1. I accept that I am under the control of a higher power (Muppet).

Jesus H Christ; this is why I have moved a little to the right

But I do wonder how much of that 5% is made up of defense contractor revenue.  Oil revenue.
Permalink Bot Berlin 
March 15th, 2007 11:26pm
Yeah that really sucks for the ultra rich that they have to pay more taxes. Tell you what, I'll trade places with them. You rich guys take my salary and pay my taxes, and I'll take your salary and pay your taxes. The least I can do is help you relieve this burden you carry.
Permalink Practical Economist 
March 15th, 2007 11:29pm
You've moved to the right because of all the wealth created in the last 20 years the vast majority has been captured by the top 1%?

R U serious?
Permalink son of parnas 
March 15th, 2007 11:31pm
"You've moved to the right because of all the wealth created in the last 20 years the vast majority has been captured by the top 1%"

No, I have moved to the right (a little bit) because of the hypocrisy of the left.  Think about it, the top percent pay a lot of the taxes and generate a lot of revenue for the government and people in general.  And the left want to tax them more.  It is just a matter of time before the wealthy figure out that they could easily live a better life (dont know this for sure) in Europe or Japan; so that well will dry up.

You have Clinton and Kerry touting a universal healthcare plan, who is going to pay for that and wants that service.  I would love waiting in line for hours at some Walter Reed type medical facility.

I am not saying, right is right and the left is wrong.  I am saying that I am more into a more centrist or libertation viewpoint that takes into account things like the Fair Tax Plan and less government and shows outrage at stats like the one above.
Permalink Bot Berlin 
March 15th, 2007 11:38pm
What has you so worked up about those tax numbers?

The rich made all the weath and paid all the tax. 

Corporate capitalism hums along.



"The results indicate that the richest one percent received 53 percent of the total gain in marketable wealth over the
period from 1983 to 1998. The next 19 percent received another 39 percent, so that the top quintile together
accounted for 91 percent of the total growth in wealth, while the bottom 80 percent accounted for 9 percent. "

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=235472#PaperDownload
Permalink zed 
March 15th, 2007 11:42pm
> It is just a matter of time before the wealthy figure
> out that they could easily live a better life (dont
> know this for sure) in Europe or Japan; so that well
> will dry up.

Oh, you got me. I thought you were serious.
Permalink son of parnas 
March 15th, 2007 11:43pm
"Think about it, the top percent pay a lot of the taxes and generate a lot of revenue for the government and people in general."

Do the top 1% work any harder for their wealth than you for your wealth?  If not, then why not tax them more?
Permalink Send private email Wayne 
March 15th, 2007 11:46pm
Yeah, we've got half the country can't even afford medical care and yet they still have to pay the regressive 15.3% FICA tax and 10% sales tax at a minimum, even if they don't pay federal or state income tax. When income tax was enacted, only the richest 0.5% were going to pay anything at all. Now it is almost everyone that pays, even those who can not even afford the basics.
Permalink Practical Economist 
March 15th, 2007 11:50pm
Here is a bi-partisan plan;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FairTax
Permalink Bot Berlin 
March 15th, 2007 11:54pm
28% sales tax and be done with withholding and april 15 entirely?  sign me up.
Permalink zed 
March 16th, 2007 12:02am
>> Do the top 1% work any harder for their wealth than you for your wealth?

Yes they do. see previous thread about distribution of leisure (poor folks spend less time working).

What Berlin has pointed out makes sense .. the social burden among the classes is not constant but shifts, back and forth. Questions we ask are:

- is it fundamentally wrong for the rich to pay more in taxes than the poor? (I don't think so.)

- is it fundamentally wrong for the rich to pay *too* much? Or - is it ever possible that the rich are paying too much in taxes? (I think so.)

- how do we know how much is too much? (I don't know.)

- is the happy medium fixed or does it change from society to society? from technology to techonoloy? over time?

But framed this way it becomes less of a black/white issue. Less about all progressive taxes being unfair (hence the diabolically named 'FairTax'). It becomes about sliding the social burden percentage a little this way, or a little that way.
Permalink Send private email sour grape snowflake 
March 16th, 2007 10:33am
What Berlin pointed out was that the top 5% paid 57% of taxes in 2004.  What I pointed out was the top 1% earned 53% of the wealth 1983 - 1998.

What is so wildly out of whack with those numbers that it would make Berlin vote for the party of the patriot act, the iraq war, and massive deficit spending?
Permalink zed 
March 16th, 2007 10:41am
I think he simply said he felt the pull of the pendulum. He didn't say it was enough for him to switch directions.
Permalink Send private email sour grape snowflake 
March 16th, 2007 10:47am
"What is so wildly out of whack with those numbers that it would make Berlin vote for the party of the patriot act, the iraq war, and massive deficit spending?"

Exactly.
Permalink Bot Berlin 
March 16th, 2007 11:17am
Exactly, oops wrong copy-paste.  Meaning, I am moving to the right means I am staying away from loonie liberal ideas (minus marijuana and prostituion) but moving more to a libertarian view.
Permalink Bot Berlin 
March 16th, 2007 11:18am
"Yes they do. see previous thread about distribution of leisure (poor folks spend less time working)"

It seems unlikely that this is proportional in any way.  It's also just as likely that poor folks are *unable* to work more.

"is it fundamentally wrong for the rich to pay *too* much? Or - is it ever possible that the rich are paying too much in taxes?"

It is possible.  But what seems to be happening right now is the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer.  I'm not convinced that we should use tax to level the playing field but what we really need to do is prevent the exploitation of the poor for the benefit of the rich.  If that were the case, we wouldn't need as big of a tax difference.
Permalink Send private email Wayne 
March 16th, 2007 11:25am
It's not proportional. And a few of the reasons given (on the slate.com forum) for the leisure discrepency go your way - that the rich enjoy their work more, that they get paid more (so of course they'd work more), etc.

Yet when the average (ie, not rich) American (or North American) watches 30 hours of TV/surfing the web a week, I find it hard to call it 'exploitation'. They could spend some of those hours making production of one sort or another (I know I could). It's sort of a red herring to say there's no work to be had -- why is there such a great labor pressure to get into the US/Canada if there aren't jobs of one sort or another at every corner?
Permalink Send private email sour grape snowflake 
March 16th, 2007 11:34am
For me, it will always boil down to reasonable rewards balanced with society's needs.

I continue, and will always continue to believe that once you hit a certain point it is a given that you've slighted society in some way or another to be that far ahead of it.

There just isn't any amount of work you could do that would make me believe your inherent value is so far ahead of the average joe.
Permalink JoC 
March 16th, 2007 12:05pm
"It's sort of a red herring to say there's no work to be had"

There's not very much "full-time" work to be had.  If you are poor with few skills, you can bounce around between several part-time jobs among various employers but you'll probably be hard pressed to find full-time work.  Companies at that level don't want full-time employees.  That's partially where the exploitation comes in.
Permalink Send private email Wayne 
March 16th, 2007 12:06pm
True about part-timeness. But what's fundamentally wrong with part-timeness? Isn't an ADD nation happier with different jobs?

I'm not sure how it's exploitation for a company not to hire someone with poor skills. Or to hire them at market rates. Exploitation's a heavy word. It implies intent. If immigrants regularly find work in the states/Canada, what prevents the tv-watching natives?

(I'm one of those who spends 6-10 hours a week watching TV instead of working. But I do realize I could have a part-time job at the supermarket. Or making my own micro-ISV or whatever. I know I'm lazy.)
Permalink Send private email sour grape snowflake 
March 16th, 2007 12:41pm
"But what's fundamentally wrong with part-timeness?"

They don't have to give you benefits or pay you as much.  To do more than one job, you need to work odd shifts as opposed to 9-to-5.  You also become an easily replaceable cog.  I doubt there is very much good about it for those people who need the money.

"I'm not sure how it's exploitation for a company not to hire someone with poor skills."

Companies do hire those with poor skills and then keep them down. 

"If immigrants regularly find work in the states/Canada, what prevents the tv-watching natives?"

You're making a lot of assumptions there.
Permalink Send private email Wayne 
March 16th, 2007 1:12pm
The facts are that there's a long line of people wanting to get into the US/Canada (and Western European countries too). Hence it's not unreasonable to think that these people are not idiots driven by fantasy to risk limbs and livelihoods to make a go of it in the developed countries (ok, some might be in fantasy land, but with cheap communication, I think most know what they are in for).

And so it's not unreasonable to think there is demand for labor in these countries not being met by natives. Yet we know the natives have lots of leisure (in the US, TV, in Europe vacation/education time). Hence ... no exploitation.
Permalink Send private email sour grape snowflake 
March 16th, 2007 1:26pm
"The facts are that there's a long line of people wanting to get into the US/Canada (and Western European countries too)."

And yet overwhelmingly the people that work in 7-11's and drive taxis are immigrants?  We've got highly trained doctors from other countries driving taxis because they can't get certified without going back to school.

"And so it's not unreasonable to think there is demand for labor in these countries not being met by natives."

There are lots of programmers looking for work yet companies are still looking to increase the number of H1B visas.  The reason: You can pay an immigrant a lot less than a native for the same skill set.  If that isn't exploitation, you don't know what the word means.
Permalink Send private email Wayne 
March 16th, 2007 1:33pm
What does exploitation mean? If two parties agree to a contract, how is that exploitative? Is there a meaningful way to use the word 'exploitation' without making all employer/employee relationships exploitative?

Honestly this is like the gold standard argument ... there's a belief that there's an implicit value associated with the work. Why is that true? Why is paying someone who has less domain knowledge (like an Indian outsourced firm) or is more desperate for work exploitative? I raised my rates during the dotcom boom - was I exploiting companies b/c they were desperate? I lowered my rates after the bust - was I being exploitated because I was more desperate?
Permalink Send private email sour grape snowflake 
March 16th, 2007 1:44pm
zed's numbers are a good point. The rich pay 50% of the taxes, but they earn 50% of the income. If we implement a flat, completely inclusive tax across the board on all income of all persons, the rich will pay MORE than they do now.
Permalink Practical Economist 
March 16th, 2007 1:57pm
For a flat tax to work though, there can't be any loopholes. The rich can afford teams of attorneys paid $1million/yr to find those loopholes. George Bush transferring his wealth to a bank in the Bahamas or a tax shelter needs to be severely punished. No deductions at all, not for mortgage interest, not for state income tax, not for medical expenses, not for charitable deductions.
Permalink Practical Economist 
March 16th, 2007 1:59pm
> And yet overwhelmingly the people that work in 7-11's and drive taxis are immigrants?

That adds to my argument rather than detracts from it. Considering how flexible these jobs are, someone who wanted part-time work could fit them itno their schedules.

>  We've got highly trained doctors from other countries driving taxis because they can't get certified without going back to school.

Would you want to have your kids go to a doctor who met the local standard, ie, was locally certified, or to go to a doctor who didn't? It's a community decision. Petition your local community/state/country, etc to allow doctors from country X, Y and Z practice without further credentials. Personally, I'd rather see all doctors get retested periodically. I know -- it would be exploitive of me, as the customer, to ask for such high standards in the medical field.

Quite a few (over a quarter?) of the doctors I bump into are immigrants. It must be possible.
Permalink Send private email sour grape snowflake 
March 16th, 2007 1:59pm
"That adds to my argument rather than detracts from it."

What's your argument again?

"Considering how flexible these jobs are, someone who wanted part-time work could fit them itno their schedules."

I don't see any "help wanted" signs.  The point is, the jobs suck.  The whole point of part-time is to exploit the worker for benefit of the company and the shareholders.  Is this the rich benefiting on the backs of the poor?  Probably.  Should they be taxed more because of that?  Maybe.  I'd prefer to see a world where things were a little bit more fair than to artificially induce fairness though taxation.

"Would you want to have your kids go to a doctor who met the local standard, ie, was locally certified, or to go to a doctor who didn't?"

I was just pointing out that highly skilled people are coming to North America and end up doing shit jobs.
Permalink Send private email Wayne 
March 16th, 2007 2:05pm
> What's your argument again?

Lack of wide-spread exploitation.

>  The point is, the jobs suck.

And yet there are long lines to do them. Hence: lack of exploitation.

> I was just pointing out that highly skilled people are coming to North America and end up doing shit jobs.

It's their choice. Hence, lack of exploitation.  Every Western country has a shortage of nurses so there's no reason a medical professional can't go into nursing - unless that's one of the shit jobs mentioned, or, the person is unqualified.

> I'd prefer to see a world where things were a little bit more fair than to artificially induce fairness though taxation.

Interesting. I like (progressive) taxation because it's the worst solution but for all the others. I don't know of another one that's fairer .. except the certainty of death as Ben Franklin quipped. A VAT/sales tax-centric system seems fairer on first blush because people have the choice of whether to buy something or not (hence less exploitative). But poorer people spend a much higher portion of their incomes on essential goods, and so would be hit harder by it. Hence less just.

Suggestions welcome.
Permalink Send private email sour grape snowflake 
March 16th, 2007 2:53pm
I often hear about how these poor people need to pay their fair share? What is the fair share for someone who would be better off as a warrior or hunter-gatherer, because modern society has shat upon him?
Permalink Practical Economist 
March 16th, 2007 2:57pm
"And yet there are long lines to do them. Hence: lack of exploitation."

The long lines are only from people who have no other options.  That hardly disproves your no exploitation thesis.

"Every Western country has a shortage of nurses so there's no reason a medical professional can't go into nursing"

So why is there a shortage of nurses?

"But poorer people spend a much higher portion of their incomes on essential goods, and so would be hit harder by it. Hence less just."

Not to mention that if everything was a sales tax those with money would have less incentive to spend that money. 

A few sales taxes in Canada do not apply to essential goods -- I one case a single donut is taxed but a dozen isn't. 

"I often hear about how these poor people need to pay their fair share? What is the fair share for someone who would be better off as a warrior or hunter-gatherer, because modern society has shat upon him?"

My god, I find myself agreeing with Practical Economist on something.
Permalink Send private email Wayne 
March 16th, 2007 3:09pm
Bot is too stupid to understand what the graphs mean, too lazy to read the comments where the very first one explains it.

Maybe hiring from overseas isn't such a bad idea.
Permalink Lurk Machine 
March 16th, 2007 3:10pm
> The long lines are only from people who have no other options.

No options? Is every immigrant a poltical refugee? Everyone had a AK-47 stuck to their head and told to leave? Surely there were options. And are employers in country X responsible for gun-to-head conditions in county Y? The immigrant could have chosen some other country, no?

> So why is there a shortage of nurses?

Perhaps all those 'qualified' people you cited in shit jobs weren't qualified. Or didn't want to be nurses. Either way, not exploitative (just like it's not exploitative that I can't get a job as a nurse today - I can't).

I like nurses. I think they should become the project managers in the medical field -- gathering information from/handing work to specialists (doctors) and integrating the solution for the client (ie, the patient). Currently no one is assigned to the client. It's a mess - the patient is responsible for relaying info around half the time.

>  a single donut is taxed but a dozen isn't. 

That's hilarious. One donut is a luxury, but a dozen? It must be essential.

The whole essential/non-essential categorization has its problems too. It must be a hard job deciding. There's a sales tax here too which excludes essentials - I can buy $500 Gucci shoes and not be taxed a dime. But a $5 reading book for my kids? Taxed.

> because modern society has shat upon him

Ha. Yeah shat on him when he's collecting pension for 20 years and golfing and seeing his grandkids grow up, and using the Internet to meet cute senior-age mates, etc. While over in the hunter-gather society, he's ... well, he's dead from a bacteria infection at age 48.
Permalink Send private email sour grape snowflake 
March 16th, 2007 4:34pm
"That's hilarious. One donut is a luxury, but a dozen? It must be essential.

The whole essential/non-essential categorization has its problems too. It must be a hard job deciding. There's a sales tax here too which excludes essentials - I can buy $500 Gucci shoes and not be taxed a dime. But a $5 reading book for my kids? Taxed."

A dozen is essential because it was assumed it's used at home for breadfast.

One donut is a luxury because it was asummed the donut is not  a necessity -- you can bring your donut from home.

Here in Vancouver BC school textbooks are not taxed. Neither are children clothes. I am not sure about general children books.
Permalink Send private email Rick Zeng/Tseng 
March 16th, 2007 4:43pm
"While over in the hunter-gather society, he's ... well, he's dead from a bacteria infection at age 48."

But you would have died of hunger at age 28.
Permalink Send private email Rick Zeng/Tseng 
March 16th, 2007 4:44pm
"No options?"

We aren't just talking about immigrants.  Really 'ol natives are lined up for crappy part-time jobs with no benefits because there aren't any other options.  Companies could turn those part-time jobs into full-time jobs and staff them.  These full time people would likely be better at their jobs and happier.  But they don't want to do that -- it's not good for the bottom line.

"Yeah shat on him when he's collecting pension for 20 years and golfing and seeing his grandkids grow up, and using the Internet to meet cute senior-age mates, etc."

Or holed up a crappy home somewhere mindless staring out the window waiting for a nurse to come by and change the bed pan.  We are talking about poor people here.  Golfing?  Unlikely.  Grandkids?  Couldn't afford the kids.  Internet?  Ha.
Permalink Send private email Wayne 
March 16th, 2007 5:05pm
> Really 'ol natives are lined up for crappy part-time jobs with no benefits because there aren't any other options.

Perhaps the developed countries' natives should emigrate to those great hunter-gatherer countries? Seriously .. the jobs are crappy because of the natives' expectations. The jobs don't have intrinsic 'crap' value. It's work. You do it. You get paid. You go out to a bar with your friends. Hunter-gather societies ... you work, you may not get paid, you may not go to a bar with your friends. And even if you do there's no refrigeration so your meat may rot before you have a chance to eat it. Or it's a bad year and there's nuts to pick. (I fish and go mushroom/blueberry picking, so I don't suffer silly hunter-gatherer romanticism.)

> But they don't want to do that -- it's not good for the bottom line.

So what? How does that make them exploitive? If I buy bread at the local baker's I know I pay more than it cost them to make it. Are they exploiting me? Are the using me for nefarious purposes? Like to get braces for their kids or buy a garage door opener?

I would be surprised if the people on this forum didn't care about their bottom lines. I get upset when an employer doesn't pay me because they were too busy not paying attention to their bottom line. That upsets me far greater than an employer that is good with the books.

> But you would have died of hunger at age 28.

Percentage-wise how much of your income do you spend on food? How many hours do you need to work at the local Kwiki Mart to make enough money to feed yourself? 3 hours per week. Sorry, able poor people aren't starving in developed countries like they are in those great non-modern Rousseauian paradises you guys are referring to. And most disabled poor people aren't starving either.
Permalink Send private email sour grape snowflake 
March 16th, 2007 5:53pm
"So what? How does that make them exploitive?"

They make everyone part-time to *exploit* loop holes in the labor laws, moron.

"I would be surprised if the people on this forum didn't care about their bottom lines."

There is nothing wrong with making a profit.  The issue is whether you (or a company) does more harm than good to society to accomplish that profit.

"Percentage-wise how much of your income do you spend on food?"

Not much, but I do spend a pretty large percentage of income on housing.  Anyway this thing is going way off topic and your obsession with the hunter-gatherer thing is distracting.
Permalink Send private email Wayne 
March 16th, 2007 6:29pm
> to *exploit* loop holes in the labor laws, moron.

Um, why did you get nasty all of a sudden? If you can't explain your own poorly formulated ideas well, don't call the other person 'moron' for not agreeing with them. It's only natural not to agree with poorly formulated ideas.

Why is it exploitation if everyone knows about these laws? Isn't it presumptuous to think the loopholes were not put in place b/c the lawmaker wanted it that way? Part-time work fulfills. Must *all* work be full-time? Even for HS/college students? Even for people who want to work an extra couple shifts after their normal job? Your arguments are leading into a place where job=life and there is no partial credit, no narrower units, no extra credit. Let employers put granular pieces of work onto the market and let workers bid on them. Why is that categorically bad? Why should employers even be responsible for healthcare (so much better w/o that arcane American system)? Just pay people more.

Don't blame me for pointing out holes in your line of thought, please. Thanks.

> obsession with the hunter-gatherer thing is distracting.

You mentioned that P.E. had it right (and I was responding to Rick's comment about dying at 28 in modern societies). It's very amusing to think hunters-gatherers have such better lives ("are not shat on") and yet to not notice the high level of demand to get the hell out of h/g societies.
Permalink Send private email sour grape snowflake 
March 16th, 2007 6:58pm
"Um, why did you get nasty all of a sudden?"

Calling someone a moron on CoT is like saying G'day in Australia.

"Why is it exploitation if everyone knows about these laws?"

Does knowing about the law make any difference?

"Isn't it presumptuous to think the loopholes were not put in place b/c the lawmaker wanted it that way?"

Certainly.  Do law makers always make laws that are moral or not exploitive?

"Must *all* work be full-time?"

No, of course not.  I didn't say there was anything wrong with part-time work either.  I don't even think there is anything wrong with not giving benefits to part-time workers.  All that stuff exists for a reason.  But companies are abusing this.  They are getting rid of full-time employee positions to create part-time employee positions to avoid the costs of full-time employees.  That doesn't mean the law is wrong, it's just the company that is abusing the law.

"Just pay people more."

Most of these people get minimum wage, right?  I suspect if the US eliminated minimum wage it would be a real quick race to the bottom.
Permalink Send private email Wayne 
March 16th, 2007 7:08pm
> Calling someone a moron on CoT is like saying G'day in Australia.

Fair enough. :)

> I suspect if the US eliminated minimum wage it would be a real quick race to the bottom.

Except very few people get paid minimum wage. Very few. Wal-Mart doesn't pay min wage. Around these parts get kids working the cashier register $9-10/hr.

I think a minimum wage makes sense more for social reasons than for economic ones. It sends a signal that there's a floor to wages, people's time -- which just feels good -- rather than actually make that much diff in incomes.
Permalink Send private email sour grape snowflake 
March 16th, 2007 7:53pm
"notice the high level of demand to get the hell out of h/g societies"

Yeah really? Sure you're not confusing hunter/gatherer with the urban third world?

Life expectancy and quality of life for american indians in 2007 is much worse than it was in 1491. What benefit are they getting from the modern system? Wouldn't it be better for them if they had their own country and resources back?
Permalink Practical Economist 
March 16th, 2007 8:49pm
The 'hardly anyone makes the minimum wage according to BLS statistics' argument is kind of funny. We hear that the minimum wage doesn't matter because from a practical standpoint, it doesn't actually apply to anyone.

Then, in the next breath, we hear that raising it even 1 cent will bankrupt hundreds of thousands of businesses and put tens of millions of hardworking americans out of a job.

So which is it?

BTW - the BLS statistics look at FEDERAL minimum wage. The states that have higher minimum wages are counted as having ZERO percent workers getting minimum wage, which is not really true.
Permalink Practical Economist 
March 16th, 2007 8:54pm
To clarify, I didn't mean hunter/gather society is better than ours.

I was just saying these poor people with no skills could outsmart you (and other rich people) and live longer if the circumstances are different.

You know how rich people are? George Soros could single-handedly disrupt the economies of Britain, Malasia Hong Kong. It's really hard to not believe that the world --  US government, IMF, WTO, World bank -- is rugged against ordinary fellow.
Permalink Rick, try writing better English 
March 16th, 2007 9:31pm
> Life expectancy and quality of life for american indians in 2007 is much worse than it was in 1491.

Source please. This is a laughable claim. Really - do you know how many children died at childbirth? At 10? Etc.

> We hear that the minimum wage doesn't matter because from a practical standpoint, it doesn't actually apply to anyone.

Well, the claim is that it makes little economic difference to lower it/get rid of it, but it does make economic difference to raise it (of course, it would cause inflation to raise the min wage - and some inflation is bearable for the good feeling effects, but it's never possible to raise it to "living wage" because that's a moving target). These are not the same thing. Getting rid of something is not the same as increasing it. But good try. Not very practical not to see the differences, Mr PE, but good try.

> I was just saying these poor people with no skills could outsmart you (and other rich people) and live longer if the circumstances are different.

I'm not particularly rich (see mushroom-picking and fishing and watching TV activities above), but yeah, I don't disagree that under different circumstances there would be differences. I don't see how that advances the notion that modern humans are being shat on more than pre-modern ones. Try this ... try coming homw from work for a whole month and not watching TV or using the Internet or having electricity on. Try that. Look at the stars. Go to sleep at 6pm. Don't use the microwave. Try that for a month. That puts you back only a 120 years.

I think if you took a modern office drone and dropped them into the middle of a forest like the do on the show Survivor, no, they wouldn't last long (no one ever figures out how to make fire without using lenses). I wouldn't either. But if you took a hunter/gatherer and put them into the middle of Manhattan/Toronto they would survive. For one thing there are soup kitchens and social services, etc.

But of course: that only demonstrates my point! Modern life is easier. :)
Permalink Send private email sour grape snowflake 
March 16th, 2007 10:08pm
I don't own a TV. I use the internet by stealing bandwidth from the neighbor and I'm off the grid electrically. So I think I'm doing OK.
Permalink Practical Economist 
March 17th, 2007 3:21pm

This topic is archived. No further replies will be accepted.

Other topics: March, 2007 Other topics: March, 2007 Recent topics Recent topics