"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

"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

"Dee D. Flint" wrote:

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")? (snip)


It shouldn't be that difficult to figure out, Dee. People do it all the
time - talk to friends or sposes about events half way around the world that
has no direct bearing on any of them, talk about criminal trials when they
have influence whatsoever on that trial, talk about what they might do if
they had a million dollars, talk about the economy when they have no real
intent at the moment to do anything about it, and so on. It's simply
conversation. Few are ever 100 percent right or wrong in these discussions.
Instead, they hear different perspectives, re-enforce some views, change
other views, and hopefully walk away slightly entertained by the experience.


(snip) 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.


I wish there was someone like that in this newsroup. I'm sure we could all
give him or her an earful. However, after six or seven years in this
newsgroup, I haven't seen even a hint of such a person. As for the regular
newsgroup participants (including the guesstimated lurkers), we're not
really large enough in numbers to impact even a small town's elections (much
less impact national issues).


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
ink.net...
"Dee D. Flint" wrote:
(snip) 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.


I wish there was someone like that in this newsroup.

I can initiate change, but don't expect me to put my money into your
project. Pony up, and I'll see what I can do.

Like the ARRL, I work on a sliding scale: The more money you send, the
better results you can expect.

Charles Brabham, N5PVL

"charlesb" wrote:

I can initiate change, but don't expect me to put
my money into your project. Pony up, and I'll see
what I can do.

Like the ARRL, I work on a sliding scale: The more
money you send, the better results you can expect.


LOL. I just made the car payment. How much change can I get for the twenty
bucks remaining? Twenty-five cents in change?


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

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

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

I think what Jim was trying to say, that if a meal at Ma's diner averages
say for instance $5.50, (and a good meal too) and the corporate conglomerate
Taco Heaven is around $4.50 for instance, in some cases it is worthwhile
supporting the locally owned, Ma's place versus some criminally corporate
organization like Taco Heaven. Support the local business before supporting
the corporate ones.....

And if you find out that all the corporate ones have squeezed out the family
and/or locally owned ones, then what ever you have left is your own fault if
you didn't support the local ones.

Maybe I am wrong, but that's what I got out of Jim's message, and might not
have explained it the best. Myself? I believe in supporting the local
businessperson whenever and where ever I can FIRST, then supporting the
corporations when a locally owned option is not available. Granted there are
some exceptions to the rule, as for instance, gasoline. At least I research
to find out which ones are locally owned/franchised as opposed to true
corporately owned gas stations.


Screw Corporate Amerika! (before they screw you)



--
Ryan KC8PMX

"All of us could take a lesson from the weather. It pays no
attention to criticism."

Exactly what I meant. 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. 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.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

In article , "Ryan, KC8PMX"
writes:

I think what Jim was trying to say, that if a meal at Ma's diner averages
say for instance $5.50, (and a good meal too) and the corporate conglomerate
Taco Heaven is around $4.50 for instance, in some cases it is worthwhile
supporting the locally owned, Ma's place versus some criminally corporate
organization like Taco Heaven. Support the local business before supporting
the corporate ones.....

That's part of it. But the main point is that we *do* have choices, and if we
choose TH over Ma's enough times, TH will survive and Ma's won't. And we
shouldn't gripe if that happens and we're the cause.

And if you find out that all the corporate ones have squeezed out the family
and/or locally owned ones, then what ever you have left is your own fault if
you didn't support the local ones.

Exactly.

Maybe I am wrong, but that's what I got out of Jim's message, and might not
have explained it the best. Myself? I believe in supporting the local
businessperson whenever and where ever I can FIRST, then supporting the
corporations when a locally owned option is not available. Granted there are
some exceptions to the rule, as for instance, gasoline. At least I research
to find out which ones are locally owned/franchised as opposed to true
corporately owned gas stations.


Screw Corporate Amerika! (before they screw you)

Not about "screwing" anybody - just about making informed buying choices.

73 de Jim, N2EY

"Ryan, KC8PMX" wrote

Screw Corporate Amerika! (before they screw you)

EXACTLY!!!!!! You've got it all figured out for sure!

Who the hell do General Motors and Ford and Mercedes think they are
anyhow --- we used to have hundreds of different auto manufacturers? Let's
open a blacksmith shop in our village and build our own cars, like our
grandfathers did! And, yeah, quit buying computers from Dell and
Gateway --- we have sand in our neighborhood --- we can make our own silicon
chips just as well as Intel does! Dole pineapples --- who needs them
anyhow, I bet we can grow perfectly good pineapples here in Minnesota. Who
needs all this corporate crap anyhow?

73, de Hans, K0HB