http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living?hl=en
misc.consumers.frugal-living@googlegroups.com
Today's topics:
* OT - Survivalism Retail Style - 17 messages, 8 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/da641b3711ca2726?hl=en
* Save on Phone Calls - 3 messages, 3 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/81e9507772219fb7?hl=en
* Anyone else seeing mystery phone numbers on Embarq long distance bill? - 2
messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/5143a3a3f5a603f2?hl=en
* USENET USE EXPLODES - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/0064c37729751b0a?hl=en
* Stamps - 2 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/61b22661916aefaf?hl=en
==============================================================================
TOPIC: OT - Survivalism Retail Style
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/da641b3711ca2726?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 17 ==
Date: Wed, Jan 7 2009 4:48 pm
From: terryc
On Thu, 08 Jan 2009 00:31:08 +0000, terryc wrote:
> On Wed, 07 Jan 2009 13:31:15 -0800, Too_Many_Tools wrote:
>
>
>> I am waiting to see what happens when the Government defaults...and
>> suddenly all those SS checks are worth the paper they are printed on.
>
> How is your government defaulting externally going to render their
> cheques/checks invalid internally?
>
> I'm told that the USA is a net food importer.
woops, EXPORTER
> with all your gear, you
> should be able to set up as a manufacturer once the cheap shit from OS
> disappears off the shelves.
== 2 of 17 ==
Date: Wed, Jan 7 2009 5:08 pm
From: john
Ed Huntress wrote:
> "Ed Huntress" <huntres23@optonline.net> wrote in message news:...
>
>>The forces that have kept chain retailers (mall dwellers) in business
>>probably haven't changed. A lot of mall space (435,000 sq. ft.) has been
>>lost to bankrupcies and there will be more, but malls themselves aren't
>>likely to collapse because of current economic factors.
>
>
> Whoops, I dropped something here. That loss is just for Simon Properties,
> the largest of the Big 7 mall owners.
>
> --
> Ed Huntress
>
>
Many Mall owners operate on a very tight financial leveraged system. (
they are practicing to be wall street CEO's) When their tenants start
to drop they will follow. Property taxes are a bitch, especially when
the buildings are on the best location, location , location.
John
== 3 of 17 ==
Date: Wed, Jan 7 2009 5:30 pm
From: Too_Many_Tools
On Jan 7, 4:54 pm, "Ed Huntress" <huntre...@optonline.net> wrote:
> "Too_Many_Tools" <too_many_to...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:01cda7b0-f0f9-4f7f-b027-c96321c63f53@d42g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
> On Jan 7, 2:58 pm, phil scott <p...@philscott.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 7, 10:38 am, "Ed Huntress" <huntre...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
> > > "CanopyCo" <Junk74...@aol.com> wrote in message
>
> > >news:d09a199d-ee1c-4fb0-95c4-2ea1e5e7c567@s9g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
> > > What I don't get is how can they give 75% off and not loose money?
>
> > > They can't. But they would lose more if it winds up as unsold inventory.
> > > They're clearing their inventory, which most retailers have to do from
> > > time
> > > to time -- at least, the ones that want to stay in business.
>
> > > The counterexample is the old hardware store that keeps inventory
> > > forever.
> > > The last one I know of around here went broke 15 years ago.
>
> > > >Did they mark it up 100% in the first place?
>
> > > Markup, markon...don't get us confused. <g> They more than double the
> > > price
> > > they paid for it.
>
> > > Clothing in big retailers is marked up around 60% or so. That means that
> > > they pay $4 and sell it for $10. Jewelry is around 70%. And so on.
>
> > > >Maybe they will start charging a fair mark up instead of trying to
> > > >burn us every time.
>
> > > Those are the "fair" markups. At those rates, they just make a profit.
>
> > > BTW, when I was marketing machine tools, our typical markup was 55%.
>
> > > --
> > > Ed Huntress
>
> > brick and motar retail is going to be taking larger and larger hits as
> > the same goods can be sold on line with
> > a fraction of the storage costs... and in the case or 'order to suit'
> > on line, almost no storage costs.
>
> > This will put serious pressure on commcl real estate owners.. as its
> > potential renters can no longer afford the rents.
>
> > for the nation to recover that real estate will have to become part
> > of the manufacturing cycle...imo.
>
> > already we are seeing that in depressed home price markets, as empty
> > homes are rented or taken over by squatters and used to
> > make crack cocaine, speed, angel dust, pink pimps, or to grow
> > majijanna. I have no earthly idea what can be done with all of this
> > ludicrously over built retail space...especially as fully half of our
> > work force retires over the next 8 years and begin dropping deader
> > than hell shortly there after (80 million folk who will not give a
> > damn where the walmart is)
>
> > Phil scott- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
> >Phil makes a very good point about the aging demographics.
> >This recession/depression could not have come at a worse time for the
> >Baby Boomers.
> >Are you ready for Mom and Dad to move into your house?
>
> I *am* Dad. <g>
>
> >...or join you
> >under your selected bridge?
>
> Chicken Little, it's time for you to get real. Haven't you lived through a
> recession before? How old are you, anyway?
>
> >I am waiting to see what happens when the Government defaults...and
> >suddenly all those SS checks are worth the paper they are printed on.
>
> Tell us about the last time the government defaulted. And tell us why it
> would default now.
>
> --
> Ed Huntress- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
I have lived through many recessions Ed so this is the typical
"Chicken Little" post.
This is the worse this Country has seen since the Great Depression.
Now repeat that previous sentence until it sinks in.
Based on every data point I can find, that is the truth...no amount of
spin can change that.
If you have different data that says otherwise...let's see it.
This Government can easily default...simply by our creditors refusing
to fund any further US debt.
Take a hard look at China...they are already taking action to save
their own.
Are you worrying about the Chinese worker? Well they are not worrying
about you either.
And if you don't think the Government can default..well wasn't the SEC
supposed to be policing the markets? Weren't Freddie and Fannie Mac
supposed to be responsible? Wasn't AIG supposed to be covering
everyone's back? Hell I can go on and on and on....the system is
broken...really broken.
If you think SS is working properly and covered financially, you have
been drinking the Republican koolaid.
TMT
== 4 of 17 ==
Date: Wed, Jan 7 2009 5:55 pm
From: "Ed Huntress"
"john" <amdinc@intergrafix.net> wrote in message
news:xomdnRknB7NNzPjUnZ2dnUVZ_sPinZ2d@giganews.com...
>
>
> Ed Huntress wrote:
>
>> "Ed Huntress" <huntres23@optonline.net> wrote in message news:...
>>
>>>The forces that have kept chain retailers (mall dwellers) in business
>>>probably haven't changed. A lot of mall space (435,000 sq. ft.) has been
>>>lost to bankrupcies and there will be more, but malls themselves aren't
>>>likely to collapse because of current economic factors.
>>
>>
>> Whoops, I dropped something here. That loss is just for Simon Properties,
>> the largest of the Big 7 mall owners.
>>
>> --
>> Ed Huntress
>
> Many Mall owners operate on a very tight financial leveraged system. (
> they are practicing to be wall street CEO's) When their tenants start to
> drop they will follow. Property taxes are a bitch, especially when the
> buildings are on the best location, location , location.
>
>
> John
But the malls won't disappear. If their present owners are overleveraged and
take a fall, they'll sell to someone at a reduced price. Or they'll go
under, and the receivers will do it for them.
Either way, a small decrease in value of an asset can turn overleveraged
owners belly-up, but the assets don't disappear because of it. They just get
discounted and sold.
--
Ed Huntress
== 5 of 17 ==
Date: Wed, Jan 7 2009 6:00 pm
From: Too_Many_Tools
On Jan 7, 6:48 pm, terryc <newssevenspam-s...@woa.com.au> wrote:
> On Thu, 08 Jan 2009 00:31:08 +0000, terryc wrote:
> > On Wed, 07 Jan 2009 13:31:15 -0800, Too_Many_Tools wrote:
>
> >> I am waiting to see what happens when the Government defaults...and
> >> suddenly all those SS checks are worth the paper they are printed on.
>
> > How is your government defaulting externally going to render their
> > cheques/checks invalid internally?
>
> > I'm told that the USA is a net food importer.
>
> woops, EXPORTER
>
>
>
> > with all your gear, you
> > should be able to set up as a manufacturer once the cheap shit from OS
> > disappears off the shelves.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Nope...importer.
Hard to believe but true.
TMT
== 6 of 17 ==
Date: Wed, Jan 7 2009 6:03 pm
From: Too_Many_Tools
On Jan 7, 7:55 pm, "Ed Huntress" <huntre...@optonline.net> wrote:
> "john" <amd...@intergrafix.net> wrote in message
>
> news:xomdnRknB7NNzPjUnZ2dnUVZ_sPinZ2d@giganews.com...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Ed Huntress wrote:
>
> >> "Ed Huntress" <huntre...@optonline.net> wrote in message news:...
>
> >>>The forces that have kept chain retailers (mall dwellers) in business
> >>>probably haven't changed. A lot of mall space (435,000 sq. ft.) has been
> >>>lost to bankrupcies and there will be more, but malls themselves aren't
> >>>likely to collapse because of current economic factors.
>
> >> Whoops, I dropped something here. That loss is just for Simon Properties,
> >> the largest of the Big 7 mall owners.
>
> >> --
> >> Ed Huntress
>
> > Many Mall owners operate on a very tight financial leveraged system. (
> > they are practicing to be wall street CEO's) When their tenants start to
> > drop they will follow. Property taxes are a bitch, especially when the
> > buildings are on the best location, location , location.
>
> > John
>
> But the malls won't disappear. If their present owners are overleveraged and
> take a fall, they'll sell to someone at a reduced price. Or they'll go
> under, and the receivers will do it for them.
>
> Either way, a small decrease in value of an asset can turn overleveraged
> owners belly-up, but the assets don't disappear because of it. They just get
> discounted and sold.
>
> --
> Ed Huntress- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Those malls can remain unsold for decades...I have seen many of them
bulldozed...after the sherrif sale for the land only.
That is what is coming.
TMT
== 7 of 17 ==
Date: Wed, Jan 7 2009 6:10 pm
From: Too_Many_Tools
On Jan 7, 5:54 pm, "Ed Huntress" <huntre...@optonline.net> wrote:
> "phil scott" <p...@philscott.net> wrote in message
>
> news:c0e21387-a792-4cc6-a7ec-8e6983dbabb6@w24g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
> On Jan 7, 10:38 am, "Ed Huntress" <huntre...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "CanopyCo" <Junk74...@aol.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:d09a199d-ee1c-4fb0-95c4-2ea1e5e7c567@s9g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
> > What I don't get is how can they give 75% off and not loose money?
>
> > They can't. But they would lose more if it winds up as unsold inventory.
> > They're clearing their inventory, which most retailers have to do from
> > time
> > to time -- at least, the ones that want to stay in business.
>
> > The counterexample is the old hardware store that keeps inventory forever.
> > The last one I know of around here went broke 15 years ago.
>
> > >Did they mark it up 100% in the first place?
>
> > Markup, markon...don't get us confused. <g> They more than double the
> > price
> > they paid for it.
>
> > Clothing in big retailers is marked up around 60% or so. That means that
> > they pay $4 and sell it for $10. Jewelry is around 70%. And so on.
>
> > >Maybe they will start charging a fair mark up instead of trying to
> > >burn us every time.
>
> > Those are the "fair" markups. At those rates, they just make a profit.
>
> > BTW, when I was marketing machine tools, our typical markup was 55%.
>
> > --
> > Ed Huntress
> >brick and motar retail is going to be taking larger and larger hits as
> >the same goods can be sold on line with
> >a fraction of the storage costs... and in the case or 'order to suit'
> >on line, almost no storage costs.
>
> That's been going on for some years now, and the ones taking the worst hits
> appear to be specialty retailers who crossed regional boundaries because of
> their narrowly marketed special products or services.
>
> >This will put serious pressure on commcl real estate owners.. as its
> >potential renters can no longer afford the rents.
>
> The forces that have kept chain retailers (mall dwellers) in business
> probably haven't changed. A lot of mall space (435,000 sq. ft.) has been
> lost to bankrupcies and there will be more, but malls themselves aren't
> likely to collapse because of current economic factors. As always, retail
> will evolve over time, but short-term ups and downs don't seem to have much
> effect.
>
> > for the nation to recover that real estate will have to become part
> > of the manufacturing cycle...imo.
>
> It isn't clear to me what you're saying here.
>
> >already we are seeing that in depressed home price markets, as empty
> >homes are rented or taken over by squatters and used to
> >make crack cocaine, speed, angel dust, pink pimps, or to grow
> >majijanna. I have no earthly idea what can be done with all of this
> >ludicrously over built retail space...especially as fully half of our
> >work force retires over the next 8 years and begin dropping deader
> >than hell shortly there after (80 million folk who will not give a
> >damn where the walmart is)
> >Phil scott
>
> Most people who follow the construction trends and housing market think the
> curves will cross sometime in late 2009 or 2010. At that point, the
> *national* housing market will bottom out, because the overhang will be
> drawn down. That's based on a projection that assumes current low rates of
> construction (which looks like a safe bet) and unemployment that bottoms at
> 8% (a median, but somewhat hopeful bet). It's still not time to buy a house
> if you can avoid it.
>
> Commercial real estate is in some trouble and it's expected to get worse.
> Mall unoccupancy rates are now 7.1% and rising, and it can take 24 months
> after an economic upturn for retail space leasing to recover. So that will
> be a slow and hard go.
>
> Where you live can really shape your impression of what is happening
> generally. If you live in a rapidly growing area, where there was a lot of
> local overbuilding, it looks like hell. Where I live, in a mature town with
> practically no new construction, prices never dropped at all. Our house
> prices are slightly higher than they were two years ago. Commercial
> properties, consequently, have held up well.
>
> The regional differences are very large. National averages actually don't
> look unrecoverable, but some regions won't be able to overcome the downturn.
> Most probably will, as they always do in a recession.
>
> --
> Ed Huntress- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Commercial real estate is ALOT OF TROUBLE Ed.
This is NOT your normal recession.
It is a severe WORLD recession...and the United States is up to its
collective neck in debt.
That makes any downturn more severe....much like walking a trapeze
without a net.
TMT
== 8 of 17 ==
Date: Wed, Jan 7 2009 6:12 pm
From: pyotr filipivich
[Default] I missed the Staff Meeting but the Minutes record that
tmclone@searchmachine.com reported Elvis on Wed, 7 Jan 2009 11:00:49
-0800 (PST) in misc.survivalism :
>On Jan 7, 1:38 pm, "Ed Huntress" <huntre...@optonline.net> wrote:
>> "CanopyCo" <Junk74...@aol.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:d09a199d-ee1c-4fb0-95c4-2ea1e5e7c567@s9g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>> What I don't get is how can they give 75% off and not loose money?
>>
>> They can't. But they would lose more if it winds up as unsold inventory.
>> They're clearing their inventory, which most retailers have to do from time
>> to time -- at least, the ones that want to stay in business.
>>
>> The counterexample is the old hardware store that keeps inventory forever.
>> The last one I know of around here went broke 15 years ago.
>>
>> >Did they mark it up 100% in the first place?
>>
>> Markup, markon...don't get us confused. <g> They more than double the price
>> they paid for it.
>>
>> Clothing in big retailers is marked up around 60% or so. That means that
>> they pay $4 and sell it for $10. Jewelry is around 70%. And so on.
>>
>> >Maybe they will start charging a fair mark up instead of trying to
>> >burn us every time.
>>
>> Those are the "fair" markups. At those rates, they just make a profit.
>>
>> BTW, when I was marketing machine tools, our typical markup was 55%.
>>
>> --
>> Ed Huntress
>
>Don't confuse "markup" with "profit". You CANNOT make 100% profit on
>anything unless you steal it and have no operating expenses. "Profit"
>is the the money you make less the cost of selling the goods (actual
>product cost plus operating expenses). "Markup" the difference between
>the cost of the goods and the selling price. Most retailers "markup"
>the goods at least 100%, to offset the operating expenses and make a
>profit. If you pay $5 for something, sell it for $10, you have $5 left
>to pay other expenses and (hopefully) put some cash in your pocket. As
>long as your operating expenses are less than 50% of your gross sales,
>a 100% markup will work. The lower your costs, the more profit you
>make.
A good summation. Years ago, when I was in the used "stuff" biz,
the rule of thumb for buying used stuff was to start with the eventual
sale price, and then offer half. So that $5 widget (used) we'd offer
$2.50 for - max. Because we had to hold it for 4 weeks in the back,
while the cops ran a check for stolen goods.
Then there was the story of the High School reunion. and the dweeb
voted "most likely to fail" pulls up in the big car, with the driver,
and the fancy clothes, and the fancy broads. This is, as you can
imagine, a major sensation. When asked how he had become obviously so
wealthy, he said "It's simple. I buy stuff for a dollar, and sell it
for two or three. Amazing how that 1 to 2% adds up."
pyotr
--
pyotr filipivich
Next month's Panel: Graft - Boon or blessing?
== 9 of 17 ==
Date: Wed, Jan 7 2009 6:19 pm
From: "Ed Huntress"
"Too_Many_Tools" <too_many_tools@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:cde96683-faa9-411f-813f-632ae226f122@o40g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
On Jan 7, 4:54 pm, "Ed Huntress" <huntre...@optonline.net> wrote:
> "Too_Many_Tools" <too_many_to...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:01cda7b0-f0f9-4f7f-b027-c96321c63f53@d42g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
> On Jan 7, 2:58 pm, phil scott <p...@philscott.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 7, 10:38 am, "Ed Huntress" <huntre...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
> > > "CanopyCo" <Junk74...@aol.com> wrote in message
>
> > >news:d09a199d-ee1c-4fb0-95c4-2ea1e5e7c567@s9g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
> > > What I don't get is how can they give 75% off and not loose money?
>
> > > They can't. But they would lose more if it winds up as unsold
> > > inventory.
> > > They're clearing their inventory, which most retailers have to do from
> > > time
> > > to time -- at least, the ones that want to stay in business.
>
> > > The counterexample is the old hardware store that keeps inventory
> > > forever.
> > > The last one I know of around here went broke 15 years ago.
>
> > > >Did they mark it up 100% in the first place?
>
> > > Markup, markon...don't get us confused. <g> They more than double the
> > > price
> > > they paid for it.
>
> > > Clothing in big retailers is marked up around 60% or so. That means
> > > that
> > > they pay $4 and sell it for $10. Jewelry is around 70%. And so on.
>
> > > >Maybe they will start charging a fair mark up instead of trying to
> > > >burn us every time.
>
> > > Those are the "fair" markups. At those rates, they just make a profit.
>
> > > BTW, when I was marketing machine tools, our typical markup was 55%.
>
> > > --
> > > Ed Huntress
>
> > brick and motar retail is going to be taking larger and larger hits as
> > the same goods can be sold on line with
> > a fraction of the storage costs... and in the case or 'order to suit'
> > on line, almost no storage costs.
>
> > This will put serious pressure on commcl real estate owners.. as its
> > potential renters can no longer afford the rents.
>
> > for the nation to recover that real estate will have to become part
> > of the manufacturing cycle...imo.
>
> > already we are seeing that in depressed home price markets, as empty
> > homes are rented or taken over by squatters and used to
> > make crack cocaine, speed, angel dust, pink pimps, or to grow
> > majijanna. I have no earthly idea what can be done with all of this
> > ludicrously over built retail space...especially as fully half of our
> > work force retires over the next 8 years and begin dropping deader
> > than hell shortly there after (80 million folk who will not give a
> > damn where the walmart is)
>
> > Phil scott- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
> >Phil makes a very good point about the aging demographics.
> >This recession/depression could not have come at a worse time for the
> >Baby Boomers.
> >Are you ready for Mom and Dad to move into your house?
>
> I *am* Dad. <g>
>
> >...or join you
> >under your selected bridge?
>
> Chicken Little, it's time for you to get real. Haven't you lived through a
> recession before? How old are you, anyway?
>
> >I am waiting to see what happens when the Government defaults...and
> >suddenly all those SS checks are worth the paper they are printed on.
>
> Tell us about the last time the government defaulted. And tell us why it
> would default now.
>
> --
> Ed Huntress- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
I have lived through many recessions Ed so this is the typical
"Chicken Little" post.
This is the worse this Country has seen since the Great Depression.
Now repeat that previous sentence until it sinks in.
Based on every data point I can find, that is the truth...no amount of
spin can change that.
If you have different data that says otherwise...let's see it.
This Government can easily default...simply by our creditors refusing
to fund any further US debt.
==============================================
Ed:
The United States, of all countries, cannot default. Most sovereign
countries cannot default, but especially the US, because virtually all of
the obligations against us are in US dollars.
All we have to do to avoid default is to print money.
Now, nobody with serious financial responsibility, including foreign central
banks and private investors, thinks that's going to happen. That's why they
bought our Treasury bills at 0% interest.
==============================================
TMT:
Take a hard look at China...they are already taking action to save
their own.
Are you worrying about the Chinese worker? Well they are not worrying
about you either.
And if you don't think the Government can default..well wasn't the SEC
supposed to be policing the markets? Weren't Freddie and Fannie Mac
supposed to be responsible? Wasn't AIG supposed to be covering
everyone's back? Hell I can go on and on and on....the system is
broken...really broken.
===============================================
Ed:
What the hell does that have to do with the government defaulting?
===============================================
TMT:
If you think SS is working properly and covered financially, you have
been drinking the Republican koolaid.
===============================================
Ed:
SS is working properly. No, it isn't covered financially. To do that, you
raise payroll taxes. And not by that much, actually.
Next question, Mr. Little? <g>
--
Ed Huntress
== 10 of 17 ==
Date: Wed, Jan 7 2009 6:23 pm
From: "Ed Huntress"
"Too_Many_Tools" <too_many_tools@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:48ade2de-a987-4e96-9172-9020017ff58f@w1g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
On Jan 7, 7:55 pm, "Ed Huntress" <huntre...@optonline.net> wrote:
> "john" <amd...@intergrafix.net> wrote in message
>
> news:xomdnRknB7NNzPjUnZ2dnUVZ_sPinZ2d@giganews.com...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Ed Huntress wrote:
>
> >> "Ed Huntress" <huntre...@optonline.net> wrote in message news:...
>
> >>>The forces that have kept chain retailers (mall dwellers) in business
> >>>probably haven't changed. A lot of mall space (435,000 sq. ft.) has
> >>>been
> >>>lost to bankrupcies and there will be more, but malls themselves aren't
> >>>likely to collapse because of current economic factors.
>
> >> Whoops, I dropped something here. That loss is just for Simon
> >> Properties,
> >> the largest of the Big 7 mall owners.
>
> >> --
> >> Ed Huntress
>
> > Many Mall owners operate on a very tight financial leveraged system. (
> > they are practicing to be wall street CEO's) When their tenants start to
> > drop they will follow. Property taxes are a bitch, especially when the
> > buildings are on the best location, location , location.
>
> > John
>
> But the malls won't disappear. If their present owners are overleveraged
> and
> take a fall, they'll sell to someone at a reduced price. Or they'll go
> under, and the receivers will do it for them.
>
> Either way, a small decrease in value of an asset can turn overleveraged
> owners belly-up, but the assets don't disappear because of it. They just
> get
> discounted and sold.
>
> --
> Ed Huntress- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
============================================
TMT:
Those malls can remain unsold for decades...I have seen many of them
bulldozed...after the sherrif sale for the land only.
That is what is coming.
============================================
Which modern malls have you seen bulldozed, except to make way for
redevelopment and newer properties? And why did they go under, because
newer, bigger malls took away their business?
--
Ed Huntress
== 11 of 17 ==
Date: Wed, Jan 7 2009 6:32 pm
From: "Ed Huntress"
"Too_Many_Tools" <too_many_tools@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:f10ca98f-27ee-4347-b918-42773cb21c3f@k36g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
On Jan 7, 5:54 pm, "Ed Huntress" <huntre...@optonline.net> wrote:
> "phil scott" <p...@philscott.net> wrote in message
>
> news:c0e21387-a792-4cc6-a7ec-8e6983dbabb6@w24g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
> On Jan 7, 10:38 am, "Ed Huntress" <huntre...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "CanopyCo" <Junk74...@aol.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:d09a199d-ee1c-4fb0-95c4-2ea1e5e7c567@s9g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
> > What I don't get is how can they give 75% off and not loose money?
>
> > They can't. But they would lose more if it winds up as unsold inventory.
> > They're clearing their inventory, which most retailers have to do from
> > time
> > to time -- at least, the ones that want to stay in business.
>
> > The counterexample is the old hardware store that keeps inventory
> > forever.
> > The last one I know of around here went broke 15 years ago.
>
> > >Did they mark it up 100% in the first place?
>
> > Markup, markon...don't get us confused. <g> They more than double the
> > price
> > they paid for it.
>
> > Clothing in big retailers is marked up around 60% or so. That means that
> > they pay $4 and sell it for $10. Jewelry is around 70%. And so on.
>
> > >Maybe they will start charging a fair mark up instead of trying to
> > >burn us every time.
>
> > Those are the "fair" markups. At those rates, they just make a profit.
>
> > BTW, when I was marketing machine tools, our typical markup was 55%.
>
> > --
> > Ed Huntress
> >brick and motar retail is going to be taking larger and larger hits as
> >the same goods can be sold on line with
> >a fraction of the storage costs... and in the case or 'order to suit'
> >on line, almost no storage costs.
>
> That's been going on for some years now, and the ones taking the worst
> hits
> appear to be specialty retailers who crossed regional boundaries because
> of
> their narrowly marketed special products or services.
>
> >This will put serious pressure on commcl real estate owners.. as its
> >potential renters can no longer afford the rents.
>
> The forces that have kept chain retailers (mall dwellers) in business
> probably haven't changed. A lot of mall space (435,000 sq. ft.) has been
> lost to bankrupcies and there will be more, but malls themselves aren't
> likely to collapse because of current economic factors. As always, retail
> will evolve over time, but short-term ups and downs don't seem to have
> much
> effect.
>
> > for the nation to recover that real estate will have to become part
> > of the manufacturing cycle...imo.
>
> It isn't clear to me what you're saying here.
>
> >already we are seeing that in depressed home price markets, as empty
> >homes are rented or taken over by squatters and used to
> >make crack cocaine, speed, angel dust, pink pimps, or to grow
> >majijanna. I have no earthly idea what can be done with all of this
> >ludicrously over built retail space...especially as fully half of our
> >work force retires over the next 8 years and begin dropping deader
> >than hell shortly there after (80 million folk who will not give a
> >damn where the walmart is)
> >Phil scott
>
> Most people who follow the construction trends and housing market think
> the
> curves will cross sometime in late 2009 or 2010. At that point, the
> *national* housing market will bottom out, because the overhang will be
> drawn down. That's based on a projection that assumes current low rates of
> construction (which looks like a safe bet) and unemployment that bottoms
> at
> 8% (a median, but somewhat hopeful bet). It's still not time to buy a
> house
> if you can avoid it.
>
> Commercial real estate is in some trouble and it's expected to get worse.
> Mall unoccupancy rates are now 7.1% and rising, and it can take 24 months
> after an economic upturn for retail space leasing to recover. So that will
> be a slow and hard go.
>
> Where you live can really shape your impression of what is happening
> generally. If you live in a rapidly growing area, where there was a lot of
> local overbuilding, it looks like hell. Where I live, in a mature town
> with
> practically no new construction, prices never dropped at all. Our house
> prices are slightly higher than they were two years ago. Commercial
> properties, consequently, have held up well.
>
> The regional differences are very large. National averages actually don't
> look unrecoverable, but some regions won't be able to overcome the
> downturn.
> Most probably will, as they always do in a recession.
>
> --
> Ed Huntress- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Commercial real estate is ALOT OF TROUBLE Ed.
This is NOT your normal recession.
============================================
All right, TMT, so it's in a lot of trouble. Now, tell us, please, what that
means to you and me. No simplistic or speculative guesses, please. This is
evidence-based science we're doing here. d8-)
--
Ed Huntress
== 12 of 17 ==
Date: Wed, Jan 7 2009 7:37 pm
From: phil scott
On Jan 7, 2:54 pm, "Ed Huntress" <huntre...@optonline.net> wrote:
> "Too_Many_Tools" <too_many_to...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:01cda7b0-f0f9-4f7f-b027-c96321c63f53@d42g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
> On Jan 7, 2:58 pm, phil scott <p...@philscott.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 7, 10:38 am, "Ed Huntress" <huntre...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
> > > "CanopyCo" <Junk74...@aol.com> wrote in message
>
> > >news:d09a199d-ee1c-4fb0-95c4-2ea1e5e7c567@s9g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
> > > What I don't get is how can they give 75% off and not loose money?
>
> > > They can't. But they would lose more if it winds up as unsold inventory.
> > > They're clearing their inventory, which most retailers have to do from
> > > time
> > > to time -- at least, the ones that want to stay in business.
>
> > > The counterexample is the old hardware store that keeps inventory
> > > forever.
> > > The last one I know of around here went broke 15 years ago.
>
> > > >Did they mark it up 100% in the first place?
>
> > > Markup, markon...don't get us confused. <g> They more than double the
> > > price
> > > they paid for it.
>
> > > Clothing in big retailers is marked up around 60% or so. That means that
> > > they pay $4 and sell it for $10. Jewelry is around 70%. And so on.
>
> > > >Maybe they will start charging a fair mark up instead of trying to
> > > >burn us every time.
>
> > > Those are the "fair" markups. At those rates, they just make a profit.
>
> > > BTW, when I was marketing machine tools, our typical markup was 55%.
>
> > > --
> > > Ed Huntress
>
> > brick and motar retail is going to be taking larger and larger hits as
> > the same goods can be sold on line with
> > a fraction of the storage costs... and in the case or 'order to suit'
> > on line, almost no storage costs.
>
> > This will put serious pressure on commcl real estate owners.. as its
> > potential renters can no longer afford the rents.
>
> > for the nation to recover that real estate will have to become part
> > of the manufacturing cycle...imo.
>
> > already we are seeing that in depressed home price markets, as empty
> > homes are rented or taken over by squatters and used to
> > make crack cocaine, speed, angel dust, pink pimps, or to grow
> > majijanna. I have no earthly idea what can be done with all of this
> > ludicrously over built retail space...especially as fully half of our
> > work force retires over the next 8 years and begin dropping deader
> > than hell shortly there after (80 million folk who will not give a
> > damn where the walmart is)
>
> > Phil scott- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
> >Phil makes a very good point about the aging demographics.
> >This recession/depression could not have come at a worse time for the
> >Baby Boomers.
> >Are you ready for Mom and Dad to move into your house?
>
> I *am* Dad. <g>
>
> >...or join you
> >under your selected bridge?
>
> Chicken Little, it's time for you to get real. Haven't you lived through a
> recession before? How old are you, anyway?
>
> >I am waiting to see what happens when the Government defaults...and
> >suddenly all those SS checks are worth the paper they are printed on.
>
> Tell us about the last time the government defaulted. And tell us why it
> would default now.
>
> --
> Ed Huntress- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
I dont want to start an argument. It seems though that in 1901 govt
costs and taxes were under 1% of national production...now its 48%...
so its a different mess we are looing at. Govts do default. none in
history has lasted longer than 300 years, most last more than 200
though... then collapse, loose empire etc and become shadows of their
former selves.
Phil scott
== 13 of 17 ==
Date: Wed, Jan 7 2009 7:45 pm
From: phil scott
On Jan 7, 3:54 pm, "Ed Huntress" <huntre...@optonline.net> wrote:
> "phil scott" <p...@philscott.net> wrote in message
>
> news:c0e21387-a792-4cc6-a7ec-8e6983dbabb6@w24g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
> On Jan 7, 10:38 am, "Ed Huntress" <huntre...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "CanopyCo" <Junk74...@aol.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:d09a199d-ee1c-4fb0-95c4-2ea1e5e7c567@s9g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
> > What I don't get is how can they give 75% off and not loose money?
>
> > They can't. But they would lose more if it winds up as unsold inventory.
> > They're clearing their inventory, which most retailers have to do from
> > time
> > to time -- at least, the ones that want to stay in business.
>
> > The counterexample is the old hardware store that keeps inventory forever.
> > The last one I know of around here went broke 15 years ago.
>
> > >Did they mark it up 100% in the first place?
>
> > Markup, markon...don't get us confused. <g> They more than double the
> > price
> > they paid for it.
>
> > Clothing in big retailers is marked up around 60% or so. That means that
> > they pay $4 and sell it for $10. Jewelry is around 70%. And so on.
>
> > >Maybe they will start charging a fair mark up instead of trying to
> > >burn us every time.
>
> > Those are the "fair" markups. At those rates, they just make a profit.
>
> > BTW, when I was marketing machine tools, our typical markup was 55%.
>
> > --
> > Ed Huntress
> >brick and motar retail is going to be taking larger and larger hits as
> >the same goods can be sold on line with
> >a fraction of the storage costs... and in the case or 'order to suit'
> >on line, almost no storage costs.
>
> That's been going on for some years now, and the ones taking the worst hits
> appear to be specialty retailers who crossed regional boundaries because of
> their narrowly marketed special products or services.
>
> >This will put serious pressure on commcl real estate owners.. as its
> >potential renters can no longer afford the rents.
>
> The forces that have kept chain retailers (mall dwellers) in business
> probably haven't changed. A lot of mall space (435,000 sq. ft.) has been
> lost to bankrupcies and there will be more, but malls themselves aren't
> likely to collapse because of current economic factors. As always, retail
> will evolve over time, but short-term ups and downs don't seem to have much
> effect.
>
> > for the nation to recover that real estate will have to become part
> > of the manufacturing cycle...imo.
>
> It isn't clear to me what you're saying here.
>
> >already we are seeing that in depressed home price markets, as empty
> >homes are rented or taken over by squatters and used to
> >make crack cocaine, speed, angel dust, pink pimps, or to grow
> >majijanna. I have no earthly idea what can be done with all of this
> >ludicrously over built retail space...especially as fully half of our
> >work force retires over the next 8 years and begin dropping deader
> >than hell shortly there after (80 million folk who will not give a
> >damn where the walmart is)
> >Phil scott
>
> Most people who follow the construction trends and housing market think the
> curves will cross sometime in late 2009 or 2010. At that point, the
> *national* housing market will bottom out, because the overhang will be
> drawn down. That's based on a projection that assumes current low rates of
> construction (which looks like a safe bet) and unemployment that bottoms at
> 8% (a median, but somewhat hopeful bet). It's still not time to buy a house
> if you can avoid it.
I think those folks are about as insane now in that thinking as they
were with bogus banking practices.
How to do they figure the 'lines will cross' with 80 million now
retireing with less than 40% or so replacements.
(will take two workers to pay enough SS to fund a single retiree)
>
> Commercial real estate is in some trouble and it's expected to get worse.
> Mall unoccupancy rates are now 7.1% and rising, and it can take 24 months
> after an economic upturn for retail space leasing to recover. So that will
> be a slow and hard go.
I think thats rosey, and I hope you are correct.. but I dont see even
a trace of that, I see a meltdown.
still gettig worse by 2010
>
> Where you live can really shape your impression of what is happening
> generally. If you live in a rapidly growing area, where there was a lot of
> local overbuilding, it looks like hell. Where I live, in a mature town with
> practically no new construction, prices never dropped at all. Our house
> prices are slightly higher than they were two years ago. Commercial
> properties, consequently, have held up well.
thats correct... In calif.. land of the complete disaster.
>
> The regional differences are very large. National averages actually don't
> look unrecoverable, but some regions won't be able to overcome the downturn.
> Most probably will, as they always do in a recession.
cleveland and the rest of the rustbelt had landed on their ass... and
its been decades now, no recovery... the basic drivers went negative
steel now made in china etc
Phil scott
>
> --
> Ed Huntress- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
== 14 of 17 ==
Date: Wed, Jan 7 2009 7:54 pm
From: cavelamb
Ed Huntress wrote:
>
> ============================================
>
> Which modern malls have you seen bulldozed, except to make way for
> redevelopment and newer properties? And why did they go under, because
> newer, bigger malls took away their business?
>
> --
> Ed Huntress
>
>
Ahh, so that's how my house got moved to the wrong place!
== 15 of 17 ==
Date: Wed, Jan 7 2009 8:10 pm
From: SMS
Ed Huntress wrote:
> The forces that have kept chain retailers (mall dwellers) in business
> probably haven't changed. A lot of mall space (435,000 sq. ft.) has been
> lost to bankrupcies and there will be more, but malls themselves aren't
> likely to collapse because of current economic factors.
Not sure where you are, but in my area (Silicon Valley) several malls
have collapsed and it's getting worse. Three were torn down for housing,
one is struggling along at about 10% occupancy other than the anchor
department stores and is in bankruptcy (the previous owners bought the
property planning to put in housing but the residents quashed that
idea). The few huge regional malls do okay, but the suburban malls don't.
== 16 of 17 ==
Date: Wed, Jan 7 2009 8:14 pm
From: "Ed Huntress"
"phil scott" <phil@philscott.net> wrote in message
news:25c03426-3cdf-4836-b02e-a182ab566c6a@r28g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
On Jan 7, 2:54 pm, "Ed Huntress" <huntre...@optonline.net> wrote:
> "Too_Many_Tools" <too_many_to...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:01cda7b0-f0f9-4f7f-b027-c96321c63f53@d42g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
> On Jan 7, 2:58 pm, phil scott <p...@philscott.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 7, 10:38 am, "Ed Huntress" <huntre...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
> > > "CanopyCo" <Junk74...@aol.com> wrote in message
>
> > >news:d09a199d-ee1c-4fb0-95c4-2ea1e5e7c567@s9g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
> > > What I don't get is how can they give 75% off and not loose money?
>
> > > They can't. But they would lose more if it winds up as unsold
> > > inventory.
> > > They're clearing their inventory, which most retailers have to do from
> > > time
> > > to time -- at least, the ones that want to stay in business.
>
> > > The counterexample is the old hardware store that keeps inventory
> > > forever.
> > > The last one I know of around here went broke 15 years ago.
>
> > > >Did they mark it up 100% in the first place?
>
> > > Markup, markon...don't get us confused. <g> They more than double the
> > > price
> > > they paid for it.
>
> > > Clothing in big retailers is marked up around 60% or so. That means
> > > that
> > > they pay $4 and sell it for $10. Jewelry is around 70%. And so on.
>
> > > >Maybe they will start charging a fair mark up instead of trying to
> > > >burn us every time.
>
> > > Those are the "fair" markups. At those rates, they just make a profit.
>
> > > BTW, when I was marketing machine tools, our typical markup was 55%.
>
> > > --
> > > Ed Huntress
>
> > brick and motar retail is going to be taking larger and larger hits as
> > the same goods can be sold on line with
> > a fraction of the storage costs... and in the case or 'order to suit'
> > on line, almost no storage costs.
>
> > This will put serious pressure on commcl real estate owners.. as its
> > potential renters can no longer afford the rents.
>
> > for the nation to recover that real estate will have to become part
> > of the manufacturing cycle...imo.
>
> > already we are seeing that in depressed home price markets, as empty
> > homes are rented or taken over by squatters and used to
> > make crack cocaine, speed, angel dust, pink pimps, or to grow
> > majijanna. I have no earthly idea what can be done with all of this
> > ludicrously over built retail space...especially as fully half of our
> > work force retires over the next 8 years and begin dropping deader
> > than hell shortly there after (80 million folk who will not give a
> > damn where the walmart is)
>
> > Phil scott- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
> >Phil makes a very good point about the aging demographics.
> >This recession/depression could not have come at a worse time for the
> >Baby Boomers.
> >Are you ready for Mom and Dad to move into your house?
>
> I *am* Dad. <g>
>
> >...or join you
> >under your selected bridge?
>
> Chicken Little, it's time for you to get real. Haven't you lived through a
> recession before? How old are you, anyway?
>
> >I am waiting to see what happens when the Government defaults...and
> >suddenly all those SS checks are worth the paper they are printed on.
>
> Tell us about the last time the government defaulted. And tell us why it
> would default now.
>
> --
> Ed Huntress- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
>I dont want to start an argument. It seems though that in 1901 govt
>costs and taxes were under 1% of national production...now its 48%...
>so its a different mess we are looing at. Govts do default. none in
>history has lasted longer than 300 years, most last more than 200
>though... then collapse, loose empire etc and become shadows of their
>former selves.
>Phil scott
I don't know where the 48% comes from, Phil. OECD says our total taxes --
federal, state, and local -- are 28% of GDP, which makes our total taxes/GDP
the third-lowest in the developed world.
Where are you getting the 48%? Maybe I could start by looking into that.
--
Ed Huntress
== 17 of 17 ==
Date: Wed, Jan 7 2009 8:39 pm
From: Too_Many_Tools
On Jan 7, 10:14 pm, "Ed Huntress" <huntre...@optonline.net> wrote:
> "phil scott" <p...@philscott.net> wrote in message
>
> news:25c03426-3cdf-4836-b02e-a182ab566c6a@r28g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
> On Jan 7, 2:54 pm, "Ed Huntress" <huntre...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Too_Many_Tools" <too_many_to...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:01cda7b0-f0f9-4f7f-b027-c96321c63f53@d42g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
> > On Jan 7, 2:58 pm, phil scott <p...@philscott.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 7, 10:38 am, "Ed Huntress" <huntre...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
> > > > "CanopyCo" <Junk74...@aol.com> wrote in message
>
> > > >news:d09a199d-ee1c-4fb0-95c4-2ea1e5e7c567@s9g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
> > > > What I don't get is how can they give 75% off and not loose money?
>
> > > > They can't. But they would lose more if it winds up as unsold
> > > > inventory.
> > > > They're clearing their inventory, which most retailers have to do from
> > > > time
> > > > to time -- at least, the ones that want to stay in business.
>
> > > > The counterexample is the old hardware store that keeps inventory
> > > > forever.
> > > > The last one I know of around here went broke 15 years ago.
>
> > > > >Did they mark it up 100% in the first place?
>
> > > > Markup, markon...don't get us confused. <g> They more than double the
> > > > price
> > > > they paid for it.
>
> > > > Clothing in big retailers is marked up around 60% or so. That means
> > > > that
> > > > they pay $4 and sell it for $10. Jewelry is around 70%. And so on.
>
> > > > >Maybe they will start charging a fair mark up instead of trying to
> > > > >burn us every time.
>
> > > > Those are the "fair" markups. At those rates, they just make a profit.
>
> > > > BTW, when I was marketing machine tools, our typical markup was 55%.
>
> > > > --
> > > > Ed Huntress
>
> > > brick and motar retail is going to be taking larger and larger hits as
> > > the same goods can be sold on line with
> > > a fraction of the storage costs... and in the case or 'order to suit'
> > > on line, almost no storage costs.
>
> > > This will put serious pressure on commcl real estate owners.. as its
> > > potential renters can no longer afford the rents.
>
> > > for the nation to recover that real estate will have to become part
> > > of the manufacturing cycle...imo.
>
> > > already we are seeing that in depressed home price markets, as empty
> > > homes are rented or taken over by squatters and used to
> > > make crack cocaine, speed, angel dust, pink pimps, or to grow
> > > majijanna. I have no earthly idea what can be done with all of this
> > > ludicrously over built retail space...especially as fully half of our
> > > work force retires over the next 8 years and begin dropping deader
> > > than hell shortly there after (80 million folk who will not give a
> > > damn where the walmart is)
>
> > > Phil scott- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
> > >Phil makes a very good point about the aging demographics.
> > >This recession/depression could not have come at a worse time for the
> > >Baby Boomers.
> > >Are you ready for Mom and Dad to move into your house?
>
> > I *am* Dad. <g>
>
> > >...or join you
> > >under your selected bridge?
>
> > Chicken Little, it's time for you to get real. Haven't you lived through a
> > recession before? How old are you, anyway?
>
> > >I am waiting to see what happens when the Government defaults...and
> > >suddenly all those SS checks are worth the paper they are printed on.
>
> > Tell us about the last time the government defaulted. And tell us why it
> > would default now.
>
> > --
> > Ed Huntress- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
> >I dont want to start an argument. It seems though that in 1901 govt
> >costs and taxes were under 1% of national production...now its 48%...
> >so its a different mess we are looing at. Govts do default. none in
> >history has lasted longer than 300 years, most last more than 200
> >though... then collapse, loose empire etc and become shadows of their
> >former selves.
> >Phil scott
>
> I don't know where the 48% comes from, Phil. OECD says our total taxes --
> federal, state, and local -- are 28% of GDP, which makes our total taxes/GDP
> the third-lowest in the developed world.
>
> Where are you getting the 48%? Maybe I could start by looking into that.
>
> --
> Ed Huntress- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Those taxes are going to be going WAY UP to cover those trillions that
are being spent.
TMT
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Save on Phone Calls
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/81e9507772219fb7?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Wed, Jan 7 2009 4:58 pm
From: "ares"
It seems that Tracfone is fine for me as well. The page seems to call it an
expensive plan. When I add a 60 minute card, for $20, it give you 90 days
of service. You can get the phones pretty cheaply. One of them for some
reason, receives text messages at no charge. We have a few of these phones.
If as they say the value of the service is $6/month, then the minutes are
around $.0335. There are double minute plans and yearly plans as well,
promotional and bonuses every now and then. Hm, funny but when I figure it
for the higher minutes cards, the minutes come out to closer to .10 per
minute. I suppose you just have to play around with the numbers to check.
It's .3 units per text otherwise. But at least I'm not married to some
monthly plan for over $30 per month.
ares
"SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message
news:uha9l.8358$8_3.7938@flpi147.ffdc.sbc.com...
> clams_casino wrote:
>> Cheapo Groovo wrote:
>>
>>> I'm using the MagicJack and Net10.
>>> Last year my my phone bills ran over $350, this year they should be
>>> under $150.
>>> ====================================================================
>>>
>>>
>>
>> I'm switching to Tracfone.
>
> PagePlus is a much cheaper alternative to prepaid, with better coverage
> than Tracfone.
>
> See "http://prepaiduswireless.com/".
== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Wed, Jan 7 2009 6:18 pm
From: Dave Garland
SMS wrote:
> PagePlus is a much cheaper alternative to prepaid, with better coverage
> than Tracfone.
>
> See "http://prepaiduswireless.com/".
Interesting site. But it depends on your usage patterns.
I use T-Mobile prepaid, and the site overestimates the minimum cost of
that. You don't need to spend $100 for the first year, you could do
it for less than half that, buying $10/30 minute refills (good for 90
days) for $9.30. But after you have put $100 (over whatever period)
into time, you get a discount (more minutes, actually) on future
cards, and time doesn't expire for a year.
Dave
== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Wed, Jan 7 2009 8:13 pm
From: SMS
Dave Garland wrote:
> SMS wrote:
>
>> PagePlus is a much cheaper alternative to prepaid, with better coverage
>> than Tracfone.
>>
>> See "http://prepaiduswireless.com/".
>
> Interesting site. But it depends on your usage patterns.
>
> I use T-Mobile prepaid, and the site overestimates the minimum cost of
> that. You don't need to spend $100 for the first year, you could do
> it for less than half that, buying $10/30 minute refills (good for 90
> days) for $9.30. But after you have put $100 (over whatever period)
> into time, you get a discount (more minutes, actually) on future
> cards, and time doesn't expire for a year.
True, after $100 you can buy one $10 card per year (for around $9).
Until you reach "Gold" you have to buy one $10 (for around $9) card
every 90 days, so it's around $3/month.
The big rip-off are services like Tracfone and Jitterbug in terms of
minimum monthly cost as well as per minute rates.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Anyone else seeing mystery phone numbers on Embarq long distance bill?
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/5143a3a3f5a603f2?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Wed, Jan 7 2009 5:30 pm
From: "Tomes"
<s2000hondas2000@gmail.com>...
"Tomes":
> <s2000hondas2...@gmail.com> ...
> xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:
> > Only fools/dinosaurs use checks anymore.
>
> DOT only takes checks, no cash, no cc. Stick to things you know, like
> welfare.
> ========================
> New Jersey MVC [the NJ version of the DOT] takes credit cards.
> Tomes
That's great for people in New Jersey except that New Jersey is also a
shithole.
================
Completely irresponsible statement. All one needs to do is drive to
northwest or central west NJ to refute this.
Sheesh.
Tomes
== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Wed, Jan 7 2009 6:17 pm
From: clams_casino
s2000hondas2000@gmail.com wrote:
>On Jan 6, 9:16 pm, "Tomes" <ask...@here.net> wrote:
>
>
>><s2000hondas2...@gmail.com> ...
>>xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>Only fools/dinosaurs use checks anymore.
>>>
>>>
>>DOT only takes checks, no cash, no cc. Stick to things you know, like
>>welfare.
>>========================
>>New Jersey MVC [the NJ version of the DOT] takes credit cards.
>>Tomes
>>
>>
>
>That's great for people in New Jersey except that New Jersey is also a
>shithole.
>
>
I can think of many worse places - AR, MS, AL & KY to name a few.
Generally speaking, most any red state would be worse..
==============================================================================
TOPIC: USENET USE EXPLODES
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/0064c37729751b0a?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, Jan 7 2009 6:24 pm
From: Dave Garland
catalpa wrote:
> The "unprecedented growth" seen by Giganews is because the complete moron NY
> AG Andrew Cuomo forced every ISP doing business in NY to dump Usenet service
> because a handful of binary groups contained kiddie porn.
The ISPs are using that as an excuse, because they don't want to
bother with Usenet anyhow. According to the people at my ISP, an ISP
that probably has a much techier clientele than the average cable
company, relatively few people use Usenet or even know what it is
(some think it's a google operation), and it's a PITA to maintain the
servers. So they got rid of their own servers and use Giganews as the
server.
After all, in the minds of the public, "Internet" == "web".
Dave
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Stamps
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/61b22661916aefaf?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Wed, Jan 7 2009 8:28 pm
From: The Real Bev
I've been googling for over an hour for the USA Postal Regulations. What I'm
trying to find out -- in chapter and verse -- is the legality of cutting unused
stamps off envelopes and gluing them onto new envelopes. The intent, of course,
is to use the stamps on the return envelopes that the stupid charities insist on
enclosing in their begging letters. I went through this once before with our
postmaster, who determined that this was indeed legal and that the asshole in
the branch office owed me an apology, which I actually got.
The problem has arisen again, and I am absolutely dumbfounded that I can't find
the basic rules that a government agency must follow in its operations. I find
a lot of possibly useful consumer information, but NOTHING about the matter in hand.
I corresponded with the USPS 'help' facility, which was surprisingly speedy, but
ultimately hit a dead end when the best the person could come up with was that
I should steam off the old stamps and glue them on the new envelope and that I
couldn't tape them on (which has been true for a long time). (S)he could cite
no actual reference, so I figure his/her opinion is worth no more than mine.
WTF? I can see why people go postal.
Anybody have any ideas? References? This ought to be basic information
available to everyone, but NOOOOOOO!
--
Cheers, Bev
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
I've enjoyed just about as much of this as I can stand.
== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Wed, Jan 7 2009 8:44 pm
From: Dave Garland
The Real Bev wrote:
> I've been googling for over an hour for the USA Postal Regulations.
> What I'm trying to find out -- in chapter and verse -- is the legality
> of cutting unused stamps off envelopes and gluing them onto new
> envelopes...
Another option is to let them pile up, then take the bundle to the
post office. They'll give you (IIRC) 90% of the face value, after you
fill out an inventory form. On the one hand, that's not 100% of the
value, but on the other hand, it's cash money.
N.B. this applies to the US. YMMV, TWIAVBP.
Dave
==============================================================================
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
