http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living?hl=en
misc.consumers.frugal-living@googlegroups.com
Today's topics:
* Electric tea kettle - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/49a87501c53db580?hl=en
* OT - Survivalism Retail Style - 2 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/da641b3711ca2726?hl=en
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Electric tea kettle
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/49a87501c53db580?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
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 2 ==
Date: Fri, Jan 9 2009 11:25 pm
From: Too_Many_Tools
On Jan 10, 1:08 am, "Ed Huntress" <huntre...@optonline.net> wrote:
> "cavelamb" <cavel...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>
> news:LZadnYDyw6rToPXUnZ2dnUVZ_r6dnZ2d@earthlink.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > Ed Huntress 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
>
> > 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- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Any guess what the retiring baby boomers will do to the equation?
Lots of changes there...stocks to be sold, houses to be moved,
services needed, fewer workers...it gets interesting fast.
TMT
== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Fri, Jan 9 2009 11:56 pm
From: "Ed Huntress"
"Too_Many_Tools" <too_many_tools@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:98e211b4-3906-4032-9112-3eab4aabd7dc@n33g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
<snip>
>Any guess what the retiring baby boomers will do to the equation?
>Lots of changes there...stocks to be sold, houses to be moved,
>services needed, fewer workers...it gets interesting fast.
>TMT
Not nearly as much as some people fear. I quoted some Census projections
here a couple of days ago. The working-age group is 63% of the population
now. In 2050, it will decline only to 57%.
The press has gone hog wild with this, distorting it all out of proportion.
If you want to see the whole story, go to the Census Bureau website. It will
help you cut through the crap we've been hearing.
--
Ed Huntress
==============================================================================
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
No comments:
Post a Comment