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

"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


I agree wholeheartedly... and I think I've stated so. You, Dee, seem to be
as disconcerted by Dwight's contribution to this topic as I have been.

Kim W5TIT

"Mike Coslo" wrote


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


I think you were guaranteed any job you wanted if you were a black female
disabled Vietnam vet with a Spanish surname. grin

73, Hans, K0HB

Dee D. Flint wrote:



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


But that never stops them from trying.

"Kim W5TIT" wrote in message
...
"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



The above should read: "Do you notice that I've rarely if ever told someone
they are right?"

Kim W5TIT

In article , "Kim "
writes:

"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

That's all well and good, but you're missing a plain, simple fact: You haven't
defined what "manage the economy" means.

If you define it as Soviet-style central economic planning, then almost anyone
with any sense will agree that it's a recipe for economic disaster, as
demonstrated by what happened in the USSR. (Largest country in the world, huge
amounts of some of the best if not THE best farmland on earth, and after 70+
years of total control they can't even feed themselves?)

But if you define it as "help things go well", it gets a lot murkier. For
example, in the days following 9-11, the Feds helped out the airline industry
in a big way with low interest loans. They were concerned that the loss of
business in the wake of the events of that terrible day would have caused the
collapse of several major airlines. Was that good management of the economy or
not?

Or look at your federal income taxes. Those of us who are home owners and who
meet certain criteria can deduct home mortgage interest and real estate taxes
on up to 2 residences. This effectively reduces the cost of buying/owning a
home. Would you take that deduction away? Doing so would almost certainly slow
down home sales and construction, and reduce property values all over the
country.

I'm old enough to remember when *all* consumer interest and sales taxes were
deductible on your income taxes if certain criteria were met. That deduction
pushed consumer spending because it reduced the effective cost of buying on
time. It encouraged people to go into debt, particularly in inflationary times,
because they could pay for today's fun with tomorrow's less-valuable dollars,
*and* deduct the interest and tax costs. But those deductions were removed in
order to "get the government off your back" (and pump more money into the
coffers without 'raising' taxes).

Or look where your taxes are spent. NASA's launch facilities for manned space
flights are in Florida - because the orbital mechanics and safety
considerations make Florida about the optimum place for a launch facility
located in CONUS. But the manned flight center is in Houston Texas - because
that's were LBJ was from. How many extra billions of dollars that contributed
nothing to the space flight efforts have been spent over the decades because
the two facilities are so far apart?

No matter what the government does about the economy, the effects are
widespread and have the effect, wanted or not, of "managing" the economy in
some way or another.

73 de Jim, N2EY

"Kim W5TIT" wrote in message
...
"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



And everyone else meet W5TWIT, otherwise known as 'hug and chalk'.

Dan/W4NTI

In article , "Dee D. Flint"
writes:

Looking at repay periods or relative costs isn't really the way to go
either.

I think it is - IF you allow for other factors as mentioned below.

You have to include a comparison of the features that you get for
that cost. People simply want more on their "starter" houses and cars.

*Some* people...

Today's starter house has relatively more features than those of the past.
For example, the typical tract house had no cabinets of any type in the
bathroom at that time. The homeowner added them later as time and money
permitted. They did not have air conditioning. Now you just about can't
sell any new home, even low end starter one, unless it has A/C and so on.

If you're talking about new homes, I agree in general, because the
developers/builders have a pretty set idea of "what people want" and that's
what they build. Of course if you have a new house built to your specification,
you can get almost anything that meets code.

Comparing the past to the present is very difficult. Too much has changed
and it's like comparing apples to oranges.

Sometimes. But you can make comparisons based on intelligent adjustments.

For example, the house I'm in now was built in 1950 or 1951 and I moved here in
1999. At that time it still had the original gravity heater and no AC. Also no
dishwasher. In fact, it was not substantially different from when it was built
- just well-maintained. To me it's a "new" house because it was built after WW2
and uses essentially the same techniques as new houses today, vs. the older
techniques of houses I've owned previously (built in 1923 and 1900).

In 2000 I had a good HVAC contractor install a new heating/AC system. Cost me
just under $7000 and worth every penny. The cost of the new system was figured
(mentally) into the price of the house when I bought it.

In 2001 I put in a dishwasher (DIY) and again that cost was figured (mentally)
into the price of the house when I bought it.

Same type of thing can be applied to almost any house.

73 de Jim, N2EY

(N2EY) wrote in message ...
In article , "Kim "
writes:

"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

That's all well and good, but you're missing a plain, simple fact: You haven't
defined what "manage the economy" means.

I recall not so long ago the Al Greenspan "had" to put the brakes on
the USA economy. Pffft.

If you define it as Soviet-style central economic planning, then almost anyone
with any sense will agree that it's a recipe for economic disaster, as
demonstrated by what happened in the USSR.

Economic disaster can also occur in an unregulated economy, 1929.

(Largest country in the world, huge
amounts of some of the best if not THE best farmland on earth, and after 70+
years of total control they can't even feed themselves?)

But if you define it as "help things go well", it gets a lot murkier. For
example, in the days following 9-11, the Feds helped out the airline industry
in a big way with low interest loans. They were concerned that the loss of
business in the wake of the events of that terrible day would have caused the
collapse of several major airlines. Was that good management of the economy or
not?

Like Governors giving Tax Exemptions to large corporations that locate
in their state. After 10 years, when the tax exemptions go away, the
large corporation outsources their work to China/India.

Or look at your federal income taxes. Those of us who are home owners and who
meet certain criteria can deduct home mortgage interest and real estate taxes
on up to 2 residences. This effectively reduces the cost of buying/owning a
home. Would you take that deduction away? Doing so would almost certainly slow
down home sales and construction, and reduce property values all over the
country.

So is home ownership more or less "affordable" than ever?

I'm old enough to remember when *all* consumer interest and sales taxes were
deductible on your income taxes if certain criteria were met. That deduction
pushed consumer spending because it reduced the effective cost of buying on
time. It encouraged people to go into debt, particularly in inflationary times,
because they could pay for today's fun with tomorrow's less-valuable dollars,
*and* deduct the interest and tax costs. But those deductions were removed in
order to "get the government off your back" (and pump more money into the
coffers without 'raising' taxes).

But the government inflates. Why shouldn't citizens try to beat the
gov't at their own money game?

Or look where your taxes are spent. NASA's launch facilities for manned space
flights are in Florida - because the orbital mechanics and safety
considerations make Florida about the optimum place for a launch facility
located in CONUS. But the manned flight center is in Houston Texas - because
that's were LBJ was from. How many extra billions of dollars that contributed
nothing to the space flight efforts have been spent over the decades because
the two facilities are so far apart?

We could outsourse to China and save even more billions, right?

No matter what the government does about the economy, the effects are
widespread and have the effect, wanted or not, of "managing" the economy in
some way or another.

73 de Jim, N2EY

True.

In article m, "Dee D. Flint"
writes:

If "Ma's Diner" isn't selling what I want then I'm
not going to buy regardless of small store, large chain or whatever.

Works for me!

I
thought however the original post was Dwight's not yours. He seems to be
advocating that the government "fix" consumer's purchasing habits so that
the local stores stay in business.

I don't read it that way at all, but I could be mistaken. I think Dwight's
simply calling attention to the fact that there are some economic trends going
on that don't bode well for the economic future of our country - long term or
short term.

While I think government has a role to play in changing those trends, I don't
think the whole thing can be left up to them to "fix".

73 de Jim, N2EY

"Dee D. Flint" wrote:

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


The government has managed the economy in some form or another since the
very beginning. And, in spite of what you say, this country with that
government has done pretty darn well over those many years.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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