we haven’t had no-fault insurance here for ~30 years. The state allowed it
again in April.
People are going nutz with the new low insurance rates. I upped the
coverage on the Supra and am paying half of what I was before.
However, I read the fine print. The policies are for 6 months instead of a
year, and the insurance companies can raise the rates at any time for just
about any reason. The History Channel was talking about Mass this
afternoon and said no discussion of Mass would be complete without
mentioning Boston drivers. In no other state is driving considered a
contact sport…
So, I figure in about 6 months all the Massholes around here will have at
least doubled their rates and will stop driving like a bunch of idiots…
On Fri, 04 Jul 2008 09:10:16 -0400, Hachiroku ???? <Tru…@e86.GTS>
wrote:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
>we haven’t had no-fault insurance here for ~30 years. The state allowed it
>again in April.
>People are going nutz with the new low insurance rates. I upped the
>coverage on the Supra and am paying half of what I was before.
>However, I read the fine print. The policies are for 6 months instead of a
>year, and the insurance companies can raise the rates at any time for just
>about any reason. The History Channel was talking about Mass this
>afternoon and said no discussion of Mass would be complete without
>mentioning Boston drivers. In no other state is driving considered a
>contact sport…
>So, I figure in about 6 months all the Massholes around here will have at
>least doubled their rates and will stop driving like a bunch of idiots…
The insurance companies in MI were against no fault. Now they like
it. Seems like their costs are much, much less. If the insurance
companies like it then you know damn well that it isn’t good for the
insurance buyer.
"Retired VIP" <jackj.extradots….@windstream.net> wrote in message
news:ouas64hovc8odc0904su7l0o9jeouh6jrd@4ax.com…
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> On Fri, 04 Jul 2008 09:10:16 -0400, Hachiroku ???? <Tru…@e86.GTS>
> wrote:
>>we haven’t had no-fault insurance here for ~30 years. The state allowed it
>>again in April.
>>People are going nutz with the new low insurance rates. I upped the
>>coverage on the Supra and am paying half of what I was before.
>>However, I read the fine print. The policies are for 6 months instead of a
>>year, and the insurance companies can raise the rates at any time for just
>>about any reason. The History Channel was talking about Mass this
>>afternoon and said no discussion of Mass would be complete without
>>mentioning Boston drivers. In no other state is driving considered a
>>contact sport…
>>So, I figure in about 6 months all the Massholes around here will have at
>>least doubled their rates and will stop driving like a bunch of idiots…
> The insurance companies in MI were against no fault. Now they like
> it. Seems like their costs are much, much less. If the insurance
> companies like it then you know damn well that it isn’t good for the
> insurance buyer.
Everywhere I encountered a change from regular insurance to no-fault, the
rates immediately doubled. The insurance companies sure as hell like
no-fault.
Charles the Curmudgeon
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
On Fri, 04 Jul 2008 13:58:42 +0000, Retired VIP wrote:
> On Fri, 04 Jul 2008 09:10:16 -0400, Hachiroku ???? <Tru…@e86.GTS>
> wrote:
>>we haven’t had no-fault insurance here for ~30 years. The state allowed
>>it again in April.
>>People are going nutz with the new low insurance rates. I upped the
>>coverage on the Supra and am paying half of what I was before.
>>However, I read the fine print. The policies are for 6 months instead of
>>a year, and the insurance companies can raise the rates at any time for
>>just about any reason. The History Channel was talking about Mass this
>>afternoon and said no discussion of Mass would be complete without
>>mentioning Boston drivers. In no other state is driving considered a
>>contact sport…
>>So, I figure in about 6 months all the Massholes around here will have
>>at least doubled their rates and will stop driving like a bunch of
>>idiots…
> The insurance companies in MI were against no fault. Now they like it.
> Seems like their costs are much, much less. If the insurance companies
> like it then you know damn well that it isn’t good for the insurance
> buyer.
Here they liked it because they could charge more up front. They always
wanted more, but the insurance commission would set the rates. At first
there were no penalties, but about 12 years ago they made it so any
driving offenses could jack up your rates by instituting a points system.
They could even jack up rates for driving with an expired inspection
sticker! (I know this one first hand…$250 for 6 years…)
While you’re at it, why don’t you stop breathing for about 6 months?
"Hachiroku ????" <Tru…@e86.GTS> wrote in message
news:pan.2008.07.04.13.10.15.569688@e86.GTS…
> we haven’t had no-fault insurance here for ~30 years. The state allowed it
> again in April.
> People are going nutz with the new low insurance rates. I upped the
> coverage on the Supra and am paying half of what I was before.
> However, I read the fine print. The policies are for 6 months instead of a
> year, and the insurance companies can raise the rates at any time for just
> about any reason.
This reminds me of the trend in food products, and one in particular, ice
cream.
It used to be that ice cream came in half-gallon tubs. Then the tubs were
reduced in size to 1.75 quarts. (but guess what! the price remained the
same!)
The latest change is that the tubs are now 1.5 quarts…
but everything’s still all right because the price is still the same!
Ain’t progress grand?
In the same vein, our inflation figures come out showing that prices have
increased only 1.3 % or so,
BUT they fail to measure the increases for two items….
FUEL AND FOOD. damn, but these economists are sharp as tacks! It’s
like the shell game is being played on a national level. Just how dumb do
they take us for?
"mack" <macke…@dslextreme.com> wrote in message
news:P5Fbk.21665$5y2.1242@fe113.usenetserver.com…
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> "Hachiroku ????" <Tru…@e86.GTS> wrote in message
> news:pan.2008.07.04.13.10.15.569688@e86.GTS…
>> we haven’t had no-fault insurance here for ~30 years. The state allowed
>> it
>> again in April.
>> People are going nutz with the new low insurance rates. I upped the
>> coverage on the Supra and am paying half of what I was before.
>> However, I read the fine print. The policies are for 6 months instead of
>> a
>> year, and the insurance companies can raise the rates at any time for
>> just
>> about any reason.
> This reminds me of the trend in food products, and one in particular, ice
> cream.
> It used to be that ice cream came in half-gallon tubs. Then the tubs were
> reduced in size to 1.75 quarts. (but guess what! the price remained the
> same!)
> The latest change is that the tubs are now 1.5 quarts…
> but everything’s still all right because the price is still the same!
> Ain’t progress grand?
> In the same vein, our inflation figures come out showing that prices have
> increased only 1.3 % or so,
> BUT they fail to measure the increases for two items….
> FUEL AND FOOD. damn, but these economists are sharp as tacks! It’s
> like the shell game is being played on a national level. Just how dumb
> do they take us for?
Most people get annoyed if their income doesn’t keep pace with inflation. If
food manufacturers don’t increase their prices, how are *their* employees
supposed to get the same income growth that *we* want? Are manufacturers
supposed to eat the increased cost of raw materials, rather than pass them
along to the consumer?
"Gary L. Burnore" <gburn…@databasix.com> wrote in message
news:g4o015$r1o$1@blackhelicopter.databasix.com…
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> On Sat, 5 Jul 2008 09:30:23 -0400, "JoeSpareBedroom"
> <dishborea…@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>"mack" <macke…@dslextreme.com> wrote in message
>>news:P5Fbk.21665$5y2.1242@fe113.usenetserver.com…
>>> "Hachiroku ????" <Tru…@e86.GTS> wrote in message
>>> news:pan.2008.07.04.13.10.15.569688@e86.GTS…
>>>> we haven’t had no-fault insurance here for ~30 years. The state allowed
>>>> it
>>>> again in April.
>>>> People are going nutz with the new low insurance rates. I upped the
>>>> coverage on the Supra and am paying half of what I was before.
>>>> However, I read the fine print. The policies are for 6 months instead
>>>> of
>>>> a
>>>> year, and the insurance companies can raise the rates at any time for
>>>> just
>>>> about any reason.
>>> This reminds me of the trend in food products, and one in particular,
>>> ice
>>> cream.
>>> It used to be that ice cream came in half-gallon tubs. Then the tubs
>>> were
>>> reduced in size to 1.75 quarts. (but guess what! the price remained the
>>> same!)
>>> The latest change is that the tubs are now 1.5 quarts…
>>> but everything’s still all right because the price is still the same!
>>> Ain’t progress grand?
>>> In the same vein, our inflation figures come out showing that prices
>>> have
>>> increased only 1.3 % or so,
>>> BUT they fail to measure the increases for two items….
>>> FUEL AND FOOD. damn, but these economists are sharp as tacks! It’s
>>> like the shell game is being played on a national level. Just how dumb
>>> do they take us for?
>>Most people get annoyed if their income doesn’t keep pace with inflation.
>>If
>>food manufacturers don’t increase their prices, how are *their* employees
>>supposed to get the same income growth that *we* want? Are manufacturers
>>supposed to eat the increased cost of raw materials, rather than pass them
>>along to the consumer?
> That’s usually how it works. But the pro-big-business whitehouse has
> ensured that it’s owners and shareholders who’ve profited. Employees
> are doing more work for the same amount of money and the same amount
> of money isn’t worth as much as it was. Thanks, Bush!
I’d like 5 minutes in a locked room with Bush as much as you would, but I’m
not clear on how he had anything to do with cost increases in the food
business, and I’m talking BEFORE the cost of transportation got out of hand,
which he *is* directly responsible for.
"Gary L. Burnore" <gburn…@databasix.com> wrote in message
news:g4o0vi$4u$1@blackhelicopter.databasix.com…
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> On Sat, 5 Jul 2008 10:32:16 -0400, "JoeSpareBedroom"
> <dishborea…@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>"Gary L. Burnore" <gburn…@databasix.com> wrote in message
>>news:g4o015$r1o$1@blackhelicopter.databasix.com…
>>> On Sat, 5 Jul 2008 09:30:23 -0400, "JoeSpareBedroom"
>>> <dishborea…@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>"mack" <macke…@dslextreme.com> wrote in message
>>>>news:P5Fbk.21665$5y2.1242@fe113.usenetserver.com…
>>>>> "Hachiroku ????" <Tru…@e86.GTS> wrote in message
>>>>> news:pan.2008.07.04.13.10.15.569688@e86.GTS…
>>>>>> we haven’t had no-fault insurance here for ~30 years. The state
>>>>>> allowed
>>>>>> it
>>>>>> again in April.
>>>>>> People are going nutz with the new low insurance rates. I upped the
>>>>>> coverage on the Supra and am paying half of what I was before.
>>>>>> However, I read the fine print. The policies are for 6 months instead
>>>>>> of
>>>>>> a
>>>>>> year, and the insurance companies can raise the rates at any time for
>>>>>> just
>>>>>> about any reason.
>>>>> This reminds me of the trend in food products, and one in particular,
>>>>> ice
>>>>> cream.
>>>>> It used to be that ice cream came in half-gallon tubs. Then the tubs
>>>>> were
>>>>> reduced in size to 1.75 quarts. (but guess what! the price remained
>>>>> the
>>>>> same!)
>>>>> The latest change is that the tubs are now 1.5 quarts…
>>>>> but everything’s still all right because the price is still the same!
>>>>> Ain’t progress grand?
>>>>> In the same vein, our inflation figures come out showing that prices
>>>>> have
>>>>> increased only 1.3 % or so,
>>>>> BUT they fail to measure the increases for two items….
>>>>> FUEL AND FOOD. damn, but these economists are sharp as tacks!
>>>>> It’s
>>>>> like the shell game is being played on a national level. Just how
>>>>> dumb
>>>>> do they take us for?
>>>>Most people get annoyed if their income doesn’t keep pace with
>>>>inflation.
>>>>If
>>>>food manufacturers don’t increase their prices, how are *their*
>>>>employees
>>>>supposed to get the same income growth that *we* want? Are manufacturers
>>>>supposed to eat the increased cost of raw materials, rather than pass
>>>>them
>>>>along to the consumer?
>>> That’s usually how it works. But the pro-big-business whitehouse has
>>> ensured that it’s owners and shareholders who’ve profited. Employees
>>> are doing more work for the same amount of money and the same amount
>>> of money isn’t worth as much as it was. Thanks, Bush!
>>I’d like 5 minutes in a locked room with Bush as much as you would, but
>>I’m
>>not clear on how he had anything to do with cost increases in the food
>>business, and I’m talking BEFORE the cost of transportation got out of
>>hand,
>>which he *is* directly responsible for.
> Not just the food business, every business. He and his repulsivacans
> fought a minimum wage increase as long as they could. Poor trade
> policies that support business and not employyes hurt too. Changes to
> the FLSA (2004?) meant business can exempt more people from overtime
> pay. Meaning they work more hours for less money.
> I’m sure there are more, but those are the first three I can think of.
Well, that’s part of it. But, keep in mind that Breyers passed along 7 price
increases between 1997 and 2002. I believe the package size decreases began
in 2003.
On Sat, 05 Jul 2008 00:01:32 -0400, JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
> While you’re at it, why don’t you stop breathing for about 6 months?
Right after you.
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
On Sat, 05 Jul 2008 00:08:24 -0700, mack wrote:
> "Hachiroku ????" <Tru…@e86.GTS> wrote in message
> news:pan.2008.07.04.13.10.15.569688@e86.GTS…
>> we haven’t had no-fault insurance here for ~30 years. The state allowed
>> it again in April.
>> People are going nutz with the new low insurance rates. I upped the
>> coverage on the Supra and am paying half of what I was before.
>> However, I read the fine print. The policies are for 6 months instead
>> of a year, and the insurance companies can raise the rates at any time
>> for just about any reason.
> This reminds me of the trend in food products, and one in particular,
> ice cream.
> It used to be that ice cream came in half-gallon tubs. Then the tubs
> were reduced in size to 1.75 quarts. (but guess what! the price remained
> the same!)
> The latest change is that the tubs are now 1.5 quarts… but
> everything’s still all right because the price is still the same! Ain’t
> progress grand?
> In the same vein, our inflation figures come out showing that prices
> have increased only 1.3 % or so,
> BUT they fail to measure the increases for two items…. FUEL AND FOOD.
> damn, but these economists are sharp as tacks! It’s like the shell
> game is being played on a national level. Just how dumb do they take
> us for?
I noticed that with coffee when I was in my 20′s. All of a sudden, a
pound wasn’t a pound any more, first it was 13 oz, then 11, etc. The
price (of the can) didn’t change, but the contents did.
Even so, I have full coverage on the Supra where I only had Limited
before, and it’s still costing me $700 less a year.
On Sat, 05 Jul 2008 08:06:06 -0400, Gary L. Burnore wrote:
>>FUEL AND FOOD. damn, but these economists are sharp as tacks! It’s
>>like the shell game is being played on a national level. Just how dumb
>>do they take us for?
> Republicans think all citizens are as dumb as other republicans.
Nah, we just think Democrats are as dumb as their ‘leaders’.
On Sat, 05 Jul 2008 10:39:55 -0400, Gary L. Burnore wrote:
>>I’d like 5 minutes in a locked room with Bush as much as you would, but
>>I’m not clear on how he had anything to do with cost increases in the
>>food business, and I’m talking BEFORE the cost of transportation got out
>>of hand, which he *is* directly responsible for.
> Not just the food business, every business. He and his repulsivacans
> fought a minimum wage increase as long as they could.
Of course he did. Higher wages mean higher prices, and since labor is
usually a business’ number one cost, they try to reduce that cost any way
possible. So, if you’re forced to pay higher wages, then you make up for
it by reducing the workforce, which, if you were paying attention, is
exactly what happened shortly after the wage increase.
But, thanks to Republicans ‘pro business’ stance, there was some room to
take up the slack, which is why unemployment is still near full-
employment levels.
Jeeze, take an Economics course, eh?
"dbu" <nos…@nospam.moc> wrote in message
news:nospam-A1AEC0.10392105072008@comcast.dca.giganews.com…
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> In article <PBLbk.21692$5y2.2…@fe113.usenetserver.com>,
> "JoeSpareBedroom" <dishborea…@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> "Gary L. Burnore" <gburn…@databasix.com> wrote in message
>> news:g4o015$r1o$1@blackhelicopter.databasix.com…
>> > On Sat, 5 Jul 2008 09:30:23 -0400, "JoeSpareBedroom"
>> > <dishborea…@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >>"mack" <macke…@dslextreme.com> wrote in message
>> >>news:P5Fbk.21665$5y2.1242@fe113.usenetserver.com…
>> >>> "Hachiroku ????" <Tru…@e86.GTS> wrote in message
>> >>> news:pan.2008.07.04.13.10.15.569688@e86.GTS…
>> >>>> we haven’t had no-fault insurance here for ~30 years. The state
>> >>>> allowed
>> >>>> it
>> >>>> again in April.
>> >>>> People are going nutz with the new low insurance rates. I upped the
>> >>>> coverage on the Supra and am paying half of what I was before.
>> >>>> However, I read the fine print. The policies are for 6 months
>> >>>> instead
>> >>>> of
>> >>>> a
>> >>>> year, and the insurance companies can raise the rates at any time
>> >>>> for
>> >>>> just
>> >>>> about any reason.
>> >>> This reminds me of the trend in food products, and one in particular,
>> >>> ice
>> >>> cream.
>> >>> It used to be that ice cream came in half-gallon tubs. Then the tubs
>> >>> were
>> >>> reduced in size to 1.75 quarts. (but guess what! the price remained
>> >>> the
>> >>> same!)
>> >>> The latest change is that the tubs are now 1.5 quarts…
>> >>> but everything’s still all right because the price is still the same!
>> >>> Ain’t progress grand?
>> >>> In the same vein, our inflation figures come out showing that prices
>> >>> have
>> >>> increased only 1.3 % or so,
>> >>> BUT they fail to measure the increases for two items….
>> >>> FUEL AND FOOD. damn, but these economists are sharp as tacks!
>> >>> It’s
>> >>> like the shell game is being played on a national level. Just how
>> >>> dumb
>> >>> do they take us for?
>> >>Most people get annoyed if their income doesn’t keep pace with
>> >>inflation.
>> >>If
>> >>food manufacturers don’t increase their prices, how are *their*
>> >>employees
>> >>supposed to get the same income growth that *we* want? Are
>> >>manufacturers
>> >>supposed to eat the increased cost of raw materials, rather than pass
>> >>them
>> >>along to the consumer?
>> > That’s usually how it works. But the pro-big-business whitehouse has
>> > ensured that it’s owners and shareholders who’ve profited. Employees
>> > are doing more work for the same amount of money and the same amount
>> > of money isn’t worth as much as it was. Thanks, Bush!
>> I’d like 5 minutes in a locked room with Bush as much as you would, but
>> I’m
>> not clear on how he had anything to do with cost increases in the food
>> business, and I’m talking BEFORE the cost of transportation got out of
>> hand,
>> which he *is* directly responsible for.
> How is Bush responsible "directly" for the cost of transportation that
> got out of hand?
A significant part of the price of oil is based on speculation. Almost every
article about oil price increases mentions speculative fears which drive up
the price, in the same way rumors of a bad earnings report can drive down
the price of a stock before the report is even published.
Other than the occasional hurricane in the Gulf, the majority of "fears"
have revolved around instability in the Middle East. Bush’s policies have
ramped up the instability. Even just his words create fears. His
sabre-rattling about Iran would be a perfect example. Mess with stability
and you are absolutely responsible for the resulting increases in the price
of oil.
On Sat, 5 Jul 2008 00:08:24 -0700, "mack" <macke…@dslextreme.com>
wrote:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
>"Hachiroku ????" <Tru…@e86.GTS> wrote in message
>news:pan.2008.07.04.13.10.15.569688@e86.GTS…
>> we haven’t had no-fault insurance here for ~30 years. The state allowed it
>> again in April.
>> People are going nutz with the new low insurance rates. I upped the
>> coverage on the Supra and am paying half of what I was before.
>> However, I read the fine print. The policies are for 6 months instead of a
>> year, and the insurance companies can raise the rates at any time for just
>> about any reason.
>This reminds me of the trend in food products, and one in particular, ice
>cream.
>It used to be that ice cream came in half-gallon tubs. Then the tubs were
>reduced in size to 1.75 quarts. (but guess what! the price remained the
>same!)
>The latest change is that the tubs are now 1.5 quarts…
>but everything’s still all right because the price is still the same!
>Ain’t progress grand?
>In the same vein, our inflation figures come out showing that prices have
>increased only 1.3 % or so,
>BUT they fail to measure the increases for two items….
>FUEL AND FOOD. damn, but these economists are sharp as tacks! It’s
>like the shell game is being played on a national level. Just how dumb do
>they take us for?
Pretty dumb I would say, you still buy ice cream don’t you? The
coffee roasters showed the way about 15 years ago when 48 oz cans of
ground coffee were reduced to 40 oz with no change in price. Ain’t
bean-counters the greatest of people?
Jack
On Sat, 5 Jul 2008 09:30:23 -0400, "JoeSpareBedroom"
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
<dishborea…@yahoo.com> wrote:
>"mack" <macke…@dslextreme.com> wrote in message
>news:P5Fbk.21665$5y2.1242@fe113.usenetserver.com…
>> "Hachiroku ????" <Tru…@e86.GTS> wrote in message
>> news:pan.2008.07.04.13.10.15.569688@e86.GTS…
>>> we haven’t had no-fault insurance here for ~30 years. The state allowed
>>> it
>>> again in April.
>>> People are going nutz with the new low insurance rates. I upped the
>>> coverage on the Supra and am paying half of what I was before.
>>> However, I read the fine print. The policies are for 6 months instead of
>>> a
>>> year, and the insurance companies can raise the rates at any time for
>>> just
>>> about any reason.
>> This reminds me of the trend in food products, and one in particular, ice
>> cream.
>> It used to be that ice cream came in half-gallon tubs. Then the tubs were
>> reduced in size to 1.75 quarts. (but guess what! the price remained the
>> same!)
>> The latest change is that the tubs are now 1.5 quarts…
>> but everything’s still all right because the price is still the same!
>> Ain’t progress grand?
>> In the same vein, our inflation figures come out showing that prices have
>> increased only 1.3 % or so,
>> BUT they fail to measure the increases for two items….
>> FUEL AND FOOD. damn, but these economists are sharp as tacks! It’s
>> like the shell game is being played on a national level. Just how dumb
>> do they take us for?
>Most people get annoyed if their income doesn’t keep pace with inflation. If
>food manufacturers don’t increase their prices, how are *their* employees
>supposed to get the same income growth that *we* want? Are manufacturers
>supposed to eat the increased cost of raw materials, rather than pass them
>along to the consumer?
You’re missing the point, nobody is saying that they can’t raise their
prices. What we’re saying is that we aren’t stupid, we know why a 3lb
can of coffee now weighs 2.5lb. Manufacturers shouldn’t think that,
just because people buy their product, that they’re customers are
dumb. Treat people with respect, raise the price of the product if
you need to. But don’t give less for the same money and think we
won’t notice it.
Jack
"Retired VIP" <jackj.extradots….@windstream.net> wrote in message
news:t6hv645tu0aqf9ncookbdj10hp8sgq8i7u@4ax.com…
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> On Sat, 5 Jul 2008 09:30:23 -0400, "JoeSpareBedroom"
> <dishborea…@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>"mack" <macke…@dslextreme.com> wrote in message
>>news:P5Fbk.21665$5y2.1242@fe113.usenetserver.com…
>>> "Hachiroku ????" <Tru…@e86.GTS> wrote in message
>>> news:pan.2008.07.04.13.10.15.569688@e86.GTS…
>>>> we haven’t had no-fault insurance here for ~30 years. The state allowed
>>>> it
>>>> again in April.
>>>> People are going nutz with the new low insurance rates. I upped the
>>>> coverage on the Supra and am paying half of what I was before.
>>>> However, I read the fine print. The policies are for 6 months instead
>>>> of
>>>> a
>>>> year, and the insurance companies can raise the rates at any time for
>>>> just
>>>> about any reason.
>>> This reminds me of the trend in food products, and one in particular,
>>> ice
>>> cream.
>>> It used to be that ice cream came in half-gallon tubs. Then the tubs
>>> were
>>> reduced in size to 1.75 quarts. (but guess what! the price remained the
>>> same!)
>>> The latest change is that the tubs are now 1.5 quarts…
>>> but everything’s still all right because the price is still the same!
>>> Ain’t progress grand?
>>> In the same vein, our inflation figures come out showing that prices
>>> have
>>> increased only 1.3 % or so,
>>> BUT they fail to measure the increases for two items….
>>> FUEL AND FOOD. damn, but these economists are sharp as tacks! It’s
>>> like the shell game is being played on a national level. Just how dumb
>>> do they take us for?
>>Most people get annoyed if their income doesn’t keep pace with inflation.
>>If
>>food manufacturers don’t increase their prices, how are *their* employees
>>supposed to get the same income growth that *we* want? Are manufacturers
>>supposed to eat the increased cost of raw materials, rather than pass them
>>along to the consumer?
> You’re missing the point, nobody is saying that they can’t raise their
> prices. What we’re saying is that we aren’t stupid, we know why a 3lb
> can of coffee now weighs 2.5lb. Manufacturers shouldn’t think that,
> just because people buy their product, that they’re customers are
> dumb. Treat people with respect, raise the price of the product if
> you need to. But don’t give less for the same money and think we
> won’t notice it.
> Jack
They don’t think you won’t notice it. Here’s what they **DO** know (using
Breyers original 1/2 gallon containers as our example): Ice cream is not a
staple food product, except for fatsos. It’s either an impulse purchase or
it’s bought for special occasions. They know at EXACTLY what price people
will take a pass on buying it if they feel they’ve already spent too much on
a given visit to the grocery store. Down goes the number of units sold.
So yes, they could’ve kept raising the price to the $4.00 range, but it
would’ve cut their volume. There’s a point where raising the price no longer
works, and customers are happier with (to pick a random number ) $3.25, even
if the package is smaller.
As far as anything sneaky going on, you may notice that the size is printed
right on the package.
On Sat, 05 Jul 2008 15:28:30 -0400, JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
>> You’re missing the point, nobody is saying that they can’t raise their
>> prices. What we’re saying is that we aren’t stupid, we know why a 3lb
>> can of coffee now weighs 2.5lb. Manufacturers shouldn’t think that,
>> just because people buy their product, that they’re customers are
>> dumb. Treat people with respect, raise the price of the product if
>> you need to. But don’t give less for the same money and think we
>> won’t notice it.
>> Jack
> They don’t think you won’t notice it.
Oh, yes they do. When the coffee producers started doing it in the late
80′s/early 90′s they were betting the populace wouldn’t notice, and even
left the cans the same size, just putting less product in them. They were
outted on NPR’s All Things Considered.
"Hachiroku ????" <Tru…@e86.GTS> wrote in message
news:pan.2008.07.05.19.49.22.332740@e86.GTS…
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> On Sat, 05 Jul 2008 15:28:30 -0400, JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
>>> You’re missing the point, nobody is saying that they can’t raise their
>>> prices. What we’re saying is that we aren’t stupid, we know why a 3lb
>>> can of coffee now weighs 2.5lb. Manufacturers shouldn’t think that,
>>> just because people buy their product, that they’re customers are
>>> dumb. Treat people with respect, raise the price of the product if
>>> you need to. But don’t give less for the same money and think we
>>> won’t notice it.
>>> Jack
>> They don’t think you won’t notice it.
> Oh, yes they do. When the coffee producers started doing it in the late
> 80′s/early 90′s they were betting the populace wouldn’t notice, and even
> left the cans the same size, just putting less product in them. They were
> outted on NPR’s All Things Considered.
And yet, the size was printed right on the containers, in full compliance
with Federal food labeling regulations.
On Sat, 05 Jul 2008 15:56:50 -0400, JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
>> Oh, yes they do. When the coffee producers started doing it in the late
>> 80′s/early 90′s they were betting the populace wouldn’t notice, and even
>> left the cans the same size, just putting less product in them. They were
>> outted on NPR’s All Things Considered.
> And yet, the size was printed right on the containers, in full compliance
> with Federal food labeling regulations.
Yes it was. But back then everyone understood a pound of coffee was a
pound of coffee.
They did it back when the price rose because of all the strife in
Columbia, and kept the price the same on the can.
"JoeSpareBedroom" <dishborea…@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:xXPbk.44229$Wb2.17151@fe107.usenetserver.com…
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> "Retired VIP" <jackj.extradots….@windstream.net> wrote in message
> news:t6hv645tu0aqf9ncookbdj10hp8sgq8i7u@4ax.com…
>> You’re missing the point, nobody is saying that they can’t raise their
>> prices. What we’re saying is that we aren’t stupid, we know why a 3lb
>> can of coffee now weighs 2.5lb. Manufacturers shouldn’t think that,
>> just because people buy their product, that they’re customers are
>> dumb. Treat people with respect, raise the price of the product if
>> you need to. But don’t give less for the same money and think we
>> won’t notice it.
>> Jack
> They don’t think you won’t notice it. Here’s what they **DO** know (using
> Breyers original 1/2 gallon containers as our example): Ice cream is not a
> staple food product, except for fatsos. It’s either an impulse purchase or
> it’s bought for special occasions.
Hey, watch it! Ice cream is a staple product in this house & I’m not fat!
So there! ;-P
Cathy
They know at EXACTLY what price people
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> will take a pass on buying it if they feel they’ve already spent too much
> on a given visit to the grocery store. Down goes the number of units sold.
> So yes, they could’ve kept raising the price to the $4.00 range, but it
> would’ve cut their volume. There’s a point where raising the price no
> longer works, and customers are happier with (to pick a random number )
> $3.25, even if the package is smaller.
> As far as anything sneaky going on, you may notice that the size is
> printed right on the package.
"dbu" <nos…@nospam.moc> wrote in message
news:nospam-38B6AC.15585005072008@comcast.dca.giganews.com…
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> In article <wIMbk.65999$8k7.8…@fe111.usenetserver.com>,
> "JoeSpareBedroom" <dishborea…@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> "dbu" <nos…@nospam.moc> wrote in message
>> news:nospam-A1AEC0.10392105072008@comcast.dca.giganews.com…
>> > In article <PBLbk.21692$5y2.2…@fe113.usenetserver.com>,
>> > "JoeSpareBedroom" <dishborea…@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >> "Gary L. Burnore" <gburn…@databasix.com> wrote in message
>> >> news:g4o015$r1o$1@blackhelicopter.databasix.com…
>> >> > On Sat, 5 Jul 2008 09:30:23 -0400, "JoeSpareBedroom"
>> >> > <dishborea…@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >> >>"mack" <macke…@dslextreme.com> wrote in message
>> >> >>news:P5Fbk.21665$5y2.1242@fe113.usenetserver.com…
>> >> >>> "Hachiroku ????" <Tru…@e86.GTS> wrote in message
>> >> >>> news:pan.2008.07.04.13.10.15.569688@e86.GTS…
>> >> >>>> we haven’t had no-fault insurance here for ~30 years. The state
>> >> >>>> allowed
>> >> >>>> it
>> >> >>>> again in April.
>> >> >>>> People are going nutz with the new low insurance rates. I upped
>> >> >>>> the
>> >> >>>> coverage on the Supra and am paying half of what I was before.
>> >> >>>> However, I read the fine print. The policies are for 6 months
>> >> >>>> instead
>> >> >>>> of
>> >> >>>> a
>> >> >>>> year, and the insurance companies can raise the rates at any time
>> >> >>>> for
>> >> >>>> just
>> >> >>>> about any reason.
>> >> >>> This reminds me of the trend in food products, and one in
>> >> >>> particular,
>> >> >>> ice
>> >> >>> cream.
>> >> >>> It used to be that ice cream came in half-gallon tubs. Then the
>> >> >>> tubs
>> >> >>> were
>> >> >>> reduced in size to 1.75 quarts. (but guess what! the price
>> >> >>> remained
>> >> >>> the
>> >> >>> same!)
>> >> >>> The latest change is that the tubs are now 1.5 quarts…
>> >> >>> but everything’s still all right because the price is still the
>> >> >>> same!
>> >> >>> Ain’t progress grand?
>> >> >>> In the same vein, our inflation figures come out showing that
>> >> >>> prices
>> >> >>> have
>> >> >>> increased only 1.3 % or so,
>> >> >>> BUT they fail to measure the increases for two items….
>> >> >>> FUEL AND FOOD. damn, but these economists are sharp as tacks!
>> >> >>> It’s
>> >> >>> like the shell game is being played on a national level. Just
>> >> >>> how
>> >> >>> dumb
>> >> >>> do they take us for?
>> >> >>Most people get annoyed if their income doesn’t keep pace with
>> >> >>inflation.
>> >> >>If
>> >> >>food manufacturers don’t increase their prices, how are *their*
>> >> >>employees
>> >> >>supposed to get the same income growth that *we* want? Are
>> >> >>manufacturers
>> >> >>supposed to eat the increased cost of raw materials, rather than
>> >> >>pass
>> >> >>them
>> >> >>along to the consumer?
>> >> > That’s usually how it works. But the pro-big-business whitehouse
>> >> > has
>> >> > ensured that it’s owners and shareholders who’ve profited.
>> >> > Employees
>> >> > are doing more work for the same amount of money and the same amount
>> >> > of money isn’t worth as much as it was. Thanks, Bush!
>> >> I’d like 5 minutes in a locked room with Bush as much as you would,
>> >> but
>> >> I’m
>> >> not clear on how he had anything to do with cost increases in the food
>> >> business, and I’m talking BEFORE the cost of transportation got out of
>> >> hand,
>> >> which he *is* directly responsible for.
>> > How is Bush responsible "directly" for the cost of transportation that
>> > got out of hand?
>> A significant part of the price of oil is based on speculation. Almost
>> every
>> article about oil price increases mentions speculative fears which drive
>> up
>> the price, in the same way rumors of a bad earnings report can drive down
>> the price of a stock before the report is even published.
>> Other than the occasional hurricane in the Gulf, the majority of "fears"
>> have revolved around instability in the Middle East. Bush’s policies have
>> ramped up the instability. Even just his words create fears. His
>> sabre-rattling about Iran would be a perfect example. Mess with stability
>> and you are absolutely responsible for the resulting increases in the
>> price
>> of oil.
> You were doing fine in the first paragraph, although I’m not so sure
> about how much speculation has to do with it as opposed to demand, but
> in the second you started out about Bush and it’s all his fault. The
> middle east is far more complicated than GWB and he alone has not cause
> the problem you talk about, it dates back decades. It is like saying
> that in the last four years humans are totally responsible for global
> warming. That is not rational.
I never said it was all Bush’s fault. The second sentence in the second
paragraph proves that I didn’t make that claim.
"dbu" <nos…@nospam.moc> wrote in message
news:nospam-B23237.16332105072008@comcast.dca.giganews.com…
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> In article <plRbk.44243$Wb2.26…@fe107.usenetserver.com>,
> "JoeSpareBedroom" <dishborea…@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> "dbu" <nos…@nospam.moc> wrote in message
>> news:nospam-38B6AC.15585005072008@comcast.dca.giganews.com…
>> > In article <wIMbk.65999$8k7.8…@fe111.usenetserver.com>,
>> > "JoeSpareBedroom" <dishborea…@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >> "dbu" <nos…@nospam.moc> wrote in message
>> >> news:nospam-A1AEC0.10392105072008@comcast.dca.giganews.com…
>> >> > In article <PBLbk.21692$5y2.2…@fe113.usenetserver.com>,
>> >> > "JoeSpareBedroom" <dishborea…@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >> >> "Gary L. Burnore" <gburn…@databasix.com> wrote in message
>> >> >> news:g4o015$r1o$1@blackhelicopter.databasix.com…
>> >> >> > On Sat, 5 Jul 2008 09:30:23 -0400, "JoeSpareBedroom"
>> >> >> > <dishborea…@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >> >> >>"mack" <macke…@dslextreme.com> wrote in message
>> >> >> >>news:P5Fbk.21665$5y2.1242@fe113.usenetserver.com…
>> >> >> >>> "Hachiroku ????" <Tru…@e86.GTS> wrote in message
>> >> >> >>> news:pan.2008.07.04.13.10.15.569688@e86.GTS…
>> >> >> >>>> we haven’t had no-fault insurance here for ~30 years. The
>> >> >> >>>> state
>> >> >> >>>> allowed
>> >> >> >>>> it
>> >> >> >>>> again in April.
>> >> >> >>>> People are going nutz with the new low insurance rates. I
>> >> >> >>>> upped
>> >> >> >>>> the
>> >> >> >>>> coverage on the Supra and am paying half of what I was before.
>> >> >> >>>> However, I read the fine print. The policies are for 6 months
>> >> >> >>>> instead
>> >> >> >>>> of
>> >> >> >>>> a
>> >> >> >>>> year, and the insurance companies can raise the rates at any
>> >> >> >>>> time
>> >> >> >>>> for
>> >> >> >>>> just
>> >> >> >>>> about any reason.
>> >> >> >>> This reminds me of the trend in food products, and one in
>> >> >> >>> particular,
>> >> >> >>> ice
>> >> >> >>> cream.
>> >> >> >>> It used to be that ice cream came in half-gallon tubs. Then
>> >> >> >>> the
>> >> >> >>> tubs
>> >> >> >>> were
>> >> >> >>> reduced in size to 1.75 quarts. (but guess what! the price
>> >> >> >>> remained
>> >> >> >>> the
>> >> >> >>> same!)
>> >> >> >>> The latest change is that the tubs are now 1.5 quarts…
>> >> >> >>> but everything’s still all right because the price is still the
>> >> >> >>> same!
>> >> >> >>> Ain’t progress grand?
>> >> >> >>> In the same vein, our inflation figures come out showing that
>> >> >> >>> prices
>> >> >> >>> have
>> >> >> >>> increased only 1.3 % or so,
>> >> >> >>> BUT they fail to measure the increases for two items….
>> >> >> >>> FUEL AND FOOD. damn, but these economists are sharp as tacks!
>> >> >> >>> It’s
>> >> >> >>> like the shell game is being played on a national level. Just
>> >> >> >>> how
>> >> >> >>> dumb
>> >> >> >>> do they take us for?
>> >> >> >>Most people get annoyed if their income doesn’t keep pace with
>> >> >> >>inflation.
>> >> >> >>If
>> >> >> >>food manufacturers don’t increase their prices, how are *their*
>> >> >> >>employees
>> >> >> >>supposed to get the same income growth that *we* want? Are
>> >> >> >>manufacturers
>> >> >> >>supposed to eat the increased cost of raw materials, rather than
>> >> >> >>pass
>> >> >> >>them
>> >> >> >>along to the consumer?
>> >> >> > That’s usually how it works. But the pro-big-business whitehouse
>> >> >> > has
>> >> >> > ensured that it’s owners and shareholders who’ve profited.
>> >> >> > Employees
>> >> >> > are doing more work for the same amount of money and the same
>> >> >> > amount
>> >> >> > of money isn’t worth as much as it was. Thanks, Bush!
>> >> >> I’d like 5 minutes in a locked room with Bush as much as you would,
>> >> >> but
>> >> >> I’m
>> >> >> not clear on how he had anything to do with cost increases in the
>> >> >> food
>> >> >> business, and I’m talking BEFORE the cost of transportation got out
>> >> >> of
>> >> >> hand,
>> >> >> which he *is* directly responsible for.
>> >> > How is Bush responsible "directly" for the cost of transportation
>> >> > that
>> >> > got out of hand?
>> >> A significant part of the price of oil is based on speculation. Almost
>> >> every
>> >> article about oil price increases mentions speculative fears which
>> >> drive
>> >> up
>> >> the price, in the same way rumors of a bad earnings report can drive
>> >> down
>> >> the price of a stock before the report is even published.
>> >> Other than the occasional hurricane in the Gulf, the majority of
>> >> "fears"
>> >> have revolved around instability in the Middle East. Bush’s policies
>> >> have
>> >> ramped up the instability. Even just his words create fears. His
>> >> sabre-rattling about Iran would be a perfect example. Mess with
>> >> stability
>> >> and you are absolutely responsible for the resulting increases in the
>> >> price
>> >> of oil.
>> > You were doing fine in the first paragraph, although I’m not so sure
>> > about how much speculation has to do with it as opposed to demand, but
>> > in the second you started out about Bush and it’s all his fault. The
>> > middle east is far more complicated than GWB and he alone has not cause
>> > the problem you talk about, it dates back decades. It is like saying
>> > that in the last four years humans are totally responsible for global
>> > warming. That is not rational.
>> I never said it was all Bush’s fault. The second sentence in the second
>> paragraph proves that I didn’t make that claim.
> Perhaps like sticking a stick into the hornets nest, well maybe, maybe
> that could have legs, but lets just speculate for a moment and take Bush
> out of the picture.
We’ve discussed that. Remember the excellent way we kept Saddam penned up
after the Kuwait thing? The guy couldn’t take a crap without our knowing
about it. During the time we enforced his no-fly zone, there were, IIRC,
**TWO** American casualties among troops stationed in the region. Neither
involved combat. One was a truck accident.
We could’ve let HIM keep AQ at bay with almost no cost to us.
In article <g4oquc$13…@blackhelicopter.databasix.com>,
Gary L. Burnore <gburn…@databasix.com> wrote:
> Thanks, Regan/Bush.
Did you once live in California?
On Sat, 05 Jul 2008 18:03:23 -0400, Gary L. Burnore wrote:
>>> They don’t think you won’t notice it. Here’s what they **DO** know (using
>>> Breyers original 1/2 gallon containers as our example): Ice cream is not a
>>> staple food product, except for fatsos. It’s either an impulse purchase or
>>> it’s bought for special occasions.
>>Hey, watch it! Ice cream is a staple product in this house & I’m not fat!
>>So there! ;-P
>>Cathy
> Gifs for proof!
Really. In fishnets…