Brian wrote:

Nor did you check out my response, which sstated what you just said.

Sorry Brian, but the posts don't always come in right in order.

Perhaps we accept more debt today (as a ratio to income) than ever before.

Perhaps "we" will get what we deserve for running our finances so close
to the edge. 8^)

- Mike KB3EIA -

In article , "Ryan, KC8PMX"
writes:

Around here in this county I live in, home ownership is next to impossible,
except for spending at least $75,000 or better.

That;s very inexpensive, Ryan.

The average small 3 bedroom
house, no basement or garage (slab built) on a half to full acre runs *at
least* 75 grand or better.

What would you consider reasonable?

Check out

http://www.realtor.com

for an idea what houses cost in other parts of the country. You can search by
zip code, town name, etc. Set limits on house size, price, etc.

You don't want to know what a house costs around here.


Go immediately outside of the county lines of
this county, and the similar/equivalent structure is anywhere from 25-50%
less. I guess it is something about Midland county I guess.

Under $50,000? Amazing. But remember the three most important things about real
estate....

What are the taxes like?

73 de Jim, N2EY

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...

Dee, Capitalism is the best darn economic system to ever hit the earth.
Period. And supply and demand is a better bet than anyone's deity being
the real one.

But, our country's economy is not really what I think you think it is.
Unbridled capitalism tends toward major boom and bust cycles, and can
produce some particulary nasty characters, as the running motive behind
it at times alllows one small group or person to grab all the cookies so
to speak. Capitalism turns a basic human characteristic, greed, into a
pretty good thing. But all by itself, greed turns into something else
than what we might want.

Our economic system has plenty of controls on it to help avoid the
greediest to own it all. And it works pretty darn well IMO.


No I never said we should have unbridled capitalism. I'm quite aware of the
problems that result from that. What I am saying is that the controls must
be minimal and well thought out. Things like the practice of a large
company with significant reserve capital choosing to sell at a loss to drive
their smaller competitor out of the market cannot and is not allowed
(assuming they get caught at it of course). I agree that today's system of
controls achieves a pretty good balance. That's why we have to be very
careful about any changes so that we don't throw it out of whack and create
a new problem possibly much worse than what we face today.



And yes if you are willing to move, there are sufficient jobs for
people.
But vast numbers of people won't do that.

Are you saying that if all the unemployed moved someplace they would
all get jobs? Sounds oversimplified to me.


Not quite. Some people are simply chronically unemployable. But many would
indeed be in better shape if they were willing to bite the bullet and move.

I know people who have been waiting decades in southern Ohio, and are still
waiting, for "the steel mills to return" and refused to even think about
going where there was work because of it. They decided to get by with
whatever combination of odd jobs, welfare, etc they could manage to put
together.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

"Kim W5TIT" wrote:
"Dwight Stewart" wrote:

Well, call it what you want, Kim. You told me that
you're an informed consumer that routinely researches
the products you buy.

No, Dwight. I did *not* say that at all. In fact, here is
what I said: (snip)


Kim, just two or three messages ago, I said:
"You and I both knew you couldn't do it, Kim.

The information it not that easily available and it

would take considerable effort for consumers to
research the products they purchase each day,

week, or year. In spite of your claims otherwise,

you don't do it." (snip)



You responded directly to that with:
"Dwight, are you calling me a liar? Yes, I have

done it, and yes it is not all that difficult to do."




Then, get your own damned sites, Dwight. Point is,

become smart about what you're buying. (snip)


Kim, when it comes to mainstream consumer information, I'm as well
educated as most anyone else, most certainly including you. But we were
talking about the economy - more specifically, the impact of consumer
purchasing trends on the economy ("shoppers not going to the store to ponder
global economic implications," "economic awareness," and so on) and how
difficult it is to find substantial economics-related information (which
companies are moving factories overseas, foreign business investments, and
so on). We were (I was) not talking about environmental issues (the Exxon
Valdez oil spill you mentioned) or other such topics. Now, just like
everyone else, you're certainly free to bring up those other topics, but
please don't apply something I've said about economics to those topics.


Gads, you're an ass Dwight...


Only when speaking with one, Kim.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
nk.net...
"Kim W5TIT" wrote:
"Dwight Stewart" wrote:

Well, call it what you want, Kim. You told me that
you're an informed consumer that routinely researches
the products you buy.

No, Dwight. I did *not* say that at all. In fact, here is
what I said: (snip)


Kim, just two or three messages ago, I said:
"You and I both knew you couldn't do it, Kim.

The information it not that easily available and it

would take considerable effort for consumers to
research the products they purchase each day,

week, or year. In spite of your claims otherwise,

you don't do it." (snip)



You responded directly to that with:
"Dwight, are you calling me a liar? Yes, I have

done it, and yes it is not all that difficult to do."



It's a far stretch from the above, to stating that *I* said I am an informed
consumer that routinely researches the products I buy. I stated nothing of
the sort. Have it your way, though, Dwight. You're desperate to be
right...so be it.



Then, get your own damned sites, Dwight. Point is,

become smart about what you're buying. (snip)


Kim, when it comes to mainstream consumer information, I'm as well
educated as most anyone else, most certainly including you. But we were
talking about the economy - more specifically, the impact of consumer
purchasing trends on the economy ("shoppers not going to the store to
ponder
global economic implications," "economic awareness," and so on) and how
difficult it is to find substantial economics-related information (which
companies are moving factories overseas, foreign business investments, and
so on). We were (I was) not talking about environmental issues (the Exxon
Valdez oil spill you mentioned) or other such topics. Now, just like
everyone else, you're certainly free to bring up those other topics, but
please don't apply something I've said about economics to those topics.


Gads, you're an ass Dwight...


Only when speaking with one, Kim.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/



I don't think Jim's an ass, Dwight...

Kim W5TIT

"Kim W5TIT" wrote:
"Dwight Stewart" wrote:
(snip) Because of that, consumers simply don't have
the time or the informational resources to even
superficially research each of the items they purchase.
I certainly don't do it and I seriously doubt you do
either (however, Kim says she does).


No, Dwight, Kim does not say that. (snip)


And, in another message, I quoted the exact words where you did indeed say
that, Kim.


You know what? It is so blatantly obvious that you just
don't know what the hell you're talking about. (snip)


That's just about exactly what I was thinking about you (with perhaps a
slightly less favorable opinion of you).


(snip) And, it's also quite obvious you're going to cling to
your desperate ideas no matter what anyone tries to help
you with to pull yourself up from the downunder you're
in... (snip)


You seriously need to climb off your high horse, Kim. Who in the heck
asked you to "help" anyone in this newsgroup? I came to this newsgroup to
discuss various topics - not be lectured by you with a mandate to drop my
opinions in favor of yours. So, if you're sitting around waiting for that to
happen, you're going to be one very, very, tired old woman long before
there's even a glimmer of hope.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
k.net...
You seriously need to climb off your high horse, Kim. Who in the heck
asked you to "help" anyone in this newsgroup? I came to this newsgroup to
discuss various topics - not be lectured by you with a mandate to drop my
opinions in favor of yours. So, if you're sitting around waiting for that
to
happen, you're going to be one very, very, tired old woman long before
there's even a glimmer of hope.


While I normally disagree with a great many of Kim's posts. Here she is
fundamentally correct. Consumers do have the choice to be informed if they
really want to. If they don't want to go to that much work, then it is
their own problem. Government should NOT be doing your research for you. I
certainly don't want MY taxes to go for the checks on goods and information
dissemination that you seem to think the government should do for you.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

"Dave Heil" wrote:
Dwight Stewart wrote:

It often costs more to change a contract than it
does to simply live with a minor inefficiency. Nobody
is losing that much money. It's just an irratation to
constantly buy new fans.

If the old one was that great, why isn't it still running?


You obviously missed some of the conversation, Dave. I was complaining
about the quality of plastic fans today and how I couldn't find better ones
locally. When Jim asked why I bought fans locally (instead of shopping on
the internet), I explained the fans were purchased under the terms of a
business contract. Jim suggested the contract should be changed. And this is
about where you came in to read my reply above.


It isn't necessary to research each and every item you
buy, Dwight. (snip)


Actually, I was trying to make the point that we wouldn't have to so
diligently research products if government and business was held to a higher
standard when it comes to the economy. I've posted more details about that
in other messages, so I won't repeat it again here.


By the way, we've noticed no BPL rollout here in West,
by God, Virginia.


Yep, this thread has covered just about everything except that recently,
hasn't it? As you know, it's pretty much the nature of these newsgroups to
stray off into other topics in any given thread.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

"Dee D. Flint" wrote:

So you're saying we should go to "Ma's Diner" for
the sole purpose of keeping them in business?? I
don't think so.


No, it was just a simplistic example to illustrate that consumers don't
always realize what other consumers are doing, or the impact that might have
on a particular business (or the economy if this overall example is applied
more widely). In this case, a customers decides he's bored of the delicious
steak dinners at "Ma's Diner" and decides to eat over at "Taco Heaven" for a
while (perhaps to even save some money). But, if enough of "Ma's" customers
do that at the same time, the effects would be devastating on "Ma's Diner"
(even though that customer, and none of the other customers, ever intended
that).


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

"Kim W5TIT" wrote:

heh I bet Dwight couldn't handle the idea that
he's probably more manipulated by subliminal
advertising than the "average joe." :)


Kim, you really have no idea what we were talking about, do you? Before
you sidetracked the discussion with this type of nonsense, we were talking
about the economy and economic-related issues and information, not general
consumer product information. Therefore, nothing I've said about that (the
economy) has anything whatsoever to do with "subliminal advertising" or
anything of the sort. Do at least try to figure out the subject being
discussed before going off on one of your silly rants.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/