http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living?hl=en
misc.consumers.frugal-living@googlegroups.com
Today's topics:
* "Why Are 15 Million Americans Unemployed When 8.3 Million Illegals Have Jobs?
" - 3 messages, 3 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/1960834af4dc59b9?hl=en
* Detroit groids line up for "stimulation" money. - 11 messages, 5 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/01325954ae00638a?hl=en
* Europe Passes USA? Does this mean anything in "real" terms? - 6 messages, 5
authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/fa016f5fa06714cb?hl=en
* US jobs aren't just 'lost' - they are dead... - 3 messages, 3 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/68e91027e48952d4?hl=en
* good feed - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/c64002dd504396d2?hl=en
* best deal on pierogies? - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/0fc43036d45b8e16?hl=en
==============================================================================
TOPIC: "Why Are 15 Million Americans Unemployed When 8.3 Million Illegals Have
Jobs?"
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/1960834af4dc59b9?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Wed, Oct 7 2009 12:01 pm
From: Vic Smith
On Wed, 7 Oct 2009 13:03:59 -0400, "Dave" <noway1@nohow2.not> wrote:
>
>>> I am a natural born U.S. citizen. And if I was running for
>>> President, I could present an actual birth certificate to prove it.
>>> Having said that, I bet I could harvest produce about as well as any
>>> illegal alien can. -Dave
>>
>> So do it.
>
>What, harvest produce? Doesn't pay enough for me to consider it. Kick out
>all the illegal aliens so that the wages go up a bit and maybe I
>ould. -Dave
Saw a TV piece where Anglos are back to harvesting out west somewhere.
Picking fruit and veg.
Don't remember the details, but I think the pay was about $10 an hour.
Work is work.
--Vic
== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Wed, Oct 7 2009 11:17 am
From: Mrs Irish Mike
On Oct 7, 12:01 pm, Vic Smith <thismailautodele...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 7 Oct 2009 13:03:59 -0400, "Dave" <now...@nohow2.not> wrote:
>
> >>> I am a natural born U.S. citizen. And if I was running for
> >>> President, I could present an actual birth certificate to prove it.
> >>> Having said that, I bet I could harvest produce about as well as any
> >>> illegal alien can. -Dave
>
> >> So do it.
>
> >What, harvest produce? Doesn't pay enough for me to consider it. Kick out
> >all the illegal aliens so that the wages go up a bit and maybe I
> >ould. -Dave
>
> Saw a TV piece where Anglos are back to harvesting out west somewhere.
> Picking fruit and veg.
> Don't remember the details, but I think the pay was about $10 an hour.
> Work is work.
>
> --Vic
The current buisness cycle has humbled the working class. Now one of
means can hire Americans for less then what illegals were asking for.
If we were to double the pay for pickers to $20/hr, the price of that
produce would increase only 2-4%. The cost of produce is not the
labor, but the transportation, the machinery, the fertilizer and all
the other costs and middle men.
If the cost of labor become prohibitive, then machinery will be
developed to do the work. Early in the 20th century the glass blowers
formed strong unions to demand livable wages. The price of hand blown
bottles became so expensive that the machinery was invented for the
modern bottling industry to prosper.
We used to pick our own food. That's why schools let out during the
summer, so kids could help with the farming. The hiring of illegals is
a new policy to create different classes of resident workers. Supply
and demand at work when the country is flooded with labor.
== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Wed, Oct 7 2009 12:16 pm
From: "Rod Speed"
Mrs Irish Mike wrote
> Vic Smith <thismailautodele...@comcast.net> wrote
>> Dave <now...@nohow2.not> wrote
>>>>> I am a natural born U.S. citizen. And if I was running for
>>>>> President, I could present an actual birth certificate to prove
>>>>> it. Having said that, I bet I could harvest produce about as well
>>>>> as any illegal alien can.
>>>> So do it.
>>> What, harvest produce? Doesn't pay enough for me to consider it.
>>> Kick out all the illegal aliens so that the wages go up a bit and maybe I ould.
>> Saw a TV piece where Anglos are back to harvesting out west
>> somewhere. Picking fruit and veg.
>> Don't remember the details, but I think the pay was about $10 an
>> hour. Work is work.
> The current buisness cycle has humbled the working class.
Only a very small part of it, those without a job.
> Now one of means can hire Americans for less then what illegals were asking for.
Only those without a job.
> If we were to double the pay for pickers to $20/hr, the
> price of that produce would increase only 2-4%. The cost
> of produce is not the labor, but the transportation, the
> machinery, the fertilizer and all the other costs and middle men.
Yes, but the real effect would be to see the produce imported instead.
> If the cost of labor become prohibitive, then
> machinery will be developed to do the work.
It already has been.
> Early in the 20th century the glass blowers formed strong
> unions to demand livable wages. The price of hand blown
> bottles became so expensive that the machinery was
> invented for the modern bottling industry to prosper.
Quite a different effect.
That happened in spades in coal mines etc.
> We used to pick our own food. That's why schools let out
> during the summer, so kids could help with the farming.
And then we industrialised agriculture and what used to employ
something like 80% of the workforce now employs less than 5%.
> The hiring of illegals is a new policy to create different classes of resident workers.
Nope, its been going on for a long time now.
> Supply and demand at work when the country is flooded with labor.
It isnt flooded. The unemployment rate is only 10% and very few of those will work in the fields.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Detroit groids line up for "stimulation" money.
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/01325954ae00638a?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 11 ==
Date: Wed, Oct 7 2009 11:02 am
From: Mrs Irish Mike
On Oct 7, 9:44 am, martin <martin.secrest...@gmail.com> wrote:
> http://www.clickondetroit.com/news/21215978/detail.html
>
> Whatta hoot! Except it's costing money, our money.
>
> tt
Our money? As opposed to what? Their money? Too much us vs them, not
enough talk about Americans.
First off it is not your money. It is the money of the US government.
They can print it, or they can tax it, they could outlaw it if it
serves their purpose. Didn't Christ say something about this? Too many
Christians when its easy
Second, why are all these people without money? The easy answer is
that they are lazy and shiftless. The hard answer is that it is a
complicated situation. All the jobs have gone elsewhere for the
benifit of a few. There are no jobs due to globalization, trickledown
theories, NAFTA, 'freetrade' and so many more programs that have sold
the working middle class down the river.
Those few who continue to benifit from the current situation chuckle
when they see you dehumanize each other with words like "groids".
Divide and conquer, hang together or hang seperatly and all that.
Much of today's problems are looked at with a centuries old outlook.
It used to be that if you were without work, you could pack up and
move to the frontier. Well the frontier is closed, there are no new
places to settle. Too many of us are considered excess and are victims
of the current buisness cycle. We need to look at the situation with a
post industrial philosophy and make room and opportunity for all
Americans.
== 2 of 11 ==
Date: Wed, Oct 7 2009 11:15 am
From: "GOP Goony Asses"
"Buford Pusser" <hoofhearted07@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c87e26bc-acfb-4707-bf2d-4d26110754ae@z3g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 7, 11:44 am, martin <martin.secrest...@gmail.com> wrote:
> http://www.clickondetroit.com/news/21215978/detail.html
>
> Whatta hoot! Except it's costing money, our money.
>
> tt
Relax. It's just Obama fulfillng his promise to "spread the wealth for
social justice". I need to head to Detroit with a truckload of MD
20/20,44ounce Shlitz malt likker,unfiltered Camel cigarettes,saturday
night special throwdown pistols,ammunition,gold/rhinestone grilles,and
fat ugly white ho's !! I could make a FORTUNE !!
==========
Maybe he should go to Copenhagen and try to get the Olympics in Chicago,
which would bring several billion dollars into the country.
Oh, wait. He did that. But you all don't like that. I know you'd prefer he
stay here and keep trying to fix the economy the GOP destroyed, and deal
with the endless wars the GOP lied the country into, and deal with the
effects of climate change that the GOP ignored, and try to effect some
reformation of the health care system that the GOP is fighting in the
sleaziest, most dishonest way possible, but perhaps there are other
important things going on in the world that he ought to pay some attention
to for a minute or two.
== 3 of 11 ==
Date: Wed, Oct 7 2009 11:29 am
From: Buford Pusser
On Oct 7, 1:02 pm, Mrs Irish Mike <wilma6...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 7, 9:44 am, martin <martin.secrest...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >http://www.clickondetroit.com/news/21215978/detail.html
>
> > Whatta hoot! Except it's costing money, our money.
>
> > tt
>
> Our money? As opposed to what? Their money? Too much us vs them, not
> enough talk about Americans.
>
> First off it is not your money. It is the money of the US government.
> They can print it, or they can tax it, they could outlaw it if it
> serves their purpose. Didn't Christ say something about this? Too many
> Christians when its easy
>
Pardon me but where does government get "it's money" ?? Do they
have a job and EARN it?? Or,does the government confiscate taxpayer's
money at gunpoint and squander it as they damned well please? (usually
to buy votes)
> Second, why are all these people without money? The easy answer is
> that they are lazy and shiftless. The hard answer is that it is a
> complicated situation. All the jobs have gone elsewhere for the
> benifit of a few. There are no jobs due to globalization, trickledown
> theories, NAFTA, 'freetrade' and so many more programs that have sold
> the working middle class down the river.
>
Perhaps all these people lining up for a handout have been
convinced by the current POTUS that he's there to spread the wealth
for social justice. To return the wealth from the people it was stolen
from (by whites from blacks)
> Those few who continue to benifit from the current situation chuckle
> when they see you dehumanize each other with words like "groids".
> Divide and conquer, hang together or hang seperatly and all that.
>
Much like the term "white devils" used by
Rev.Jeremiah"GAWDAYUMMAMURICA"Wight in his hundreds of sermons
preaching racism,hatred an Black Liberation Theology.
> Much of today's problems are looked at with a centuries old outlook.
> It used to be that if you were without work, you could pack up and
> move to the frontier. Well the frontier is closed, there are no new
> places to settle. Too many of us are considered excess and are victims
> of the current buisness cycle. We need to look at the situation with a
> post industrial philosophy and make room and opportunity for all
> Americans.
And how would you suggest we do that?? With more restrictive
government regulations,taxes and laws? Have you ever owned a business
or even tried to start one??
== 4 of 11 ==
Date: Wed, Oct 7 2009 11:46 am
From: Wilson Woods
Mrs Irish Mike wrote:
> On Oct 7, 9:44 am, martin <martin.secrest...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> http://www.clickondetroit.com/news/21215978/detail.html
>>
>> Whatta hoot! Except it's costing money, our money.
>>
>> tt
>
> Our money? As opposed to what? Their money? Too much us vs them, not
> enough talk about Americans.
I'm not my brother's keeper. Keep your collectivist bullshit to yourself.
>
> First off it is not your money. It is the money of the US government.
It's not. Don't be such a fucking idiot. The money represents wealth,
and the government does not create wealth. All they can do is seize
wealth from those who create it. The wealth doesn't belong to the
government. Got that? They take it.
> They can print it, or they can tax it, they could outlaw it if it
> serves their purpose. Didn't Christ say something about this? Too many
> Christians when its easy
Money is a store of value, a numeraire commodity, an accounting unit.
The government cannot outlaw that.
> Second, why are all these people without money? The easy answer is
> that they are lazy and shiftless. The hard answer is that it is a
> complicated situation. All the jobs have gone elsewhere for the
> benifit of a few. There are no jobs due to globalization, trickledown
> theories, NAFTA, 'freetrade' and so many more programs that have sold
> the working middle class down the river.
Your "hard answer" is leftist bullshit. Start with "all the jobs have
gone elsewhere for the benefit of the few". That's simply bullshit. It
relies on a fallacy of thinking about economics, commonly called the
"lump of labor" fallacy. Look it up; if you want me to teach you
economics, you have to pay me. The rest is just a concatenation of
terms you don't understand.
== 5 of 11 ==
Date: Wed, Oct 7 2009 12:20 pm
From: Mrs Irish Mike
On Oct 7, 11:46 am, Wilson Woods <banm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Mrs Irish Mike wrote:
> > On Oct 7, 9:44 am, martin <martin.secrest...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>http://www.clickondetroit.com/news/21215978/detail.html
>
> >> Whatta hoot! Except it's costing money, our money.
>
> >> tt
>
> > Our money? As opposed to what? Their money? Too much us vs them, not
> > enough talk about Americans.
>
> I'm not my brother's keeper. Keep your collectivist bullshit to yourself.
Funny you should misquote the Bible, "I'm not brother's keeper". The
person who said that was Cain when asked about Abel shortly after
murdering him.
Collectivist bullshit? Is that to do with united as in United States?
Was it collectivists who wiped out smallpox? Made the US a nearly 100%
literate society? I don't understand this collectivist insult. Do you
mean people working together to solve problems? Then count me in.
You're right, I don't know what "lump of labor" means, but I'm
reading about it now and I'm sure it will take several days to have it
fully sink in. What I do know is the difference between right and
wrong. This every man for himself and forget about others is wrong.
== 6 of 11 ==
Date: Wed, Oct 7 2009 12:34 pm
From: Wilson Woods
Mrs Irish Mike wrote:
> On Oct 7, 11:46 am, Wilson Woods <banm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Mrs Irish Mike wrote:
>>> On Oct 7, 9:44 am, martin <martin.secrest...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> http://www.clickondetroit.com/news/21215978/detail.html
>>>> Whatta hoot! Except it's costing money, our money.
>>>> tt
>>> Our money? As opposed to what? Their money? Too much us vs them, not
>>> enough talk about Americans.
>> I'm not my brother's keeper. Keep your collectivist bullshit to yourself.
>
> Funny you should misquote the Bible, "I'm not brother's keeper". The
> person who said that was Cain when asked about Abel shortly after
> murdering him.
No misquote. The term has come to mean, over time, that people are
responsible for the welfare of others, those "others" usually being
people who *refuse* to take responsibility for themselves.
> Collectivist bullshit?
Yes, collectivist bullshit, asshole. No one has any "right" to my
effort. I *choose* voluntarily to incur obligations to others - my wife
and child, others I care about - and they then have a reasonable
expectation that I will meet those obligations. When you and other
leftist assholes start preaching to me about what I owe people to whom I
have no connection other than an accident of geography, I tell you to
fuck off, and you *do* fuck off.
> Is that to do with united as in United States?
> Was it collectivists who wiped out smallpox? Made the US a nearly 100%
> literate society? I don't understand this collectivist insult. Do you
> mean people working together to solve problems? Then count me in.
Collectivism means that groups are more important than individuals.
That's false. Only individuals have rights, and those rights do not
include a right to the productive effort of others. If some Detroit
deadbeat doesn't have enough to eat or a warm place to shit, that's not
my problem.
> You're right, I don't know what "lump of labor" means, but I'm
> reading about it now and I'm sure it will take several days to have it
> fully sink in.
It likely never will.
> What I do know is the difference between right and
> wrong.
No, you very clearly do not. If you think it's "right" that I can be
compelled to provide for someone else about whom I don't care, then you
have no real understanding of right and wrong: *you* are morally wrong
if you believe that.
== 7 of 11 ==
Date: Wed, Oct 7 2009 12:54 pm
From: "Fred B. Brown"
"Buford Pusser" <hoofhearted07@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c87e26bc-acfb-4707-bf2d-4d26110754ae@z3g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 7, 11:44 am, martin <martin.secrest...@gmail.com> wrote:
> http://www.clickondetroit.com/news/21215978/detail.html
>
> Whatta hoot! Except it's costing money, our money.
>
> tt
Relax. It's just Obama fulfillng his promise to "spread the wealth for
social justice". I need to head to Detroit with a truckload of MD
20/20,44ounce Shlitz malt likker,unfiltered Camel cigarettes,saturday
night special throwdown pistols,ammunition,gold/rhinestone grilles,and
fat ugly white ho's !! I could make a FORTUNE !!
Need a partner? I'm looking to supplement my Social Security. <BFG>
== 8 of 11 ==
Date: Wed, Oct 7 2009 1:08 pm
From: Mrs Irish Mike
On Oct 7, 12:34 pm, Wilson Woods <banm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Collectivism means that groups are more important than individuals.
> That's false. Only individuals have rights, and those rights do not
> include a right to the productive effort of others. If some Detroit
> deadbeat doesn't have enough to eat or a warm place to shit, that's not
> my problem.
>
"That's false"? How did you get to decide?
"Only individuals have rights..." If only that were true.
Corporations have the right to make donations. Corporations have this
right and that. Churches have the right to do X, Governments also have
rights.
"... and those rights do not include a right to the productive effort
of others." You think? So, I have no right to medicines developed with
grants from governments. I don't have the right to cheap food based
mainly on the effecient highway systems. I don't have the right to
clean air and water? What are you saying?
"If some Detroit deadbeat..." There you go, dehumanizing a person to
make it easier.
"... doesn't have enough to eat or a warm place to shit, that's not
my problem." Ok, let us say that the Xtian premise, what so ever you
do to the least of your brothers, doesn't have room in a political
discussion. So in the future I don't want to hear any Adam and Steve
BS or Christian foundation for the country arguements.
Continuing: "... doesn't have enough to eat or a warm place to shit,
that's not my problem." First it does become your problem when crime
increases, when diseases spread and revolution smolders. Secondly,
what happens to your children's children when they are also absorbed
into the poverty level? The gap between rich and poor is reaching
those levels of third world countries. Just think, in the future
foriegn visitors will be paying to see grandchildren perform donkey
shows.
The policies of the recent past have not benifited the majority of
people. That is why the people voted for change. If you are correct,
things will change again.
== 9 of 11 ==
Date: Wed, Oct 7 2009 1:17 pm
From: Wilson Woods
Mrs Irish Mike wrote:
> On Oct 7, 12:34 pm, Wilson Woods <banm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Collectivism means that groups are more important than individuals.
>> That's false. Only individuals have rights, and those rights do not
>> include a right to the productive effort of others. If some Detroit
>> deadbeat doesn't have enough to eat or a warm place to shit, that's not
>> my problem.
>>
>
> "That's false"? How did you get to decide?
Sorry, pal - that's just how it is. Individuals are, and should be,
paramount. Deal with it.
>
> "Only individuals have rights..." If only that were true.
> Corporations have the right to make donations. Corporations have this
> right and that. Churches have the right to do X, Governments also have
> rights.
A corporation is a legal person.
> "... and those rights do not include a right to the productive effort
> of others." You think?
No, I *KNOW* for certain.
> So, I have no right to medicines developed with
> grants from governments.
Absolutely none. If you want it, you pay for it.
I believe the government should not fund drug research in the first place.
> I don't have the right to cheap food based
> mainly on the effecient highway systems.
You don't have any "right" to food, period. If you want food, earn the
money to pay for some, or beg for it. Understand that if your begging
doesn't result in any food or money being given to you, you'll go
hungry. That's just how it is, and it is good.
> I don't have the right to
> clean air and water?
No. You don't have *any* right to any material good or service.
> What are you saying?
Just what I said above: you have no rights to any goods or services.
>
> "If some Detroit deadbeat..." There you go, dehumanizing a person to
> make it easier.
No, there's no dehumanization at all. Some people just are deadbeats.
I don't care about them. More to the point, I do not *owe* them any
consideration regarding their material welfare. If they're hungry,
that's too bad for them. It's not my concern, nor should it be...unless
I *choose* to make it my concern. No one else - not you, not 10,000
people like you - has the moral authority to tell me it "ought" to be my
concern. I'll concern myself with it only if I want to do so. Everyone
else can fuck off, you most of all.
>
> "... doesn't have enough to eat or a warm place to shit, that's not
> my problem." Ok, let us say that the Xtian premise,
No, allow *me*: it's bullshit.
> Continuing: "... doesn't have enough to eat or a warm place to shit,
> that's not my problem." First it does become your problem when crime
> increases,
Lock him up. If he busts into my house in the middle of the night, I'll
shoot him dead.
> when diseases spread and revolution smolders.
Go ahead and keep jerking off with your collectivist crap if it makes
you feel better. It won't change the fact that the deadbeat's welfare
is not my concern. It also doesn't change the fact that collectivists
like you simply don't have the moral power to make it my concern.
You're pissing in the ocean, pal.
== 10 of 11 ==
Date: Wed, Oct 7 2009 1:25 pm
From: Mrs Irish Mike
On Oct 7, 1:17 pm, Wilson Woods <banm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> pal.
You're not my pal.
Darwin's survival of the fittest is for rats and cockroaches, not
humans.
== 11 of 11 ==
Date: Wed, Oct 7 2009 1:31 pm
From: Wilson Woods
Mrs Irish Mike wrote:
> On Oct 7, 1:17 pm, Wilson Woods <banm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> pal.
>
> You're not my pal.
I'm damned glad of that, "pal".
> Darwin's survival of the fittest is for rats and cockroaches, not
> humans.
It works just fine for humans.
Listen, "pal": you want to fork over what you can earn (if anything) to
deadbeats, that's your business. Just keep your grubby fucking mitts
off my wallet, got it? Stop trying to tell me what my moral obligations
are. You have no standing to tell me. Your moral views are fucked up,
but even if I thought they were acceptable, you *still* have no moral
standing to dictate to me morally. Got it, "pal"? Fuck off.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Europe Passes USA? Does this mean anything in "real" terms?
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/fa016f5fa06714cb?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 6 ==
Date: Wed, Oct 7 2009 11:15 am
From: xyzzy
On Oct 7, 2:00 pm, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote:
> Google Beta User wrote:
> >http://quotes.stocknod.com/stocknod/?GUID=10077248&Page=MediaViewer&C...
> > Basically, Europe is "wealther" than the USA for the first time since World War I.
>
> Like hell they are.
>
> > In real terms, standard of living, culture, health of it's citizens, etc. what's the implication?
>
> None, zero, nada, ziltch, because that is a lie.
Competitive much?
== 2 of 6 ==
Date: Wed, Oct 7 2009 11:19 am
From: xyzzy
On Oct 7, 12:12 pm, Google Beta User <wanyik...@gmail.com> wrote:
> http://quotes.stocknod.com/stocknod/?GUID=10077248&Page=MediaViewer&C...
>
> Basically, Europe is "wealther" than the USA for the first time since
> World War I.
>
> In real terms, standard of living, culture, health of it's citizens,
> etc. what's the implication?
Europe didn't surpass the USA. Europe surpassed North America.
Clearly, the Canadians are dragging us down. Damb those Canadians!
Besides, as the article says the US has more of its wealth in
equities. When the economy recovers and stocks recover, North America
will pass Europe once again. It's the classic question of North
American boom-bust vs. Europe and their more secure welfare states
that don't get extremely poor but also don't get extremely rich.
== 3 of 6 ==
Date: Wed, Oct 7 2009 11:56 am
From: honkifyoulovejustice
On Oct 7, 9:12 am, Google Beta User <wanyik...@gmail.com> wrote:
> http://quotes.stocknod.com/stocknod/?GUID=10077248&Page=MediaViewer&C...
>
> Basically, Europe is "wealther" than the USA for the first time since
> World War I.
>
> In real terms, standard of living, culture, health of it's citizens,
> etc. what's the implication?
The implication is that spending more on defense than all other
countries in the world combined gets stupider and stupider every year,
and if we don't stop, Europe will drink red wine and eat cheese on our
political grave.
== 4 of 6 ==
Date: Wed, Oct 7 2009 11:59 am
From: "The Ghost of Edward M. Kennedy"
"honkifyoulovejustice" <the.tick.honkifyoulovejustice@gmail.com> wrote
> Basically, Europe is "wealther" than the USA for the first time since
> World War I.
>
> In real terms, standard of living, culture, health of it's citizens,
> etc. what's the implication?
<
<The implication is that spending more on defense than all other
<countries in the world combined gets stupider and stupider every year,
<and if we don't stop, Europe will drink red wine and eat cheese on our
<political grave.
Invading Cuba would've made more sense than Iraq. Plus
it'd be a lot cheaper.
--Tedward
== 5 of 6 ==
Date: Wed, Oct 7 2009 2:21 pm
From: "The Henchman"
"xyzzy" <xyzzy.dude@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:7991a0af-d40e-4866-8c12-3b95cfac2904@v2g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 7, 12:12 pm, Google Beta User <wanyik...@gmail.com> wrote:
> http://quotes.stocknod.com/stocknod/?GUID=10077248&Page=MediaViewer&C...
>
> Basically, Europe is "wealther" than the USA for the first time since
> World War I.
>
> In real terms, standard of living, culture, health of it's citizens,
> etc. what's the implication?
Europe didn't surpass the USA. Europe surpassed North America.
Clearly, the Canadians are dragging us down. Damb those Canadians!
-----
Recession is over in Canada. And we missed the last one altogether. Quite
clearly Canada has been dragging the USA up since 1994.
== 6 of 6 ==
Date: Wed, Oct 7 2009 2:36 pm
From: James Schrumpf
Quiet, Google Beta User <wanyikuli@gmail.com> -- I'm transmitting rage.
> http://quotes.stocknod.com/stocknod/?GUID=10077248&Page=MediaViewer&Chann
> elID=3198
>
> Basically, Europe is "wealther" than the USA for the first time since
> World War I.
>
> In real terms, standard of living, culture, health of it's citizens,
> etc. what's the implication?
>
The French are killing themselves at an amazing rate:
The World Health Organization put the suicide rate in France at 26.4 per
100,000 for men and 9.2 for women in 2005. That is the highest among large
European economies, but still well behind Japan. In the United States, the
comparable rates are 17.7 for men and 4.5 for women.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
James Schrumpf http://www.hilltopper.net
==============================================================================
TOPIC: US jobs aren't just 'lost' - they are dead...
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/68e91027e48952d4?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Wed, Oct 7 2009 12:05 pm
From: martin
On Oct 7, 11:51 am, aw...@blackhole.nyx.net (arthur wouk) wrote:
> shortened to remove unrelated material:
>
> The Daily Reckoning
> Tuesday, October 06, 2009
>
> US jobs aren't just 'lost' - they are dead...
> by Bill Bonner
> London, England
>
> Where have all the jobs gone
> long time passing
> Where have all the jobs gone
> long time ago
> Where have all the jobs gone
> Gone to graveyards everyone
> When will they ever return
> Oh when will they ever return
>
> - Sung to the tune of "Where Have All the Flowers Gone?"
>
> "Many lost jobs in US will never come back..." says The Wall Street
> Journal.
>
> Need we explain why? Because they're not lost, waiting to be
> rediscovered. They're not missing in action, to be repatriated after
> the fighting stops. Instead, they're dead. Gone forever.
>
> There have been 7.2 million jobs lost since recession began. Many of
> these jobs were Bubble Age jobs. Millions of people, for example,
> earned their money in 'housing.' They were putting up houses in the
> sand states...or building granite countertops...or selling, flipping,
> financing the houses. Those jobs are gone forever. Never again in our
> lifetimes are we likely to see such an explosion in the housing
> industry. Sure, people will still build houses...and do all the other
> work involved in the traditional housing industry. But it will be only
> a fraction of the industry it was in the 2002-2007 period.
>
> There were also all the jobs involved in selling things to people who
> didn't need them and couldn't afford them. Labor was needed at every
> step of the way - manufacturing (perhaps in China), shipping, stocking,
> retailing, fixing, and financing the stuff.
>
> And don't forget all that mall space...and all the trucks...and all the
> other things that supported the over-consumption of the Bubble Age.
>
> And now the Bubble Age is over. It will not come back, no matter how
> much cash and credit the feds pump into the system. (Not that they
> can't make things worse...in a BIGGER bubble...but that is not yet in
> sight.)
>
> In The Wall Street Journal yesterday was an item about Las Vegas. The
> casinos are folding up their expansion plans, says the WSJ.
>
> But the big news yesterday was that the service industries are growing
> again...at least that's what the latest figures show. This news so
> delighted investors that they bid up Dow stocks 112 points. Oil rose
> above $70. Gold posted a $13 gain.
>
> Don't get too excited about that rise in the service sector. Everything
> bounces...even dead jobs. Dead jobs bounce; they still don't get up.
> After months of decline, it may be true that the service industries
> have had a rebound, but don't expect them to begin recovering the
> stamina and strength of the bubble years. A few more people may have
> gotten jobs serving drinks in Detroit's bars last month, but it is not
> likely to turn into a durable recovery of the job market,
>
> In the 1990s, the US economy added 2.15 million new jobs every year. It
> needed to add at least 1.5 million or so just to remain at full
> employment - that is, with about 5% of the workforce unemployed at any
> time.
>
> To put that number in perspective, this year the economy as LOST 2.5
> million jobs, just in the last six months. Those jobs aren't coming
> back. As we keep saying, this is a depression. It is a major
> correction, in which the economy needs to find new jobs...because it
> can't continue to do what it has been doing.
>
> New jobs are typically created by new businesses - small businesses
> that are growing. Big businesses already have all the market share
> they're going to get. They also typically have all the employees they
> need. Then, when hard times come, they discover that they don't need
> all that they have, so they cut back.
>
> Job cuts from large businesses is what you expect in a recession. But
> this time it is different. This time, big businesses have let people go
> by the million. But small business has not been hiring them either. So
> not only is unemployment growing...the trend shows no signs of coming
> to an end.
>
> Economists are reconciled to high unemployment levels for a long time.
> The head of the IMF says unemployment might peak out in 8 to 12 months.
> Even if that were true, it will be a very long time before the job
> market recovers. Just do the math.
>
> We'll keep it simple. The economy needs, say, 1.5 million new jobs per
> year. Instead, over the last two years, it lost 7.5 million. Now, it
> has to stop losing jobs...let's just say that happens a year from now.
> By then, the total of jobs lost may be near 10 million. Plus, there are
> the new jobs it needed - but never got - over that 3 year period.
> That's another 4.5 million. So, the total will be about 14.5 million
> jobs down. Then, let us say, because we are in a generous and
> optimistic mood, that the economy then begins creating jobs again...at
> the rate it did during the '90s. What ho! After five years, that still
> leaves the economy more than 10 million jobs short, doesn't it?
>
> In order to get back to full employment, the economy has to surprise us
> on the upside. It has not merely to return to the growth levels of the
> '90s...it has to surpass them. It needs to grow so fast it creates 3
> million jobs per year. And even then, it would take nearly 10 years to
> get back to full employment.
>
> Pretty grim, huh?
>
> Well, don't worry about it. It won't be like that. It will be worse.
>
> "Uh...Bill...what do you mean, 'worse'?"
>
> Glad you asked.
>
> In the typical post-war recession, jobs are lost...then they are
> recovered when the economy gets on its feet again. But this happened in
> the credit expansion of the '45-'07 period. Each recession was just a
> pause, when the economy was catching its breath. Then, it was off
> again...in the same direction - up the mountain of credit.
>
> This time, it's not a typical post-war recession. It's something
> different. Now, we've reached the peak. We're coming down the other
> side...wheee! Look out below!
>
> Now we don't need all those people building houses, stocking the
> shelves and selling things. We don't need such a big financial industry
> either. Now, people want to get rid of credit, not get more.
>
> And the businesses that were goosed up in the credit bubble are now
> deflating fast. They're not just taking a break. They're lining up the
> jobs and shooting them in the back of the head. Those jobs are gone.
> (See below...)
>
> In a 'normal' recession, jobs reappear because the economy continues in
> the same direction. In a depression, it changes course. Debts are paid
> off. Spending goes down, more or less permanently. The economy actually
> contracts...until consumer debt is once again down at an acceptable
> level...or a new model for growth can be found.
>
> The Wall Street Journal mentions a statistician who was making $100,000
> a year. He too is a victim of depression. His job has been outsourced
> to India. Businesses, with less revenue coming in the door, must cut
> costs in whatever way they can. Labor is the single biggest item on
> most firms' ledgers. They will reduce it however they can. And once the
> change is made, there is little chance that the job will come back.
>
> It is a little like a battle. In an attack, troops often get separated.
> They are 'lost' - for a while. Then, the winning side is able to
> recover its missing troops as it advances. But the losing side gives up
> its troops forever. They are stuck behind enemy lines and cannot rejoin
> their units.
>
> We are now on the losing side of a credit battle. Having gained so much
> ground, and so many jobs, in the advance, the United States is now
> giving them up.
>
> Bill Bonner
> The Daily Reckoning
>
> --
>
> "be wary of mathematicians..especially when they speak the truth."
> --sT. Augustine
> to email me, delete blackhole. from my return address
Some are suggesting a DOW of 6,500 by late December.
tt
== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Wed, Oct 7 2009 12:26 pm
From: Lawyerkill
On Oct 7, 3:05�pm, martin <martin.secrest...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 7, 11:51�am, aw...@blackhole.nyx.net (arthur wouk) wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > shortened to remove unrelated material:
>
> > The Daily Reckoning
> > Tuesday, October 06, 2009
>
> > US jobs aren't just 'lost' - they are dead...
> > by Bill Bonner
> > London, England
>
> > Where have all the jobs gone
> > long time passing
> > Where have all the jobs gone
> > long time ago
> > Where have all the jobs gone
> > Gone to graveyards everyone
> > When will they ever return
> > Oh when will they ever return
>
> > � � � � - Sung to the tune of "Where Have All the Flowers Gone?"
>
> > "Many lost jobs in US will never come back..." says The Wall Street
> > Journal.
>
> > Need we explain why? Because they're not lost, waiting to be
> > rediscovered. They're not missing in action, to be repatriated after
> > the fighting stops. Instead, they're dead. Gone forever.
>
> > There have been 7.2 million jobs lost since recession began. Many of
> > these jobs were Bubble Age jobs. Millions of people, for example,
> > earned their money in 'housing.' They were putting up houses in the
> > sand states...or building granite countertops...or selling, flipping,
> > financing the houses. Those jobs are gone forever. Never again in our
> > lifetimes are we likely to see such an explosion in the housing
> > industry. Sure, people will still build houses...and do all the other
> > work involved in the traditional housing industry. But it will be only
> > a fraction of the industry it was in the 2002-2007 period.
>
> > There were also all the jobs involved in selling things to people who
> > didn't need them and couldn't afford them. Labor was needed at every
> > step of the way - manufacturing (perhaps in China), shipping, stocking,
> > retailing, fixing, and financing the stuff.
>
> > And don't forget all that mall space...and all the trucks...and all the
> > other things that supported the over-consumption of the Bubble Age.
>
> > And now the Bubble Age is over. It will not come back, no matter how
> > much cash and credit the feds pump into the system. (Not that they
> > can't make things worse...in a BIGGER bubble...but that is not yet in
> > sight.)
>
> > In The Wall Street Journal yesterday was an item about Las Vegas. The
> > casinos are folding up their expansion plans, says the WSJ.
>
> > But the big news yesterday was that the service industries are growing
> > again...at least that's what the latest figures show. This news so
> > delighted investors that they bid up Dow stocks 112 points. Oil rose
> > above $70. Gold posted a $13 gain.
>
> > Don't get too excited about that rise in the service sector. Everything
> > bounces...even dead jobs. Dead jobs bounce; they still don't get up.
> > After months of decline, it may be true that the service industries
> > have had a rebound, but don't expect them to begin recovering the
> > stamina and strength of the bubble years. A few more people may have
> > gotten jobs serving drinks in Detroit's bars last month, but it is not
> > likely to turn into a durable recovery of the job market,
>
> > In the 1990s, the US economy added 2.15 million new jobs every year. It
> > needed to add at least 1.5 million or so just to remain at full
> > employment - that is, with about 5% of the workforce unemployed at any
> > time.
>
> > To put that number in perspective, this year the economy as LOST 2.5
> > million jobs, just in the last six months. Those jobs aren't coming
> > back. As we keep saying, this is a depression. It is a major
> > correction, in which the economy needs to find new jobs...because it
> > can't continue to do what it has been doing.
>
> > New jobs are typically created by new businesses - small businesses
> > that are growing. Big businesses already have all the market share
> > they're going to get. They also typically have all the employees they
> > need. Then, when hard times come, they discover that they don't need
> > all that they have, so they cut back.
>
> > Job cuts from large businesses is what you expect in a recession. But
> > this time it is different. This time, big businesses have let people go
> > by the million. But small business has not been hiring them either. So
> > not only is unemployment growing...the trend shows no signs of coming
> > to an end.
>
> > Economists are reconciled to high unemployment levels for a long time.
> > The head of the IMF says unemployment might peak out in 8 to 12 months.
> > Even if that were true, it will be a very long time before the job
> > market recovers. Just do the math.
>
> > We'll keep it simple. The economy needs, say, 1.5 million new jobs per
> > year. Instead, over the last two years, it lost 7.5 million. Now, it
> > has to stop losing jobs...let's just say that happens a year from now.
> > By then, the total of jobs lost may be near 10 million. Plus, there are
> > the new jobs it needed - but never got - over that 3 year period.
> > That's another 4.5 million. So, the total will be about 14.5 million
> > jobs down. Then, let us say, because we are in a generous and
> > optimistic mood, that the economy then begins creating jobs again...at
> > the rate it did during the '90s. What ho! After five years, that still
> > leaves the economy more than 10 million jobs short, doesn't it?
>
> > In order to get back to full employment, the economy has to surprise us
> > on the upside. It has not merely to return to the growth levels of the
> > '90s...it has to surpass them. It needs to grow so fast it creates 3
> > million jobs per year. And even then, it would take nearly 10 years to
> > get back to full employment.
>
> > Pretty grim, huh?
>
> > Well, don't worry about it. It won't be like that. It will be worse.
>
> > "Uh...Bill...what do you mean, 'worse'?"
>
> > Glad you asked.
>
> > In the typical post-war recession, jobs are lost...then they are
> > recovered when the economy gets on its feet again. But this happened in
> > the credit expansion of the '45-'07 period. Each recession was just a
> > pause, when the economy was catching its breath. Then, it was off
> > again...in the same direction - up the mountain of credit.
>
> > This time, it's not a typical post-war recession. It's something
> > different. Now, we've reached the peak. We're coming down the other
> > side...wheee! Look out below!
>
> > Now we don't need all those people building houses, stocking the
> > shelves and selling things. We don't need such a big financial industry
> > either. Now, people want to get rid of credit, not get more.
>
> > And the businesses that were goosed up in the credit bubble are now
> > deflating fast. They're not just taking a break. They're lining up the
> > jobs and shooting them in the back of the head. Those jobs are gone.
> > (See below...)
>
> > In a 'normal' recession, jobs reappear because the economy continues in
> > the same direction. In a depression, it changes course. Debts are paid
> > off. Spending goes down, more or less permanently. The economy actually
> > contracts...until consumer debt is once again down at an acceptable
> > level...or a new model for growth can be found.
>
> > The Wall Street Journal mentions a statistician who was making $100,000
> > a year. He too is a victim of depression. His job has been outsourced
> > to India. Businesses, with less revenue coming in the door, must cut
> > costs in whatever way they can. Labor is the single biggest item on
> > most firms' ledgers. They will reduce it however they can. And once the
> > change is made, there is little chance that the job will come back.
>
> > It is a little like a battle. In an attack, troops often get separated.
> > They are 'lost' - for a while. Then, the winning side is able to
> > recover its missing troops as it advances. But the losing side gives up
> > its troops forever. They are stuck behind enemy lines and cannot rejoin
> > their units.
>
> > We are now on the losing side of a credit battle. Having gained so much
> > ground, and so many jobs, in the advance, the United States is now
> > giving them up.
>
> > Bill Bonner
> > The Daily Reckoning
>
> > --
>
> > "be wary of mathematicians..especially when they speak the truth."
> > --sT. Augustine
> > � � � � to email me, delete blackhole. from my return address
>
> Some are suggesting a DOW of 6,500 by late December.
>
> tt- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Some are suggesting Congress pass a law to make it legal to shoot
crossposters
== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Wed, Oct 7 2009 12:55 pm
From: AZDuffman
On Oct 7, 3:26 pm, Lawyerkill <Lawyerk...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Oct 7, 3:05 pm, martin <martin.secrest...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 7, 11:51 am, aw...@blackhole.nyx.net (arthur wouk) wrote:
>
> > > shortened to remove unrelated material:
>
> > > The Daily Reckoning
> > > Tuesday, October 06, 2009
>
> > > US jobs aren't just 'lost' - they are dead...
> > > by Bill Bonner
> > > London, England
>
> > > Where have all the jobs gone
> > > long time passing
> > > Where have all the jobs gone
> > > long time ago
> > > Where have all the jobs gone
> > > Gone to graveyards everyone
> > > When will they ever return
> > > Oh when will they ever return
>
> > > - Sung to the tune of "Where Have All the Flowers Gone?"
>
> > > "Many lost jobs in US will never come back..." says The Wall Street
> > > Journal.
>
> > > Need we explain why? Because they're not lost, waiting to be
> > > rediscovered. They're not missing in action, to be repatriated after
> > > the fighting stops. Instead, they're dead. Gone forever.
>
> > > There have been 7.2 million jobs lost since recession began. Many of
> > > these jobs were Bubble Age jobs. Millions of people, for example,
> > > earned their money in 'housing.' They were putting up houses in the
> > > sand states...or building granite countertops...or selling, flipping,
> > > financing the houses. Those jobs are gone forever. Never again in our
> > > lifetimes are we likely to see such an explosion in the housing
> > > industry. Sure, people will still build houses...and do all the other
> > > work involved in the traditional housing industry. But it will be only
> > > a fraction of the industry it was in the 2002-2007 period.
>
> > > There were also all the jobs involved in selling things to people who
> > > didn't need them and couldn't afford them. Labor was needed at every
> > > step of the way - manufacturing (perhaps in China), shipping, stocking,
> > > retailing, fixing, and financing the stuff.
>
> > > And don't forget all that mall space...and all the trucks...and all the
> > > other things that supported the over-consumption of the Bubble Age.
>
> > > And now the Bubble Age is over. It will not come back, no matter how
> > > much cash and credit the feds pump into the system. (Not that they
> > > can't make things worse...in a BIGGER bubble...but that is not yet in
> > > sight.)
>
> > > In The Wall Street Journal yesterday was an item about Las Vegas. The
> > > casinos are folding up their expansion plans, says the WSJ.
>
> > > But the big news yesterday was that the service industries are growing
> > > again...at least that's what the latest figures show. This news so
> > > delighted investors that they bid up Dow stocks 112 points. Oil rose
> > > above $70. Gold posted a $13 gain.
>
> > > Don't get too excited about that rise in the service sector. Everything
> > > bounces...even dead jobs. Dead jobs bounce; they still don't get up.
> > > After months of decline, it may be true that the service industries
> > > have had a rebound, but don't expect them to begin recovering the
> > > stamina and strength of the bubble years. A few more people may have
> > > gotten jobs serving drinks in Detroit's bars last month, but it is not
> > > likely to turn into a durable recovery of the job market,
>
> > > In the 1990s, the US economy added 2.15 million new jobs every year. It
> > > needed to add at least 1.5 million or so just to remain at full
> > > employment - that is, with about 5% of the workforce unemployed at any
> > > time.
>
> > > To put that number in perspective, this year the economy as LOST 2.5
> > > million jobs, just in the last six months. Those jobs aren't coming
> > > back. As we keep saying, this is a depression. It is a major
> > > correction, in which the economy needs to find new jobs...because it
> > > can't continue to do what it has been doing.
>
> > > New jobs are typically created by new businesses - small businesses
> > > that are growing. Big businesses already have all the market share
> > > they're going to get. They also typically have all the employees they
> > > need. Then, when hard times come, they discover that they don't need
> > > all that they have, so they cut back.
>
> > > Job cuts from large businesses is what you expect in a recession. But
> > > this time it is different. This time, big businesses have let people go
> > > by the million. But small business has not been hiring them either. So
> > > not only is unemployment growing...the trend shows no signs of coming
> > > to an end.
>
> > > Economists are reconciled to high unemployment levels for a long time.
> > > The head of the IMF says unemployment might peak out in 8 to 12 months.
> > > Even if that were true, it will be a very long time before the job
> > > market recovers. Just do the math.
>
> > > We'll keep it simple. The economy needs, say, 1.5 million new jobs per
> > > year. Instead, over the last two years, it lost 7.5 million. Now, it
> > > has to stop losing jobs...let's just say that happens a year from now.
> > > By then, the total of jobs lost may be near 10 million. Plus, there are
> > > the new jobs it needed - but never got - over that 3 year period.
> > > That's another 4.5 million. So, the total will be about 14.5 million
> > > jobs down. Then, let us say, because we are in a generous and
> > > optimistic mood, that the economy then begins creating jobs again...at
> > > the rate it did during the '90s. What ho! After five years, that still
> > > leaves the economy more than 10 million jobs short, doesn't it?
>
> > > In order to get back to full employment, the economy has to surprise us
> > > on the upside. It has not merely to return to the growth levels of the
> > > '90s...it has to surpass them. It needs to grow so fast it creates 3
> > > million jobs per year. And even then, it would take nearly 10 years to
> > > get back to full employment.
>
> > > Pretty grim, huh?
>
> > > Well, don't worry about it. It won't be like that. It will be worse.
>
> > > "Uh...Bill...what do you mean, 'worse'?"
>
> > > Glad you asked.
>
> > > In the typical post-war recession, jobs are lost...then they are
> > > recovered when the economy gets on its feet again. But this happened in
> > > the credit expansion of the '45-'07 period. Each recession was just a
> > > pause, when the economy was catching its breath. Then, it was off
> > > again...in the same direction - up the mountain of credit.
>
> > > This time, it's not a typical post-war recession. It's something
> > > different. Now, we've reached the peak. We're coming down the other
> > > side...wheee! Look out below!
>
> > > Now we don't need all those people building houses, stocking the
> > > shelves and selling things. We don't need such a big financial industry
> > > either. Now, people want to get rid of credit, not get more.
>
> > > And the businesses that were goosed up in the credit bubble are now
> > > deflating fast. They're not just taking a break. They're lining up the
> > > jobs and shooting them in the back of the head. Those jobs are gone.
> > > (See below...)
>
> > > In a 'normal' recession, jobs reappear because the economy continues in
> > > the same direction. In a depression, it changes course. Debts are paid
> > > off. Spending goes down, more or less permanently. The economy actually
> > > contracts...until consumer debt is once again down at an acceptable
> > > level...or a new model for growth can be found.
>
> > > The Wall Street Journal mentions a statistician who was making $100,000
> > > a year. He too is a victim of depression. His job has been outsourced
> > > to India. Businesses, with less revenue coming in the door, must cut
> > > costs in whatever way they can. Labor is the single biggest item on
> > > most firms' ledgers. They will reduce it however they can. And once the
> > > change is made, there is little chance that the job will come back.
>
> > > It is a little like a battle. In an attack, troops often get separated.
> > > They are 'lost' - for a while. Then, the winning side is able to
> > > recover its missing troops as it advances. But the losing side gives up
> > > its troops forever. They are stuck behind enemy lines and cannot rejoin
> > > their units.
>
> > > We are now on the losing side of a credit battle. Having gained so much
> > > ground, and so many jobs, in the advance, the United States is now
> > > giving them up.
>
> > > Bill Bonner
> > > The Daily Reckoning
>
> > > --
>
> > > "be wary of mathematicians..especially when they speak the truth."
> > > --sT. Augustine
> > > to email me, delete blackhole. from my return address
>
> > Some are suggesting a DOW of 6,500 by late December.
>
> > tt- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Some are suggesting Congress pass a law to make it legal to shoot
> crossposters- Hide quoted text -
I'll write mine to vote for it.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: good feed
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/c64002dd504396d2?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, Oct 7 2009 12:36 pm
From: antney
http://nolightbillever.blogspot.com/
==============================================================================
TOPIC: best deal on pierogies?
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/0fc43036d45b8e16?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, Oct 7 2009 2:34 pm
From: "OhioGuy"
Can anyone point me towards a national grocery chain deal on pierogies? I
used to stock up on a 16 ounce bag for $1 at Deal$, but they no longer carry
that brand. Now they have a 14 ounce bag of another brand for $1.50. It
kind of seems like an insult, with them raising the price 50%, and at the
same time decreasing the package size.
Anyway, I LOVE pierogies, but I'm not sure what is considered a good deal
on them any more, and would appreciate some pointers.
==============================================================================
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