View Full Version : Who agrees with this statement
From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.
issac the dragon
11-02-2007, 08:56 PM
Sounds like communism to me. Isn't it from the Bible?
No it isn't from the Bible :roll
Saguaro
11-02-2007, 09:04 PM
It's from the Communist Manifesto
Can no one here answer a simple question?
Saguaro
11-02-2007, 09:16 PM
Primitive communism, according to Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, is the original hunter-gatherer society of humanity. Marx and Engels were influenced by the work of the pioneering anthropologist Lewis H. Morgan. Morgan's work is now usually regarded as outdated, and there is no universally accepted description of the way of life of pre-historic humans. However, there are many advocates of the notion of primitive communism, both Marxist and non-Marxist.
It has been suggested that the model of primitive communism may apply to some but not all early human societies because some Hunter gatherer societies may have been able to store food and thus generate surplus and have social stratification as a result. Further, it has been suggested that primitive societies may have contained some, but not all of the features presently associated with the goals of "communism".
In a primitive communist society, all able bodied persons would have engaged in obtaining food, and everyone would share in what was produced by hunting and gathering. There would be almost no property, other than articles of clothing and similar personal items, because primitive society produced almost no surplus; what was produced was quickly consumed. The few things that existed for any length of time (tools, housing) were held communally. There would have been no state.
Domestication of animals and plants following the Neolithic Revolution through herding and agriculture was seen as the turning point from primitive communism to class society as it was followed by private ownership and slavery, with the inequality that it entailed. In addition, parts of the population specialized in different activities, such as manufacturing, culture, philosophy, and science. This stratification is said to lead to the development of social classes.
According to Marxism, society may, if it lasts long enough, develop into communism. Like its primitive ancestor, communism involves public ownership of the means of production, and Marx popularized a famous maxim to illustrate its basic principle: "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs." Communism differs from primitive communism in that production is highly advanced — advanced enough, said Marx, to meet the material needs and wants of practically everyone. According to Marxists, communism has not yet been implemented in any part of the world.
It has been argued that a few isolated peoples still have a primitive communist society. Debates about the nature of such societies tend to rest on whether or not communism is regarded as encompassing the whole life of a community or, alternately, specific activities within that community can be defined as "communist".
Those groups that advocate a return to or are inspired by hunter-gatherer society are associated with the movement of anarcho-primitivism.
STILL DID NOT ANSWER THE FRIGGIN QUESTION
It is a simple YES OR NO
OMG it isn't that hard.
I dont agree with it.
Saguaro
11-02-2007, 09:25 PM
A baited question, and I refuse to be baited
issac the dragon
11-02-2007, 09:27 PM
NO. Okay, I answered your question. The theory sounds good but it won't work.
No I am actually curious.
It is a statement from Karl Marx
Besides the tax plans that I hear from the Dems (not necessarily here) sound like this statement
NO. Okay, I answered your question. The theory sounds good but it won't work.
THANK YOU
That is what I though at first as well.
Sounded good till I thought about it.
issac the dragon
11-02-2007, 09:30 PM
I'm inclined to agree with you on the Democrats tax schemes. On the other hand, I don't much care for the Republican plan either. Which is letting the profiteers off completely. Like Caymen Island.
quiet man
11-02-2007, 09:31 PM
looks like you made a statement not ask a question.
that said, the idea is agreeable.
The question was
Who agrees with this statement
It was in the title
I'm inclined to agree with you on the Democrats tax schemes. On the other hand, I don't much care for the Republican plan either. Which is letting the profiteers off completely. Like Caymen Island.
OMG we agree on this (to an extent), HOly Cow, the Rangers migh win the next World Series at this rate
J/K the rangers will never even make it to the world series.
Lone Laugher
11-02-2007, 09:35 PM
Wow...another brilliant thread begun by our resident masterdebater. Yawn.
Answer the question, it was posted for a fun discussion.
issac the dragon
11-02-2007, 09:36 PM
OMG we agree on this (to an extent), HOly Cow, the Rangers migh win the next World Series at this rate
J/K the rangers will never even make it to the world series.
And the Cubbies win the world series? I hope, I hope.:hotdog
Trueblue
11-02-2007, 09:40 PM
No it isn't from the Bible :roll
I am surprised that you are rolling your eyes at the idea this is from the Bible.
I am surprised that you are rolling your eyes at the idea this is from the Bible.
Because it isn't from the Bible
Trueblue
11-02-2007, 09:56 PM
Because it isn't from the Bible
BUT THE IDEA IS VERY SIMILAR TO THE WAY THAT THE APOSTLES LIVED.
No they gave becaue it was right not because some government told them to, besides they were not rich and gave lots.
Marx wanted the government to force his idea on people.
Trueblue
11-02-2007, 10:01 PM
No they gave becaue it was right not because some government told them to, besides they were not rich and gave lots.
Marx wanted the government to force his idea on people.
THEY HAD NO PERSONAL PROPERTY. THEY SHARED EVERYTHING. WHEN SOMEBODY ASKED IF IT WAS FROM THE BIBLE, THEY WERE NOT SAYING SOMETHING THAT DESERVED EYE ROLLING.
WHATEVER MARX WANTED, YOU ASKED ABOUT THE STATEMENT, AND I TOLD YOU, IT'S HOW THE APOSTLES LIVED.
THEY HAD NO PERSONAL PROPERTY. THEY SHARED EVERYTHING. WHEN SOMEBODY ASKED IF IT WAS FROM THE BIBLE, THEY WERE NOT SAYING SOMETHING THAT DESERVED EYE ROLLING.
WHATEVER MARX WANTED, YOU ASKED ABOUT THE STATEMENT, AND I TOLD YOU, IT'S HOW THE APOSTLES LIVED.
I am not responding to a person thta is going to yell.
And I also refuse to get into anothe biblical debate with you, we disagree on everything when it comes to that,
Trueblue
11-02-2007, 10:10 PM
I am not responding to a person thta is going to yell.
And I also refuse to get into anothe biblical debate with you, we disagree on everything when it comes to that,
GOOD, THEN I WILL YELL FROM NOW ON. YOU ARE NOT READING WHAT PEOPLE SAY, AND YOUR RESPONSES TO THEIR POSTS THAT YOU HAVE NOT READ ARE SMUG.
Whatever TB be childish if you want to.
I read what you posted but I
DISAGREED
Trueblue
11-02-2007, 10:20 PM
Whatever TB be childish if you want to.
I read what you posted but I
DISAGREED
It is fine to disagree! That is not the problem!
sparks
11-02-2007, 10:41 PM
:popcorn
It is fine to disagree! That is not the problem!
Apparently it is. You get mad because I don't agree with you and stand my ground.
Izdaari
11-03-2007, 12:15 AM
No, I don't agree with it.
crazierthanever
11-03-2007, 12:26 AM
Revvie, in a perfect world - I would agree with it. This isn't anywhere near a perfect world.
I believe Jesus (if he were here) would agree with it. :theman
Semantics
11-03-2007, 07:50 AM
Yes.
I agree with that statement. :)
toxic
11-03-2007, 07:55 AM
No they gave becaue it was right not because some government told them to, besides they were not rich and gave lots.
Marx wanted the government to force his idea on people.
Wrong - Marx was good guy and wanted to help people, just like Jesus.
A few things:
1) The Communist Manifesto is about FREE TRADE's adverse effects on society. Read it goddamnit, it is more relevant to YOUR life today than ever before. Today it is about Republicans (Bourgeois) shipping all jobs to Economic Slaves in China. When it was written, it was about jobs in Europe being shipped to American Black Slaves, Australian Penal Coloney Slaves and Chinese Economic Slaves. Today only the Chinese Slaves remain and that is where your jobs will go, unless you will work for $3 per week.
2) The Communist Manifest has two parts. A) the problem of Free Trade and it's impact, B) Marx's solution to replace greedy Republicans by the State. Most people feel that part B does not work, so don't worry about that part.
3) Marx was optimistic about people's desire to contribute in a communal fashion. This is less likely to work in crowded urban societies, where people don't know their neighbor or how their neighbor is contributing. Fear, greed, selfishness and skepticism works against communal success.
Communist Manifesto (It is a classic - Read it):
http://www.anu.edu.au/polsci/marx/classics/manifesto.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_each_according_to_his_ability,_to_each_accord ing_to_his_need
Trueblue
11-03-2007, 08:06 AM
Apparently it is. You get mad because I don't agree with you and stand my ground.
Absolutely not. I apologize for yelling, to you and to anyone else who was offended. But what bothers me is not that you stand your ground, it's that you repeat misinformation and do not take time to understand what other people are saying.
Wrong - Marx was good guy and wanted to help people, just like Jesus.
A few things:
1) The Communist Manifesto is about FREE TRADE's adverse effects on society. Read it goddamnit, it is more relevant to YOUR life today than ever before. Today it is about Republicans (Bourgeois) shipping all jobs to Economic Slaves in China. When it was written, it was about jobs in Europe being shipped to American Black Slaves, Australian Penal Coloney Slaves and Chinese Economic Slaves. Today only the Chinese Slaves remain and that is where your jobs will go, unless you will work for $3 per week.
2) The Communist Manifest has two parts. A) the problem of Free Trade and it's impact, B) Marx's solution to replace greedy Republicans by the State. Most people feel that part B does not work, so don't worry about that part.
3) Marx was optimistic about people's desire to contribute in a communal fashion. This is less likely to work in crowded urban societies, where people don't know their neighbor or how their neighbor is contributing. Fear, greed, selfishness and skepticism works against communal success.
Communist Manifesto (It is a classic - Read it):
http://www.anu.edu.au/polsci/marx/classics/manifesto.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_each_according_to_his_ability,_to_each_accord ing_to_his_need
Valid points. Because of the evil and totalitarian governments of the USSR and China, we sometimes forget to see what Marx actually said.
Wabash
11-03-2007, 02:41 PM
No I am actually curious.
It is a statement from Karl Marx
Besides the tax plans that I hear from the Dems (not necessarily here) sound like this statement
WELL SURE they ARE!!!! Anything from a Democrat is socialist in nature and concept!
I don't agree with ANYTHING written or thought up by a Commie!(Read socialist democrat)
Saguaro
11-03-2007, 02:43 PM
:roll
Lone Laugher
11-03-2007, 02:52 PM
WELL SURE they ARE!!!! Anything from a Democrat is socialist in nature and concept!
I don't agree with ANYTHING written or thought up by a Commie!(Read socialist democrat)
Wabass...do you ever get bored of posting that kind of empty rhetoric? I mean, it isn't even humorous. After a while, even you have to realize that comments like that are not truthful, productive or interesting.
cassandra
11-03-2007, 02:53 PM
I do not agree with it.
I also find it kinda funny that some might think it from the Bible. If it were from the Bible would that make a fundamental difference?
Trueblue
11-03-2007, 02:57 PM
I do not agree with it.
I also find it kinda funny that some might think it from the Bible. If it were from the Bible would that make a fundamental difference?
I find it funny that people don't get that it's a Christian concept.
sparks
11-03-2007, 03:11 PM
I do not agree with it.
I also find it kinda funny that some might think it from the Bible. If it were from the Bible would that make a fundamental difference?
Good question! The problem with making our fundamental beliefs match the Bible's is that the Bible is open to interpretation.
issac the dragon
11-03-2007, 04:39 PM
Marx would have a field day in America right now. But, he'd end up in prison, tortured, and then be killed in a prison fight. Those are always convenient for the powers that be.
No one in this country believes in Communism. And Wabash, Cassandra, Ringo, and the Reverend know that. A lot of Americans believe in some Socialism. As do most of the people in the whole, wide, world. And the countries that we keep kicking around are socialists. We want to take what their governments have given to the people and give it to our rich. Yeah. Lets kill a few soldiers for that.
Trueblue
11-03-2007, 04:42 PM
I don't know of any system that works perfectly, not capitalism, socialism, communism, or any other ism.
Others have mentioned what they find interesting-I find it interesting that those who proclaim a very literal Christianity also like unregulated capitalism. :think
sparks
11-03-2007, 04:48 PM
I don't know of any system that works perfectly, not capitalism, socialism, communism, or any other ism.
Others have mentioned what they find interesting-I find it interesting that those who proclaim a very literal Christianity also like unregulated capitalism. :think
Which is why we have a mixed economy here in the U.S. Of course something must be out of whack cause lately I'm pretty concerned about our economy going under.
So...where does the correction need to be made to get the balance right again? :think
Trueblue
11-03-2007, 04:52 PM
Which is why we have a mixed economy here in the U.S. Of course something must be out of whack cause lately I'm pretty concerned about our economy going under.
So...where does the correction need to be made to get the balance right again? :think
The "mortgage meltdown" is scary. I can see that they should have had tighter mortgage regulations, but it's too late for that now, isn't it?
I am not sure how to fix it-our economy is based on consumption that is unnecessary, and I question if we can keep up this level of consumption. KWIM?
sparks
11-03-2007, 04:59 PM
The "mortgage meltdown" is scary. I can see that they should have had tighter mortgage regulations, but it's too late for that now, isn't it?
I am not sure how to fix it-our economy is based on consumption that is unnecessary, and I question if we can keep up this level of consumption. KWIM?
I don't think the general populas can. Perhaps some...but others are priced out of the market on a few levels.
It has exploded into the worst housing crisis since the Great Depression. Home owners with near perfect credit scores are having their homes foreclosed. The subprime crisis has taken a fast leap into the conventional mortgage market, and little is being done to bring it to a halt.
http://www.housingpredictor.com/crisis.html
sparks
11-03-2007, 05:14 PM
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/09/13/opinion/main3257337.shtml?source=RSSattr=Opinion_3257337
FDR Solves The Mortgage Crisis
The New Republic: There Are Lessons In How Roosevelt Dealt With A Similar Housing Situation 75 Years Ago
"Here should be an objective of Government itself, to provide at least as much assistance to the little fellow as it is now giving to the large banks and corporations."--Franklin D. Roosevelt, April 7, 1932
The burgeoning home-mortgage crisis of 2007 bears an eerie resemblance to financial conditions 75 years ago, when FDR realized that only the U.S. government could forestall a wave of home foreclosures by directly helping "the little fellow." Today, homeowners can only hope that something akin to Roosevelt's New Deal answer to the home-loan crisis of the 1930s--direct lending to homeowners--is embraced by policymakers once again.
Today's "exotic" home loans have a lot in common with most of the loans available for borrowers in the 1920s, which were short-term, non-amortizing (interest-only) loans with a balloon payment due at the end. Because the loans were non-amortizing, no equity was built up in the home with the monthly payments. Homeowners would only build up equity through rising house prices.
The mortgage structure through the Roaring Twenties was predicated on the expectation that a refinancing into a new loan would be available at the time of the balloon payment; and until October 1929, it was. Those same refinancing expectations in the first years of the 21st century led many borrowers to take out loans they simply could not afford from lenders who convinced them home prices would only go up. Some of today's troubled borrowers never understood what would happen to their loans. Many others simply trusted that their lenders would never steer them into a loan they would ultimately be unable to pay.
In 1931, when the first batches of three-year mortgages issued in 1928 and five-year mortgages from 1926 came due, few banks were able or willing to issue new loans, leading to 1.4 percent of all U.S. homeowners losing their homes to foreclosure in a single year. Through the end of the second quarter of 2007, according to data from the Mortgage Bankers Association, 1.23 percent of home mortgages newly entered foreclosure, which could mean that by the end of the year, 1.6 percent of all homeowners may well enter foreclosure proceedings.
Those percentages, then and now, may not seem particularly high, but they mask the destruction of wealth in neighborhoods across the country plagued by a proliferation of foreclosure signs. A middle-class house worth $5,000 in 1926 was worth only $3,300 in 1932. As the historian Kenneth T. Jackson noted, "the victims were often middle-class families who were experiencing impoverishment for the first time." Today, homeowners with wealth in their homes and only a few years left to pay on a traditional mortgage suddenly are faced with the prospect of plummeting home values. The culprit is the glut of homes for sale in their neighborhood made available both by lenders selling off foreclosed properties and by neighbors who are facing a rate reset they can't pay. Loans issued between 2004 and 2006 that are resetting this year have an average 42 percent increase in the monthly payment. A $1,500 mortgage payment will jump to over $2,100, and it may go higher with future resets.
History never repeats itself exactly, yet the sudden credit crunch last month and the general tightening of lending standards could well have effects similar to the banking crisis of the Depression. Homeowners counting on the opportunity to refinance suddenly face a payment they can't make. They find themselves on a slippery slope to delinquency and foreclosure as home values shift beneath their feet.
And the historical analogy to the Great Depression's mortgage crisis is apt in more ways than one. Faced with a widespread threat to homeownership, Roosevelt put forth a bold plan, calling for legislation to protect small homeowners from foreclosure and embracing a national policy to preserve homeownership. He learned from President Hoover's ineffectual 1932 Federal Home Loan Bank Act, which created a credit reserve for lenders and yielded only three approved loans out of 41,000 applications, that the solution was not with the creditors, but with direct assistance to homeowners.
FDR's resulting legislation established the Home Owners' Loan Corporation. The HOLC was authorized to issue new loans to replace the existing liens of homeowners in default. Instead of a short-term, interest-only loan, the HOLC loans would be fully amortizing over 15 years, meaning that when the last payment was made, the borrower owed nothing further to the bank and owned the home free of any debt. HOLC was far more patient with borrowers than the banks could have been, and delinquent loans got individualized attention, including debt counseling, family meetings, and budgeting help.
(The New Republic)
It is important to recognize that HOLC loans were never considered an entitlement program. Of the nearly 1.9 million applications to HOLC between June 1933 and June 1935, half were withdrawn or rejected. HOLC provided widespread assistance, but homeowners had to demonstrate a determination to meet their financial obligations and a history of doing so.
In order for the HOLC to issue a loan, it needed to pay off the existing liens. This potentially posed a serious problem, as HOLC loans were never to exceed 80 percent of the appraised value of a property, which was often below the outstanding loan balance. The HOLC had to convince the existing lenders to accept those losses. The HOLC was able to succeed because it made lenders an offer they couldn't refuse: A government guarantee of four percent interest in the amount of the new loan, which was worth far more (even at a reduced valuation) than the zero percent they were effectively getting from delinquent loans. Add to that the cost of servicing, foreclosure, and disposition, the decision was a no-brainer.
HOLC actively issued loans for only three years, between 1933 and 1936. It was a short-term entity designed to deal specifically with the problem of widespread foreclosures. After 1936, the HOLC existed as a shell of its former self, servicing existing loans and disposing of the properties it acquired through foreclosure. The HOLC was liquidated in 1951 at a small profit. Despite its short active lifespan, its innovations have had a long-lasting impact, from the government-insured loans offered by HOLC's successor, the Federal Housing Administration, to the long-term, fully amortizing "conforming" loans offered to most home buyers.
That's the kind of leadership needed today. The U.S. home mortgage marketplace of the 21st century resembles the 1930s not at all, yet the expectations of President Bush, financial regulators and some congressional leaders that creditors will rescue borrowers are still misplaced. Most banks and other lenders today only briefly keep the mortgages they make before onselling those loans to Wall Street, which repackages them into mortgage-backed securities for sale to institutional investors worldwide. Unfortunately for most Americans facing delinquency and foreclosure (and their neighbors, who are as susceptible to losing their equity in falling markets), the proposals to help homeowners center on reopening the flow of mortgage funds, be it through an expanded role for the Federal Housing Administration or more latitude for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to securitize more and bigger loans.
Expanding the amount of credit available for home loans is not going to be helpful in the short term, as the homeowners who need the most help are unlikely to be deemed creditworthy for refinancing. By directly lending to homeowners, we also circumvent the very real moral hazard of creating incentives for lenders to engage once again in the behaviors that put homeowners at risk. The president and Congress, therefore, must focus on the needs of homeowning neighborhoods and work from there. We have a proud history in this country of directly aiding families at risk of losing their homes through no fault of their own in order to preserve neighborhood wealth created through homeownership; it is time we learned from it.
Economists estimate that each foreclosure within an eighth of a mile corresponds to a 0.9 percent decrease in house value. Neighborhoods with high rates of vacant properties attract violent crime and are more prone to fires, both of which threaten neighborhood stability and significantly drain municipal resources. Given that many of the homes most at risk of foreclosure are concentrated in less expensive neighborhoods, the threat of eroding the wealth of low- and middle-income families is quite real.
Moreover, as the threat of eroding house prices looms larger, a neighborhood's downward spiral can be hastened by panicked homeowners willing to take any offer before their house becomes nearly worthless. By providing direct assistance to homeowners through a government entity modeled on the HOLC but with the ability to negotiate the complexities of the present securitization process, we can eliminate the panic and stabilize neighborhoods in addition to helping individual homeowners.
Most of the time, financial marketplaces efficiently intermediate between home loan borrowers, lenders and investors, but sometimes preserving neighborhood wealth requires an old-fashioned solution. That time may well be at hand.
Trueblue
11-03-2007, 05:26 PM
Really interesting article, sparks.
Faced with a widespread threat to homeownership, Roosevelt put forth a bold plan, calling for legislation to protect small homeowners from foreclosure and embracing a national policy to preserve homeownership. He learned from President Hoover's ineffectual 1932 Federal Home Loan Bank Act, which created a credit reserve for lenders and yielded only three approved loans out of 41,000 applications, that the solution was not with the creditors, but with direct assistance to homeowners.
Neither party has changed much, have they?
sparks
11-03-2007, 05:33 PM
Really interesting article, sparks.
Neither party has changed much, have they?
I thought so too! The fact that our current times are being compared to those of the depression makes me take notice and is rather sobering to think about.
Although my personal life hasn't always been a bed of roses so to speak, I can't really say I've endured anything like the times of the depression that my Mother lived through. Basically I think most of us currently alive today have no idea what a depression would do to us personally or collectively.
We take a lot for granted in these times. For those who say "it could never happen again", I would say "bullshit"!
Trueblue
11-03-2007, 05:37 PM
I thought so too! The fact that our current times are being compared to those of the depression makes me take notice and is rather sobering to think about.
Although my personal life hasn't always been a bed of roses so to speak, I can't really say I've endured anything like the times of the depression that my Mother lived through. Basically I think most of us currently alive today have no idea what a depression would do to us personally or collectively.
We take a lot for granted in these times. For those who say "it could never happen again", I would say "bullshit"!
Back in the eighties, there was talk of another Depression, and my grandfather said he hoped he never lived to see it. He was the father of six during the Depression, and they did go through some very difficult times.
I read an article about a woman who took a challenge not to buy anything new for a certain period of time-the exceptions were food, medication, and underwear. She said it was really an eye-opener.
Trueblue
11-03-2007, 05:39 PM
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/cash/story/0,,2093945,00.html
sparks
11-03-2007, 05:50 PM
Back in the eighties, there was talk of another Depression, and my grandfather said he hoped he never lived to see it. He was the father of six during the Depression, and they did go through some very difficult times.
I read an article about a woman who took a challenge not to buy anything new for a certain period of time-the exceptions were food, medication, and underwear. She said it was really an eye-opener.
My Mom was born in 1915...so when the stock market crash of '29 happened she was 14 years old. There were 9 children in her family...so there were 11 to have to support during that time, when you include about the parents.
She was raised on a farm around the Lexington area...(Mt. Vernon, Ky.) and they grew a lot of their own foods and so forth. I imagine that made it a bit easier for them to get by during those times, but Mom couldn't wait to get away from the farm...she said it was a hard life. She had ambitions of going to the City and broadening her horizons...she wound up in Cincinnati.
I wonder if the times of the depression didn't color her perspective of life on a farm being so difficult? How could living through a depression not color one's vision? But I wonder if she didn't equate farm life being difficult due to the depression being in full swing rather than farm life really being that difficult?
We all tend to make associations in our lives, and she was a young girl.
Trueblue
11-03-2007, 05:51 PM
Oh, it's easy to see how it impacted my parents, and I ought to take more of their example. They are much better at saving, and at not wasting, than I.
sparks
11-03-2007, 05:53 PM
Oh, it's easy to see how it impacted my parents, and I ought to take more of their example. They are much better at saving, and at not wasting, than I.
My Mom too! She never used credit! She was a "pay cash" type of mentality! And she always said it would be smart to keep a little cash in your mattress! :rofl
Wabash
11-03-2007, 09:28 PM
My Dad and Mom both went thru the depression and I learned a lot about hoarding from them...actually they taught me to save and be thrifty....I took it further and hoard.....before someone makes a law against it. You name it, I've got it put away......and the mattress is the worse place to keep it...
Dad said the most difficult thing to procure wasn't food, they always had soup lines, nope...it was soap! Couldn't find soap to take a bath, wash clothes or even wash your hands...he had about a 3 year supply of soap!
sparks
11-03-2007, 11:28 PM
My Dad and Mom both went thru the depression and I learned a lot about hoarding from them...actually they taught me to save and be thrifty....I took it further and hoard.....before someone makes a law against it. You name it, I've got it put away......and the mattress is the worse place to keep it...
Dad said the most difficult thing to procure wasn't food, they always had soup lines, nope...it was soap! Couldn't find soap to take a bath, wash clothes or even wash your hands...he had about a 3 year supply of soap!
Soap huh? Who'd have thought?
What about razor blades? Remember in the book 1984 about the lack of razor blades?
Ya know Wabs...hoarding is one of the signs of Alzheimers! :rofl
toxic
11-04-2007, 06:09 AM
My Dad and Mom both went thru the depression and I learned a lot about hoarding from them...actually they taught me to save and be thrifty....I took it further and hoard.....before someone makes a law against it. You name it, I've got it put away......and the mattress is the worse place to keep it...
Dad said the most difficult thing to procure wasn't food, they always had soup lines, nope...it was soap! Couldn't find soap to take a bath, wash clothes or even wash your hands...he had about a 3 year supply of soap!
Like in the military. Things like soap, toilet paper, spicy stuff, and easy to prepare stuff like Top Ramen/Macaroni. Maybe an extra Propane tank (Full). For about $100 you can have all the stuff you would want. I think grains, fruit/vegetables and water are often available.
I had often heard that a small amount of chorine bleach could be used to purify dirty water, but have never heard/figured the proper amount. Too much could be a problem!!
If you have too much, you'll just have to leave it behind for the looters anyway :)
Trueblue
11-04-2007, 09:33 AM
http://www.csgnetwork.com/h2oemergencypurifycalc.html
Most emergency experts and health officials suggest a mixture of 8 drops of bleach to a gallon of generally clear water for best results. Based on environment or cloudiness of the water, you may want to change the quantity of drops to 16 per gallon of cloudy or murky water.
I keep lots of sewing needles and matches. I finally had to get rid of some of my large candles because I just had too many.
Lone Laugher
11-04-2007, 09:46 AM
Now THAT is useful information. I knew I joined this forum for a reason!
Trueblue
11-04-2007, 09:48 AM
Now THAT is useful information. I knew I joined this forum for a reason!
I printed it off to keep in the laundry room, beside the bleach!
sparks
11-04-2007, 02:53 PM
I would really, really, really be bummed to run out of toilet paper. :nono
There are always leaves :wink
sparks
11-04-2007, 02:55 PM
There are always leaves :wink
<Sparks has visions of accidentally picking up some poison sumac leaves to wipe her butt.> :rofl
Trueblue
11-04-2007, 03:56 PM
I would really, really, really be bummed to run out of toilet paper. :nono
I was thinking about that, too. :eek
sparks
11-04-2007, 04:13 PM
I was thinking about that, too. :eek
I guess we could all carry a squirt water bottle with us wherever we go. :rofl
I'd almost prefer that to the leaves...but then we'd have to drip dry. :rofl
The Q
11-04-2007, 04:39 PM
We don't use toilet paper in our house. :snicker
ADQ
Wabash
11-04-2007, 11:17 PM
Soap huh? Who'd have thought?
What about razor blades? Remember in the book 1984 about the lack of razor blades?
Ya know Wabs...hoarding is one of the signs of Alzheimers! :rofl
Don't know about blades, I suppose so...I never use em...if there isn't electricity to run my Norelco, I ain't shaving......I still have the Norelco I got for Christmas when I was 14.....
Like in the military. Things like soap, toilet paper, spicy stuff, and easy to prepare stuff like Top Ramen/Macaroni. Maybe an extra Propane tank (Full). For about $100 you can have all the stuff you would want. I think grains, fruit/vegetables and water are often available.
I had often heard that a small amount of chorine bleach could be used to purify dirty water, but have never heard/figured the proper amount. Too much could be a problem!!
If you have too much, you'll just have to leave it behind for the looters anyway :)
The military doesn't use bleach....neither do I...
I would really, really, really be bummed to run out of toilet paper. :nono
Stop eating.........
We don't use toilet paper in our house. :snicker
ADQ
I figured as much....what is it than, corncobs, yesterday's newspaper?
I use notes from the minutes of DNC meetings...lots of paper used, not much in the way of logic or ideas!:rofl:rofl:rofl
waterdog
11-05-2007, 01:29 AM
I would really, really, really be bummed to run out of toilet paper. :nono
There are always leaves :wink
<Sparks has visions of accidentally picking up some poison sumac leaves to wipe her butt.> :rofl
I was thinking about that, too. :eek
I guess we could all carry a squirt water bottle with us wherever we go. :rofl
I'd almost prefer that to the leaves...but then we'd have to drip dry. :rofl
Or, you could employ the "3 sea shells" method. :shrug
vBulletin® v3.7.0, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.