>> I still fail to see how supplying free clothes will cause people to go
>> from having almost no money to no money.
>
> Free clothes => local clothes industry collapses => local clothes
> industry employees lose their jobs => local would-be clothes industry
> employees get no money => local would-be clothes industry employees have
> no money to spend => local non-clothes economy suffers as well.

That's exactly the logic I'm questioning, it doesn't consider any of the 
benefits (eg that other economies may grow as a result).

> Oh, sure, the would-be clothes industry employees could switch over to
> some other job, like... well, what is it that the better-off people will
> now do with their money instead of buying clothes? Buy luxury products,
> maybe?

Maybe, maybe they still need more and higher quality food, tools, 
repairs to their home, vaccinations etc before considering imported 
luxury goods.

> To me this discussion sounded more like /you/ simply saying "unlimited
> free clothes equal closed textile industry does /not/ equal bad for the
> economy", and Shay saying "think again and reconsider".

I said I didn't know for sure whether it would be better or worse, but 
suspected it would be better overall. The point I made that seemed to 
cause so much resistance was that giving out free clothes (to people who 
could afford them anyway) is not as bad as you think, because the people 
will still spend the money, just not on clothes.

Post a reply to this message

> - Ban the dumping of goods, food, etc in the third world.
> - Stop the IMF from dumping loans in the third world.
> - Critically assess what /exactly/ the net results of providing
> micro-credits are, and /how/ they are provided. All is not well there.
> - The western countries being the world leaders in armament production
> should stop exporting them (or dumping older versions). This is utopia,
> I know.
> - we have replaced colonialism by a subtle form of neocolonialism in
> some countries.

Corruption is also a huge problem.

Post a reply to this message

On 2-8-2013 9:37, scott wrote:

> I said I didn't know for sure whether it would be better or worse, but
> suspected it would be better overall. The point I made that seemed to
> cause so much resistance was that giving out free clothes (to people who
> could afford them anyway) is not as bad as you think, because the people
> will still spend the money, just not on clothes.
>

I know that I am grossly generalizing as there is more to the problem 
than this, but sadly enough, if what you say were true, Africa would 
have been out of the problems half a century ago...

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

>> I said I didn't know for sure whether it would be better or worse, but
>> suspected it would be better overall. The point I made that seemed to
>> cause so much resistance was that giving out free clothes (to people who
>> could afford them anyway) is not as bad as you think, because the people
>> will still spend the money, just not on clothes.
>
> I know that I am grossly generalizing as there is more to the problem
> than this, but sadly enough, if what you say were true, Africa would
> have been out of the problems half a century ago...

Are you saying they are not spending the money at all then, that they 
would have previously spent on clothes? Don't forget we're only 
considering the people who could afford to buy clothes, but don't know 
because they are available for free. I highly doubt those people are now 
just saving that money instead.

Post a reply to this message

On 2-8-2013 10:01, scott wrote:

> Are you saying they are not spending the money at all then, that they
> would have previously spent on clothes? Don't forget we're only
> considering the people who could afford to buy clothes, but don't know
> because they are available for free. I highly doubt those people are now
> just saving that money instead.
>

How much /money/ do you think people in Africa really have to spend? 
Except for the very small upper layers of society? It is mostly survival 
with the little you have got.

My brother was a Roman Catholic missionary (died in Africa). 90% of his 
work was about learning people about health, hygiene, making better use 
of water, natural resources, education, etc and just 1% about religion. 
They did not distribute stuff for free precisely in order not to upset 
the local economy, instead learning people to be self sufficient in a 
harsh environment and trying to survive and growing towards better 
living conditions in a sustainable way. I am talking about the sixties 
here and I know for a fact that all his work has (probably) come to 
naught because of greed and corruption of the upper levels of society in 
the country spending their money on weapons and luxury goods and finally 
bringing the country into civil war. This was not Congo, but another 
country but the scheme has been repetitively identical.

I have become rather sceptical (and cynical I am sorry to say) about all 
that easy talk about /helping/ the Third World. In most cases the rich 
countries get most out of it.

Thomas

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

On 2-8-2013 9:41, scott wrote:
>> - Ban the dumping of goods, food, etc in the third world.
>> - Stop the IMF from dumping loans in the third world.
>> - Critically assess what /exactly/ the net results of providing
>> micro-credits are, and /how/ they are provided. All is not well there.
>> - The western countries being the world leaders in armament production
>> should stop exporting them (or dumping older versions). This is utopia,
>> I know.
>> - we have replaced colonialism by a subtle form of neocolonialism in
>> some countries.
>
> Corruption is also a huge problem.

Yes, and we feed it.

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

>> Are you saying they are not spending the money at all then, that they
>> would have previously spent on clothes? Don't forget we're only
>> considering the people who could afford to buy clothes, but don't know
>> because they are available for free. I highly doubt those people are now
>> just saving that money instead.
>
> How much /money/ do you think people in Africa really have to spend?

Enough to support a local textile industry. If they get free clothes 
where does that money then go that previously supported the textile 
industry? If it stays locally (eg food, tools, education) then it's not 
easy to argue the local economy will be badly affected.

> My brother was a Roman Catholic missionary (died in Africa). 90% of his
> work was about learning people about health, hygiene, making better use
> of water, natural resources, education, etc and just 1% about religion.
> They did not distribute stuff for free precisely in order not to upset
> the local economy,

I assume they thought about it a bit more than any of us here have 
though before coming to that decision not to give away free stuff? After 
all a wrong decision (either way) could result in needless suffering and 
deaths.

> instead learning people to be self sufficient in a
> harsh environment and trying to survive and growing towards better
> living conditions in a sustainable way. I am talking about the sixties
> here and I know for a fact that all his work has (probably) come to
> naught because of greed and corruption of the upper levels of society

Greed and corruption is certainly a huge obstacle to overcome.

Post a reply to this message

Le 02/08/2013 10:34, Thomas de Groot a écrit :
> 
> I have become rather sceptical (and cynical I am sorry to say) about all
> that easy talk about /helping/ the Third World. In most cases the rich
> countries get most out of it.

Please do not look at the financial aspect of most big charity organisation:

when small/start-up, may be 10 or 20% is spent on management,
advertisement, and other local (rich-country) posts.

But once big enough, it happens often than 80% of received money get
spent on structural posts ("we are big, we need a central office; we
need permanent staff; we need efficient advertisement to collect more
money; our directing board needs accommodations for planes & hotels
worldwide; we need to rent exposition centres to achieve better
knowledge of our actions in our donators... ")

-- 
Just because nobody complains does not mean all parachutes are perfect.

Post a reply to this message

Shay wrote:

> "Urs Holzer"  wrote in message news:51fabb28$1@news.povray.org...
> 
>> So:
>> - Free (as in beer) closed source software is bad.
>> - Free (as in speach and beer) software is good.
>> - Free (as in speach but not beer) software is good too.
> 
> Here's where the second makes me nervous:
> 
> Let's say I set up a perfectly free (beer and speech), Stallmanesque
> computer.

Stallman does not require the "beer" part. In fact, I am slightly 
opposed to it. Why not sell the free software you produce? When someone 
hires a software company to produce a solution for some problem, why 
shouldn't the software become free software? The company gets paid, the 
customer can use the software and hand give it to others. For low level 
things (webserver, databases, kernels), one can get money through 
donations (Kickstarter comes to mind).

> I've still purchased "closed-source" hardware. And, the first time I
> visit an Internet forum to learn about my software, I've "purchased"
> support: By reading the forum I've most-likely viewed advertisements
> or solicitations, and by posting on the forum I've drawn other patrons
> and/or donors to the site. Some sites are owned by a software project
> (say, KDE), but KDE is pretty useless to me without other software
> projects that do not own the site. I might even (have, with Suse)
> purchase books. By even telling anyone something positive about my
> Stallmanesque computer, I've acted as an advertiser for the hardware
> manufacturers, forum owners, and book publishers.

But you are not bound to some certified software and hardware and you do 
not bind others. For example, this makes it possible for a new hardware 
manufacturer to produce hardware without the windows logo (i.e. without 
undeactivatable Secure Boot).
Personal example: http://8devices.com/carambola
I use this thing as a router for my home.

> I don't mind that any of those people profit indirectly from software,
> but I realize I'm making it impossible to profit from actually
> creating that software. 

No, you make it better:
http://www.catb.org/esr/writings/taoup/html/ch16s01.html
http://www.catb.org/esr/writings/taoup/html/ch16s02.html
http://www.catb.org/esr/writings/taoup/html/ch16s03.html
If you are interested in Unix, read the whole book:
http://www.catb.org/esr/writings/taoup/

> This in turn makes software free (as in beer)
> for the large companies you've suggested I avoid. And I mitigate this
> with what? distribution of open-source learning? That's of no use to
> most people, and, I'll bet, fewer people every day due to the tablet
> "revolution."

Yes, this is the dumbing-down of society. I claim that this has been 
done throughout history. Keeping people dumb makes it easier to control 
them. Religions are particularly good at this. That is also the reason 
why I think that user-friendliness of software is not first priority, 
technical excellency is.

> As hard and expensive as it may be to learn programming and buy a
> computer to program on, it's (I suspect) a hell of a lot harder and
> more expensive to manufacture hardware, run a massive and profitable
> forum, or print and ship crates of books. Are we breaking the lowest
> rungs on the ladder?

Definitely, but hardware is actually a thing, not just a number like 
software. Same for books. The forum is more difficult and is currently 
beyond the scope of my opinion and this post.
Don't forget that the initial discussion was about giving away for free. 
Do not give hardware away for free. Dumping old computers on Africa for 
free is a sin.

And finally, please keep in mind that money is in no way an accurate 
representation of invested effort, wealth or happyness. It has lost this 
property long ago. Nowadays even money is just a number.

Post a reply to this message

Shay wrote:

> "Urs Holzer"  wrote in message news:51fabb28$1@news.povray.org...
> 
> 
>> In the case of the mosquito net, the right thing is to give them a
>> machine that produces mosquito nets and teach them how to operate it.
>> But only one such machine, because they must build further machines
>> themselves.
> 
> I gave some money to Africare last year and had a tough time deciding
> between (iirc) livestock, water wells, medicine, and building
> supplies. I tried to choose the one I thought would be hardest to take
> away.

Good decision. But I really hope that they had to build the water wells 
themselves under close guidance by water well experts? Plus points if 
they built the well with materials available locally (stones, clay, and 
such). You know, they must be able to build and fix their own wells, 
otherwise all is for nothing. Crazy thing is, as far as the reports go, 
these poor people in Africa want to learn. There is something else that 
pushes them into poverty, that's why you made the right decision to 
support something that can't be taken away easily.

Post a reply to this message

Le_Forgeron <lef### [at] freefr> wrote:

>
> when small/start-up, may be 10 or 20% is spent on management,
> advertisement, and other local (rich-country) posts.
>
> But once big enough, it happens often than 80% of received money get
> spent on structural posts ("we are big, we need a central office; we
> need permanent staff; we need efficient advertisement to collect more
> money; our directing board needs accommodations for planes & hotels
> worldwide; we need to rent exposition centres to achieve better
> knowledge of our actions in our donators... ")
>


This is why I give my charity money to people living on the street, directly.
And before anyone says that they will just spend it on drink. I don’t care. If
they need to get drunk to get to sleep then my money is doing some good.

Post a reply to this message

On 2-8-2013 12:31, Stephen wrote:

> This is why I give my charity money to people living on the street, directly.
> And before anyone says that they will just spend it on drink. I don’t care. If
> they need to get drunk to get to sleep then my money is doing some good.
>
>
Indeed. I gave to a small local commerce selling biological food and 
which was in financial difficulty. They started a local crowd funding to 
keep on running. I thought that a worthwhile spending.

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
> biological food

I love how nonsensically redundant new-age terminology is.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Le 2013-08-02 03:19, Thomas de Groot a écrit :
> On 2-8-2013 8:14, Le_Forgeron wrote:
>>
>> Every works is worth a rewards.
>> The charity should be inspired rather by the saying (guess the book ?):
>> "if you give a man a fish, he will eat one day. If you learn a man to
>> fish, he will eat every days".
>> Charity for day one is ok, but long-term repetition of the same action
>> become counter-productive if the charity is true to itself.
>
> Exactly so indeed. As you may have guessed, I am quite critical about
> charities as most blindly just go on distributing fish without providing
> the fishing poles. I may be exaggerating some, but not much. It has been
> the policies of ngo's in the past, and it is the policy of IMF.
>
> Thomas
>

And even then, some of those fish are left on the port loading dock to 
rot because those charities haven't thought about the logistics* of 
ditributing the fish to the people in need.

*which usually include spreading vitamin Z here and there.
-- 
/*Francois Labreque*/#local a=x+y;#local b=x+a;#local c=a+b;#macro P(F//
/*    flabreque    */L)polygon{5,F,F+z,L+z,L,F pigment{rgb 9}}#end union
/*        @        */{P(0,a)P(a,b)P(b,c)P(2*a,2*b)P(2*b,b+c)P(b+c,<2,3>)
/*   gmail.com     */}camera{orthographic location<6,1.25,-6>look_at a }

Post a reply to this message

Le 2013-08-02 03:37, scott a écrit :
>
> Maybe, maybe they still need more and higher quality food, tools,
> repairs to their home, vaccinations etc before considering imported
> luxury goods.
>

Try telling that to Mugabe.



-- 
/*Francois Labreque*/#local a=x+y;#local b=x+a;#local c=a+b;#macro P(F//
/*    flabreque    */L)polygon{5,F,F+z,L+z,L,F pigment{rgb 9}}#end union
/*        @        */{P(0,a)P(a,b)P(b,c)P(2*a,2*b)P(2*b,b+c)P(b+c,<2,3>)
/*   gmail.com     */}camera{orthographic location<6,1.25,-6>look_at a }

Post a reply to this message

"scott"  wrote in message news:51fb7635$1@news.povray.org...

>> How much /money/ do you think people in Africa really have to spend?

> Enough to support a local textile industry. If they get free clothes where 
> does that money then go that previously supported the textile industry? If 
> it stays locally (eg food, tools, education) then it's not easy to argue 
> the local economy will be badly affected.

The money spent on textiles disappears along with the textile market. The 
money generated by the textile market no longer exists. It cannot be spent 
on medicine or education because it's GONE. These people aren't receiving an 
allowance.

The rules of money can unfortunately be (temporarily) bent, but money is 
fundamentally a placeholder for debt. No need ... no market ... no exchange 
... no debt ... no money.

-Shay

Post a reply to this message

"Thomas de Groot"  wrote in message news:51fb60ab$1@news.povray.org...
> - Ban the dumping of goods, food, etc in the third world.
> - Stop the IMF from dumping loans in the third world.
> - Critically assess what /exactly/ the net results of providing 
> micro-credits are, and /how/ they are provided. All is not well there.
> - The western countries being the world leaders in armament production 
> should stop exporting them (or dumping older versions). This is utopia, I 
> know.
> - we have replaced colonialism by a subtle form of neocolonialism in some 
> countries.

> I probably could go on a while by mentioning mineral resources...

That is a perfectly valid answer to the question as I asked it, but it 
illustrates a difference in our vernaculars: I include NONE of the 
organizations responsible for those policies when I say "we." The IMF et al. 
are "they."

Not that I can completely deny my own culpability for *their* actions.

-Shay

Post a reply to this message

>>> How much /money/ do you think people in Africa really have to spend?
>
>> Enough to support a local textile industry. If they get free clothes
>> where does that money then go that previously supported the textile
>> industry? If it stays locally (eg food, tools, education) then it's
>> not easy to argue the local economy will be badly affected.
>
> The money spent on textiles disappears along with the textile market.
> The money generated by the textile market no longer exists. It cannot be
> spent on medicine or education because it's GONE.

And then, now that everyone has clothes, who says another market won't 
open up or grow that would generate even more money than the textile 
industry did? I'm not saying that will certainly happen, but it's a bit 
short-sighted to not consider that possibility.

Post a reply to this message

"scott"  wrote in message news:51fbab51$1@news.povray.org...

> And then, now that everyone has clothes, who says another market won't 
> open up or grow that would generate even more money than the textile 
> industry did? I'm not saying that will certainly happen, but it's a bit 
> short-sighted to not consider that possibility.

It might. The question is whether we, the relatively powerful, should stomp 
mud holes in fragile economies. Examine the track record and come to your 
own conclusions, but don't off-handedly reject the premise of the original 
post: Throwing free stuff into markets can and has caused suffering, and we 
should think carefully before doing so.

-Shay

Post a reply to this message

"Urs Holzer"  wrote in message news:51fb8001@news.povray.org...
> Stallman does not require the "beer" part. In fact, I am slightly
> opposed to it.

I think we completely agree on this point.

One thing that bugs me about Linux is that an American is stuck choosing 
between using illegal software and giving up access to (most) media. Would 
be nice if I could just pay for those codecs.

> Definitely, but hardware is actually a thing, not just a number like
> software. Same for books.

I've heard this from a lot of people, but the only distinction I see is 
this: Words, ones, and zeroes can be manufactured by the poor; (most) 
physical goods cannot. The problem is that both are making $$$$ for 
/somebody/, but, in the case of words, ones, and zeroes, the manufacturer is 
too easily excluded from that $$$$.

> And finally, please keep in mind that money is in no way an accurate
> representation of invested effort, wealth or happyness. It has lost this
> property long ago. Nowadays even money is just a number.

It makes me happy to dig ditches (seriously), but I know that digging free 
ditches for a megacorp would put someone out of work and increase wealth 
disparity.

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 02 Aug 2013 07:19:23 -0400, Warp wrote:

> Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
>> biological food
> 
> I love how nonsensically redundant new-age terminology is.

Heh, I often think that when I see "Organic produce" in the supermarket.  
Because the alternative is, what, *inorganic* produce? ;)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 02 Aug 2013 08:30:45 -0500, Shay wrote:

> "Urs Holzer"  wrote in message news:51fb8001@news.povray.org...
>> Stallman does not require the "beer" part. In fact, I am slightly
>> opposed to it.
> 
> I think we completely agree on this point.
> 
> One thing that bugs me about Linux is that an American is stuck choosing
> between using illegal software and giving up access to (most) media.
> Would be nice if I could just pay for those codecs.

You can.  They're available from Fluendo.  Some paid distributions (SUSE 
Linux Enterprise Desktop, IIRC) include them as part of the cost.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Nice.

"Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote in message 
news:51fbf404$1@news.povray.org...
> On Fri, 02 Aug 2013 08:30:45 -0500, Shay wrote:
>
>> "Urs Holzer"  wrote in message news:51fb8001@news.povray.org...
>>> Stallman does not require the "beer" part. In fact, I am slightly
>>> opposed to it.
>>
>> I think we completely agree on this point.
>>
>> One thing that bugs me about Linux is that an American is stuck choosing
>> between using illegal software and giving up access to (most) media.
>> Would be nice if I could just pay for those codecs.
>
> You can.  They're available from Fluendo.  Some paid distributions (SUSE
> Linux Enterprise Desktop, IIRC) include them as part of the cost.
>
> Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 02 Aug 2013 14:27:41 -0500, Shay wrote:

> Nice.
> 
> "Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote in message
> news:51fbf404$1@news.povray.org...
>> On Fri, 02 Aug 2013 08:30:45 -0500, Shay wrote:
>>
>>> "Urs Holzer"  wrote in message news:51fb8001@news.povray.org...
>>>> Stallman does not require the "beer" part. In fact, I am slightly
>>>> opposed to it.
>>>
>>> I think we completely agree on this point.
>>>
>>> One thing that bugs me about Linux is that an American is stuck
>>> choosing between using illegal software and giving up access to (most)
>>> media. Would be nice if I could just pay for those codecs.
>>
>> You can.  They're available from Fluendo.  Some paid distributions
>> (SUSE Linux Enterprise Desktop, IIRC) include them as part of the cost.
>>
>> Jim

One might also argue "illegal in what locality"?  While some codecs are 
patented, the patents aren't universally recognized, so in some locales, 
using the OSS codecs isn't using anything illegal.

You do say "American", but in terms of global usage, using the codecs 
distributed with (for example) mplayer is perfectly legal.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 2-8-2013 13:19, Warp wrote:
> Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
>> biological food
>
> I love how nonsensically redundant new-age terminology is.
>

LOL

THomas

Post a reply to this message

Shay wrote:
> One thing that bugs me about Linux is that an American is stuck
> choosing between using illegal software and giving up access to (most)
> media. Would be nice if I could just pay for those codecs.

Maybe you should also avoid buying media from megacorporations? If you 
get your media directly from the authors, you won't get any problems 
with codecs.

Finally, you should avoid countries with broken law. In the USA, you are 
a criminal no matter what, you just don't know it yet.

Greetings from Switerland!

ps: Oh the irony: My computer broke down, now I need to buy hardware.

Post a reply to this message

"Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote in message 
news:51fbf404$1@news.povray.org...

> You can.  They're available from Fluendo.  Some paid distributions (SUSE
> Linux Enterprise Desktop, IIRC) include them as part of the cost.

Just tried to search the Suse forums for usb install. I can't see the 
verification image in IE10.

If I could even see /where/ to enter the verification text, I might guess 
"Interoperable".

And from a "leader in providing Windows-compatible Linux solutions that work 
with Microsoft and other environments."

Am I the only one who thinks the Internet has peaked? Maybe my patience has 
just peaked.

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 03 Aug 2013 10:18:47 -0500, Shay wrote:

> Just tried to search the Suse forums for usb install. I can't see the
> verification image in IE10.

Where did you specifically go?  I can get someone to look into it and see 
what's wrong.

But if you want to install from a USB drive (or install to a USB drive), 
you might try the wiki at http://en.opensuse.org - I know there are a 
couple pages that cover those topics.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 03 Aug 2013 10:18:47 -0500, Shay wrote:

> If I could even see /where/ to enter the verification text, I might
> guess "Interoperable".

BTW, search doesn't have a captcha if you log in.  There's one there to 
prevent automated search abuse for those not logged in.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 8/2/2013 12:43 AM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> On 2-8-2013 9:37, scott wrote:
>
>> I said I didn't know for sure whether it would be better or worse, but
>> suspected it would be better overall. The point I made that seemed to
>> cause so much resistance was that giving out free clothes (to people who
>> could afford them anyway) is not as bad as you think, because the people
>> will still spend the money, just not on clothes.
>>
>
> I know that I am grossly generalizing as there is more to the problem
> than this, but sadly enough, if what you say were true, Africa would
> have been out of the problems half a century ago...
>
> Thomas
The way it has generally worked in Africa is - someone comes in to 
provide "basic" help, with the idea that, actually fed, and clothed, the 
people would be able to actually produce some sort of industry. Only, 
various local warlords then steal what ever those people now have, and 
resell it, someplace else, to make themselves rich, and the people 
everyone was trying to help are, if anything, worse off than they where 
before, because now the asses in control have more resources, to help 
them oppress/steal from those people.

Frankly, the problem is that there are always warlords, even if they 
call themselves something else. The US economy was, at one time, about 
food, and other simpler things, like gold, being shipped out to other 
places, only, the people on the receiving end had all the control over 
who, and by how much, the producers where payed. This led to certain.. 
hard feelings. lol

Then we had industry. And, everything got better, unless you where part 
of the child labor, or someone working for the warlord, while living in 
his castle, eating his food, and buying his clothes. I.e., the whole, 
"sold soul to the company store", thing. Someone was still being 
screwed, and treated as replaceable furniture.

Now, industry, and its exploitations, have mostly moved to "cheaper" 
places. Which is a bloody irony, given that the replacement is a 
"service industry", where half the people working in the services can't 
afford to buy them, and, again.. the warlords have ways to make sure 
they scrape in as much as they can, and give the workers as little as 
they can get by with, all while, presumably, waiting for the next big 
shift in the market, so they can somehow shift all the services to 
someplace cheaper, and replace the resulting lost jobs with... something 
else.

Yet, at each stage, we have, never the less, still ended up with a net 
gain, even as we have seen massive losses in certain classes of jobs. I 
doubt this can continue, but.. at the moment, the instability is 
predicated on the fact that other nations are willing to let us exploit 
their workers, to produce goods and services, which they can no more 
afford than we can. At some point.. this isn't going to keep working, 
and either they run out of places to sell the stuff, because no one can 
buy it, or the costs of making it here, as apposed to there, shift 
enough that the current excuse for doing all the manufacturing some 
place else disappears.

But, then.. there is always the interesting "DIY/3d Printing/Small scale 
manufacturing" trend starting.. And, in that fun case, if everyone is a 
warlord (i.e. they can all make and sell things, easily), then... the 
warlords may finally find themselves in deep trouble.

But, overall, the next result has been a gain. Its just.. there is 
always the subset of people, gaming the system, at everyone else's 
expense, and.. they always have the money to buy the law, on some level.

Post a reply to this message

On 8/1/2013 11:38 AM, Shay wrote:
> "Patrick Elliott"  wrote in message news:51faa419$1@news.povray.org...
>> Uh, no.. Rising unemployment and income equality is the direct
>> result of the wolves deciding the the rabbits where not enough,
>> and they should be allowed to eat "everything".
>
> We agree more than you think. Low-cost/no-cost goods (or labor) lead to
> a loss of economic equilibrium. This is common to both our stories.
>
> Some people in very unfortunate situations must undersell their goods or
> labor. Remedies for this situation are not the subject of this thread.
>
Actually, my point is, when the wolves are the ones making the 
decisions, they are the ones that end up "over pricing" the goods, and 
"under pricing" the labor. This is always one thing that irritates the 
hell out of my about the people in the US that insisting on using the 
term "libertarian". They always seem to think you "Fix things" by either 
intentionally buying the more expensive goods, and thus taking money 
away from the bad employers, and "choosing the higher paid jobs", 
instead of just what ever job you can actually get. What they flat out 
refuse to acknowledge is that, more often than not, the current economic 
model functions on four principles:

1. Charge for everything, even if you could give it away as part of the 
deal.
2. Pay as little as possible to the people making it all work.
3. Pay the top people, at minimum, 50x what the guy on the bottom makes.
4. Stare in incomprehension, when people tell you they can't afford your 
"cheap" goods.

Almost nothing is ever priced what it actually costs to make it, without 
adding on a "huge" margin, which gets funneled, almost entirely, to the 
people who do the least bloody actual work. The few places that either 
don't, or are not as blatant about it, either a) get called fools, or 
b), yes, temporarily, for as long as needed to kill their business, 
maybe undercut by enough that they can't afford to compete. Only.. half 
of their costs come from someone they are not in competition to, 
overcharging for goods, which only the people undercutting everyone else 
can afford to pay for.

As I said.. the wolves get to each everything. And then sit around 
howling, when, all of the sudden, their fat asses find themselves 
missing a meal or two, because part of the ecosystem collapses.

Post a reply to this message

"Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote in message 
news:51fd637c$1@news.povray.org...
>
> Where did you specifically go?  I can get someone to look into it and see
> what's wrong.

https://forums.suse.com/search.php?do=process

>
> But if you want to install from a USB drive (or install to a USB drive),
> you might try the wiki at http://en.opensuse.org - I know there are a
> couple pages that cover those topics.

Thank you.

 -Shay

Post a reply to this message

Internet Explorer 10
Version: 10.0.9200.16635
Update Versions: 10.0.7 (KB2846071)
Product ID: 00150-20000-00003-AA459

Typed, not pasted, so there may be mistakes.

 -Shay


"Shay" <non### [at] nonecom> wrote in message news:51fdc87a$1@news.povray.org...
>
>
> "Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote in message 
> news:51fd637c$1@news.povray.org...
>>
>> Where did you specifically go?  I can get someone to look into it and see
>> what's wrong.
>
> https://forums.suse.com/search.php?do=process
>
>>
>> But if you want to install from a USB drive (or install to a USB drive),
>> you might try the wiki at http://en.opensuse.org - I know there are a
>> couple pages that cover those topics.
>
> Thank you.
>
> -Shay

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 03 Aug 2013 22:20:22 -0500, Shay wrote:

> "Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote in message
> news:51fd637c$1@news.povray.org...
>>
>> Where did you specifically go?  I can get someone to look into it and
>> see what's wrong.
> 
> https://forums.suse.com/search.php?do=process

Thanks - since you indicated your browser (and I'm guessing a recent 
Windows platform - 7 or 8?), I'll see if I can get someone to check it 
out.

>> But if you want to install from a USB drive (or install to a USB
>> drive), you might try the wiki at http://en.opensuse.org - I know there
>> are a couple pages that cover those topics.
> 
> Thank you.

Glad to help out. :)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 03 Aug 2013 22:23:48 -0500, Shay wrote:

> Internet Explorer 10 Version: 10.0.9200.16635 Update Versions: 10.0.7
> (KB2846071)
> Product ID: 00150-20000-00003-AA459
> 
> Typed, not pasted, so there may be mistakes.

Great, thanks.  :)

I've asked if anyone's able to dupe it, hopefully that'll identify the 
problem.  I did a check from Linux with Chrome, and I was able to see it 
OK.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Patrick Elliott <kag### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> The way it has generally worked in Africa is - someone comes in to 
> provide "basic" help, with the idea that, actually fed, and clothed, the 
> people would be able to actually produce some sort of industry. Only, 
> various local warlords then steal what ever those people now have, and 
> resell it, someplace else, to make themselves rich, and the people 
> everyone was trying to help are, if anything, worse off than they where 
> before, because now the asses in control have more resources, to help 
> them oppress/steal from those people.

I once heard a speech made by a charity worker who said that all donations
go to help the poor in African countries, and they make sure that the
money doesn't go to the wrong hands by only bringing things like school
supplies and such to those countries. If a thieving gang tries to raid
the supplies, all they will find is pens, books and such things that are
basically worthless for them.

These charities have good intentions, but they are a bit naive. The
criminals have their ways around that problem. What they do is to basically
hijack the supplies and demand ransom money from the recipients or they
will destroy them. The charity workers are helpless to do anything about
that.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

"Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote in message 
news:51fdd55b$1@news.povray.org...
> On Sat, 03 Aug 2013 22:20:22 -0500, Shay wrote:
>
> Thanks - since you indicated your browser (and I'm guessing a recent
> Windows platform - 7 or 8?), I'll see if I can get someone to check it
> out.

Windows 7.

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 04 Aug 2013 08:54:03 -0500, Shay wrote:

> "Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote in message
> news:51fdd55b$1@news.povray.org...
>> On Sat, 03 Aug 2013 22:20:22 -0500, Shay wrote:
>>
>> Thanks - since you indicated your browser (and I'm guessing a recent
>> Windows platform - 7 or 8?), I'll see if I can get someone to check it
>> out.
> 
> Windows 7.

K, thanks.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

> But, then.. there is always the interesting "DIY/3d Printing/Small scale
> manufacturing" trend starting.. And, in that fun case, if everyone is a
> warlord (i.e. they can all make and sell things, easily), then... the
> warlords may finally find themselves in deep trouble.

Apart from the warlords can finance an expensive machine that can run 
off 1000000 of your 3D printed part and sell it for 50x cheaper. That 
isn't about to change, the economies of scale are always there. There 
is, and always has been, the option for small entrepreneurs to become 
warlords and compete with the others.

> But, overall, the next result has been a gain. Its just.. there is
> always the subset of people, gaming the system, at everyone else's
> expense, and.. they always have the money to buy the law, on some level.

The thing is it's us, the consumers, that drive such behaviour. Given 
the choice between a product made in your own country, and a cheaper one 
made abroad somewhere, people choose the cheaper one. If you want to 
force people to buy stuff made in your own country you need to tax 
imports out of the market, but will that really lead to a net gain?

Post a reply to this message

On 8/5/2013 1:01 AM, scott wrote:
> The thing is it's us, the consumers, that drive such behaviour. Given
> the choice between a product made in your own country, and a cheaper one
> made abroad somewhere, people choose the cheaper one. If you want to
> force people to buy stuff made in your own country you need to tax
> imports out of the market, but will that really lead to a net gain?
>
Well, like I said, if they won't pay you enough to buy the one that 
costs more... But, also, the average person doesn't have a damn clue 
where something is made, and having a "made here" label on it can simply 
even mean, 'We paid someone so little they can't buy one, to screw the 
parts made in some other country together.'

But, hell, even I can't afford to buy "best", and I have fewer bills, 
and slightly better pay that like 90% of the people in the country. That 
is a **major** problem. Its not, frankly, unlike what happens with birth 
control, or medical practices some people don't like, or anything else 
similar. Just because, in theory, you can buy something else, doesn't 
mean, in reality, that you can afford the time, cost, travel distances, 
percentage of your income you can afford to spend, or what ever else has 
been put in the way, to get it. And, that is my core point. If the 
playing field is so badly imbalanced, that almost no one can pick the 
better option, or there just isn't a better option, then the "theory" 
that you can fix things by buying local, is a complete non-starter.

Maybe, if people started doing that 20 years ago, but then we could have 
avoided the current problem. But, at this point. People need better pay, 
so they can even have the choice, and even then, every place has been 
"walmart"-ized, to the point where, often, even if you could afford 
another option, there isn't one available. Its all well and good to tell 
the person that is already drowning, that they should have had a life 
vest, or a row boat, when the real problem is that the ship they boarded 
was called "Titanic".

Post a reply to this message

> But, hell, even I can't afford to buy "best", and I have fewer bills,
> and slightly better pay that like 90% of the people in the country. That
> is a **major** problem.

Isn't that you just being too greedy? I don't expect to be able to 
afford the best of everything unless I'm a football star or win the 
lottery or something.

> similar. Just because, in theory, you can buy something else, doesn't
> mean, in reality, that you can afford the time, cost, travel distances,
> percentage of your income you can afford to spend, or what ever else has
> been put in the way, to get it.

A long time ago you could only buy local, between then and now (when 
there was plenty of choice) everyone has voted with their wallets that 
they would rather buy the cheaper non-local mass-produced items. Large 
corporations are simply providing us with what we want. If they thought 
everyone wanted local items (and were happy to pay a premium), they'd 
sell local items.

>But, at this point. People need better pay,

Just wait, the gradient of average GDP increase (in real terms) has been 
a steady doubling every 15 years since about 1850, and has shown no 
signs of slowing.

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 05 Aug 2013 10:41:21 +0100, scott wrote:

> Just wait, the gradient of average GDP increase (in real terms) has been
> a steady doubling every 15 years since about 1850, and has shown no
> signs of slowing.

Meanwhile, the income gap has increased by more than that, and also shows 
no signs of changing.  So the rich get richer, the poor get poorer, and 
upward mobility is stifled.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 8/5/2013 2:41 AM, scott wrote:
>> But, hell, even I can't afford to buy "best", and I have fewer bills,
>> and slightly better pay that like 90% of the people in the country. That
>> is a **major** problem.
>
> Isn't that you just being too greedy? I don't expect to be able to
> afford the best of everything unless I'm a football star or win the
> lottery or something.
>
Ok.. How about, "Better than the cheapest crap no the market"? Forget 
best, just not the same stuff that the guy two doors down has a better 
chance of buying, on food stamps, than I do when, supposedly, having a 
"decent paycheck".

Seriously, I don't think you are getting my point. If most of the 
population can't afford to buy "better", then there is no incentive to 
anyone to sell "better", which leads to no incentive to pay enough, so 
people can buy the "better" product, which... and around and around we 
go. There is a reason that, in the US, you have to pay for every single 
"service" on a cell phone, to the order of $50 a month, when most of 
that stuff is free in the places they *actually* manufacture, test, and 
perfect the latest model of the phones, and its not because it somehow 
"costs more" to run a US cell network, than on in Taiwan, or someplace 
like that. Its because they know that they can squeeze every dime they 
can out of you, and either you pay for the phone, or a get a cheap assed 
one, which isn't as good, and pay for it upfront besides, and even if 
people know they getting screwed, there isn't any "alternative" source 
to go to, to get anything better.

So, they stack the deck, no matter the product. Either they make it 
cheaper than hell, then don't pay you anything, so you can't buy 
anything else, or, if its someone you need, like a car, or a cell phone, 
or anything else that is a "necessity", they charge you every time you 
so much as look at it, for *everything*, then make the lame excuse that, 
somehow, its "too expensive" to do otherwise. When someone else controls 
all of the roads, you don't have any choice but to pay **someone's** 
toll. And, if all of them are charging higher than needed prices, to 
line their own pockets, then, a few miles down the road, buying your 
goods, for less than they are worth (i.e., paying you sub-par wages), 
who exactly are you going to complain to about the tolls, or what they 
pay you, the people they paid millions in campaign contributions, to elect?

There is a reason why the Rethuglicans in the US are trying to undermine 
worker rights, and unions. Its because less than 10% of the money anyone 
else runs on comes from corporations. The other 90%, for Democrats, 
comes from unions. For other groups, it comes from their own pockets, or 
private donations, at a trickle. With a 10:1 ratio of money coming in, 
in favor of those people that support low wages, or no minimum, 
exporting jobs, secret Caiman Island accounts, and so on, who is going 
to either lower prices to a sane level, raise low income wages, or 
actually call for the people on top to make "sane" amounts of money, 
instead of shoveling everything they can legally get their hands on into 
their pockets, and then hiding the pockets?

And, you think we fix this by taking a budget of roughly $1300 a month, 
where like all but a few bucks of that goes to insurance, rent, food, 
heating, etc., to buy a $20 item, from a slightly less insane company, 
instead of a $10 one, from Walmart... Yeah, that has worked "so well", 
so far, given the huge amount of extra, left over, income everyone has, 
at the end of every month...

Post a reply to this message

On 8/5/2013 2:41 AM, scott wrote:

> A long time ago you could only buy local, between then and now (when
> there was plenty of choice) everyone has voted with their wallets that
> they would rather buy the cheaper non-local mass-produced items. Large
> corporations are simply providing us with what we want. If they thought
> everyone wanted local items (and were happy to pay a premium), they'd
> sell local items.
>
No, they won't. Those corporations didn't just edge out small businesses 
by selling non-local goods. Most local businesses, with the exception of 
food providers, or other "immediate sale" types, ordered parts, or 
goods, had them shipped to them, in smaller, more expensive, volumes, or 
special ordered them, and then you waited. The big corporations could do 
"volume" purchases, hire their own, lower paid shippers, then undercut 
the prices of the local sellers, even selling the **exact identical 
items**. There was no where that low sales, non-bulk, often 'special 
order' businesses could cut their own costs enough, to compete with 
someone that could ship in 50 of something, sit them on a shelf for six 
months, and sell them at 20% lower cost (because they bought more of 
them at a time, from the manufacturer). **While** they did this, they 
also then, to cut into everyone else's business even more, started 
offering, "lower cost, adequate, but not the same, quality", products, 
made in places where it cost far less to make them. By the time nearly 
everything places like Walmart where selling was total crap, there where 
no more "locals" to buy from, either in terms of stores, who could 
compete, or the manufacturing, to get better products from.

Its the #1 way to kill competition - drive them out of business. The #2 
way is, buy them up, then sell the parts. And, they did a lot of that 
too. Crushing whole companies, firing their workers, then shipping 
production to other countries, in order to both "acquire", and "destroy" 
competition, in the same move.

>> But, at this point. People need better pay,
>
> Just wait, the gradient of average GDP increase (in real terms) has been
> a steady doubling every 15 years since about 1850, and has shown no
> signs of slowing.
>
And, in the last 15 years, the minimum wage has gone up $0, inflation 
has grown by almost the same rate and GDP, and the amount paid, on 
average, to CEOs, and other top people, has increased anywhere from 5, 
to 50 times, in the same time frame. Oh, right, and the number of middle 
wage jobs and halved, while the "minimum wage", and other low end jobs, 
have more than doubled.

About the only thing they haven't done, so far, is go before congress, 
and say, "Well, if they can't afford bread, then let them eat cake!"

Post a reply to this message

>> Just wait, the gradient of average GDP increase (in real terms) has been
>> a steady doubling every 15 years since about 1850, and has shown no
>> signs of slowing.
>
> Meanwhile, the income gap has increased by more than that, and also shows
> no signs of changing.  So the rich get richer, the poor get poorer, and
> upward mobility is stifled.

Any evidence for that comment? Even in the last 40 years the poor have 
not been getting poorer:

http://rs.resalliance.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/worldincome1970_2006.jpg

Another chart here, global poverty has reduced from about 90% of the 
population in 1800 to just above 20% by 2000.

http://blog.compassion.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/Global-Poverty-1820-1992_graph-1.jpg

That's quite some progress, especially given the world population also 
increased by a factor of about 6 in the same time period.

Post a reply to this message

> Seriously, I don't think you are getting my point. If most of the
> population can't afford to buy "better", then there is no incentive to
> anyone to sell "better",

Maybe it's different where you are from, but in the UK at least there is 
certainly a huge market for "better" things, which a large majority can 
actually afford. If that weren't the case then Apple wouldn't sell 
anything, nor would the German car makers, nor would satellite TV 
companies be able to sell premium channels, petrol stations wouldn't be 
able to sell the "premium" fuel, "premium" food shops wouldn't exist, 
toll roads wouldn't get any customers, people would all go to cheap pubs 
instead of restaurants, designer clothes and shoes wouldn't sell, etc 
etc. These are all things that normal people on average salaries can 
afford if they want to.

> go. There is a reason that, in the US, you have to pay for every single
> "service" on a cell phone, to the order of $50 a month, when most of
> that stuff is free in the places they *actually* manufacture, test, and
> perfect the latest model of the phones, and its not because it somehow
> "costs more" to run a US cell network, than on in Taiwan, or someplace
> like that. Its because they know that they can squeeze every dime they
> can out of you, and either you pay for the phone, or a get a cheap assed
> one, which isn't as good, and pay for it upfront besides, and even if
> people know they getting screwed, there isn't any "alternative" source
> to go to, to get anything better.

I don't get your point here, it sounds pretty similar to the UK, you 
have options from as little of £5/month up to £50+ depending on what 
type of phone you want, how much data, how many minutes etc. Judging 
from the number of people I see with iPhones and Samsung Galaxies it's 
not like nobody can afford the expensive "best" options, if they want 
to. Plenty of people don't want/need the best, so take a cheaper option.

The industry is highly competitive (at least in UK), customers are free 
to keep their numbers and switch providers whenever their contract 
expires. Most contracts don't distinguish between calls/texts to one 
provider or another, and coverage is pretty much equal across all 
networks. There is no way one company would be able to charge 
significantly more than the others, they would simply lose customers. 
Net profit at Vodafone UK was 1.5% last year, not exactly excessive.

> And, you think we fix this by taking a budget of roughly $1300 a month,
> where like all but a few bucks of that goes to insurance, rent, food,
> heating, etc., to buy a $20 item, from a slightly less insane company,
> instead of a $10 one, from Walmart... Yeah, that has worked "so well",
> so far, given the huge amount of extra, left over, income everyone has,
> at the end of every month...

I think you're making exactly the same point as me, the fact is people 
would rather have a bit bigger house, a bit nicer food, a bit bigger TV, 
a bit better phone etc rather than paying a bit extra to get something 
that they can say is made locally. Most people would rather take the £10 
Walmart option, if it means they've got another $10 to allow them to get 
the latest iPhone or more TV channels or whatever.

Post a reply to this message

>> A long time ago you could only buy local, between then and now (when
>> there was plenty of choice) everyone has voted with their wallets that
>> they would rather buy the cheaper non-local mass-produced items. Large
>> corporations are simply providing us with what we want. If they thought
>> everyone wanted local items (and were happy to pay a premium), they'd
>> sell local items.
>>
> No, they won't.

They would if there was more profit in it for them. There isn't because 
people aren't willing to pay the extra.

> And, in the last 15 years, the minimum wage has gone up $0, inflation
> has grown by almost the same rate and GDP, and the amount paid, on
> average, to CEOs, and other top people, has increased anywhere from 5,
> to 50 times, in the same time frame. Oh, right, and the number of middle
> wage jobs and halved, while the "minimum wage", and other low end jobs,
> have more than doubled.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/01/United_States_Income_Distribution_1947-2007.svg

The numbers are a bit hard to read from the graph, but to me it looks 
like both the upper 20% and lower 20% have seen about a factor of 3 
increase between 1950 and today. Not exactly the huge disparity you 
describe.

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 06 Aug 2013 08:32:55 +0100, scott wrote:

>>> Just wait, the gradient of average GDP increase (in real terms) has
>>> been a steady doubling every 15 years since about 1850, and has shown
>>> no signs of slowing.
>>
>> Meanwhile, the income gap has increased by more than that, and also
>> shows no signs of changing.  So the rich get richer, the poor get
>> poorer, and upward mobility is stifled.
> 
> Any evidence for that comment? 

Absolutely.

Between 1967 and 2003 here in the US, according to the US Census Bureau, 
people in the bottom 20% of incomes have seen their incomes raise an 
average of 28.4%. ($14,002 at the start and $17,984 in 2003)

At the same time, people in the 95th percentile have seen their average 
incomes go up by about 78%. ($88,678 in '67, $154,120 in '03).

$1 in 2003 has the same buying power, though, as $0.18 in 1967. (or in 
the inverse, a dollar back then is worth a little over $6 now).

Right now, if I buy a gallon of milk, I pay about $4.50 for the brand we 
prefer.

According to the CPI inflation calculator (at bls.gov), in 2003, that 
gallon of milk would have cost $3.55.  In '67, it would've been $0.64.

So inflation over the '67-'03 time period was 600%, but incomes for the 
bottom 20% only went up 28%.  Relative to purchasing power, those 
families lost a lot of money (arguably those in the top 5% also lost a 
lot of buying power, but when you have enough money for the essentials, 
that becomes less of an issue - when you're only bringing in $17,000/
year, 600% inflation hurts a lot more than when you're bringing in 
$150,000 - because you can afford the essentials).

> Even in the last 40 years the poor have
> not been getting poorer:
> 
> http://rs.resalliance.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/
worldincome1970_2006.jpg
> 
> Another chart here, global poverty has reduced from about 90% of the
> population in 1800 to just above 20% by 2000.
> 
> http://blog.compassion.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/Global-
Poverty-1820-1992_graph-1.jpg
> 
> That's quite some progress, especially given the world population also
> increased by a factor of about 6 in the same time period.

I'm talking in the US, and those values don't appear to take inflation 
into account, it seems.  But those graphs also don't provide sources for 
their data, so they don't seem to be particularly useful.  I can create a 
graph that tells whatever story I want if I don't tell you the source of 
the data.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 05 Aug 2013 20:45:58 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:

> No, they won't. Those corporations didn't just edge out small businesses
> by selling non-local goods. Most local businesses, with the exception of
> food providers, or other "immediate sale" types, ordered parts, or
> goods,
> had them shipped to them, in smaller, more expensive, volumes, or
> special ordered them, and then you waited. The big corporations could do
> "volume"
> purchases, hire their own, lower paid shippers, then undercut the prices
> of the local sellers, even selling the **exact identical items**.

I spent about a decade working in the food & drug industry as an IT 
professional, and towards the end of the time, when my "Fortune 50" 
company was acquired by another Fortune 50 company, we had to take a 
course on "retail business basics".

In that course, one of the things we talked about was the death of the 
"mom & pop" style grocery store.  Companies like ours were responsible 
for those smaller local shops going away for precisely the reasons you 
state, Patrick:  Volume purchases, the ability to sell some items at a 
loss (which is actually a sound strategy, because you lay the store out 
so you have more impulse purchases and drive the average sale up).

But here was the interesting thing (and part of the reason that the 
combined larger company itself became an acquisition target - that and 
incompetent senior management, IMHO):  Walmart was (and is) doing the 
exact same thing to stores that focused on just food & drug.  Walmart 
leverages the welfare system in (IMHO) an unconscionable way to drive 
prices even lower than what food & drug retailers (who deal with unions 
in most states) can afford.  A not insignificant number of Walmart part 
time employees have to supplement their income with food stamps or other 
forms of welfare because they don't make a living wage (the ironic 
statement that "Walmart employees can't even afford to shop at Walmart" 
is sadly true in a lot of cases).

So now the food & drug giants like Safeway, Albertson's, Supervalu, and 
so on are faced with being on the receiving end of what they did to the 
mom & pop grocery stores.  To say they're not liking it is an 
understatement.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 06 Aug 2013 10:52:59 +0100, scott wrote:

> Not exactly the huge disparity you describe.

3*15 = 45

3*60 = 180

The gap is the important thing, not the factor.  The initial gap is what 
makes the disparity that much larger, and as I said, when you compare the 
numbers to the rate of inflation, the story gets much worse for those in 
the lower 20th percentile of income.

Jim

Post a reply to this message