"Dee D. Flint" wrote:

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.


First of all, do understand that we're talking about the economy, not
consumer product information. Kim seems to forget that. Anyway, my position
is that, when it comes to the economy, we pretty much have to depend on the
government at the moment. Business does not generally make it's decisions
(moving factories overseas, overseas investments, investments from overseas,
material purchases, and so on) well known to the general public. It would be
a massive effort for one person to reseach what they do offer to the public
now (and I don't think they offer nearly enough). Take a single industry -
the automobile industry, for example. It would take years for one person to
research what is going on at this very moment in that industry. What is even
worse, and as I've said before, much of the information is not that easy to
obtain. Even if you want to break this research down to just a single
purchase, it is not always that easy. I purchased an "American" car. That
"American" car turned out to be made in Canada (and I didn't know that until
it was delivered). Who knows where the parts in that "American" car were
made. Therefore, as I've also said before, it's just not realistic to simply
expect consumers to be "informed" enough to make wise economic shopping
decisions. As consumers, as Americans, we have to demand government manage
the economy better (as I've previously outlined).


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

"Dee D. Flint" wrote:

(snip) He seems to be advocating that the
government "fix" consumer's purchasing habits
so that the local stores stay in business.


First, please don't assume what anyone's position is, Dee. Jim made a
specific comment and I was responding to that specific comment alone, not
the topic as a whole. My response was an explanation of the process at play
as I see it, not a "fix" of any kind. Second, I'm not really "advocating"
anything at all. There isn't enough of us here in this newsgroup to even do
so. If I wanted to advocate something, I would do so in a much more
"audience rich" environment. Instead, we're simply discussing another one of
the many topics we routinely discuss in this newsgroup.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

In article , "charlesb"
writes:

Not trying to sound like a broken record, but is there any news about the
situation in Virginia with the BPL rollout?

What's the scoop, folks? Anybody hear anything?


Charles,

It's probably too soon to tell. "announcing a rollout" doesn't mean the system
is installed and operating over a wide area - yet. It just means they've done
the paperwork.

I have read reports from WK3C, W1RFI and others that the level of noise from at
least some BPL systems varies dramatically over time, and is apparently related
to the amount of data being passed over the system. So even if the system is
installed and working, if it's feeding one residential customer who spends an
hour a day online the noise will be far less than if there are, say, 20
customers spending far more time swapping MPGs.

And as WK3C emphasizes, it's important that any interference be positively
identified as BPL-created *before* we complain about it. Otherwise we become
"the hams who cried wolf" and our credibility drops.

73 de Jim, N2EY

"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
nk.net...
As consumers, as Americans, we have to demand government manage
the economy better (as I've previously outlined).

This would be the ruination of the economy. The government is not, never
has been, and never will be competent to manage the economy.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
nk.net...
"Dee D. Flint" wrote:

(snip) He seems to be advocating that the
government "fix" consumer's purchasing habits
so that the local stores stay in business.


First, please don't assume what anyone's position is, Dee. Jim made a
specific comment and I was responding to that specific comment alone, not
the topic as a whole. My response was an explanation of the process at
play
as I see it, not a "fix" of any kind. Second, I'm not really "advocating"
anything at all. There isn't enough of us here in this newsgroup to even
do
so. If I wanted to advocate something, I would do so in a much more
"audience rich" environment. Instead, we're simply discussing another one
of
the many topics we routinely discuss in this newsgroup.

Please note I did NOT assume anything. I did not state that you ARE
advocating that but that it SEEMS that you are. There is a difference.
I.e. the statements in your posts can lead the reader to that conclusion
although the position is not definitively stated.

Why bother to enter the discussion if you are not advocating your position
(or conversely playing "devil's advocate")? The size of the audience should
not matter. You never know in what venue you may find a person or group of
persons who have the ability to initiate and/or implement change.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
nk.net...
"Dave Heil" wrote:

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.


But, you've already stated, Dwight, that people [paraphrasing] are too
stupid and don't have the time to research their shopping products. So, how
in the world are they going to be smart enough to choose the right people
for government to "a-d-v-i-s-e" the public on what they should be shopping
for? Hell, the government *and* business--the corporate world--are two of
the most corrupt entities!! You apparently haven't been paying a bit of
attention for the last couple of years.

You want to throw out these wild statements and then you follow up with some
kind of clue that you don't have one (a clue).

Kim W5TIT

"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message
y.com...

"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


Dee, the one thing I think I can say about you--and, to tell you the truth I
attribute it to the fact that you are a woman and I just plain believe that
women think a lot more logically most of the time--is that whenever you and
I have "disagreed" there's never been the exchange that we witness from some
of (your welcome Jim) men here in this newsgroup.

You may disagree with a lot of *how* I say something, but I think you and I
probably would agree on a lot more than you may realize. I am a very "tough
love" kind of person. I spent too much time in my life feeling sorry for,
or empathetic for, people who had no desire whatsoever to lift themselves up
and change what makes them miserable--those that have the capability and
ability to do so, that is.

So, that having been said--it seems very apparent to me that Dwight has some
ideas for which he has no real basis in fact. (And, that's not to say that
my ideas are all based in fact--but I at least admit it). And, I can't
believe that he expects people to accept--let alone agree--with him that we
are too busy and stupid to do our own research to make ethical purchase
decisions; yet we should warm up to the idea that government and business
can be held to a high enough standard (uh, even though we are too busy and
stupid to research what the standard should be) that they can "do it for
us." And, that's not even bringing into the equation that I've seen Dwight
rail against the "liberals" for big government principles--yet here he is
espousing to a huge government *and* rolling the corporate world up into it.
The "conservatives" woud have a field day for that blessing!!

I agree with you--and I'll even take it further than how you put it to
include Dwight's ill-fated thoughts: if consumers in a "free" society are
too stupid, too lazy, or too apathetic, or too *whatever* to take it upon
themselves to be informed, then they deserve whatever they get--including a
government such as what would occur if we all thought like Dwight.

By the way...you've probably been astute enough to see this. Do you notice
that I've told someone they are right? I try to always remember to tell
people whether I agree or disagree with something they say--but I try never
to presume they are right or wrong. Whatever they think is right for them,
correct?

Kim W5TIT

Dee D. Flint wrote:
"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.
Right, and they may be moving to a place to get that minimum wage job!

There are a lot of other things involved in the jobless situation.
During my first job, the economy tanked. I lost my job, and despite
attempts on my part, it was about a year and a half before I could get
another. Most people were up front about it:

First choice goes to married vets
Second choice goes to vets
Third choice is married.

Remember there were a fair number of vets coming home from Vietnam. As
an unmarried 19 year old, I was nowhere on their radar screen.
Unemployable. I think I probably interviewd for 30-40 jobs in a
depressed job market. I was just about to enlist when I got my current job.


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.

"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
nk.net...
"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/


Larry, meet Dwight. Dwight, meet Larry. Dwight, welcome to a perfect
vision of yourself...

Kim W5TIT

"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message
y.com...

"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
nk.net...
As consumers, as Americans, we have to demand government manage
the economy better (as I've previously outlined).

This would be the ruination of the economy. The government is not, never
has been, and never will be competent to manage the economy.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE


HERE HERE

Kim W5TIT