A graph that would be good to put side-to-side with this one: The increase in gas prices vs. the dramatic decrease in clothing prices. Tells you a lot about how much the sheer quantity of how much shoes and clothes women buy has gone up.
Very witty reportaoreire or how ever it's spelled.
JTapp,
Good eye. Prices for clothes have come down (on the whole sale level anyway) about 30%. Oil has jumped up, thus the sheer volume of what they've purchased has probably skyrocketed.
But never underestimate a woman's ability to pay full price because they think its better.
Dude, DMK, I'm going to do you a favor. You are like an Anakin that needs massive dosages of Ritalin.
I can't understand and largely ignore most of your posts cause they're incoherent. I shall give you the same advice I gave young Mariam; FOCUS
You have potential, but if you can't focus it to address directly what is being discussed, it doesn't matter how ingenius you are, it's largely wasted.
"I can't understand and largely ignore most of your posts cause they're incoherent." Ouch, man.
I agree that there are some wacky priority differences on average between the sexes, but I also imagine there's also a weird averaging effect from _all_ people with little discretionary income paying occasional princely or even not so princely sums for silly shoes.
e.g.: 5% of my discretionary spendings (i.e., neither rent nor utilities) this year would be ~$18 (because of an expensive computer repair last month). Regardless, if I wasn't me, $18 could be like...going out to dinner and paying for me and a date, which might be my second most recent food expenditure, back in early November 2005. So I can see spending that kind of money to replace sneakers with worn through soles with new sneakers (...for sneaking).
Add in that I ~exclusively use public transit, hence ~nothing on gasoline and there's potentially a googol-fold difference in my "priorities" and yours, even though we both might not actually spend a ton of money (=$4000 in pennies) per decade on clothes.
meh, my sum of rent and utilities is only about a third of my stipend. The further south you go, and more people you're willing to be under the same roof as, the cheaper it is.
Sorry man, but honestly, who cares how much clothes cost? You can find a million things that we pay more for, but that isn't the issue now is it? When you review your income vs. expenses most people have a defined budget. With Gas prices and the national debt at the highest level in history any fiscally conscious human being need worry. Yes, I may have to go without buying new clothes, and I'm sure my girlfriend may as well, but that is no excuse or band aid to the problems with this administrations spendthrift attitude or inability to govern the practices of the oil industry. And industry that Cheney and Bush have a vested interest in.
Government intervention in the energy sector would be destructive in the long-term.
As Lee Raymond pointed out in the congressional hearings, any short-term windfall tax imposed by the government has resulted in ultimately hurting the consumer.
Heck, just look at South America. Venezuela, Bolivia and now Peru all have or are about to nationalize their energy industries or insist foreign investors give up a larger share of the profits to the state owned energy firms. What these socialist idiots don't realize is that these foreign comapnies invested literally TENS OF BILLIONS OF DOLLARS in these countries infrastrures and developing their energy resources AND THEY'RE GOING TO NOW RENEG ON THE CONTRACTS!!!!
Gee, I wonder what the ef these foreign investors with their billions are going to do now?
10 comments:
A graph that would be good to put side-to-side with this one:
The increase in gas prices vs. the dramatic decrease in clothing prices. Tells you a lot about how much the sheer quantity of how much shoes and clothes women buy has gone up.
DMK,
Very witty reportaoreire or how ever it's spelled.
JTapp,
Good eye. Prices for clothes have come down (on the whole sale level anyway) about 30%. Oil has jumped up, thus the sheer volume of what they've purchased has probably skyrocketed.
But never underestimate a woman's ability to pay full price because they think its better.
Dude, DMK, I'm going to do you a favor. You are like an Anakin that needs massive dosages of Ritalin.
I can't understand and largely ignore most of your posts cause they're incoherent. I shall give you the same advice I gave young Mariam; FOCUS
You have potential, but if you can't focus it to address directly what is being discussed, it doesn't matter how ingenius you are, it's largely wasted.
"I can't understand and largely ignore most of your posts cause they're incoherent."
Ouch, man.
I agree that there are some wacky priority differences on average between the sexes, but I also imagine there's also a weird averaging effect from _all_ people with little discretionary income paying occasional princely or even not so princely sums for silly shoes.
e.g.: 5% of my discretionary spendings (i.e., neither rent nor utilities) this year would be ~$18 (because of an expensive computer repair last month). Regardless, if I wasn't me, $18 could be like...going out to dinner and paying for me and a date, which might be my second most recent food expenditure, back in early November 2005. So I can see spending that kind of money to replace sneakers with worn through soles with new sneakers (...for sneaking).
Add in that I ~exclusively use public transit, hence ~nothing on gasoline and there's potentially a googol-fold difference in my "priorities" and yours, even though we both might not actually spend a ton of money (=$4000 in pennies) per decade on clothes.
That and Berkeley isn't exactly the cheapest place to live.
meh, my sum of rent and utilities is only about a third of my stipend. The further south you go, and more people you're willing to be under the same roof as, the cheaper it is.
Sorry man, but honestly, who cares how much clothes cost? You can find a million things that we pay more for, but that isn't the issue now is it? When you review your income vs. expenses most people have a defined budget. With Gas prices and the national debt at the highest level in history any fiscally conscious human being need worry. Yes, I may have to go without buying new clothes, and I'm sure my girlfriend may as well, but that is no excuse or band aid to the problems with this administrations spendthrift attitude or inability to govern the practices of the oil industry. And industry that Cheney and Bush have a vested interest in.
Do you have any idea how sad and pathetic you lefties sounds trying to tie everything back to Bush's fault?
Tsunami = global wamring = BUSH'S FAULT
Katrinia Hurricane = Hate's black people = BUSH'S FAULT!!!
Got bad CHinese food = Bush hates me = BUSH'S FAULT
Yeah, great thing misinformed, brainwashed idiots like you get to vote.
Government intervention in the energy sector would be destructive in the long-term.
As Lee Raymond pointed out in the congressional hearings, any short-term windfall tax imposed by the government has resulted in ultimately hurting the consumer.
Heck, just look at South America. Venezuela, Bolivia and now Peru all have or are about to nationalize their energy industries or insist foreign investors give up a larger share of the profits to the state owned energy firms. What these socialist idiots don't realize is that these foreign comapnies invested literally TENS OF BILLIONS OF DOLLARS in these countries infrastrures and developing their energy resources AND THEY'RE GOING TO NOW RENEG ON THE CONTRACTS!!!!
Gee, I wonder what the ef these foreign investors with their billions are going to do now?
Post a Comment