blake murphy wrote:

> in the circulars i see (md), usually some items are marked 'must buy
> ten' or whatever. the rest are the price divided by ten, and rounded
> up.
>
> your pal,
> blake

In my town one can get the sale price even if only buying one item. Of
course this isn't advertised but it has always been the case.

dull knife wrote:
>

<snippage>

> I'm single and always have been, so I see the same basket of food costs
> 5-times what it did when I was in college. My concept of value is
> constantly being challenged, so I just ignore prices these days if only
> to prevent insanity.

The price may be 5X what it cost in your college days, but I expect your
income is also at least 5X what it was in that time frame. The numerical
prices of most things go up a lot faster than the true cost of the item
in terms of work hours required to earn the income to purchase the item.

Janet Baraclough > wrote:
>>
> � Sheldon, it's sweet and almost flattering the way you read and learn
> from my posts here, but regurgitating �my words of wisdom three days
> later as your own ideas just makes you look like teacher's rather dim
> pet. What you posted above, is a rehash of what I wrote on April 9th in
> the thread called "saving money while eating well". You can still catch
> it in google. But here it is anyway, just to remind you that
> plagiarising makes Sheldon look dim and lazy/


I don't plagiarise anyone's posts, never have, that's not my style...
I do just fine penning my own. I've never read your post, in fact I
didn't read it now, and never intend to. I hope you're not offended
but I don't look to read your posts, in fact I typically never read
any posts originating from the UK, they've nothing worthwhile
concerning food/cooking,.. I ain't interested in all the ways to build
cucumber sandwiches and how to ruin beef. And I detest tea (pond
water), so for all I care you can shove high tea up your bloody low
slung fat arse.

On Apr 12, 1:39�pm, sf <.> wrote:
> On Sat, 12 Apr 2008 09:01:50 -0700 (PDT), Sheldon >
> wrote:
>
> >once picked citrus loses half it's Vitamin C within 24
> >hours (quicker if not refrigerated, as in most stores), and it can be
> >weeks from harvest until you buy it at a market. � So unless you are
> >fortunate to have your own tree you are much better off buying citrus
> >juice... with so called fresh citrus from the market essentially all
> >the nutrition you get is sugar.
>
> Tell that to all the sailors who prevented scurvy by eating citrus at
> sea. �http://www.mothernature.com/Library/...oks/10/104.cfm

They didn't prevent scurvy, most of those stories are myth... by
eating old citrus most contracted scurvy anyway... and many other
diseases due to lack of proper nutition (beri beri another), people
just didn't eat very nutritious diets back then, sailers or otherwise.

The body does a fine job of storing Vitamin C so only a small amount
ingested now and again is enough to replenish the supply. Those who
were generally healthy survived regardless.

Nowadays people in the US can live quite well if they never ingest any
citrus whatsoever, the American diet is rife with many other foods
containing Vitamin C... most everywhere one looks foods are fortified,
especially with Vitamin C... I wouldn't be surprised if Twinkies don't
contain six times the recommended allotment of Vitamin C. In the US
today it's more likely that there are more folks who overdose on
Vitamin C than all the sailers over the last 500 years who died of
scurvy.

There are no accurate records from back then indicating from what
people died... there were no death certificates, heck, there were no
birth certificates.

Sheldon wrote:

>
> I wouldn't pay $5 for any cantaloupe either unless it has a nipple.

Pathetic.

-dk

In article >,
says...
>
>
> > James Silverton wrote:
> >
> I saw some large navel
> > > oranges marked "10 for....." That looked interesting until I saw
> > > it was "10 for $10" or a dollar each. Don't people do the simple
> > > arithmetic.
>
> Sadly. huge numbers of people today are incapable of the most basic
> mental arithmetic. The best they can do is poke a finger at a button.
> Even though their calculator will tell them what is 10 percent of X,
> they are no wiser because they literally don't comprehend the meaning
> of words such as "percent", "division" " one tenth", etc.
>
> IOW, when they see "10 for 10 dollars", many customers DON'T know that
> means, a dollar each, and smkts know it.
>
> Janet
>

Yes I've noticed that too. I can do flash math even when I'm shopping I
know what my total will be pretty much to the dollar level. I use
rounding in that process and it serves me well.

I do know how to calculate the unit vs. item pricing. It's funny,
someone asked me why I was studying something on a shelf and I explained
the unit pricing made the larger size more economical than the smaller
size. It was like a lightbuld went off over someones head.

T wrote:
> In article >,
> says...
>>
>>
>>> James Silverton wrote:
>>>
>> I saw some large navel
>>>> oranges marked "10 for....." That looked interesting until I saw
>>>> it was "10 for $10" or a dollar each. Don't people do the simple
>>>> arithmetic.
>>
>> Sadly. huge numbers of people today are incapable of the most
>> basic mental arithmetic. The best they can do is poke a finger at a
>> button. Even though their calculator will tell them what is 10
>> percent of X, they are no wiser because they literally don't
>> comprehend the meaning of words such as "percent", "division" " one
>> tenth", etc.
>>
>> IOW, when they see "10 for 10 dollars", many customers DON'T know
>> that means, a dollar each, and smkts know it.
>>
>> Janet
>>
>
> Yes I've noticed that too. I can do flash math even when I'm shopping
> I know what my total will be pretty much to the dollar level. I use
> rounding in that process and it serves me well.
>
> I do know how to calculate the unit vs. item pricing. It's funny,
> someone asked me why I was studying something on a shelf and I
> explained the unit pricing made the larger size more economical than
> the smaller size. It was like a lightbuld went off over someones head.
>
Yep, people will look at you funny if you don't automatically grab the
smaller jar/box/container just because it has a big SALE sticker. Many
times the larger pkg. is the better deal. Of course, that's also if it's
something you'd normally purchase or have a need for.

Jill

On Sun, 13 Apr 2008 08:53:53 -0400, "jmcquown" >
wrote:

> Many times the larger pkg. is the better deal.

but don't count on it as a hard and fast rule. Sometimes it's not.


--
See return address to reply by email
remove the smile first

On Sat, 12 Apr 2008 10:02:12 -0700, "gunner" >
wrote:

>
>"Pete C." > wrote in message
t...
>>
>> notbob wrote:
>>>
>>> On 2008-04-12, Pete C. > wrote:
>>>
>>> >> >we need socialized health care because only 90% of our population has
>>> >> >health insurance.
>>>
>>> > I'm a trained professional asshole thank you, and that is far better
>>> > than being an ignorant twit.
>>>
>>> I hope you didn't pay for that training. If you did, you got screwed, as
>>> you're only a half-assedhole, at best. If you truly believe 90% of the
>>> US
>>> population has health insurance, you're either an incredibly naive or
>>> really
>>> dumb half-assedhole.
>>>
>>> nb
>>
>> Sorry, I was wrong, it's only 83.2% that have health insurance
>> (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/hinsure.htm). Yep, with only 83.2%
>> covered, we certainly need to completely rip up the whole system and
>> start over with a socialist model that has been proven to not live up to
>> they hype of it's promoters.
>
>Ya gotta read the fine print:
>
>NOTES: A person was defined as uninsured if he or she did not have any
>private health insurance, Medicare, Medicaid, State Children's Health
>Insurance Program (SCHIP), state-sponsored or other government-sponsored
>health plan, or military plan at the time of the interview. A person was
>also defined as uninsured if he or she had only Indian Health Service
>coverage or had only a private plan that paid for one type of service such
>as accidents or dental care.
>

not to mention the numbers of insured persons who are insured but lose
their houses anyway because their insurance weasels out of paying for
treatment. oh well!

your pal,
blake

On Sat, 12 Apr 2008 21:01:45 -0400, DK > wrote:

>Sheldon wrote:
>
>>
>> I wouldn't pay $5 for any cantaloupe either unless it has a nipple.
>
>Pathetic.
>
>-dk

i wonder where sheldon buys his dismembered breasts?

your pal,
blake

In article >,
T > wrote:

> someone asked me why I was studying something on a shelf and I explained
> the unit pricing made the larger size more economical than the smaller
> size. It was like a lightbuld went off over someones head.

I like it when the smaller size is more economical than the larger size.
It happens.
--
-Barb, Mother Superior, HOSSSPoJ
http://www.caringbridge.org/visit/amytaylor
She's had good news! Hurrah!

On Sat, 12 Apr 2008 16:34:08 GMT, "Pete C." >
wrote:

>
>notbob wrote:
>>
>> On 2008-04-12, Pete C. > wrote:
>>
>> >> >we need socialized health care because only 90% of our population has
>> >> >health insurance.
>>
>> > I'm a trained professional asshole thank you, and that is far better
>> > than being an ignorant twit.
>>
>> I hope you didn't pay for that training. If you did, you got screwed, as
>> you're only a half-assedhole, at best. If you truly believe 90% of the US
>> population has health insurance, you're either an incredibly naive or really
>> dumb half-assedhole.
>>
>> nb
>
>Sorry, I was wrong, it's only 83.2% that have health insurance
>(http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/hinsure.htm). Yep, with only 83.2%
>covered, we certainly need to completely rip up the whole system and
>start over with a socialist model that has been proven to not live up to
>they hype of it's promoters.

ah, 'socialist system,' the true mark of right-wing bullshit. the
u.s. spends much more per capital (including the uninsured) than any
other country, by a large margin:

(2003 figures)

United States 5,711

United Kingdom 2,317

Canada 2,998

France 3,048

....and let's not forget those socialists in

Denmark 2,743

Switzerland 3,847

<http://www.kff.org/insurance/snapshot/chcm010307oth.cfm>

yet health outcomes are not necessarily better, or even as good:

Ranking nations' healthca US isn't No. 1

By Alexandra Marks | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor

NEW YORK – Americans spend twice as much on healthcare as other
countries, but it turns out that they're not getting twice the quality
for the price when they go to the doctor or hospital.

In the first international comparison of healthcare quality,
researchers found that of the five countries studied, none is
consistently the best or the worst. For instance, Australia had the
best breast-cancer screening, but the worst survival rates for
childhood leukemia. This was best in Canada, but that country had the
worst heart-attack survival rates. And while the United States led the
way in five-year survival rates from breast cancer, it was the worst
for kidney transplants.

The conclusion: Each country has something to learn from the others.

[...]

But researchers concluded that it was the Americans who should take
particular note of the findings.

"The US should be particularly concerned about these findings," says
Gerard Anderson, director of the Bloomberg School of Public Health at
Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore. "If I'm spending twice as much,
I'd expect to have the better outcomes."

But it turns out, the US was in the middle of the pack for the
majority of health issues that were compared.

<http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0505/p02s01-uspo.html>

comment on the study, from *wikipedia*:

International comparisons of health care quality are difficult and
have yielded mixed results. For example, an international comparison
of health systems in six countries by the Commonwealth Fund ranked the
UK's publicly funded system first overall and first in quality of
care. Systems in the United States and Canada tied for the lowest
overall ranking and toward the bottom for quality of care.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Publicly-funded_health_care>

as noted above, the u.s. spends *more than twice as much* than the
u.k.

life expectancy vs. health spending (graph):

<http://ucatlas.ucsc.edu/spend.php>

....so, with all due disrespect, you are full of shit. but, by all
means, enjoy the kool-aid.

your pal,
blake

Melba's Jammin' wrote:
> In article >,
> T > wrote:
>
>> someone asked me why I was studying something on a shelf and I
>> explained the unit pricing made the larger size more economical than
>> the smaller size. It was like a lightbuld went off over someones
>> head.
>
> I like it when the smaller size is more economical than the larger
> size. It happens.

In the supermarkets I visit, the unit price is shown

On Sun, 13 Apr 2008 00:09:18 -0400, T >
wrote:
>
>I do know how to calculate the unit vs. item pricing. It's funny,
>someone asked me why I was studying something on a shelf and I explained
>the unit pricing made the larger size more economical than the smaller
>size. It was like a lightbuld went off over someones head.

the chain groceries in my area (md) are pretty good about providing
unit pricing (i.e. cost per ounce, etc.). i don't think it's mandated
by law, but they have found it to be good for customer relations.

but it does **** me off that a lot of specialty items (your
gourmet-type stuff) aren't marked on the shelf. there are two u.p.c.
scanners available to customers in the supermarket i shop at (giant),
one of which actually works, but it's a nuisance.

your pal,
blake

blake murphy wrote:
>
> On Sun, 13 Apr 2008 00:09:18 -0400, T >
> wrote:
> >
> >I do know how to calculate the unit vs. item pricing. It's funny,
> >someone asked me why I was studying something on a shelf and I explained
> >the unit pricing made the larger size more economical than the smaller
> >size. It was like a lightbuld went off over someones head.
>
> the chain groceries in my area (md) are pretty good about providing
> unit pricing (i.e. cost per ounce, etc.). i don't think it's mandated
> by law, but they have found it to be good for customer relations.
>
> but it does **** me off that a lot of specialty items (your
> gourmet-type stuff) aren't marked on the shelf. there are two u.p.c.
> scanners available to customers in the supermarket i shop at (giant),
> one of which actually works, but it's a nuisance.


We keep credit-card sized calculators in our wallets. No unit pricing on
the shelf isn't a problem; just calculate your own.

With various 'sale' or 'special' pricings, which aren't always reflected
in the unit pricing on the shelves, need that extra step to work out
what is actually cheaper on the day.

blake murphy wrote:
>
> On Sat, 12 Apr 2008 16:34:08 GMT, "Pete C." >
> wrote:
>
> >
> >notbob wrote:
> >>
> >> On 2008-04-12, Pete C. > wrote:
> >>
> >> >> >we need socialized health care because only 90% of our population has
> >> >> >health insurance.
> >>
> >> > I'm a trained professional asshole thank you, and that is far better
> >> > than being an ignorant twit.
> >>
> >> I hope you didn't pay for that training. If you did, you got screwed, as
> >> you're only a half-assedhole, at best. If you truly believe 90% of the US
> >> population has health insurance, you're either an incredibly naive or really
> >> dumb half-assedhole.
> >>
> >> nb
> >
> >Sorry, I was wrong, it's only 83.2% that have health insurance
> >(http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/hinsure.htm). Yep, with only 83.2%
> >covered, we certainly need to completely rip up the whole system and
> >start over with a socialist model that has been proven to not live up to
> >they hype of it's promoters.
>
> ah, 'socialist system,' the true mark of right-wing bullshit. the
> u.s. spends much more per capital (including the uninsured) than any
> other country, by a large margin:
>

<socialist propaganda deleted>

We spend more in the US for a number of reasons, including the fact that
we develop a substantial chunk of the new medical technology and drugs
that the rest of the world gets to utilize without the burden of having
to fund it's development.

We also spend more in the US because we let ambulance chasing lawyers
abuse the legal system and drive up costs for everyone else while they
make a huge profit.

The part about insurance companies weaseling out of paying valid claims
is indeed true, and the solution to that is to actually regulate the
insurance companies properly, not socializing health care, since the
same problems also exist in other areas (like Katrina claims) and again
proper regulation of insurance companies is the solution.

As for the quality and availability of care, while in theory at least
everyone in countries with socialized health care have access to decent
basic care, the accessibility of more advanced care has been shown to be
significantly below what it is in the US.

The bottom line is that the majority of the claimed problems with the US
health care system are the result of greedy lawyers and unregulated
corrupt insurance companies. Fix those underlying problems and the
claimed problems with health care will mysteriously go away.

Janet Baraclough wrote:
>
> The message >
> from T > contains these words:
>
> > In article >,
> > says...
> > >
> > >
> > > > James Silverton wrote:
> > > >
> > > I saw some large navel
> > > > > oranges marked "10 for....." That looked interesting until I saw
> > > > > it was "10 for $10" or a dollar each. Don't people do the simple
> > > > > arithmetic.
> > >
> > > Sadly. huge numbers of people today are incapable of the most basic
> > > mental arithmetic. The best they can do is poke a finger at a button.
> > > Even though their calculator will tell them what is 10 percent of X,
> > > they are no wiser because they literally don't comprehend the meaning
> > > of words such as "percent", "division" " one tenth", etc.
> > >
> > > IOW, when they see "10 for 10 dollars", many customers DON'T know that
> > > means, a dollar each, and smkts know it.
> > >
> > > Janet
> > >
>
> > Yes I've noticed that too. I can do flash math even when I'm shopping I
> > know what my total will be pretty much to the dollar level. I use
> > rounding in that process and it serves me well.
>
> > I do know how to calculate the unit vs. item pricing. It's funny,
> > someone asked me why I was studying something on a shelf and I explained
> > the unit pricing made the larger size more economical than the smaller
> > size. It was like a lightbuld went off over someones head.
>
> In the UK, smkts display the unit price; but I suspect very few
> customers understand that or bother to compare the unit costs ( loose
> carrots, versus the same carrots weighed and bagged)

Unit prices are displayed at all the supermarkets I've been to in the US
as well, at least for packaged goods. The bulk produce section typically
lacks the detailed signage of the regular packaged product sections.

Arri London wrote:
>
> blake murphy wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, 13 Apr 2008 00:09:18 -0400, T >
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >I do know how to calculate the unit vs. item pricing. It's funny,
> > >someone asked me why I was studying something on a shelf and I explained
> > >the unit pricing made the larger size more economical than the smaller
> > >size. It was like a lightbuld went off over someones head.
> >
> > the chain groceries in my area (md) are pretty good about providing
> > unit pricing (i.e. cost per ounce, etc.). i don't think it's mandated
> > by law, but they have found it to be good for customer relations.
> >
> > but it does **** me off that a lot of specialty items (your
> > gourmet-type stuff) aren't marked on the shelf. there are two u.p.c.
> > scanners available to customers in the supermarket i shop at (giant),
> > one of which actually works, but it's a nuisance.
>
> We keep credit-card sized calculators in our wallets. No unit pricing on
> the shelf isn't a problem; just calculate your own.
>
> With various 'sale' or 'special' pricings, which aren't always reflected
> in the unit pricing on the shelves, need that extra step to work out
> what is actually cheaper on the day.

The supermarkets I shop at normally have the unit price included on the
printed sale price stickers that are placed over the normal pricing
label for the duration of the sale. The sale sticker also normally
includes the start and end dates for the sale as well.

On Sun, 13 Apr 2008 16:24:08 +0100, Janet Baraclough
> wrote:

> In the UK, smkts display the unit price; but I suspect very few
>customers understand that or bother to compare the unit costs ( loose
>carrots, versus the same carrots weighed and bagged)

The people I know who buy "baby" carrots usually buy them for munching
raw or for dipping on a party platter. They *know* they are more
expensive and don't care, they simply don't want to prepare regular
carrots.

--
See return address to reply by email
remove the smile first

sf wrote:
> On Sun, 13 Apr 2008 08:53:53 -0400, "jmcquown" >
> wrote:
>
>> Many times the larger pkg. is the better deal.
>
> but don't count on it as a hard and fast rule. Sometimes it's not.
>
That's why we were talking about *calculating* the price.

sf wrote:
> On Sun, 13 Apr 2008 16:24:08 +0100, Janet Baraclough
> > wrote:
>
>> In the UK, smkts display the unit price; but I suspect very few
>> customers understand that or bother to compare the unit costs (
>> loose carrots, versus the same carrots weighed and bagged)
>
> The people I know who buy "baby" carrots usually buy them for munching
> raw or for dipping on a party platter. They *know* they are more
> expensive and don't care, they simply don't want to prepare regular
> carrots.
>
Guess they never snacked or entertained before some marketing genius thought
them up, then

Melba's Jammin' wrote:
> In article >,
> T > wrote:
>
>> someone asked me why I was studying something on a shelf and I
>> explained the unit pricing made the larger size more economical than
>> the smaller size. It was like a lightbuld went off over someones
>> head.
>
> I like it when the smaller size is more economical than the larger
> size. It happens.
>
Depends on the item, though. And the larger size often isn't that much
larger

On Sun, 13 Apr 2008 14:08:47 -0400, "jmcquown" >
wrote:

>sf wrote:
>> On Sun, 13 Apr 2008 16:24:08 +0100, Janet Baraclough
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> In the UK, smkts display the unit price; but I suspect very few
>>> customers understand that or bother to compare the unit costs (
>>> loose carrots, versus the same carrots weighed and bagged)
>>
>> The people I know who buy "baby" carrots usually buy them for munching
>> raw or for dipping on a party platter. They *know* they are more
>> expensive and don't care, they simply don't want to prepare regular
>> carrots.
>>
>Guess they never snacked or entertained before some marketing genius thought
>them up, then

Let's just say most of them are not from that "era" and the ones who
are have never claimed to be a "cook". They'd just as soon dine out
on yogurt.

--
See return address to reply by email
remove the smile first

In article >, Pete C.
> wrote:

> dull knife wrote:
> > ...the same basket of food costs
> > 5-times what it did when I was in college.
>
> The price may be 5X what it cost in your college days, but I expect your
> income is also at least 5X what it was in that time frame.

I'm still waiting for that to happen.

I see downward mobility all about me.

dull knife wrote:
>
> In article >, Pete C.
> > wrote:
>
> > dull knife wrote:
> > > ...the same basket of food costs
> > > 5-times what it did when I was in college.
> >
> > The price may be 5X what it cost in your college days, but I expect your
> > income is also at least 5X what it was in that time frame.
>
> I'm still waiting for that to happen.
>
> I see downward mobility all about me.

Sorry to hear that. I'm staying ahead of inflation, and most years I've
done a good deal better than just staying ahead of inflation.

blake murphy wrote:
> On Sat, 12 Apr 2008 21:01:45 -0400, DK > wrote:
>
>> Sheldon wrote:
>>
>>> I wouldn't pay $5 for any cantaloupe either unless it has a nipple.
>> Pathetic.
>>
>> -dk
>
> i wonder where sheldon buys his dismembered breasts?
>
> your pal,
> blake

Dumpster diving behind the local hospital?

-dk

In article >,
"jmcquown" > wrote:

> Melba's Jammin' wrote:
> > I like it when the smaller size is more economical than the larger
> > size. It happens.
> >
> Depends on the item, though. And the larger size often isn't that much
> larger

I like it when the smaller size is more economical than the larger size.
It often makes storage easier.
--
-Barb, Mother Superior, HOSSSPoJ
http://www.caringbridge.org/visit/amytaylor
She's had good news! Hurrah!

Melba's Jammin' wrote:
> In article >,
> "jmcquown" > wrote:
>
>> Melba's Jammin' wrote:
>>> I like it when the smaller size is more economical than the larger
>>> size. It happens.
>>>
>> Depends on the item, though. And the larger size often isn't that much
>> larger
>
> I like it when the smaller size is more economical than the larger size.
> It often makes storage easier.
Many years ago Miz Anne and I were in a local supermarket. Our kids
loved pork and beans so we were checking them out. Sign said "Bargain -
Ten cans for $1.00." I looked behind the front row of cans and the
individual cans were marked nine cents each. Reckon we bought ten of
them at nine cents. Cashier started to charge a dollar for the ten cans
and Miz Anne, thrifty shopper that she is, quickly pointed out that we
were going to pay nine cents per can. Cashier got so confused she had to
call the store manager, who explained about unit pricing. Ahh, for the
days when they actually put the price on the product instead of the shelf.

George

In article >,
"Pete C." > wrote:

> dull knife wrote:
> >
>
> <snippage>
>
> > I'm single and always have been, so I see the same basket of food costs
> > 5-times what it did when I was in college. My concept of value is
> > constantly being challenged, so I just ignore prices these days if only
> > to prevent insanity.
>
> The price may be 5X what it cost in your college days, but I expect your
> income is also at least 5X what it was in that time frame. The numerical
> prices of most things go up a lot faster than the true cost of the item
> in terms of work hours required to earn the income to purchase the item.

I make way more than 5X what I made in college, and I don't even have a
job!

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

On Sun, 13 Apr 2008 12:51:40 -0500, "Pete C." >
wrote:

>
>blake murphy wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, 12 Apr 2008 16:34:08 GMT, "Pete C." >
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >notbob wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On 2008-04-12, Pete C. > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >> >we need socialized health care because only 90% of our population has
>> >> >> >health insurance.
>> >>
>> >> > I'm a trained professional asshole thank you, and that is far better
>> >> > than being an ignorant twit.
>> >>
>> >> I hope you didn't pay for that training. If you did, you got screwed, as
>> >> you're only a half-assedhole, at best. If you truly believe 90% of the US
>> >> population has health insurance, you're either an incredibly naive or really
>> >> dumb half-assedhole.
>> >>
>> >> nb
>> >
>> >Sorry, I was wrong, it's only 83.2% that have health insurance
>> >(http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/hinsure.htm). Yep, with only 83.2%
>> >covered, we certainly need to completely rip up the whole system and
>> >start over with a socialist model that has been proven to not live up to
>> >they hype of it's promoters.
>>
>> ah, 'socialist system,' the true mark of right-wing bullshit. the
>> u.s. spends much more per capital (including the uninsured) than any
>> other country, by a large margin:
>>
>
><socialist propaganda deleted>
>

again with the socialists! i thought reality had a liberal bias, not
a socialistic one.

>We spend more in the US for a number of reasons, including the fact that
>we develop a substantial chunk of the new medical technology and drugs
>that the rest of the world gets to utilize without the burden of having
>to fund it's development.
>

yet the outcomes are not as good. it's good to know the u.s. has the
finest machines while some people die in the streets. u.s.a. number
one!

>We also spend more in the US because we let ambulance chasing lawyers
>abuse the legal system and drive up costs for everyone else while they
>make a huge profit.
>

oh noes!!!! the dreaded trail lawyers!! run for your lives!!!! the
right-wingers' favorite bogeymen.

maybe because insurance companies are in the loop? parties who have
nothing to do with health care?

>The part about insurance companies weaseling out of paying valid claims
>is indeed true, and the solution to that is to actually regulate the
>insurance companies properly, not socializing health care, since the
>same problems also exist in other areas (like Katrina claims) and again
>proper regulation of insurance companies is the solution.
>

why not have universal coverage and not spend *any* money on health
insurers, only on those who provide health care?

>As for the quality and availability of care, while in theory at least
>everyone in countries with socialized health care have access to decent
>basic care, the accessibility of more advanced care has been shown to be
>significantly below what it is in the US.
>

take a lot at the longevity charts. all that money doesn't buy you a
longer life.

>The bottom line is that the majority of the claimed problems with the US
>health care system are the result of greedy lawyers and unregulated
>corrupt insurance companies. Fix those underlying problems and the
>claimed problems with health care will mysteriously go away.

the 'underlying problems' of greedy lawyers and unregulated insurance
go away with universal heath care. but by all means, don't let the
facts (which you've conveniently deleted) get it the way of your
right-wing cant.

your pal,
blake

On Sun, 13 Apr 2008 11:38:08 -0600, Arri London >
wrote:

>
>
>blake murphy wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, 13 Apr 2008 00:09:18 -0400, T >
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >I do know how to calculate the unit vs. item pricing. It's funny,
>> >someone asked me why I was studying something on a shelf and I explained
>> >the unit pricing made the larger size more economical than the smaller
>> >size. It was like a lightbuld went off over someones head.
>>
>> the chain groceries in my area (md) are pretty good about providing
>> unit pricing (i.e. cost per ounce, etc.). i don't think it's mandated
>> by law, but they have found it to be good for customer relations.
>>
>> but it does **** me off that a lot of specialty items (your
>> gourmet-type stuff) aren't marked on the shelf. there are two u.p.c.
>> scanners available to customers in the supermarket i shop at (giant),
>> one of which actually works, but it's a nuisance.
>
>
>We keep credit-card sized calculators in our wallets. No unit pricing on
>the shelf isn't a problem; just calculate your own.
>
>With various 'sale' or 'special' pricings, which aren't always reflected
>in the unit pricing on the shelves, need that extra step to work out
>what is actually cheaper on the day.

at the store i shop, the unit pricing is provided both for the regular
price and the sale price. if they need to produce a new shelf tag
anyway, it's not much extra effort to provide both.

your pal,
blake

On Sun, 13 Apr 2008 15:07:53 -0500, "Pete C." >
wrote:

>
>dull knife wrote:
>>
>> In article >, Pete C.
>> > wrote:
>>
>> > dull knife wrote:
>> > > ...the same basket of food costs
>> > > 5-times what it did when I was in college.
>> >
>> > The price may be 5X what it cost in your college days, but I expect your
>> > income is also at least 5X what it was in that time frame.
>>
>> I'm still waiting for that to happen.
>>
>> I see downward mobility all about me.
>
>Sorry to hear that. I'm staying ahead of inflation, and most years I've
>done a good deal better than just staying ahead of inflation.

your experience is not typical:

Employee pay lowest share of GDP since 1947, when government started
tracking data. Corporate profits highest share of GDP since the 1960s.
August 28 2006: 11:32 AM EDT

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Most workers have not seen wage gains keep
pace with inflation during the current economic expansion, the first
time that has happened since World War II, according to a published
report.

The New York Times reports that the median hourly wage for American
workers has declined 2 percent since 2003, after factoring in
inflation. Median wages are the point at which equal numbers of
workers earn more and less.

The paper reports that while average family income, adjusted for
inflation, has continued to advance at a good clip, that has been
helped by gains by the top wage earners.

The paper says that about nine out of 10 workers have seen inflation
that has outpaced their pay increases over the last three years,
according to the Labor Department. That includes workers earning up to
$80,000 a year, a level that puts them in the 90th percentile of wage
earners.

The paper reports that with employment gains softening in recent
months, inflationary pressures stay high due to factors such as high
energy prices, so the gap between wages and prices could increase for
many workers.

<http://money.cnn.com/2006/08/28/news/economy/real_wages/index.htm>

your pal,
blake

blake murphy wrote:
>
> On Sun, 13 Apr 2008 12:51:40 -0500, "Pete C." >
> wrote:
>
> >
> >blake murphy wrote:
> >>
> >> On Sat, 12 Apr 2008 16:34:08 GMT, "Pete C." >
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >notbob wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> On 2008-04-12, Pete C. > wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >> >we need socialized health care because only 90% of our population has
> >> >> >> >health insurance.
> >> >>
> >> >> > I'm a trained professional asshole thank you, and that is far better
> >> >> > than being an ignorant twit.
> >> >>
> >> >> I hope you didn't pay for that training. If you did, you got screwed, as
> >> >> you're only a half-assedhole, at best. If you truly believe 90% of the US
> >> >> population has health insurance, you're either an incredibly naive or really
> >> >> dumb half-assedhole.
> >> >>
> >> >> nb
> >> >
> >> >Sorry, I was wrong, it's only 83.2% that have health insurance
> >> >(http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/hinsure.htm). Yep, with only 83.2%
> >> >covered, we certainly need to completely rip up the whole system and
> >> >start over with a socialist model that has been proven to not live up to
> >> >they hype of it's promoters.
> >>
> >> ah, 'socialist system,' the true mark of right-wing bullshit. the
> >> u.s. spends much more per capital (including the uninsured) than any
> >> other country, by a large margin:
> >>
> >
> ><socialist propaganda deleted>
> >
>
> again with the socialists! i thought reality had a liberal bias, not
> a socialistic one.

Reality doesn't have a bias.

>
> >We spend more in the US for a number of reasons, including the fact that
> >we develop a substantial chunk of the new medical technology and drugs
> >that the rest of the world gets to utilize without the burden of having
> >to fund it's development.
> >
>
> yet the outcomes are not as good. it's good to know the u.s. has the
> finest machines while some people die in the streets. u.s.a. number
> one!

Some people die in the streets everywhere, including in countries with
socialized health care and that will always be the case. 100% health
care perfection is simple not achievable.

>
> >We also spend more in the US because we let ambulance chasing lawyers
> >abuse the legal system and drive up costs for everyone else while they
> >make a huge profit.
> >
>
> oh noes!!!! the dreaded trail lawyers!! run for your lives!!!! the
> right-wingers' favorite bogeymen.

Ever spend a day with TV on in the background? Hear / see all the
pathetic scam ambulance chaser commercials? It's pretty disgusting isn't
it? It's also the cause of much of the increase in health care costs.

>
> maybe because insurance companies are in the loop? parties who have
> nothing to do with health care?

In their present form they certainly are part of the problem. Indeed the
same bureaucracy and corruption that has made the insurance companies
part of the problem when they are allowed unbridled control of health
care is entirely predictable if the government is given that control
instead.

>
> >The part about insurance companies weaseling out of paying valid claims
> >is indeed true, and the solution to that is to actually regulate the
> >insurance companies properly, not socializing health care, since the
> >same problems also exist in other areas (like Katrina claims) and again
> >proper regulation of insurance companies is the solution.
> >
>
> why not have universal coverage and not spend *any* money on health
> insurers, only on those who provide health care?

Because you will end up in exactly the same position we are in now where
health care funding and decisions are in the control of one monopoly
that has nothing to do with health care. The solution to the problem
does not lie in replacing one corrupt monopoly with another.

>
> >As for the quality and availability of care, while in theory at least
> >everyone in countries with socialized health care have access to decent
> >basic care, the accessibility of more advanced care has been shown to be
> >significantly below what it is in the US.
> >
>
> take a lot at the longevity charts. all that money doesn't buy you a
> longer life.

Who the hell cares about a longer life? For most people the last 5-10
years are crap anyway so there is nothing to be gained with an extra
year.

>
> >The bottom line is that the majority of the claimed problems with the US
> >health care system are the result of greedy lawyers and unregulated
> >corrupt insurance companies. Fix those underlying problems and the
> >claimed problems with health care will mysteriously go away.
>
> the 'underlying problems' of greedy lawyers and unregulated insurance
> go away with universal heath care.

Like hell they do. The greedy lawyers will just be suing the government
(more than they already do), and the corrupt insurance monopoly would
just be replaced with a corrupt government monopoly. Only a total
idealistic idiot would want the government that daily proves it is
incapable of managing national security, national infrastructure,
national energy, etc. in charge of their health care.

> but by all means, don't let the
> facts (which you've conveniently deleted) get it the way of your
> right-wing cant.

Nothing right wing here, just centrist clarity. Praying to a non
existent god won't cure you and neither will putting your care in the
hands of a bumbling government.

blake murphy wrote:
>
> On Sun, 13 Apr 2008 15:07:53 -0500, "Pete C." >
> wrote:
>
> >
> >dull knife wrote:
> >>
> >> In article >, Pete C.
> >> > wrote:
> >>
> >> > dull knife wrote:
> >> > > ...the same basket of food costs
> >> > > 5-times what it did when I was in college.
> >> >
> >> > The price may be 5X what it cost in your college days, but I expect your
> >> > income is also at least 5X what it was in that time frame.
> >>
> >> I'm still waiting for that to happen.
> >>
> >> I see downward mobility all about me.
> >
> >Sorry to hear that. I'm staying ahead of inflation, and most years I've
> >done a good deal better than just staying ahead of inflation.
>
> your experience is not typical:

Apparently not. I'm not aware of anyone in my relatively large and
diverse circle of friends and acquaintances who is falling behind, so
certainly there is a decent percentage of folks who are doing ok.

>
> Employee pay lowest share of GDP since 1947, when government started
> tracking data. Corporate profits highest share of GDP since the 1960s.
> August 28 2006: 11:32 AM EDT
>
> NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Most workers have not seen wage gains keep
> pace with inflation during the current economic expansion, the first
> time that has happened since World War II, according to a published
> report.
>
> The New York Times reports that the median hourly wage for American
> workers has declined 2 percent since 2003, after factoring in
> inflation. Median wages are the point at which equal numbers of
> workers earn more and less.
>
> The paper reports that while average family income, adjusted for
> inflation, has continued to advance at a good clip, that has been
> helped by gains by the top wage earners.
>
> The paper says that about nine out of 10 workers have seen inflation
> that has outpaced their pay increases over the last three years,
> according to the Labor Department. That includes workers earning up to
> $80,000 a year, a level that puts them in the 90th percentile of wage
> earners.
>
> The paper reports that with employment gains softening in recent
> months, inflationary pressures stay high due to factors such as high
> energy prices, so the gap between wages and prices could increase for
> many workers.
>
> <http://money.cnn.com/2006/08/28/news/economy/real_wages/index.htm>
>
> your pal,
> blake

Funny the topic of health care should show up in a thread about unit
costs.

Let's say the grocery industry operated like the healthcare industry.
Buy food insurance and then let the grocery store wrangle with the
insurance company over costs. People who can afford food insurance or
who have their employer pay for it are the lucky ones who can go into a
store anytime and load up as much food as they want. The unlucky ones
either go hungry or else go into the store only to find out that the
waiting lines are long and the store will not tell you the price of
anything, the shopper having to wait for a grocery pricing service in
another city to figure the charges ($20 for a quart of milk?) because
they don't have a food insurance company negotiating prices.

The problem is not the fault of the insurance industry or the grocery
store. The process outlined above is unalterably institutionalized in
industry and government, involves profit-making entities in a huge
industry, as well as the needs and expectations millions of employees
and many more millions of satisfied customers, not to mention the
industry being happy because they make fabulous profits.

The only unhappy ones are those who don't have food insurance. This
could be because of unemployment, sickness, disability, or diminished
circumstances of some kind. And the market dynamic for anything
involves an inherent pricing model that includes haves and have nots.
It's impossible for everyone to have something in such a case because
the price would move up to that which the market will bear, leaving
some without while others have it in abundance, which free markets are
prone to do.

Another dimension to this is the centralization of the grocery
industry. Grocery stores in small towns across the land would close
and giant stores would be built in more populated and prosperous areas.
When people get hungry, insurance or no, they would have to drive in
from rural areas to buy food. And, of course, they'd have to fill out
forms and take a chance that the food insurer will allow them to have
something. A person may only be able to get hamburger, but a "claim"
for t-bone is likely to be turned down.

In a case like this that involves an essential like food, the
government has two choices if it's going to avoid having the streets
littered with the corpses of the starved and starving. One would be to
force the grocery and grocery-insurance industries to feed those who
can't afford to feed themselves. The other would be for the government
to set up a separate food delivery system, saving the food and grocery
industries from losing money by having to feed people the industry
doesn't want to feed.

So how is healthcare any different? The only difference I can see is
food is a necessity and healthcare is a luxury. Besides, we would see
the starving and those who are sick (or will be sick because they have
no preventative care). The sick and disabled are usually either out
of sight or look healthy for the moment. People who are starving would
wander around moaning and groaning. People who are chronically or
terminally ill, or who have incipient healthcare-related issues,
typically accept their fate, don't complain, hide away, or die.

The answer to the healthcare problem is this. Instead of forcing
millions of uninsured on an industry that does not want them, set up a
separate healthcare system, a clinic-based system staffed by
paraprofessionals, with walk-in clinics set up in small towns and inner
cities where they are needed. This would not be a replica of the
private system. Instead the new public system would offer walk-in
service to anyone who needs it (even the insured), including mostly
basic services like prenatal care, treatment of minor illnesses, and
wellness programs.

In cases where more comprehensive care is required, the public system
could contract with the private system for it, offsetting some of the
costs with credits accumulated from serving those who have private
insurance but who find that a local clinic is either more convenient or
is necessary due to the circumstances (like an insured person who falls
ill near a clinic in a small town). Other credits could be generated
by trading university and government research for credits (research
which is now given away at a fraction of cost or potential).

Spinoff benefits? The incorporation of clinics with emergency
services. These clinics could perform a triage function and provide
care to some while sending others on to the private system. A new
paraprofessional class of healthcare worker, a training paradigm for
them, and storefronts leased in places where many are currently empty.
A healthier, happier population. And, here's a good one, private
insurance and healthcare providers will have to lower costs to a level
where they can keep some fraction of their customers from canceling
contracts in favor of relying entirely on the public system (let's see,
now, might that be competition?).

Unfortunately, all of the proposals on the table intended to benefit
the uninsured rely on the healthcare and insurance industries taking on
those who've been rejected by them by virtue of their being too poor,
having prior health issues, or living too far away to serve. Massive
rejection of claims will be the result. In any case, it will be
another case of corporate welfare. If welfare is going to be the case,
then it's infinitely better to offer it directly, not through
profit-making entities.

In article >,
says...
> >> ah, 'socialist system,' the true mark of right-wing bullshit. the
> >> u.s. spends much more per capital (including the uninsured) than any
> >> other country, by a large margin:
> >>
> >
> ><socialist propaganda deleted>
> >
>
> again with the socialists! i thought reality had a liberal bias, not
> a socialistic one.

I love the people who complain about socialism yet wait for the day
their SSI kicks in, or that their Medicare starts, etc.

Lets not talk about corporate socialism either.

dull knife wrote:
>
> In article >, Pete C.
> > wrote:
>
> > blake murphy wrote:
> > >
> > > On Sun, 13 Apr 2008 15:07:53 -0500, "Pete C." >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > >dull knife wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> In article >, Pete C.
> > > >> > wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> > dull knife wrote:
> > > >> > > ...the same basket of food costs
> > > >> > > 5-times what it did when I was in college.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > The price may be 5X what it cost in your college days, but I expect
> > > >> > your
> > > >> > income is also at least 5X what it was in that time frame.
> > > >>
> > > >> I'm still waiting for that to happen.
> > > >>
> > > >> I see downward mobility all about me.
> > > >
> > > >Sorry to hear that. I'm staying ahead of inflation, and most years I've
> > > >done a good deal better than just staying ahead of inflation.
> > >
> > > your experience is not typical:
> >
> > Apparently not. I'm not aware of anyone in my relatively large and
> > diverse circle of friends and acquaintances who is falling behind, so
> > certainly there is a decent percentage of folks who are doing ok.
>
> My impression is they'e trying to do as well as their parents and
> grandparents through the use of debt. Credit cards, auto loans, home
> loans (and the recent home-as-an-ATM-machine phenom.). The squeeze is
> on, though, and we're seeing some of the dimensions of the problem now
> as the credit/debt merry-go-round slows.

That does seem to be a big chunk of it.

>
> I don't have much. I never qualified for a home loan, have no credit
> cards (had one, cut it), drive older cars, and pay cash for everything.
> My auto insurer says my credit score is 826 (which gets me a discount).
> I have a positive net worth.

I have some non-mortgage debt, mostly due to one particular problem that
has passed. I could pay it off faster if I made some lifestyle cuts, but
without cuts I'm clearing it pretty rapidly so I'm not terribly
concerned. I drive an 11 year old truck and have a modest house in a
quiet neighborhood. No flashy car, no micro mansion, no sub-prime
mortgage. I'm also in an area largely unaffected by the housing bubble
since it wasn't over inflated to begin with.

>
> Everyone in my circle is in debt up to here. Rich or poor. The more
> well-to-do folks just have bigger piles of debt.

As they say, "The one who dies with the most debt wins".

>
> And, may I remind everyone who's a US citizen, your government now owes
> an average of $500,000 per household on your behalf. Factor that in
> and I'm underwater, too. But, you ask, don't we just owe that to
> ourselves? Sure, in the same way you add money to one pants pocket
> then take it out, leave an IOU in its place, then put the same money in
> another pocket. Now you have twice as much, right (money in one pocket
> and an IOU for the same amount in another)? Why not? When you buy
> something made in China, the Chinese buy treasuries with it, the money
> goes into the treasury, and the government sees it as revenue, ignoring
> the IOU they've issued. Apparently, governments can get away with
> this. Especially a government that issues the world's reserve
> currency, and what happens when the world gets tired of those IOU's,
> too, which depreciate every year about 15%?

I try to avoid buying too much from China, though I don't avoid them all
together. I buy US made items when possible and reasonably priced. I
frequently buy used items, often US made, so not a lot of my meager
funds head in that direction.

>
> The people you mention who are staying ahead are playing their own
> version of the same game. Look at the nice house in a nice
> neighborhood with 2 or 3 cars, nice clothes, and a chef's kitchen --
> it's likely to be someone with a pocket full of IOU's and some
> convoluted logic about a middle-class stetus (or upper-middle-class,
> yes, it must be "upper," now, mustn't it?). Well, either that or
> they're an "upper" manager, an inheritor, have a government job, or
> participate in the underground economy in some manner.

Some may be, though most are dual income with two reasonably high paying
jobs so that is probably not the case for most of them.

T wrote:
>
> In article >,
> says...
> > >> ah, 'socialist system,' the true mark of right-wing bullshit. the
> > >> u.s. spends much more per capital (including the uninsured) than any
> > >> other country, by a large margin:
> > >>
> > >
> > ><socialist propaganda deleted>
> > >
> >
> > again with the socialists! i thought reality had a liberal bias, not
> > a socialistic one.
>
> I love the people who complain about socialism yet wait for the day
> their SSI kicks in, or that their Medicare starts, etc.
>
> Lets not talk about corporate socialism either.

I'm pretty sure none of the younger folks have any expectation of ever
collecting anything of value from the SSI scam.

In article >, aux3.DOH.4
@snet.net says...
>
> T wrote:
> >
> > In article >,
> > says...
> > > >> ah, 'socialist system,' the true mark of right-wing bullshit. the
> > > >> u.s. spends much more per capital (including the uninsured) than any
> > > >> other country, by a large margin:
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > ><socialist propaganda deleted>
> > > >
> > >
> > > again with the socialists! i thought reality had a liberal bias, not
> > > a socialistic one.
> >
> > I love the people who complain about socialism yet wait for the day
> > their SSI kicks in, or that their Medicare starts, etc.
> >
> > Lets not talk about corporate socialism either.
>
> I'm pretty sure none of the younger folks have any expectation of ever
> collecting anything of value from the SSI scam.
>

The thing is that SSI would be solvent had congress not dipped into the
funds to pay for OTHER things, like wars, etc.

In article >, Pete C.
> wrote:

> dull knife wrote:
> >
> > My impression is they're trying to do as well as their parents and
> > grandparents through the use of debt. Credit cards, auto loans, home
> > loans (and the recent home-as-an-ATM-machine phenom.). The squeeze is
> > on, though, and we're seeing some of the dimensions of the problem now
> > as the credit/debt merry-go-round slows.
>
> That does seem to be a big chunk of it.

And now that corporations are trying to clean up their balance sheets
by eliminating debt, we risk a balance-sheet recession (and I say
recession to keep from being an alarmist). This is what Japan has been
going through for a decade and a half. The difference with the US,
though, is the mountains of gov't and private debt. Even worse is the
lack of savings.

People in Japan were savers, so they had a cushion to fall back on when
the "employment for life" phenomenon ended and the "balance sheet
recession" hit. The investment world seems to be split over whether
this will cause us to slip into deflation (bad), if the privately owned
federal reserve (not a gov't agency, but an instrument of the world's
biggest banks) will try to print us out of deflation by continuing to
flood the economy as it has been doing with a 15% annual increase in
the money supply (bad), or if we will somehow maneuver ourselves into a
depression with inflation (which is your basic banana republic).

My impression is we may be on the cusp of an unmanageable and
unimaginable situation. As an aside here, the agriculture secretary
did not disagree with the CNBC announcer when he said that hamburger
will be $7/lb. next year because 1/4 of the country's corn crop will be
diverted to the production of fuel. I guess that will be: "You can pay
me now, or you can pay me later." No, wait, this is more accurate:
"You can pay lots now, and you can pay lots more later."

How does this jibe with the American standard of living? Yikes.

> > Everyone in my circle is in debt up to here. Rich or poor. The more
> > well-to-do folks just have bigger piles of debt.

> As they say, "The one who dies with the most debt wins".

Someone with that strategy has no hope of leaving anything to their
heirs. Actually, there are two related strategies and a middle ground.
That is, either run up as much debt as you can and die in default, or
have no debt whatsoever so there's no risk of losing it all in the
meantime. Most people will steer the middle course and have a
manageable amount of debt they can take care of as long as there is no
shock (loss of a job, or a depression). Many people who have run
businesses and have failed at it found out that it takes very little
debt to go under because it's not how much debt you have but whether or
not you can pay for it. The day you can't pay is the day it drags you
down. Asset rich and cash short surprises a lot of people.

Here's what I learned. "In a bear market, the one who loses the least
wins."

> > And, may I remind everyone who's a US citizen, your government now owes
> > an average of $500,000 per household on your behalf. Factor that in
> > and I'm underwater, too. But, you ask, don't we just owe that to
> > ourselves? Sure, in the same way you add money to one pants pocket
> > then take it out, leave an IOU in its place, then put the same money in
> > another pocket. Now you have twice as much, right (money in one pocket
> > and an IOU for the same amount in another)? Why not? When you buy
> > something made in China, the Chinese buy treasuries with it, the money
> > goes into the treasury, and the government sees it as revenue, ignoring
> > the IOU they've issued. Apparently, governments can get away with
> > this. Especially a government that issues the world's reserve
> > currency, and what happens when the world gets tired of those IOU's,
> > too, which depreciate every year about 15%?
>
> I try to avoid buying too much from China, though I don't avoid them all
> together. I buy US made items when possible and reasonably priced. I
> frequently buy used items, often US made, so not a lot of my meager
> funds head in that direction.

I bought a stainless 20-piece tableware set yesterday. After looking
at all of the boxes of like stuff and seeing that they were all made in
China, I bought the one from... China. Give me another option. The
price was low and the quality was excellent. For the most part, I find
that goods made in China are excellent in the quality department.
However, just as I did yesterday, I always look for something made in
the USA first.

However, trade agreements and tax policies favor not only the shifting
of manufacturing o'seas, but MegaBoxStores bring those products back,
most people sending quite a bit of cash to foreign countries. I'm not
as worried about it if it's Canada or Mexico (even Ireland), but the
China thing is out of control and there's great potential for disaster
because of it. This game of musical chairs we're playing can't go on
forever. That would be the exchange of capital (which lasts forever
and compounds) for junk (most consumer products are junk since they
will be in a landfill or scrapyard in 10-15-20 years). This is the
worst bargain in history, the exchange of something that lasts forever
for junk. And the capital winds up in treasuries, the amount being
deposited in the treasury, then Congress and the Administration seeing
it as revenue.

> > The people you mention who are staying ahead are playing their own
> > version of the same game. Look at the nice house in a nice
> > neighborhood with 2 or 3 cars, nice clothes, and a chef's kitchen --
> > it's likely to be someone with a pocket full of IOU's and some
> > convoluted logic about a middle-class status (or upper-middle-class,
> > yes, it must be "upper," now, mustn't it?). Well, either that or
> > they're an "upper" manager, an inheritor, have a government job, or
> > participate in the underground economy in some manner.
>
> Some may be, though most are dual income with two reasonably high paying
> jobs so that is probably not the case for most of them.

And, when one of them loses a job or the two of them notice that,
despite having two jobs, their standard of living is in jeopardy. If
one of them loses a job, catastrophe.

I heard McCain of CNBC today. Turned the TV off when he said that we
will have a balanced budget in eight years if he's elected (where have
I heard that before?), and that he would do it with budget cuts (but
not in defense) and higher taxes. You know, a lot of people will fall
for that. I'm not enamored with the others, either, because they
espouse policies straight out of the twilight zone as well. What
they're not counting on is the absolutely catastrophic situation being
left behind by Frank Burns... er, sorry, did I say Frank Burns? Hard
to tell Frank and George apart.

$7-a-pound hamburger? If (when) that happens, it's going to be a major
topic of discussion in RFC. The cooking of food will no longer be
recreational. We will have to rename the group to
rec.food.whatsupwiththeseridiculousprices. Or
alt.cooking.istarvedoneofthekidstolowerourfoodbill s.

Oh, no, don't starve the kids. We already have 5,000 children starving
to death every day in the world. _Fillinyourdeityhere_ have mercy on
us!

Seriously!