"blake murphy" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 31 May 2009 22:09:38 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>
>> "blake murphy" > wrote in message
>>>>
>>>> But that's part of it, George. If a person's 'set point' has been
>>>> reached at $4.99 for a half gallon of whatever and they won't pay more
>>>> than that, they can still have the same *satisfaction-by-food* with a
>>>> little bit less and still not pay more than $4.99. Now, at what point
>>>> does such a person feel the rip-off? I don't know. And there must be
>>>> more of 'them' than you because the manufacturers get by with it.
>>>>
>>>
>>> i think you can be pretty certain that they have researched these issues
>>> and have chosen the alternative that makes them the most money. these
>>> things are not left to chance.
>>>
>>> but it is possible they researched it 20 years ago and never looked at
>>> it
>>> again, though.
>>>
>>> your pal,
>>> blake
>>
>> The half gallon worked for the past 60 years that I'm aware of. I also
>> recall the price less than a dollar too. Once you start reducing the
>> package size, where do you stop? 1.5 quarts? 1 quart? pint? ounce? It
>> is
>> going to be tough going back unless they come out with a new "value pack"
>> with a full half gallon.
>>
>> Same tactic applies to taxes. The various governments keep raising the
>> percentage as they increase spending. At some point the tax rate will be
>> 110%. Governments have to stop spending in tough times, not increasing
>> rates.
>
> stopping government spending in a recession is a very foolish idea.
>
>
Only a foolish idea for those fools who live in 'debt'... the dirtiest four
letter word, because those in debt **** all the rest of us too... and there
is no such thing as accidental debt, debt is always purposeful.