Jan 11 2009 10:33 am
From: cavelamb

F. George McDuffee wrote:

snip

> Not only that, but spec construction appears to be continuing in
> many areas. While it is easy to shout "whoa," it is not so easy
> to accomplish when that is the only thing your company (and you)
> know how to do. We have paid farmers not to farm for years as
> part of the agricultural price support programs, we should at
> least consider paying the contractors not to build houses.
>

that's insane enough that it just might happen.

We've been looking for a home to buy.
Around here there are only two choices.
5000 square foot new construction,
(which I can not afford)
and 30 year old houses at 2008 pricing levels
(which are not worth the asking price (anymore?))

There just aren't any new or recent moderate sized houses on the
market where we want to live.

I'm wild guessing that we are not the only couple in this position.

And that builders could make money again if they would build moderate
sized houses for the spec market rather than castles...

But any time I try to get logical I'm usually wrong...

So, wtf.

== 4 of 14 ==
Date: Sun, Jan 11 2009 10:48 am
From: clams_casino

EskWIRED@spamblock.panix.com wrote:

>In misc.survivalism Curly Surmudgeon <CurlySurmudgeon@live.com> wrote:
>
>
>>On Sun, 11 Jan 2009 16:24:01 +1100, Jones wrote:
>>
>>
>
>
>
>>---snip---
>>
>>
>>>Nope. Because most wont see declining income, you watch.
>>>
>>>
>
>
>
>>Another nym-shifting troll. Which is it tonight, Rod Speed, Jones or
>>asshole?
>>
>>
>
>
>
>>Can I just use the latter?
>>
>>
>
>Try responding to his points, instead of changing the subject.
>
>
>
Such will be a useless venture.

== 5 of 14 ==
Date: Sun, Jan 11 2009 10:52 am
From: F. George McDuffee

On Sun, 11 Jan 2009 07:58:18 -0800, "John R. Carroll"
<jcarroll@ubu,machiningsolution.com> wrote:

<snip>
>I don't use this sort of language but can't express it any other way so here
>goes. Bushco thought that the problem was all of those ignorant spics and
>niggers getting financing they didn't "deserve". They were going to just
>drive this "impurity" from the markets as the solution.
>The Republican "Southern Strategy" came to full fruition. That is the only
>reason for the big media campaign by the administrations top echelon
>pointing to CRA as well as Freddie and Fannie.
<snip>
---------------
While that appears to be a correct analysis, I think the problem
goes [much] deeper. When you are as rich as Croesus or Midas,
additional money has little to no utility [marginal value].
"Invidious comparison" becomes the only way for increasing self
esteem. That is, while I may not be able to make any more money
[in the sense of "feeling it"] I can reduce the
wages/standard-of-living of my serfs and "field hands,"
increasing my perceived comparative standing, and showing my
power over them, and "I own a house and you don't" again becomes
a valid boast. [No one said they were stupid, just crazy...]

http://terranova.blogs.com/terra_nova/2006/01/invidious_compa.html

http://xroads.virginia.edu/~HYPER/VEBLEN/chap02.html

Unka' George [George McDuffee]
-------------------------------------------
He that will not apply new remedies,
must expect new evils:
for Time is the greatest innovator: and
if Time, of course, alter things to the worse,
and wisdom and counsel shall not alter them to the better,
what shall be the end?

Francis Bacon (1561-1626), English philosopher, essayist, statesman.
Essays, "Of Innovations" (1597-1625).

== 6 of 14 ==
Date: Sun, Jan 11 2009 11:11 am
From: "Ed Huntress"

"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:6sul06F8a87aU1@mid.individual.net...
> Ed Huntress wrote
>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>>> Ed Huntress wrote
>
>>>> Your conclusions about inflation are right, but it is true we've
>>>> been increasing the money supply at a pretty good clip:
>
>>>> http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/h6/current/
>
>>> Yes, but not PRINTING it as he pig ignorantly claimed.
>
>> Again, I don't quibble with your conclusions, but in the interest of
>> understanding this economic mess we're in, printing currency has been
>> going on at a good clip, too, for some months now. This is *just paper
>> currency plus coin*, the currency portion of M1:
>
>> http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/CURRENCY?cid=25
>
>> Use some of the interactive options, such as the "change from a year
>> ago" tab, and you'll see the picture.
>
> Nothing like the presses smoking as he keeps pig ignorantly claiming.
>
>>>> However, velocity is so low that it's not causing inflation.
>
>>> And wont any time soon either.
>
>> That's probably right, since people and banks are sitting on their
>> money. To start inflation up again would require quite a bit of
>> demand to get velocity going, as well as plenty of cash to spend. And it
>> has to start from whatever level of *deflation* we wind up with, when the
>> current deflationary trend bottoms out.
>
> Precisely.
>
>>>> The rates of inflation for food, energy, and everything but food and
>>>> energy can be seen here (selections you want are at the bottom of the
>>>> list):
>
>>>> http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/categories/9
>
>>>> Food has just flattened out.
>
>>> And will stay that way too.
>
>> Food tends to track energy costs, which are a big component of food
>> costs.
>
> Which is why food prices will stay flattened out while ever
> the world economy tanking keeps the price of energy low.
>
> BUT its often not realised that even if the farm gate price of food
> was zero, it would have very little effect on the retail price.
>
>> But food prices lag energy prices by months. The flattened
>> peak we see on that graph just identifies where food has recently reacted
>> to the drop in energy prices;
>
> Its more that the previous effect of drought
> has now gone, particularly with wheat and rice.
>
>> now we can expect a decline in food prices, although it won't follow oil
>> all the way to the bottom.
>
> Yep, like I said, even if the farm gate price is zero, the retail price
> never is anything like that.
>
>> Food prices were driven up, too, by corn ethanol production,
>
> Thats a relatively small effect and the tanking of the world
> economy has affected the demand for ethanol anyway.
>
>> which has driven prices for packaged foods and meat 'way up,
>
> No it hasnt. Thats pure myth.

I'd be interested in seeing what you have on that -- and I don't mean
reports from the the Renewable Fuels Association or the Informa analysis,
which I read last year and which is fairly worthless.

>
>> and by the sudden food demand over the past couple of years from
>> developing countries that were doing well until a few months ago.
>
> There never was any sudden food demand from developing countrys.

Yes there was (and is), particularly in meat proteins. And China and India's
demand has become somewhat inelastic, more like demand in the West, so
demand is pulling on prices.

If you look at the market-basket graphs, they're still dominated by staples.
But that isn't what has pulled *our* prices up.We don't eat a lot of cassava
roots or millet. <g>

>
>> Now that demand for both is down, they, too, will drag food prices down.
>> Again, it doesn't look likely that the bottom will drop out of them;
>> they'll just follow general trends in energy and worldwide food demand.
>
> But we wont see significant inflation there any time soon.
>
>>>> "Everything but" flattened early last month. The overall rate of
>>>> inflation, if you project from the mid-December numbers, probably just
>>>> crossed the zero point within the last week.
>
>>>> So every major category is now flat -- no inflation, or darned close to
>>>> it.
>
>>> So everything he claimed is just plain wrong.
>
>> Pretty much, except that there *is* a lot of new currency being printed.
>
> Nope, nothing like the mindlessly silly claim about the presses smoking.

You can argue with Curly about what constitutes "smoking." The currency
component of M1 has increased from roughly $760 billion to $820 billion over
the past year.

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/fredgraph?chart_type=line&s[1][id]=CURRENCY&s[1][range]=5yrs

>
>> But most people (including Curly, apparently) make too much of that. The
>> idea that increases in money supply automatically cause inflation is not
>> correct. That idea is based on a couple of
>> assumptions that don't always hold. For example, people just aren't
>> buying stuff like they were, so lack of demand is keeping prices down.
>> The stagflation we had in the '70s included a wage-price spiral that is
>> not going on now, and is nowhere in sight. Wages have hardly moved.
>
> And thats not going to change with the world economy tanking.
>
>> It's not that we couldn't possibly have a round of stagflation right in
>> the middle of this mess, but it isn't happening now and it doesn't look
>> likely to happen.
>
> Precisely.
>
>> Back in the '70s, before Paul Volcker was put in charge, the Fed was not
>> confident about monetary controls. Since we got out of that stagflation
>> they've learned what it takes to clamp inflation down, and they're likely
>> to put a lid on it again if it starts up again.
>
> Thats harder to be sure of, particularly if they are attempting to stop
> what they
> decide is the world economy heading for another great depression or close,
> particularly as its never the Fed alone that matters in situations like
> that.
>
>> But if prices turn up very soon (unlikely, but nothing is impossible),
>
> That is with the world economy tanking.
>
>> they're going to face a real dilemma, because raising interest rates to
>> contain inflation could leave any economic recovery
>> stillborn. They're going to be sitting on pins and needles now for most
>> of the year, if not for a couple of years.
>
> Yep, we could easily see the same effect we saw late in the great
> depression.
>
> And we cant have another world war now and fix it that way.
>
>>>> There is no stagflation, in other words.
>
>>> And nothing like it either.
>
>>>> We have recession, and we'll probably soon have overall deflation.
>
>>> Yep, and it remains to be seen how long the recession will
>>> last for with the massive attempts to do something about that.
>
>>>> BTW, for whoever was complaining about the lack of M3,
>
> Curly, and you have since said you have him killfiled.
>
>>>> that's not what measures currency (although currency is a part of M3).
>>>> Currency is M0. The M1 measure is very close. The lack of M3 data,
>>>> which is pretty useless to almost everyone anyway, doesn't have
>>>> anything to do with what we know about how much money the government is
>>>> "printing."
>
>>> He's had that explained to him repeatedly, in one ear and straight out
>>> the other.
>
>> Too bad. When you hear someone complain about the lack of M3 data, the
>> first thing to ask is what they'd do with it if they had it. The second
>> question is, what do they think M3 data tells us. d8-)
>
> Not a shred of evidence that he is actually capable of thought }-)
>

== 7 of 14 ==
Date: Sun, Jan 11 2009 11:22 am
From: F. George McDuffee

On Sun, 11 Jan 2009 12:33:18 -0600, cavelamb
<cavelamb@earthlink.net> wrote:

<SNIP>
>We've been looking for a home to buy.
>Around here there are only two choices.
>5000 square foot new construction,
>(which I can not afford)
>and 30 year old houses at 2008 pricing levels
>(which are not worth the asking price (anymore?))
>
>There just aren't any new or recent moderate sized houses on the
>market where we want to live.
>
>I'm wild guessing that we are not the only couple in this position.
>
>And that builders could make money again if they would build moderate
>sized houses for the spec market rather than castles...
>
>But any time I try to get logical I'm usually wrong...
>
<SNIP>

My brother is a realtor [Fayetteville, Arkansas] and an associate
in a large national real estate agency. He indicates this appears
to be the case nation wide.

The majority of builders appear to be still fixated on McMansions
with "high" to "very high" levels of amenities such as granite
topped counters in the kitchen, fireplaces and tile or flagstone
patios.

Part of the problem may be that all the available building sites
have all been platted, zoned and priced for up-scale McMansions,
and it is not economic [or even possible depending on the
covenants] to build a 125,00$ house on a 250,000$ lot.

FWIW -- the currently "hot" real estate segment is the smaller,
more rational home on a smaller lot, possibly categorized as one
step up from a "starter home." When in good condition in a good
area these sell almost at once. Financing is not a problem in
most areas for clients with even average FICA scores and adequate
[documented, no more alt-a loans] incomes, although many lenders
are requiring a 20% down payment. Several banks in the
Fayetteville area are offering 4.750-4.875 APR 20/30 year fixed
rate loans.

Good luck on your search.

Francis Bacon (1561-1626), English philosopher, essayist, statesman.
Essays, "Of Innovations" (1597-1625).

== 8 of 14 ==
Date: Sun, Jan 11 2009 1:05 pm
From: Curly Surmudgeon

On Sun, 11 Jan 2009 18:05:18 +0000, EskWIRED wrote:

> In misc.survivalism Curly Surmudgeon <CurlySurmudgeon@live.com> wrote:
>
>> "House prices" wasn't in the statement to which I responded nor are
>> they a component of official inflation figures.
>
> Curly - your ignorance of facts colors your conclusions.

Fuck you and your insults. If you want to have a dialog then learn to
debate the issues. Your behavior here doesn't substantiate your claim to
be an attorney.

> Look at the BLS website. Indeed, housing is one of the eight major
> groups of products and services that is considered when computing the
> number.
>
> I can find a more precise cite if that would help you.

I'm well aware of the real figures, not your opinion:

---begin excerpt---
"House prices" are _not_ a component of CPI:

What goods and services does the CPI cover?

The CPI represents all goods and services purchased for consumption by
the reference population (U or W) BLS has classified all expenditure
items into more than 200 categories, arranged into eight major groups.
Major groups and examples of categories in each are as follows:

* FOOD AND BEVERAGES (breakfast cereal, milk, coffee, chicken, wine,
full service meals, snacks)
* HOUSING (rent of primary residence, owners' equivalent rent, fuel
oil, bedroom furniture)
* APPAREL (men's shirts and sweaters, women's dresses, jewelry)
* TRANSPORTATION (new vehicles, airline fares, gasoline, motor
vehicle insurance)
* MEDICAL CARE (prescription drugs and medical supplies, physicians'
services, eyeglasses and eye care, hospital services)
* RECREATION (televisions, toys, pets and pet products, sports
equipment, admissions);
* EDUCATION AND COMMUNICATION (college tuition, postage, telephone
services, computer software and accessories);
* OTHER GOODS AND SERVICES (tobacco and smoking products, haircuts
and other personal services, funeral expenses).

Also included within these major groups are various government-charged
user fees, such as water and sewerage charges, auto registration fees,
and vehicle tolls. In addition, the CPI includes taxes (such as sales and
excise taxes) that are directly associated with the prices of specific
goods and services. However, the CPI excludes taxes (such as income and
Social Security taxes) not directly associated with the purchase of
consumer goods and services.

The CPI does not include investment items, such as stocks, bonds, real
estate, and life insurance. (These items relate to savings and not to day-
to-day consumption expenses.)

For each of the more than 200 item categories, using scientific
statistical procedures, the Bureau has chosen samples of several hundred
specific items within selected business establishments frequented by
consumers to represent the thousands of varieties available in the
marketplace. For example, in a given supermarket, the Bureau may choose a
plastic bag of golden delicious apples, U.S. extra fancy grade, weighing
4.4 pounds to represent the Apples category.
---end excerpt---

http://www.bls.gov/cpi/cpifaq.htm#Question_1

The closest the CPI gets to "home prices" is rent which is barely a
correlation to a very long term moving average.

--
Regards, Curly
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Republicans: http://chan.stanleylieber.com/n/thumb/1231702816044s.jpg
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

== 9 of 14 ==
Date: Sun, Jan 11 2009 1:08 pm
From: Curly Surmudgeon

On Sun, 11 Jan 2009 13:48:50 -0500, clams_casino wrote:

> EskWIRED@spamblock.panix.com wrote:
>
>>In misc.survivalism Curly Surmudgeon <CurlySurmudgeon@live.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Sun, 11 Jan 2009 16:24:01 +1100, Jones wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>>---snip---
>>>
>>>
>>>>Nope. Because most wont see declining income, you watch.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
>>>Another nym-shifting troll. Which is it tonight, Rod Speed, Jones or
>>>asshole?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>>Can I just use the latter?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>Try responding to his points, instead of changing the subject.
>>
>>
>>
> Such will be a useless venture.

Precisely.

== 10 of 14 ==
Date: Sun, Jan 11 2009 2:33 pm
From: terryc

On Sun, 11 Jan 2009 14:11:43 -0500, Ed Huntress wrote:

> "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in message

>>> Food tends to track energy costs, which are a big component of food
>>> costs.
>>
>> Which is why food prices will stay flattened out while ever
>> the world economy tanking keeps the price of energy low.
>>
>> BUT its often not realised that even if the farm gate price of food
>> was zero, it would have very little effect on the retail price.

Roddles is talking about the Australian domestic market where TWO
mega supermarket chains distort the market; aka this is the
contract for X tonnes of this food for which we will pay $AUSy. Take
it or Leave it". Oh and that price includes the farmer/grower shipping it
to one of five(?, no more) distro centres serving the whole country one
the day and quantities they specify.

>>> But food prices lag energy prices by months. The flattened peak we see
>>> on that graph just identifies where food has recently reacted to the
>>> drop in energy prices;
>>
>> Its more that the previous effect of drought has now gone, particularly
>> with wheat and rice.

Lol, 53% of NSW is still in the grip of drought and a lot of that is still
under decade long drought.

On top of that, RICE has no water for growing. Allocations of rice water
are 4% this year. None of the rice processing mills that closed down over
the last decade are going to re-open on that figure.-9][it';lkh
';gfd .,s8i][=-0;lkh,

Basically, if it doesn't rain/snow very heavily in the Snowy Montains of
southern NSW, there is no water to send down the rivers to feed the rice
irrigation areas.

The other gotcha is that there has been some decent snowfalls, but the
water isn't reaching the dams. Turns out all those gum trees that were
burnt off in a major bushfire through the area a few years ago are sucking
up as much water as they can to regrow. Who'd have thunk it.

>>
>>> Food prices were driven up, too, by corn ethanol production,
>>
>> Thats a relatively small effect and the tanking of the world economy
>> has affected the demand for ethanol anyway.

Not in this country. Legislated demand because that is where the pollies
can get some donations. Corn = cornflakes or tinned cord or stock feed
here.

>>> which has driven prices for packaged foods and meat 'way up,
>>
>> No it hasnt. Thats pure myth.
>
> I'd be interested in seeing what you have on that -- and I don't mean
> reports from the the Renewable Fuels Association or the Informa
> analysis, which I read last year and which is fairly worthless.

The drought has been the problem here.There just isn't the rain to produce
bumper crops to produced lots of cheap grain to be purchased by the feed
lotters to grow beef. They have been competing for imported grains.

The grazing properties also have the problem that some have had to buy in
supplementary feed for years and that leads to expensive beef, etc.

>>> and by the sudden food demand over the past couple of years from
>>> developing countries that were doing well until a few months ago.
>>
>> There never was any sudden food demand from developing countrys.

Australia has been slowly growing SE Asia as a meat market, but that isn't
long term as the "money" with land have realised that it doesn't make sense
to not use their lush green lands to put the beef on the cattle. They have
also realised that a lot of what was sent to them in live cattle exports
was awful meat from rangy catle, and are developing their own breeds.

== 11 of 14 ==
Date: Sun, Jan 11 2009 2:38 pm
From: terryc

On Sun, 11 Jan 2009 11:03:47 -0600, F. George McDuffee wrote:

> Part of the problem is that significant numbers of people have
> discovered they don't "need" more stuff, and "more stuff" is not
> making they any happier.

Which country is this? The marketing in this country shows no sign of it
whatso ever. It is still full of imaginary benefits from buying this
products

> They have also discovered that for
> walking around, a pair of walmart shoes performs exactly the same
> function as Guccis.

Isn't the problem that the dispossible income of the a lot of the people
that could afford to waste money on guccis has disappeared? bet you when
it comes back, they'll buy guccis just as before.

== 12 of 14 ==
Date: Sun, Jan 11 2009 3:41 pm
From: F. George McDuffee

On 11 Jan 2009 22:38:34 GMT, terryc
<newssevenspam-spam@woa.com.au> wrote:
<snip>
>Which country is this? The marketing in this country shows no sign of it
>whatso ever. It is still full of imaginary benefits from buying this
>products
<snip>
---------
Indeed it does not, which may be yet another reason retail sales
have largely tanked. To quote Yogi Berra "the people stayed away
in droves."

Francis Bacon (1561-1626), English philosopher, essayist, statesman.
Essays, "Of Innovations" (1597-1625).

== 13 of 14 ==
Date: Sun, Jan 11 2009 3:49 pm
From: "Rod Speed"

Ed Huntress wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>> Ed Huntress wrote
>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>>>> Ed Huntress wrote

>>>>> Your conclusions about inflation are right, but it is true we've
>>>>> been increasing the money supply at a pretty good clip:

>>>>> http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/h6/current/

>>>> Yes, but not PRINTING it as he pig ignorantly claimed.

>>> Again, I don't quibble with your conclusions, but in the interest of
>>> understanding this economic mess we're in, printing currency has
>>> been going on at a good clip, too, for some months now. This is
>>> *just paper currency plus coin*, the currency portion of M1:

>>> http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/CURRENCY?cid=25

>>> Use some of the interactive options, such as the "change from a year ago" tab, and you'll see the picture.

>> Nothing like the presses smoking as he keeps pig ignorantly claiming.

>>>>> However, velocity is so low that it's not causing inflation.

>>>> And wont any time soon either.

>>> That's probably right, since people and banks are sitting on their
>>> money. To start inflation up again would require quite a bit of
>>> demand to get velocity going, as well as plenty of cash to spend.
>>> And it has to start from whatever level of *deflation* we wind up
>>> with, when the current deflationary trend bottoms out.

>> Precisely.

>>>>> The rates of inflation for food, energy, and everything but food
>>>>> and energy can be seen here (selections you want are at the
>>>>> bottom of the list):

>>>>> http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/categories/9

>>>>> Food has just flattened out.

>>>> And will stay that way too.

>>> Food tends to track energy costs, which are a big component of food costs.

>> Which is why food prices will stay flattened out while ever
>> the world economy tanking keeps the price of energy low.

>> BUT its often not realised that even if the farm gate price of food
>> was zero, it would have very little effect on the retail price.

>>> But food prices lag energy prices by months. The flattened
>>> peak we see on that graph just identifies where food has recently reacted to the drop in energy prices;

>> Its more that the previous effect of drought
>> has now gone, particularly with wheat and rice.

>>> now we can expect a decline in food prices, although it won't follow oil all the way to the bottom.

>> Yep, like I said, even if the farm gate price is zero, the retail price never is anything like that.

>>> Food prices were driven up, too, by corn ethanol production,

>> Thats a relatively small effect and the tanking of the world
>> economy has affected the demand for ethanol anyway.

>>> which has driven prices for packaged foods and meat 'way up,

>> No it hasnt. Thats pure myth.

> I'd be interested in seeing what you have on that

I mostly buy meat in bulk at specials prices. The price of skinless
chicken breasts did increase a bit when grain prices peaked, but
have now returned to the price that I have been paying for most
of the last decade.

Our other meat is mostly not grain fed and that didnt
even spike, stayed at the same price for a decade now.

Packaged foods like marmelade and margine didnt spike.

Breadmix isnt really a packaged food and did increase quite
a bit when grain prices peaked but is now returning to earlier values.

> -- and I don't mean reports from the the Renewable Fuels Association or the Informa analysis, which I read last year
> and which is fairly worthless.

>>> and by the sudden food demand over the past couple of years from
>>> developing countries that were doing well until a few months ago.

>> There never was any sudden food demand from developing countrys.

> Yes there was (and is), particularly in meat proteins.

The surge wasnt sudden, just an increase.

> And China and India's demand has become somewhat inelastic, more like demand in the West, so demand is pulling on
> prices.

I was JUST commenting on the SUDDEN claim.

> If you look at the market-basket graphs, they're still dominated by
> staples. But that isn't what has pulled *our* prices up.We don't eat
> a lot of cassava roots or millet. <g>

>>> Now that demand for both is down, they, too, will drag food prices
>>> down. Again, it doesn't look likely that the bottom will drop out
>>> of them; they'll just follow general trends in energy and worldwide
>>> food demand.

>> But we wont see significant inflation there any time soon.

>>>>> "Everything but" flattened early last month. The overall rate of inflation, if you project from the mid-December
>>>>> numbers, probably just crossed the zero point within the last week.

>>>>> So every major category is now flat -- no inflation, or darned close to it.

>>>> So everything he claimed is just plain wrong.

>>> Pretty much, except that there *is* a lot of new currency being printed.

>> Nope, nothing like the mindlessly silly claim about the presses smoking.

> You can argue with Curly about what constitutes "smoking."

The increase in M1 is nothing even remotely anything like smoking.

> The currency component of M1 has increased from roughly $760 billion to $820 billion over the past year.

Thats nothing even remotely resembling anything like smoking printing presses.

> http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/fredgraph?chart_type=line&s[1][id]=CURRENCY&s[1][range]=5yrs

>>> But most people (including Curly, apparently) make too much of
>>> that. The idea that increases in money supply automatically cause
>>> inflation is not correct. That idea is based on a couple of
>>> assumptions that don't always hold. For example, people just aren't
>>> buying stuff like they were, so lack of demand is keeping prices
>>> down. The stagflation we had in the '70s included a wage-price
>>> spiral that is not going on now, and is nowhere in sight. Wages
>>> have hardly moved.

>> And thats not going to change with the world economy tanking.

>>> It's not that we couldn't possibly have a round of stagflation
>>> right in the middle of this mess, but it isn't happening now and it
>>> doesn't look likely to happen.

>> Precisely.

>>> Back in the '70s, before Paul Volcker was put in charge, the Fed
>>> was not confident about monetary controls. Since we got out of that
>>> stagflation they've learned what it takes to clamp inflation down,
>>> and they're likely to put a lid on it again if it starts up again.

>> Thats harder to be sure of, particularly if they are attempting to stop what they
>> decide is the world economy heading for another great depression or
>> close, particularly as its never the Fed alone that matters in situations like that.

>>> But if prices turn up very soon (unlikely, but nothing is impossible),

>> That is with the world economy tanking.
>>
>>> they're going to face a real dilemma, because raising interest
>>> rates to contain inflation could leave any economic recovery
>>> stillborn. They're going to be sitting on pins and needles now for
>>> most of the year, if not for a couple of years.
>>
>> Yep, we could easily see the same effect we saw late in the great
>> depression.
>>
>> And we cant have another world war now and fix it that way.
>>
>>>>> There is no stagflation, in other words.
>>
>>>> And nothing like it either.
>>
>>>>> We have recession, and we'll probably soon have overall deflation.
>>
>>>> Yep, and it remains to be seen how long the recession will
>>>> last for with the massive attempts to do something about that.
>>
>>>>> BTW, for whoever was complaining about the lack of M3,
>>
>> Curly, and you have since said you have him killfiled.
>>
>>>>> that's not what measures currency (although currency is a part of
>>>>> M3). Currency is M0. The M1 measure is very close. The lack of M3
>>>>> data, which is pretty useless to almost everyone anyway, doesn't
>>>>> have anything to do with what we know about how much money the
>>>>> government is "printing."
>>
>>>> He's had that explained to him repeatedly, in one ear and straight
>>>> out the other.
>>
>>> Too bad. When you hear someone complain about the lack of M3 data,
>>> the first thing to ask is what they'd do with it if they had it.
>>> The second question is, what do they think M3 data tells us. d8-)
>>
>> Not a shred of evidence that he is actually capable of thought }-)

== 14 of 14 ==
Date: Sun, Jan 11 2009 4:03 pm
From: "Rod Speed"

terryc wrote
> Ed Huntress wrote
>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote

>>>> Food tends to track energy costs, which are a big component of food costs.

>>> Which is why food prices will stay flattened out while ever
>>> the world economy tanking keeps the price of energy low.

>>> BUT its often not realised that even if the farm gate price of
>>> food was zero, it would have very little effect on the retail price.

> Roddles is talking about the Australian domestic market

No I'm not on that particular point.

> where TWO mega supermarket chains distort the market;

Have fun explaining the effect Aldi has had.

> aka this is the contract for X tonnes of this food for which we will
> pay $AUSy. Take it or Leave it". Oh and that price includes the
> farmer/grower shipping it to one of five(?, no more) distro centres
> serving the whole country one the day and quantities they specify.

Nothing to do with what was being discussed there.

And you've ignored the fact that quite a bit of what they sell is imported too.

>>>> But food prices lag energy prices by months. The flattened
>>>> peak we see on that graph just identifies where food has
>>>> recently reacted to the drop in energy prices;

>>> Its more that the previous effect of drought
>>> has now gone, particularly with wheat and rice.

> Lol, 53% of NSW is still in the grip of drought

Irrelevant to WORLD GRAIN PRICES.

> and a lot of that is still under decade long drought.

But we have seen the world wheat prices return to normal anyway.

> On top of that, RICE has no water for growing. Allocations of rice
> water are 4% this year. None of the rice processing mills that closed
> down over the last decade are going to re-open on that figure.

Irrelevant to world rice prices.

> Basically, if it doesn't rain/snow very heavily in the Snowy Montains
> of southern NSW, there is no water to send down the rivers to feed
> the rice irrigation areas.

Pig ignorant lie. Blowering and Burrunjuck are at 35% and 50% levels respectively.

> The other gotcha is that there has been some decent snowfalls, but the
> water isn't reaching the dams. Turns out all those gum trees that were
> burnt off in a major bushfire through the area a few years ago are
> sucking up as much water as they can to regrow. Who'd have thunk it.

Have fun explaining how come Burrunjuck is 50% full.

>>>> Food prices were driven up, too, by corn ethanol production,

>>> Thats a relatively small effect and the tanking of the world
>>> economy has affected the demand for ethanol anyway.

> Not in this country.

Fraid so.

> Legislated demand because that is where the pollies can get some
> donations. Corn = cornflakes or tinned cord or stock feed here.

The price of cornflakes hasnt increased dramatically, essentially
because the corn price is only a tiny part of the cost of cornflakes.

>>>> which has driven prices for packaged foods and meat 'way up,

>>> No it hasnt. Thats pure myth.

>> I'd be interested in seeing what you have on that -- and I don't mean
>> reports from the the Renewable Fuels Association or the Informa
>> analysis, which I read last year and which is fairly worthless.

> The drought has been the problem here.There just isn't the rain to
> produce bumper crops to produced lots of cheap grain to be purchased
> by the feed lotters to grow beef. They have been competing for imported grains.

And yet the price of bulk rump steak hasnt changed much, still readily available at $5/KG

> The grazing properties also have the problem that some have had to buy
> in supplementary feed for years and that leads to expensive beef, etc.

And yet the price of bulk rump steak hasnt changed much, still readily available at $5/KG

Nice theory, pity about the reality in the supermarkets.

>>>> and by the sudden food demand over the past couple of years from
>>>> developing countries that were doing well until a few months ago.

>>> There never was any sudden food demand from developing countrys.

> Australia has been slowly growing SE Asia as a meat market, but that isn't long term

Wrong again.

> as the "money" with land have realised that it doesn't make sense
> to not use their lush green lands to put the beef on the cattle.

Cattle arent grown on lush green lands.

> They have also realised that a lot of what was sent to them in live cattle exports

There's fuck all of that to SE Asia. In fact fuck all live cattle exports to anywhere.

> was awful meat from rangy catle, and are developing their own breeds.

Pity about what they have to feed them.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Save on Phone Calls
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/81e9507772219fb7?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Sun, Jan 11 2009 10:39 am
From: Cheapo Groovo

Hey rod speed

post a screen shot of your bill to a photo site and then send us all the
link

Liar

In article <6skdirF6s0bmU1@mid.individual.net>, rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com
says...
> Cheapo Groovo wrote:
>
> > I'm using the MagicJack and Net10.
>
> More fool you.
>
> > Last year my my phone bills ran over $350, this year they should be under $150.
>
> At 8c a call, for the total cost of the call, regardless of how long it lasts,
> both national and international, with no fixed monthly charge at all, I wont
> be spending anything like $150 and there is no hardware cost whatever either.
>
>
>

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Sun, Jan 11 2009 3:39 pm
From: "Rod Speed"

Cheapo Groovo wrote:
> Hey rod speed

> post a screen shot of your bill to a photo site and then send us all the link

They arent stupid enough to use paper billing. Its all electronic.

http://pennytel.com/call_plans.html
I use the free access untimed plan.

> Liar

Guess which pathetic little prat has just got egg all over is pathetic little face, as always ?

> rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com says...
>> Cheapo Groovo wrote:
>>
>>> I'm using the MagicJack and Net10.
>>
>> More fool you.
>>
>>> Last year my my phone bills ran over $350, this year they should be
>>> under $150.
>>
>> At 8c a call, for the total cost of the call, regardless of how long
>> it lasts, both national and international, with no fixed monthly
>> charge at all, I wont be spending anything like $150 and there is no
>> hardware cost whatever either.

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

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Sun, Jan 11 2009 10:42 am
From: Cheapo Groovo

In article <gk7i0m$2kjs$1@news.ett.com.ua>, none@none.net says...
> I filled up at a fairly new looking Marathon gas station yesterday
> morning, then went inside to use the bathroom. I was told "We don't
> have one."
>
> Now I had my receipt in hand, so obviously I was a customer. This
> was also one of those places that sells loads of food and "huge gulp"
> type drinks.
>
The ones on the south side of Chicago don't have bathrooms because of
all the rif-raff on that side of town

> Obviously, they would have to have a bathroom for employees. If it
> was an old gas station, I suppose I could see why they might not have a
> bathroom if they didn't want the expense of making sure the bathroom met
> newer standards, such as handicapped access. However, this thing is no
> more than a few years old.
>
> Is this a new trend? (my bladder is hoping not) The only gas station
> where I've seen this before was one that OBVIOUSLY didn't have a
> bathroom - it was a tiny shack about 8' long and 5' wide, with just
> enough room for the attendant. This was a full sized one where it looks
> like they took the space normally reserved for a bathroom and used it
> instead to showcase merchandise.
>

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Sun, Jan 11 2009 4:04 pm
From: Brian Elfert

thedarkonelives@hotmail.com writes:

>Oh yeah, I can see trying to enforce that one with some joker at the
>local Hadji-mart. Wonder even if you took it to the extreme of calling
>the cops if they'd even know about it. Then after that they'd just lie
>and say "eetz out uv oorrr-duhhrrr", which is what many of them do
>anyway.

I don't have this particular malady, but I think by the time the cops were
called it would be too late for the caller. When these people gotta go,
they gotta go now.

I think it is a pretty silly law. How are store clerks suppposed to
remember all the laws and rules they already need to know and then add on
another one about certain people being allowed to use private bathrooms?

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Most effective grease removal from clothes?
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/50e041b05a439b9e?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Sun, Jan 11 2009 10:44 am
From: The Real Bev

Gary Heston wrote:

> brassplyer <brassplyer@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>Grease stains seem to be really tenacious. Thinking primarily
>>petroleum-based grease - automotive etc. Anyone found a product or
>>combination of products a/or methods that's really effective getting
>>it out without damaging the cloth?
>
> The white gel-type hand cleaners work very well; available at just about
> any auto parts store for $0.50 or $1.00 per tub. I keep a tub next to the
> laundry supplies in my utility room for this very purpose.

There are two kinds, the *wrong* kind of which demands that you wipe it off with
a paper towel rather than rinse it off with water.

I usually work it into the spot with a spoon until it looks like I've smeared
grey stuff even beyond the area of the original spot and then let it sit a while
before I wash it.

I like the metal cans/tubs. They ring when you thwap them.

--
Cheers,
Bev
ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
Lottery: the closest thing we have to
a tax on stupidity.

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Sun, Jan 11 2009 10:54 am
From: spambait@milmac.com (Doug Miller)

In article <248516b3-dc95-45c1-b458-9c8d05dcdeb8@q30g2000vbn.googlegroups.com>, brassplyer <brassplyer@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Grease stains seem to be really tenacious. Thinking primarily
>petroleum-based grease - automotive etc. Anyone found a product or
>combination of products a/or methods that's really effective getting
>it out without damaging the cloth?

Fast Orange hand cleaner, available at any auto parts store -- just make sure
you get the version withOUT pumice. That's a bit harder to find, but any place
that sells the pumice version can order the other for you.

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Sun, Jan 11 2009 3:58 pm
From: tweeny90655@mypacks.net

I give it the yellow soap and boiling water treatment. May take more
than one application, but give it a try.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: "Homelessness only happens to other people"
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/b10dcae36d1aacb2?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sun, Jan 11 2009 10:48 am
From: The Real Bev

ultimauw@live.com wrote:

> "Rod Speed" <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Just like its perfectly possible to pay off every credit card in full every
>> month, many are just too stupid to do that.>>
>
> What about those who make so little they can't even think about savings and
> have high rents that there minimum wages can just barely afford?

Those people probably don't have credit cards, so the question is meaningless.
If they DO have credit cards, some CC company is going to take gas.

--
Cheers,
Bev
ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
Lottery: the closest thing we have to
a tax on stupidity.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: USENET USE EXPLODES
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/0064c37729751b0a?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sun, Jan 11 2009 12:27 pm
From: imascot

Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> wrote in
news:_o2dnZWPHvxepPTUnZ2dnUVZ_sHinZ2d@posted.visi:

> imascot wrote:
>
>> I haven't heard this; I live in NY and use my ISP's USENET service.
>> They haven't told me it's to be disconnected (yet).
>
> And if you have a smaller ISP, you may not. It was (IIRC) Comcast and
> Verizon, using it as an excuse to cut service without cutting prices.
>
> Dave

Actually,I have Optimum Online (Cablevision), they're a biggie. Nothing yet, but knowing them, they
won't say a word, it will just not work one day. I already have a few others set up, though.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Usenet being phased out
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/88e9e410905fb851?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sun, Jan 11 2009 2:59 pm
From: "AllEmailDeletedImmediately"

"Shawn Hirn" <srhi@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:srhi-DBB17D.09120825122008@93-136-209-74.adsl.net.t-com.hr...

> I work in the IT department of a university; one of the top ten in the
> United States by student population. We stopped offering our user
> community free Usenet service about six years ago. Actually, we did that
> as a result of a problem on our Linux-based news server. The server
> stopped receiving incoming news traffic. I spent a good deal of time
> trying to troubleshoot the problem without success. I discussed the
> situation with my boss and we decided to simply leave it alone. We
> decided that because the reports we received on read requests to the
> server had been hovering near zero for the better part of a year, we
> were curious if anyone would notice.

shawn, you'd be amazed at how much porn is being hosted on university
servers.
seriously. unless it's changed in the last yr. google is your friend.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Medical dilemma - any suggestions?
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/df14805001c77364?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sun, Jan 11 2009 4:01 pm
From: "JonquilJan"

Social Security Disability is retroactive to date of original application.
With me it took 6 months (but I was supposed to be dead by then). With a
cousin it was slightly over 7 years - and they moved and bought their own
home with the payment. And it could be an uphill fight - get/keep detailed
medical records - and details as to why she was discharged from prior
positions.

When she gets disability - she will also get Medicare. Will help with the
medical expenses/problems.

And look into employment that can be done from home. Retraining/education
available from disability/rehab - and possibly a state agency (in NY -
VESID).

Speaking from experience. I have been disabled since 1971 - after being
retrained/educated for an accounting position - which couldn't be sustained
due to consecutive medical problems - I was then retrained for computer work
(which wasn't available until the last few years) I have now been employed
from home - computer work - in an industry that wasn't even around until
the past few years.

I have the opposite problem - can't take the hotter weather.

JonquiJan

Learn something new every day
As long as you are learning, you are living
When you stop learning, you start dying

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

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

Sunday, January 11, 2009

misc.consumers.frugal-living - 25 new messages in 8 topics - digest

No comments: