"Len Over 21" wrote

BPL isn't a good thing. It is a bad thing for
everyone except a minority of would-be
profit makers wanting to soak the public
for BPL access to the Internet.

Since I am never reluctant to express my disagreement with Len, in the
interest of fairness I must take a moment to express my hearty agreement
with him on this matter.

73, de Hans, K0HB

Ryan, KC8PMX wrote:
Around here in this county I live in, home ownership is next to impossible,
except for spending at least $75,000 or better. 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. 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.

The cost of a home always seems to be "next to impossible" relative to
the place it is located in, with the "next to" part being key. The other
constant since the end of World War II has been that the "next to impossible"
price very often looks cheap when viewed in retrospect, though I'm not sure
one should count on this being true everywhere forever.

As an example of how "next to impossible" can vary with location, the
house next door to me in Palo Alto, CA, which sold a few months ago after
a few years of unpleasant economy here, sounds a lot like yours. It's
a 1,300 square foot bungalow, no basement, 50 years old. It does have a
one-car detached garage, but the lot is only 8,000 square feet. It was
listed at $885,000, and it sold for that on the first day it was listed.
They didn't even put a sign up.

If there were $75,000 houses where I lived and intended to stay I think
I'd struggle to buy one. You have to live somewhere, and even if the
post-WW2 trend doesn't hold the prices other places have a lot further
to fall.

Dennis Ferguson

"Brian" wrote

They must be buying immodestly priced houses, then, because there are
more homeowners than ever before.


As a percentage of the population there are less homeowners than ever
before, and the percentage is trending downward even in this time of
unusually low mortgage interest rates.

de Hans, K0HB

Dave Heil wrote:
Dennis Ferguson wrote:
If you look at this one

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/housi.../q303tab5.html

you'll see that the rate of home ownership in the US, which varied
between 63% and 66% for the 30 years prior to 1995, took a jump starting
in about 1997 and was at 68.4% in the quarter just ended. It seems
hard to argue that houses have gotten less affordable over the long
term when the fraction of people who demonstrate they can afford
to own a house by doing so remained fairly constant for so long and
actually took a significant upturn in the last few years.

I don't think it hard to argue at all, Dennis. Years back, people were
advised not to spend more than 25% of their income on housing. Later
this was revised to 33%. Today it is not uncommon for folks with two
incomes paying *half* of their combined income for housing.

That's very true, but my strong bias towards arguments which can be
supported by existence proofs requires me to argue that the fraction of
one's income spent on housing which is "affordable" isn't necessarily
a fixed number, but instead depends on the fraction of one's income that
doesn't need to be spent on everything else one requires to live. The
fact that those people ended up in houses despite the chunk of income
this took says to me the chunk was still affordable, though at that
level of investment it would be sad if the value of the house dropped.

In my area, houses are being given away and property taxes are very low.
Wait until you're near retirement before buying here though. You have
to bring your own money.

I noticed that. In fact at one point in my life I noticed that I
could swap a townhouse in Arlington, VA just about even for nearly
half a mountain, in a pricier end of your state at that, and came
very close to doing something about it. It was only the conclusion
that the commute to work in northern Virginia would kill me, even
if I didn't do it every day, which kept me in the townhouse.

Dennis Ferguson

"Ryan, KC8PMX" wrote in message
...
Around here in this county I live in, home ownership is next to
impossible,
except for spending at least $75,000 or better. 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.

I live 70 miles northwest of New York City, downwind from the largest dairy
farm in the county and with a gravel mine 1/4 mile down the road. 1 acre
lots and the typical 3 bedroom home will set you back at least $250,000 with
matching property taxes.

On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 00:57:20 -0500, Ryan, KC8PMX wrote:

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

Be happy. What you describe would cost four times that here (less
if on a quarter acre), and easily ten times that in any developed
part of California and many other states.

As to Dennis' comment about the house in Palo Alto (CA) - earlier
this year my daughter sold her telephone-booth-sized condo apartment
in Hercules (CA - East Bay) the same day she put it up for sale - it
didn't even make the Multiple Listing register. She got well into
six figures.

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

From a Clearing in the Silicon Forest
Beaverton (Washington County) Oregon

On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 05:14:34 GMT, Dave Heil wrote:

I dunno Phil. I just took delivery of a piece of bound carpet and two
runners for our dining room. It took Lowe's eighty days after my order
and payment to deliver it. I could have had a Turk hand weave the thing
and personally deliver it in that period.

From what I understand, the furniture industry is somewhat like
that. If what you want is out of stock you may have to wait some
time until the next cutting cycle for that model. This is basically
independent of where it's made.

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

From a Clearing in the Silicon Forest
Beaverton (Washington County) Oregon

Dennis Ferguson wrote:
Ryan, KC8PMX wrote:

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


The cost of a home always seems to be "next to impossible" relative to
the place it is located in, with the "next to" part being key. The other
constant since the end of World War II has been that the "next to impossible"
price very often looks cheap when viewed in retrospect, though I'm not sure
one should count on this being true everywhere forever.

In my little city, State College PA, there is 1 lower cost housing
development (actually about ten miles out of town, and of the locals,
all who are employed in the retail trade (save the owners) live outside
of town. It is not next to impossible, it truly is. It has caused a
strange anomaly. The only houses being built at this time are houses
from around 500K to the 2 million dollar range.

Note I use words like impossible and only. I don't doubt you might find
a 250 thousand dollar (low end) house being built around here, and there
is no doubt some people who work at the local Megalo-Mart and live near
town in a trailer, but that is certainly the trend around here


If there were $75,000 houses where I lived and intended to stay I think
I'd struggle to buy one. You have to live somewhere, and even if the
post-WW2 trend doesn't hold the prices other places have a lot further
to fall.

Hoowwee! Your not kidding! If you can get a house around these parts
for 75K, it is probably a major fixer-upper, or a mobile home.

- Mike KB3EIA -

Dennis Ferguson wrote:

Dave Heil wrote:

Dennis Ferguson wrote:

If you look at this one

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/housi.../q303tab5.html

you'll see that the rate of home ownership in the US, which varied
between 63% and 66% for the 30 years prior to 1995, took a jump starting
in about 1997 and was at 68.4% in the quarter just ended. It seems
hard to argue that houses have gotten less affordable over the long
term when the fraction of people who demonstrate they can afford
to own a house by doing so remained fairly constant for so long and
actually took a significant upturn in the last few years.

I don't think it hard to argue at all, Dennis. Years back, people were
advised not to spend more than 25% of their income on housing. Later
this was revised to 33%. Today it is not uncommon for folks with two
incomes paying *half* of their combined income for housing.


That's very true, but my strong bias towards arguments which can be
supported by existence proofs requires me to argue that the fraction of
one's income spent on housing which is "affordable" isn't necessarily
a fixed number, but instead depends on the fraction of one's income that
doesn't need to be spent on everything else one requires to live.The
fact that those people ended up in houses despite the chunk of income
this took says to me the chunk was still affordable, though at that
level of investment it would be sad if the value of the house dropped.

Right! What these people consider "affordable" does indeed vary. I had
some neighbors some years ago who were so hell bent on having a
desirable hous in a desirable neighborhood that they financially
destroyed themselves. They spent way more than they could afford for the
house in the first place, then borrowed money for the down payment, then
ended up paying well over 50 percent of their take home for their
mortgage payments. It wrecked them, lock stock and barrel. I rmember
them right before they moved, chuckling how they put one over on the
bank. They were *so* fixated on thier goal, that they sacrificed
everything else for that house.

There is much more to life than having a house, come hell or high water.
The owners must have enough capital left over that they can participate
in being a consumer. If a person is "house poor", they get to stay home
and enjoy their house, but lots of the extras, which help drive the
econnomy, go wanting.

On the other hand, despite the wailing and gnashing of teeth of the
real estate agents, I spent about 50K less than what I was approved for
for a house, choosing to enjoy my hobbies, provide extras for the wife
and kid, and put money into retirement accounts.

So they ended up selling the house (I think they went bankrupt, but am
not sure). I'm still here, living a tad more modestly, but putting money
in the bank. Different ideas on what is affordable? You bet!

- Mike KB3EIA -

- Mike KB3EIA -

"Ryan, KC8PMX" wrote in message
...

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

"Ryan, KC8PMX" wrote in message
...
Yeah..... that may be true but circumstances now have forced many to
suffer
with it as a "living" wage.


Yeah that's the same "victim" argument some of my friends made when I
went
to college and they didn't. But I sacrificed to go to college. My
parents
didn't pay for it.


Thats assuming a certain age too. I have sacraficed as well, but do the
math, at 5-7 bucks an hour, trying to support your self, in the minimal of
settings, (housing, transportation etc.) and also have funds to pay for
college does not always work as conviently as you prescribe. I have been
working on my degree since 1989, and am almost done. Unfortunately you
live
in some type of world where kids are allowed to live with the parents
above
the age of 18. Myself, as well as many others do not have that luxury.


Once I started college, I was only at home in the summers and paid all my
own expenses when not at home.

Due to various ups and downs in life, my daughter is going to college
entirely on her own nickel today and will graduate in May. She has not
lived at home at all since the age of 18.



I worked a minimum wage job, lived at home, did not buy a car, did not
buy
records and so on. I put the money aside and did without so I could go
to
college. So that "circumstances" argument is pretty shakey. And don't
try
the "pregnant and alone teenager" argument either. I knew some of them
in
college and they made it too.

Again, not all people have the luxury of living off the parents beyond
graduation of high school. To expect every person to have been in the
exact
same circumstances as you is also pretty shakey as well. As far as the
pregnant teenager issue, I wasn't gonna mention that one either.


There are still ways even if they can't live at home. My daughter is a case
in point.


People allow themselves to fail and become victims of circumstance.

Following that logic, then the people IN the WTC buildings are also as
well
then......


No it does not follow. The people in the WTC buildings were subject to a
circumstance that no one could ever have even guessed might happen or
foreseen might happen. That was not within their power to prevent or solve.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

"Ryan, KC8PMX" wrote in message
...

Also, get it out of your head that most of what I have been responding to
in
this is directly an example of what I am dealing with personally as your
attacks indicate, but observations of what is going on around here.


Never meant to imply that I thought it was something you were dealing with.
If I did so that was an accident. My point, which I didn't make well
apparently, is that it isn't going to do the people you talk about any good
to try to control wages and prices and force the economy. It's got to
correct itself and people have got to take what steps they need to so they
can continue to be productively employed. Well meaning people who try to
control national and international economics cannot change it.

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

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

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 Brabham, N5PVL

"KØHB" wrote in message nk.net...
"Brian" wrote

They must be buying immodestly priced houses, then, because there are
more homeowners than ever before.


As a percentage of the population there are less homeowners than ever
before, and the percentage is trending downward even in this time of
unusually low mortgage interest rates.

de Hans, K0HB

Disallowed.

The PCTA say there are more Morsemen today than at any time in
history, including the heydays of Morse, when Morse was the about the
only form of long distance communication.

Thusly, we are not allowed to participate in "per capita" discussions.

Your strawman is now chicken litter - poop-poop.

didit.

Mike Coslo wrote in message ...

Interesting. In comparing between the years that are specified in the
other document, they also show an increase! I wonder what causes the
discrepancy?

Confounding variables?

My link: 1995 ~56% 1894 ~60 %
Your link 1995 ~65% 1984 ~64.8%

Perhaps the difference is that many people are living in houses that
they can't afford?

Perhaps that is what I meant by "immodestly" affordable housing?

There is some data there, but I haven't had time to
check it out.

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

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

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message ...


Dee D. Flint wrote:
"N2EY" wrote in message
...

In article , Mike Coslo
writes:


As I recall reading a while back, in 1950, it took 14 percent of an
average workers income to put a roof over "his head". That may have
changed a little bit! 8^)

It changed big time. Same for medical and education costs.


However as noted in later in this same post for cars (now snipped),
people
now demand more features in that house and more room in that house that
was
common in 1950. So it's an apples to oranges comparison.

Well if we cant compare houses to houses because houses to houses is
apples to oranges..............

C'mon, Dee - there has to be *some* sort of comparison that can be
made! If my comments about people paying 50 percent or more of their
take home pay to put a roof over their head compared to 14 percent way
back when are irrelevant, and if people doing 30 year mortgages vs 10 or
15 year mortgages are irrelevant, than I guess you are saying that
buying a house in 1950 is the exact equivalent of buying one in 2003?


......but it isn't because it's an apples to oranges comparison?

- Mike KB3EIA -


What I am saying is that it takes a lot more detailed analysis before you
can make a legitimate comparison. It's not as different as a surface
analysis may lead people to believe. People are choosing the 30 year
mortgage. The mortgage companies went this route not to make it easier to
buy a house but to make more money off that loan. By the way, no mortgage
company that I've had contact with would ever allow the payment + insurance
+ taxes to be as high as 50%. They would not approve the loan. Today's
starter house has airconditioning. The 1950s starter house did not. But
today's consumer has chosen the more expensive version of the product and
very, very few will buy a house without it so now it's not comparable
without doing a whole lot deeper analysis. Somehow you've got to add an
allowance for air conditioning to the older house.

Another example, take the cost to drive drive. Cost of gasoline is not the
only element to consider. You must factor in the fact that cars now last
longer not just how far the price has risen. You must also factor in that
the average car today gets far better mileage than the average car then.
You need to somehow factor in the fact that you can't even buy a stripped
down car now although they were the norm in the 1950s. People became more
and more reluctant to buy them and the makers responded. The market (i.e.
consumer) has chosen to have an inherently more expensive vehicle.

Simplistic analyses won't do it.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Dee D. Flint wrote:

"Ryan, KC8PMX" wrote in message
...

Also, get it out of your head that most of what I have been responding to

in

this is directly an example of what I am dealing with personally as your
attacks indicate, but observations of what is going on around here.



Never meant to imply that I thought it was something you were dealing with.
If I did so that was an accident. My point, which I didn't make well
apparently, is that it isn't going to do the people you talk about any good
to try to control wages and prices and force the economy. It's got to
correct itself and people have got to take what steps they need to so they
can continue to be productively employed. Well meaning people who try to
control national and international economics cannot change it.

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.


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.

- Mike KB3EIA -

"N2EY" wrote in message
om...
And there are so many variables and unknowns! For example, look at the
tax situation. There's federal income tax - and social security tax,
and medicare tax, and state income tax in some places, and local wage
taxes, and sales taxes...And the deduction/withholding rules change so
that what used to be not much of a burden on the average person is now
a big chunk out of the paycheck.


And this is the real killer. When the Federal Income tax was first
initiated, the average person's tax rate was only 3%. The average RATE is
now much higher. So the Feds are getting a bigger percentage of an inflated
wage. So the tax income rises at a rate greater than wages and inflaction.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

"Dennis Ferguson" wrote in message
...
Ryan, KC8PMX wrote:
Around here in this county I live in, home ownership is next to
impossible,
except for spending at least $75,000 or better. 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. 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.

Adjusted for inflation, that's far LESS than I paid for a comparable house
outside of Seattle in 1974 except that it only had a standard size lot not
anything as luxurious as a half an acre.

So 1973/1974:
Engineers fresh out of college starting wage approximately $10,000
House cost approximately $35,000 in Seattle.

Now in 2003:
Engineers fresh out of college starting wage approximately $45,000
House quoted above comparable to the one in Seattle costing $75,000

Wages went up 4.5 times and comparable house just over twice as expensives.
Hmm yup houses cost more today relatively speaking.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

"KØHB" wrote in message
k.net...


"Brian" wrote

They must be buying immodestly priced houses, then, because there are
more homeowners than ever before.


As a percentage of the population there are less homeowners than ever
before, and the percentage is trending downward even in this time of
unusually low mortgage interest rates.

de Hans, K0HB

The situation will be self correcting just as in the past. Housing prices
will fall to where more people can afford them and buy them.

Another factor affecting home ownership is that there are today a larger
percentage of people who choose not to own a home for various reasons. If
you can't keep it for several years, you will probably lose money. Seven
years ago, I lost my job in Illinois and had to sell my house at a net loss
since I needed what equity I could get to move to the next job. I'd only
had it a couple of years and the value of the house had not had time to
increase enough to cover the realtor's fee. So although I could have bought
a house when I moved to South Dakota, I chose not to. There was
insufficient information for me to estimate how long I would be there. It
turned out to be a good decision because three years later I moved to
Michigan.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

"Ryan, KC8PMX" wrote in message ...
Around here in this county I live in, home ownership is next to impossible,
except for spending at least $75,000 or better. 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. 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.

Ryan

Ryan, I went to QRZ and looked up your address, so you get one more
hit at QRZ.com. Apparently you're betw the Baycityrollers and
Saginaw.

Where I live, a 75K home is called a crack-house and a public
nuisance.

Location(cubed).

If you have housing available at 75K, and it is suitable to your
desires, and you have a steady job, go see your mortgage lender today!

Try to locate in a non-restricted neighborhood so that you can play
radio.

Brian

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/

"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