Frugal Living: misc.consumers.frugal-living - 25 new messages in 13 topics

Sunday, November 8, 2009

misc.consumers.frugal-living - 25 new messages in 13 topics - digest

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: slowpoke general contractor got us $6,000!!! (home tax credit)
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/b7692010fa0607f6?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 5 ==
Date: Sat, Nov 7 2009 11:45 pm
From: "ChairMan"

In news:COsJm.2514$rE5.2198@newsfe08.iad,
Ohioguy <none@none.net>spewed forth:
>> You really don't mind that your perceived windfall is someone
>> else's money?
>
> Nope. The money in question - that being used to fund the new
> $6,500 home tax credit - comes not from anyone's personal income
> taxes. Instead, it comes from pushing back a change in corporate taxes
> that
> was supposed to take effect next year, and pushing back that change
> another 8 years or so.
>
> In other words, the bill was supposed to make it so that companies
> that had moved facilities overseas, and were paying taxes there and
> here, were able to deduct the taxes they paid to foreign governments,
> and lessen their corporate US taxes. Instead, they won't be able to
> take that deduction for another several years, and will continue
> paying the same US tax rate they have been for now.
>
> I don't see it as such a bad thing, because it lessens the benefits
> of building a plant elsewhere or sending jobs overseas for a while
> longer.

and you don't beleive that that corporation will pass that cost on to
you/us as consumers?
You should put the crack pipe away

The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not
first take from someone else.

== 2 of 5 ==
Date: Sun, Nov 8 2009 7:05 am
From: Ohioguy

>and you don't beleive that that corporation will pass that cost on to
>you/us as consumers?
>You should put the crack pipe away

What cost? As I said, the upcoming and now delayed corporate tax
change would have ENCOURAGED companies to send jobs overseas and build
plants out of the country. Now that change will not occur for another 8
years. So there are no changes in the short term.

If you actually thought that we would benefit from lower prices,
think again. The main benefactor 8 years from now would be corporate
shareholders, at a cost to the US government.

== 3 of 5 ==
Date: Sun, Nov 8 2009 10:33 am
From: "Rod Speed"

Ohioguy wrote:

> As I said, the upcoming and now delayed corporate tax change would have ENCOURAGED companies to send jobs overseas and
> build plants out of the country.

Wont make any difference in practice, because they do
that because of the massive difference in labor costs.

> Now that change will not occur for another 8 years. So there are no changes in the short term.

And even you should have noticed that few low
cost consumer goods are made in the US anymore.

> If you actually thought that we would benefit from lower prices,

Corse we do.

> think again.

No need, I know we do.

> The main benefactor 8 years from now would be corporate shareholders,

Pig ignorant lie. The hordes that buy low priced consumer goods ALL benefit dramatically.

> at a cost to the US government.

== 4 of 5 ==
Date: Sun, Nov 8 2009 11:01 am
From: "Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds"

In article
<7ln6cuF3d7qj2U1@mid.individual.net>,
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Ohioguy wrote:
>
> >> Having kids does not guarantee that they will help you.
>
> > I much prefer the Amish method in some ways. When the Amish parents get
> > old enough, their house goes to a child or
> > grandchild. (they typically have 6 or 7 kids) Then one of their kids
> > builds on an addition to their house, called the
> > "doddering house". The parents move in to spend their old age there.
> > While they are still able, they help with the
> > grandkids, chores around the house, etc. Later, their kids and grandkids
> > help take care of them. It also ensures
> > that family history and beliefs get passed down.
>
> No it doesnt. Hordes of them give up on that way of life instead.
>
> They're dying out.

That must be the australian Amish

Population Trends 1992-2008
Sixteen-Year Highlights

Population. In the 16-year period from
1992 to 2008, the Amish of North America
show an overall estimated population
growth of 84 percent, increasing from
125,000 in 1992 to 231,000 in 2008.
(Figures include adults and children.)
This pattern of vigorous growth reflects
the group¹s longer term trend of
doubling about every 20 years. See
Population Change 1992-2008 tables for
details.

States. Amish communities appear in 27
states and the Canadian province of
Ontario. Over the 16-year period, six
new states (Arkansas, Colorado, Maine,
Mississippi, Nebraska, and West
Virginia) welcomed Amish residents.
However, the newcomer states have a
total of just 13 districts
(congregations)‹less than 1 percent of
the total 1,710 districts in 2008.

Settlements. In the 16-year period, the
Amish show a net gain of 184 settlements
(geographical communities). This is an
increase of 81 percent, from 226
settlements in 1992 to 410 in 2008. New
settlements are typically small with a
few families in one congregation
(district). Older settlements such as
that in the Holmes County, Ohio, area
include over 200 districts. Larger
settlements may have several different
subgroups (affiliations), whereas
smaller settlements typically have just
one subgroup.

Districts. The number of local districts
(congregations of 20 to 35 families)
grew from 929 to 1,710, an increase of
781 (84 percent) in the 16-year period.
See Population Change 1992-2008 summary
tables for details.

Big Three States. Historically, Ohio,
Pennsylvania, and Indiana have claimed
about two thirds of the North American
Amish population. Their share of the
Amish pie declined since 1992, from 69
percent to 63 percent in 2008. All three
of them (Ohio: 60 percent, Indiana: 72
percent, Pennsylvania: 73 percent) had a
lower rate of increase than the
state/provincial average of 84 percent.

High Growth States. Ten states enjoyed
increases over 100 percent in their
Amish population during the 16-year
period: Virginia (400 percent), Kentucky
(200 percent), Minnesota (156 percent),
New York (150 percent), Montana (150
percent), Kansas (140 percent), Illinois
(133 percent), Missouri (131 percent),
Wisconsin (117 percent), and Tennessee
(117 percent). All of these statewide
increases were above the
state/provincial average of 84 percent.

Slow Growth States. Several states had
sluggish growth, significantly below the
country-wide average of 85 percent:
Maryland (67 percent), Oklahoma (25
percent), and Delaware (13 percent).
Texas, with three districts in 1992,
dropped to one in 2008, a decline of 67
percent.

Reasons for Population Growth. The
primary forces driving the growth are
sizeable nuclear families (five or more
children on average) and an average
retention rate (Amish children who join
the church as young adults) of 85
percent or more. A few outsiders
occasionally join the Amish, but the
bulk of the growth is from within their
own community.

Reasons for New Settlement Growth. The
Amish establish new settlements in
states that already have Amish
communities as well as in ³new² states
for a variety of reasons that may
include: 1) fertile farmland at
reasonable prices, 2) non-farm work in
specialized occupations, 3) rural
isolation that supports their
traditional, family-based lifestyle, 4)
social and physical environments
(climate, governments, services,
economy) conducive to their way of life,
5) proximity to family or other similar
Amish church groups, and sometimes to 5)
resolve church or leadership conflicts.

Notes:

1. Population figures (which include
adults and children) are estimates
calculated by using a conservative
average of 135 people per church
district. The number of people per
district varies by region, community,
affiliation, and age of the district;
therefore, the actual number of people
in a specific district may be higher or
lower than the average used in these
tables. Population estimates are rounded
to the nearest 1,000.

2. The data includes all Amish groups
(Old Order and New Order) that use
horse-and-buggy transportation, but
excludes car-driving groups such as the
Beachy Amish and Amish Mennonites.

3. Stephen Scott, Young Center for
Anabaptist and Pietist Studies, gathered
and compiled the data.

Sources: For 1992 data, David Luthy in
Kraybill and Olshan, eds., The Amish
Struggle with Modernity (Hanover, NH:
University Press of New England, 1994),
243-259. For 2008 data, The Young Center
for Anabaptist and Pietist Studies.

To cite this page: ³Amish Population
Growth 1992-2008 Highlights.² Young
Center for Anabaptist and Pietist
Studies, Elizabethtown College.
http://www2.etown.edu/amishstudies/Popula
tion_Trends_1992_2008.asp.
Save This Page

>
> > Plus, there are no huge health care bills for a nursing home, and no
> > expectations for sending people away when they
> > become a burden.
>
> It doesnt always work out like that.
>
> > The parents took care of the kids when they had to be fed all the time, had
> > to have diapers
> > changed, and all of that. The roles reverse when the parents need those
> > same things later on.
>
> It doesnt always work out like that.
>
> In spades with the hordes that decide that the amish way of life is not for
> them.

== 5 of 5 ==
Date: Sun, Nov 8 2009 11:47 am
From: Les Cargill

Ohioguy wrote:
> > You really don't mind that your perceived windfall is someone
> >else's money?
>
> Nope. The money in question - that being used to fund the new $6,500
> home tax credit - comes not from anyone's personal income taxes.
> Instead, it comes from pushing back a change in corporate taxes that was
> supposed to take effect next year, and pushing back that change another
> 8 years or so.
>
> In other words, the bill was supposed to make it so that companies
> that had moved facilities overseas, and were paying taxes there and
> here, were able to deduct the taxes they paid to foreign governments,
> and lessen their corporate US taxes. Instead, they won't be able to
> take that deduction for another several years, and will continue paying
> the same US tax rate they have been for now.
>
> I don't see it as such a bad thing, because it lessens the benefits of
> building a plant elsewhere or sending jobs overseas for a while longer.

But that cost will be passed on in the price of goods. Sure, this is
a "hall of mirrors" of subsidies, but that's the net effect of this
one change.

And the overseas plant is so incredibly subsidized already....

--
Les Cargill

==============================================================================
TOPIC: VERY NICE
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/84dad1ffb3bc1701?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Sun, Nov 8 2009 1:11 am
From: arunagiri

misc . consumers . frugal-living ... Find or start a Google Group
about frugal-living. ... Mother Earth News website, frugal. 11 new of
11 - Oct 30 ...

FOR MORE INFO:

WEBPAGE ---> http://123maza.com/1011/niveya/

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Sun, Nov 8 2009 1:13 am
From: arunagiri

misc . consumers . frugal-living ... Find or start a Google Group
about frugal-living. ... Mother Earth News website, frugal. 11 new of
11 - Oct 30 ...

FOR MORE INFO:

WEBPAGE ---> http://123maza.com/1011/niveya/

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Definitions of Frugality
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/4db20ff0fb8d6fd6?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Sun, Nov 8 2009 1:15 am
From: Gordon

"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in
news:7lkqvsF3cp85uU1@mid.individual.net:

> Gordon wrote
>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>
>>>>>> Cutting off the satellite for television was not a major loss.
>>>>>> Frugality kicked in. We dropped the satellite feed.
>
>>>>> So now you have nothing for real news and current affairs.
>
>>>> Internet.
>
>>> You dont know that she bothers and thats not as good anyway,
>>> particularly with docos etc.
>
>> docos?
>
> Documentarys.
>
>> I have never considered TV to be a necessary source of news and
>> information.
>
> Never said it was.
>
>> Besides the internet, there is also radio and the news paper.
>
> And you dont know that she bothers with either.
>

I'm just saying that those sources are available. unless she
weighs in, neither of us will know what she does or does not
bother with. You can lead a horse to water...

This is all getting rather pointless. The fact is that there
are 4 good sources of news and current events. Just because
an individual has cut themselves off from one of those sources
does not mean they are deprived of all news and current events.

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Sun, Nov 8 2009 1:41 am
From: "Rod Speed"

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

>>>>>>> Cutting off the satellite for television was not a major loss.
>>>>>>> Frugality kicked in. We dropped the satellite feed.

>>>>>> So now you have nothing for real news and current affairs.

>>>>> Internet.

>>>> You dont know that she bothers and thats not as good anyway, particularly with docos etc.

>>> docos?

>> Documentarys.

>>> I have never considered TV to be a necessary source of news and information.

>> Never said it was.

>>> Besides the internet, there is also radio and the news paper.

>> And you dont know that she bothers with either.

> I'm just saying that those sources are available.

You dont know she bothers with either.

> unless she weighs in, neither of us will know what she does or does not bother with.

Its obvious that she's terminally pig ignorant, so she clearly doesnt, or
at least bothers with either that are other than steaming turds, anyway.

> You can lead a horse to water...

Indeed, but if there is no water available...

> This is all getting rather pointless.

Yep, you havent contributed a damned thing.

> The fact is that there are 4 good sources of news and current events.

You dont know she bothers with any of them, or than all 4 are available to her either.

> Just because an individual has cut themselves off from one of those
> sources does not mean they are deprived of all news and current events.

Having fun thrashing that straw man ?

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Sun, Nov 8 2009 10:19 am
From: Les Cargill

Vandy Terre wrote:
<snip>
>
> Another place I see a lot of money wasted is at the grocery. Luncheon meat is
> expensive and usually heavier in fat than home cooked meat. Look at the price
> per pound on a whole frozen turkey and compare it to turkey luncheon meat. Is
> it really that hard to home cook the turkey, bone it, and slice it?

It may well be. How many hours does this represent? What's your
marginal rate ( assuming you can sell labor instead of consuming it
yourself)?

> Besides
> that luncheon meat does not come with separated dark/ light meat or organ meat.
> Look at the price of a whole ham verses luncheon meat. Most groceries will
> slice the ham for you. I have the ham sliced at the grocery, take it home, wrap
> it for freezing and then it is used as needed with out spoilage.
>

Right now, Wally World has $3.00 7 oz packages of thin sliced meat. I go
through a couple of those per week. It's hardly worth squeezing a buck
or two out of my weekly budget with something packaged differently.

--
Les Cargill

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Cat gets sick with swine flu
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/2289a6b8597336e3?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sun, Nov 8 2009 5:42 am
From: "mr.smartypants"

In article <4af645b0$1@news.x-privat.org>,
"dejablues" <dejablues@comcast.net> wrote:

> "zeez" <blinkingblythe01@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:7b3e6a71-486e-4887-9433-ebf1e56f57c8@h14g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
> > This can get really bad.....
>
> DO you have cats?

well, cats have you.
--
money; what a concept!

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Fire starting "kit"
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/845e81d6789435fc?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sun, Nov 8 2009 5:46 am
From: "mr.smartypants"

In article <67hbf5tmb03pno9ko9dc49erla14go3jpl@4ax.com>,
Vandy Terre <vandy@tanglewood-destiny.com> wrote:

> On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 21:07:45 -0800, rocket scientist <georgespamk@toast.net>
> wrote:
>
> >To get the wood stove started in the morning I prepare ahead of time a
> >paper bag that contains. some saw-dust, a piece of cardboard,some
> >kindling ,newspaper & maybe a piece of egg carton.
> >it sure gets the flue up to speed, pronto.
>
> I wish I had paper bags to use. I use the plastic bags from shopping. With
> a
> hot enough fire there is little to no flue problems. We tend to run the fire
> hot if at all.
>
> Fire starter bags here tend to contain the litter of bark from the log rack,
> shredded junk mail, pinecones and some times old candle bits or crayons.
> Here
> in Georgia there is much pine growth. We use the pine for short hot fires or
> as
> kindling. This gives a hot enough start to burn the hard woods readily.
>
> Summers here are on the hot side. I keep the air conditioning up to 80f so
> we
> can handle going outside and working. In the winter we can add clothing
> layers
> as needed to handle the cold outside. The house is kept at near 80f or above
> so
> that summers are not so hard to adapt. Wood is free for us other than the
> cost
> of cutting, splitting and carrying it to the house. Average heating bill is
> $250 a winter, that includes purchase/ repair/ fuel for the chain saw and
> wood
> splitter.

sounds like you got it down.
we too get free wood, well, getting it and cuts/splitting down warm you
thrice.
we are in northern CA and there is no need for AC. we do have a Swamp
Cooler, but rarely use it. Ceiling fans are just fine.
Have a warm winter. and Enjoy !
--
money; what a concept!

==============================================================================
TOPIC: The Neti Pot
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/38309cd808fb6bc2?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sun, Nov 8 2009 5:51 am
From: "mr.smartypants"

now that the "flu" season is upon us, Let me recommend the "Neti Pot"
It's a nasal irrigation system that helps keep the nasal passages clear
and somewhat protected from bacteria. We love our Neti pot. and no, we
don't own the company.
and I'm sure the really Frugal can find a tea pot at a yard sale that
would work as well.
stay happy & healthy.
OK
--
money; what a concept!

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Subsidy Nonsense Yet Again
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/dff28f482d02ae5c?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 4 ==
Date: Sun, Nov 8 2009 8:10 am
From: krw

On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 01:54:14 -0500, Les Cargill
<lcargill99@comcast.net> wrote:

>Jym Dyer wrote:
>>>> = Scott in SoCal
>>> = Rod Speed
>>
>>>> Transit only *seems* more expensive because it is subsidized
>>>> LESS than automobiles are.
>>> Wrong. There are plenty of situations where the cheapest
>>> cars are cheaper than the worst mass transit available and
>>> the cheapest cars arent subsidized by anyone.
>>
>> =v= I understand that the vast and Rube Goldbergesque array
>> of funding serves to keep most of us from thinking about the
>> true cost of driving.
>>
>
>??? The roads are financed by fuel taxes. It hardly looks
>very opaque, and people have done multiple studies.

...and those fuel taxes are often tapped as a convenient source of
income for all sorts of social engineering, like "public" transit.

>The only thing we really don't know is the true cost
>of a barrel of oil. We do know the market price of it.

Often the kitchen sink is thrown at the "true cost" by lunatics
pushing their collectivist propaganda.

>> =v= The laws of physics are less complicated. Dragging one
>> or more tons of steel and plastic and toxics per person is
>> going to involve more resources, no matter how accountants
>> distribute the numbers. When point A and point B are so much
>> further apart because so much land area is devoted to cars
>> (whether they're driving, speeding, or parking), that, too,
>> is going to involve more resources. Paving all that land
>> area? Yep, more resources all over again, plus the const of
>> maintaining it all.
>>
>
>But cars enable people to use land they wouldn't otherwise
>be able to. What we see with public transport is that it never
>makes money.

Right. Now imagine a society where land barons or evil corporations
own the tenements were *everyone* is forced to live. I rather like
the idea of owning my own home.

>> =v= You can shuffle the finances around as if you're playing
>> 3-Card Monte, but eventually there's a bottom line involved,
>> and guess what? You lose.
>> <_Jym_>

More collectivist tripe.

== 2 of 4 ==
Date: Sun, Nov 8 2009 10:13 am
From: Les Cargill

krw wrote:
> On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 01:54:14 -0500, Les Cargill
> <lcargill99@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> Jym Dyer wrote:
>>>>> = Scott in SoCal
>>>> = Rod Speed
>>>>> Transit only *seems* more expensive because it is subsidized
>>>>> LESS than automobiles are.
>>>> Wrong. There are plenty of situations where the cheapest
>>>> cars are cheaper than the worst mass transit available and
>>>> the cheapest cars arent subsidized by anyone.
>>> =v= I understand that the vast and Rube Goldbergesque array
>>> of funding serves to keep most of us from thinking about the
>>> true cost of driving.
>>>
>> ??? The roads are financed by fuel taxes. It hardly looks
>> very opaque, and people have done multiple studies.
>
> ...and those fuel taxes are often tapped as a convenient source of
> income for all sorts of social engineering, like "public" transit.
>

Well, I don't particularly have a serious problem with that. If
you can conform to bus schedules and it saves you scarce cash,
I'm willing to subsidize that some.

>> The only thing we really don't know is the true cost
>> of a barrel of oil. We do know the market price of it.
>
> Often the kitchen sink is thrown at the "true cost" by lunatics
> pushing their collectivist propaganda.
>

Heh. That certainly doesn't help. Pigovian taxes are well-understood
by The Right People, but look at how looney the debates over
carbon offsets are.

>>> =v= The laws of physics are less complicated. Dragging one
>>> or more tons of steel and plastic and toxics per person is
>>> going to involve more resources, no matter how accountants
>>> distribute the numbers. When point A and point B are so much
>>> further apart because so much land area is devoted to cars
>>> (whether they're driving, speeding, or parking), that, too,
>>> is going to involve more resources. Paving all that land
>>> area? Yep, more resources all over again, plus the const of
>>> maintaining it all.
>>>
>> But cars enable people to use land they wouldn't otherwise
>> be able to. What we see with public transport is that it never
>> makes money.
>
> Right. Now imagine a society where land barons or evil corporations
> own the tenements were *everyone* is forced to live. I rather like
> the idea of owning my own home.
>

Exactly. Although it's probably more frugal to rent, unless you can
really sock in a good down payment.

If real estate regresses to its utility value rather than its
speculative value, that's different. You just don't wanna be the greater
sucker.

>>> =v= You can shuffle the finances around as if you're playing
>>> 3-Card Monte, but eventually there's a bottom line involved,
>>> and guess what? You lose.
>>> <_Jym_>
>
> More collectivist tripe.

--
Les Cargill

== 3 of 4 ==
Date: Sun, Nov 8 2009 10:28 am
From: krw

On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 13:13:13 -0500, Les Cargill
<lcargill99@comcast.net> wrote:

>krw wrote:
>> On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 01:54:14 -0500, Les Cargill
>> <lcargill99@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Jym Dyer wrote:
>>>>>> = Scott in SoCal
>>>>> = Rod Speed
>>>>>> Transit only *seems* more expensive because it is subsidized
>>>>>> LESS than automobiles are.
>>>>> Wrong. There are plenty of situations where the cheapest
>>>>> cars are cheaper than the worst mass transit available and
>>>>> the cheapest cars arent subsidized by anyone.
>>>> =v= I understand that the vast and Rube Goldbergesque array
>>>> of funding serves to keep most of us from thinking about the
>>>> true cost of driving.
>>>>
>>> ??? The roads are financed by fuel taxes. It hardly looks
>>> very opaque, and people have done multiple studies.
>>
>> ...and those fuel taxes are often tapped as a convenient source of
>> income for all sorts of social engineering, like "public" transit.
>>
>
>Well, I don't particularly have a serious problem with that. If
>you can conform to bus schedules and it saves you scarce cash,
>I'm willing to subsidize that some.

Why? Shouldn't public transportation's pay its costs? If it's
better, shouldn't this be easy? If it's not, why have it at all.

>>> The only thing we really don't know is the true cost
>>> of a barrel of oil. We do know the market price of it.
>>
>> Often the kitchen sink is thrown at the "true cost" by lunatics
>> pushing their collectivist propaganda.
>>
>
>Heh. That certainly doesn't help. Pigovian taxes are well-understood
>by The Right People, but look at how looney the debates over
>carbon offsets are.

Sure. Like the "health care" debate, the real issue is taxes. A
higher income tax isn't going to work. The states have maxed out
sales and property taxes. The direct taxes are all maxed out. The
only thing left are "hidden" taxes, which is exactly what "health
care" and "cap and tax" are all about. The loony left loves to tax
the productive into the unproductive so they can be controlled.

>>>> =v= The laws of physics are less complicated. Dragging one
>>>> or more tons of steel and plastic and toxics per person is
>>>> going to involve more resources, no matter how accountants
>>>> distribute the numbers. When point A and point B are so much
>>>> further apart because so much land area is devoted to cars
>>>> (whether they're driving, speeding, or parking), that, too,
>>>> is going to involve more resources. Paving all that land
>>>> area? Yep, more resources all over again, plus the const of
>>>> maintaining it all.
>>>>
>>> But cars enable people to use land they wouldn't otherwise
>>> be able to. What we see with public transport is that it never
>>> makes money.
>>
>> Right. Now imagine a society where land barons or evil corporations
>> own the tenements were *everyone* is forced to live. I rather like
>> the idea of owning my own home.
>>
>
>Exactly. Although it's probably more frugal to rent, unless you can
>really sock in a good down payment.

Not the point. Do you think everyone can afford rent if *everyone* is
forced to live within the bounds of public transportation. How many
can afford to live in Manhattan? Now double that.

Back to your point. You will never save a "decent" down payment
renting from the only game in town. Even with this recession, a home
is still the way to long-term financial security.

>If real estate regresses to its utility value rather than its
>speculative value, that's different. You just don't wanna be the greater
>sucker.

Sure. That's why I don't speculate with housing. I live in it. The
equity in my house isn't income either.

>>>> =v= You can shuffle the finances around as if you're playing
>>>> 3-Card Monte, but eventually there's a bottom line involved,
>>>> and guess what? You lose.
>>>> <_Jym_>
>>
>> More collectivist tripe.

== 4 of 4 ==
Date: Sun, Nov 8 2009 11:46 am
From: Les Cargill

krw wrote:
> On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 13:13:13 -0500, Les Cargill
> <lcargill99@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> krw wrote:
>>> On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 01:54:14 -0500, Les Cargill
>>> <lcargill99@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Jym Dyer wrote:
>>>>>>> = Scott in SoCal
>>>>>> = Rod Speed
>>>>>>> Transit only *seems* more expensive because it is subsidized
>>>>>>> LESS than automobiles are.
>>>>>> Wrong. There are plenty of situations where the cheapest
>>>>>> cars are cheaper than the worst mass transit available and
>>>>>> the cheapest cars arent subsidized by anyone.
>>>>> =v= I understand that the vast and Rube Goldbergesque array
>>>>> of funding serves to keep most of us from thinking about the
>>>>> true cost of driving.
>>>>>
>>>> ??? The roads are financed by fuel taxes. It hardly looks
>>>> very opaque, and people have done multiple studies.
>>> ...and those fuel taxes are often tapped as a convenient source of
>>> income for all sorts of social engineering, like "public" transit.
>>>
>> Well, I don't particularly have a serious problem with that. If
>> you can conform to bus schedules and it saves you scarce cash,
>> I'm willing to subsidize that some.
>
> Why? Shouldn't public transportation's pay its costs? If it's
> better, shouldn't this be easy? If it's not, why have it at all.
>

Because people simply don't choose to be disabled or poor
enough to need public transport. I'm not willing to write
those people off. Can private efforts replace public
transport? I don't know.

Schumpeterien forces make it harder for the least of us
to compete. That places the burden of care for them
somewhat on the winners. We all reap the benefits of
creative destruction; expecting people to simply cope
doesn't seem realistic.

>>>> The only thing we really don't know is the true cost
>>>> of a barrel of oil. We do know the market price of it.
>>> Often the kitchen sink is thrown at the "true cost" by lunatics
>>> pushing their collectivist propaganda.
>>>
>> Heh. That certainly doesn't help. Pigovian taxes are well-understood
>> by The Right People, but look at how looney the debates over
>> carbon offsets are.
>
> Sure. Like the "health care" debate, the real issue is taxes. A
> higher income tax isn't going to work.

It might. Our galloping deficits are going to work less.

> The states have maxed out
> sales and property taxes. The direct taxes are all maxed out. The
> only thing left are "hidden" taxes, which is exactly what "health
> care" and "cap and tax" are all about. The loony left loves to tax
> the productive into the unproductive so they can be controlled.
>

Check the CBO figures on what the Bush tax cuts have done to the
deficits. It would be irresponsible to continue them on a linear
projected basis, unless we're prepared to abandon deficit spending
altogether.

Never mind the sheer level of direct, unfiltered subsidy to the
last bunch of "masters of the universe". Free market? Not
even close. Greenspan's mea culpa last year pretty much
ended all that. he'd held that belief apparently since
writing an Objectivist paper in 1963.

Again, the problem with Capitalism is still Capitalists - or
fratboy capitalist wannabees. You can't observe this phenomenon
and still claim the high moral ground.

>>>>> =v= The laws of physics are less complicated. Dragging one
>>>>> or more tons of steel and plastic and toxics per person is
>>>>> going to involve more resources, no matter how accountants
>>>>> distribute the numbers. When point A and point B are so much
>>>>> further apart because so much land area is devoted to cars
>>>>> (whether they're driving, speeding, or parking), that, too,
>>>>> is going to involve more resources. Paving all that land
>>>>> area? Yep, more resources all over again, plus the const of
>>>>> maintaining it all.
>>>>>
>>>> But cars enable people to use land they wouldn't otherwise
>>>> be able to. What we see with public transport is that it never
>>>> makes money.
>>> Right. Now imagine a society where land barons or evil corporations
>>> own the tenements were *everyone* is forced to live. I rather like
>>> the idea of owning my own home.
>>>
>> Exactly. Although it's probably more frugal to rent, unless you can
>> really sock in a good down payment.
>
> Not the point. Do you think everyone can afford rent if *everyone* is
> forced to live within the bounds of public transportation. How many
> can afford to live in Manhattan? Now double that.
>

No, not at all. My point still stands - the greatest value of
cars is the ability to shift the balance of power in land rents.

> Back to your point. You will never save a "decent" down payment
> renting from the only game in town. Even with this recession, a home
> is still the way to long-term financial security.
>

Bollocks. That's the fairy story. Do the math yourself - if and
only if you can *actually afford it* - the TCO of ownership is
strictly less than renting - is it more frugal. What people do
is chase the tax break and pretend it's making them money. Well,
the marginal rate is still far less than 100%, no matter what.

This does not mean there are no strategies where home ownership is
more frugal - just that one must prepare for it properly.

Right now, the way prices are plummeting - it's a good
time to transition to owning, assuming you have stable income.
But what most people forget is all the peripheral cost of
ownership.

>> If real estate regresses to its utility value rather than its
>> speculative value, that's different. You just don't wanna be the greater
>> sucker.
>
> Sure. That's why I don't speculate with housing. I live in it. The
> equity in my house isn't income either.
>

but if you're in a market that is dominated *by* speculation,
the only way to win is not to play.

<snip>

--
Les Cargill

==============================================================================
TOPIC: resurfacing/sealing driveway - looking for grey color, not black
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/1b22c0e95f812800?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sun, Nov 8 2009 9:14 am
From: Ohioguy

We are buying a place that under the terms of the HUD inspection, has
a driveway that has to be repaired or resurfaced. My wife and I took a
look at it, and since we both grew up in places that had gravel
driveways, we thought it looked fine. I would much prefer a stone
driveway, but it isn't allowed here.

Although the HUD inspection estimated that this needs $1,500 worth of
work, I believe that I should be able to get this driveway back in
decent looking shape for less than a third of that amount. I'm planning
on going out there with my Dewalt drill and wire brush to clear out the
grass & small weeds that have taken root in some of the cracks,
especially along the edges.

Here's a photo:
http://i38.tinypic.com/jktycy.jpg

Neither my wife nor I like the dark black color that is used to seal
most driveways. We like going barefoot in the summers, and from
personal experience I've found that these black driveways can get far
too hot to walk on when it is sunny. As such, we were hoping to find
something that is a much lighter grey color - something similar to the
limestone gravel that is used in driveways. However, the home
improvement centers don't seem to have anything other than dark black.
My searches online also have not been fruitful in this regard.

Can anyone recommend a high quality resurfacer/sealer that we could
use, but would give it a light grey color instead of black? Thanks!

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Dustmites Mold Common House Dust
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/29197a5eef382b22?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Sun, Nov 8 2009 9:42 am
From: Americlense

Is your home and office full of dust, dustmites, mold and common house
dust. We have the solution to your problems. Contact us to to find a
solution to these and more at Americlense Technologies.

Norm Seavey
Americlense Technologies
http://www.ecoquest.com/norms_home
hotjenday@aol.com
Phone 978-632-9744

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Sun, Nov 8 2009 10:36 am
From: "Rod Speed"

Americlense wrote:

> Is your home and office full of dust, dustmites, mold and common house dust.

Yes.

> We have the solution to your problems.

I dont have a problem.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Durabrand dvd players going up in flames
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/7cfa41e7d595e069?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sun, Nov 8 2009 9:54 am
From: rincewind

On Oct 24, 6:13 pm, RichA <rander3...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 24, 3:41 pm, enough <blinkingblyth...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml09/09335.html
>
> $40 DVD players are a waste of money. They don't even last a year,
> their output is TRASH.

Mine's about three years old, still works fine, hasn't caught on fire.
Your logic is in doubt.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Finally the answers you have wanted are available...
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/cd34c8733e96ff67?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Sun, Nov 8 2009 10:07 am
From: me@privacy.net

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

>Nope. It it gets too uppity, I beat it to death with the largest waddy I can find.
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waddy

I'm curious Rod... have you ever been to the Nullabor
region?

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Sun, Nov 8 2009 10:38 am
From: "Rod Speed"

me@privacy.net wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote

>> Nope. It it gets too uppity, I beat it to death with the largest waddy I can find.
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waddy

> I'm curious Rod...

Dont forget what that did to the cat...

> have you ever been to the Nullabor region?

Nope, but I do 'live' in a semi desert region well east of there.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: (www.keephotsell.com) cheap Ato Matsumoto shoes
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/12702ddd0b9d5511?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sun, Nov 8 2009 10:23 am
From: keephotsell

(www.keephotsell.com) cheap Ato Matsumoto shoes
(www.keephotsell.com) cheap Supra sneakers
(www.keephotsell.com) cheap nike Air Yeezy sneakers
(www.keephotsell.com) cheap Warrior sneakers
(www.keephotsell.com) cheap nike work boots
(www.keephotsell.com) cheap NFL Jerseys, MLB Jerseys, NBA Jerseys
(www.keephotsell.com) cheap 4US shoes, hogan shoes
(www.keephotsell.com) wholesale Nike Mens Air Max Goadome Seamless
(www.keephotsell.com) Air Jordan Men's Six Rings Basketball Shoe
(www.keephotsell.com) Nike Men's Dunk High customs
(www.keephotsell.com) cheap sneakers from china
(www.keephotsell.com) CHEAP JORDANS sneakers
(www.keephotsell.com) wholesale jordans from china
(www.keephotsell.com) jordan's wholesalers
(www.keephotsell.com) Burberry Heel Shoes
(www.keephotsell.com) customs air force ones and air jordans
(www.keephotsell.com) cheap lacoste shirts
(www.keephotsell.com) cheap jordans for kids
(www.keephotsell.com) jordan xvi made in china
(www.keephotsell.com) wholesale pay credit card g-unit hoodies
(www.keephotsell.com) custom kids jordans
(www.keephotsell.com) wholesale sneaker pricelist
(www.keephotsell.com) CHEAP COOGI CLOTHING
(www.keephotsell.com) cheap prada america hightop

==============================================================================
TOPIC: ich poker spielen , poker regeln lernen , kostenlos texas holdem poker
spielen , online werbung geld verdienen , durak spielen online , online
werbung geld verdienen , schnell geld verdienen in ,
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/79a8264b4098f8c1?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sun, Nov 8 2009 12:54 pm
From: lucky-villa

ich poker spielen , poker regeln lernen , kostenlos texas holdem poker
spielen , online werbung geld verdienen , durak spielen online ,
online werbung geld verdienen , schnell geld verdienen in ,

*
*
*
+++ GELD ONLINE VERDIENEN +++ GELD IM INTERNET VERDIENEN +++
*
http://WWW.KOSTENLOS-SPIELEN.NL
http://WWW.KOSTENLOS-SPIELEN.NL
http://WWW.KOSTENLOS-SPIELEN.NL
http://WWW.KOSTENLOS-SPIELEN.NL
http://WWW.KOSTENLOS-SPIELEN.NL
http://WWW.KOSTENLOS-SPIELEN.NL
*
*
*

carbon geld machen ich schnell viel geld verdienen
musik geld machen pokern deutsch
48 stunden geld im internet poker spielen ohne anmeldung
poker 2 online spielen leicht geld verdienen im
texas hold em gratis spielen american poker 2 online spielen
gewinnspiele geld online spiele kostenlos
spiele poker texas paidmailer geld verdienen
schach spielen homepage geld verdienen
hand poker spielen texas hold em online game
geld ohne internet youtube geld verdienen
pokern online am schnellsten geld machen
amerikan poker online spielen poker hands
mit online games geld verdienen poker strategy
geld verdienen werbung geld sparen leicht gemacht
pokerschule download texas holdem gratis download
texas holdem kostenlos online roulette spielen
poker gambling tilt pokerschule
sms geld verdienen geld verdienen nebenjob
geld verdienen mit meinungsumfragen man geld machen
poker online spiele gewinnen spiele

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

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, November 8, 2009

misc.consumers.frugal-living - 25 new messages in 13 topics - digest

No comments: