MN Appliance Rebate

[Walter]

Had a heck of a time getting http://www.mnappliancerebate.com/ to issue a rebate. Anyone else try? Seems like a good deal but that website is slow as molasses...

[Lynn Garthwaite]

On KARE 11 they reported that there is some concern that the sites were interrupted by some outside person or persons. Kind of a malicious thing to do, if true.

[Ted S]

Walter, make sure you remember to thank the taxpayers for picking up a portion of your new whatever.

[Randy Wendel]

Took me several tries within a 1/2-hr period and finally was able to finish by 7pm. Now...which brand wash machine to buy? Frigidaire reviews don't look good from what I've read online. Looks like just about any brand can have it's pro's and con's no matter what. I've always been a Kenmore fan, but think I'll look at LG for now.

[dlt]

I started trying to get my rebate at 8am, finally got it about 2:30.

Our refrigerator stopped working about 3 weeks ago, so the timing of this is great. We've been keeping items in a cooler on the porch, but that gets old fast!

[Walter]

Using the Firefox browser with tweaked settings helped a lot.
My Mother-in-law had been trying to get a rebate all day with no luck.
It took about 10 minutes to get the rebate for her.

[Randy Wendel]

Got my new front-load laundry appliances in and done. So far I really like them. Sent the rebate form off today.

[dlt]

Woo-hoo! We received our $200 for our new energy efficient refrigerator. The fridge was delivered Friday, March 26. I think we sent in the rebate the next day.

[Lynn Garthwaite]

Between the various rebates, tax credits and trade in credits - the new initiatives to combat global warming are actually ending up putting money in our pockets, not taking it out, as one person on this site whined that it would. Not naming names...

[Ted S]

Between the various rebates, tax credits and trade in credits - the new initiatives to combat global warming are actually ending up putting money in our pockets, not taking it out, as one person on this site whined that it would. Not naming names...

Lynne is talking about me and everyone here is free for themselves to figure out whether whether my few posts can be called "whining" or not.

One should consider that during the Bush years Lynn and a few other liberal members of this board posted almost daily about how terrible conditions were in the USA. She and the others often correctly castigated Bush for being a big spender but astonishingly thought that democrats would be more fiscally responsible. The past year has shown the colossal folly of that notion. But notice how silent this board has been during the past year of unprecedented unemployment and wild spending by the Obama administration. Believe me folks, if I were a whiner, the past 12 months would have produced a bumper-crop of whining posts but you won't find much here just as you won't find any criticism of Obama and his big spending habits from the left. The silence from the left has been deafening and the double-standard has never been so obvious.

Lynn also tends to only look at one side of the economic equation. She doesn't seem to realize that for the government to hand citizen "A" a dollar for behaving in a way that pleases politicians, the government must first seize a dollar from taxpayer "B" which of course means that taxpayer "B" no longer can spend the dollar that he earned in his way of choice. She doesn't realize that from the perspective of the economy nothing changed, other than bureaucrats now get to decide how the dollars are spent rather than individuals. Lynn apparently thinks that politicians do a better job of spending the people's wealth than the people do themselves.

[Lynn Garthwaite]

Ted,

Once again I feel I must direct you to an economics class on stimulus spending. When Obama took office, not just the U.S. but most of the globe was on the precipice of another great depression. The circumstances were about as dire as they could be. In that environment, individual households were NOT in a position to spend. In the same vein, businesses were NOT in a position to spend. The only entity that could stimulate the economy was the government - which means stimulus spending.

Much of Obama's spending has been to stimulate the economy - and happily it is working. At the time he took office, the economy was contracting at 3%. It is now growing at 3%. The numbers for the 1Q of this year were just released and they are the best they've been since 2007. The market is up, companies are again hiring, and consumer spending has gone up by 50%. Unemployment is a lagging indicator, so the positive numbers for that are still ahead of us.

THAT is what is the result of stimulus spending. So sure, you can isolate what Obama did when he took office and say he has been spending in high numbers. But without the understanding of how a government uses stimulus spending to get a country out of a recession, you wouldn't be telling the whole story.

And yes, in the subject of the climate concerns - you voiced over and over again that you were afraid it was going to hit your pocketbook hard. That was your overwhelming point of emphasis. So far, that has not been the case and, for entrepreneurs that are investing in green energy solutions, the end result to Americans should mean more jobs.

[Ted S]

individual households were NOT in a position to spend. In the same vein, businesses were NOT in a position to spend. The only entity that could stimulate the economy was the government - which means stimulus spending.

Which means wasting present day taxpayers' and future taxpayers' money on unnecessary things. It was a bubble Lynn. Have you ever heard it described that way before? We should not be in a hurry to recreate another bubble or to re-inflate the same bubble. We only have a true honest economy when bubbles are allowed to burst. The bubble was primarily caused but the Fed's setting interest rates too low for too long. It encouraged businesses to invest in new properties because there was little to no cost for doing so. It was not caused by democrats or republicans, it was caused by government regulation. It was caused by government manipulation of the market. It was essentially "stimulating" the housing industry for years before the meltdown. The economy doesn't need stimulating, it needs to be allowed to correct.

Ever hear of the Stroke of Luck? Watch this video by Thomas E. Woods Jr. If you had you would have understood how recessions are supposed to be handled.

Much of Obama's spending has been to stimulate the economy - and happily it is working.

Sadly Obama seems to know about as much as you do about the economy. His economic advisors, who by-the-way, were completely blind-sided by the downturn have only recommended more of the same.

And yes, in the subject of the climate concerns - you voiced over and over again that you were afraid it was going to hit your pocketbook hard. That was your overwhelming point of emphasis. So far, that has not been the case and, for entrepreneurs that are investing in green energy solutions, the end result to Americans should mean more jobs.

Sorry Lynn, not more jobs, different jobs. For every green job the government creates another job is killed because the money used to create the green job has to come from somewhere and it comes at the price of some other non-green job. Obama is not creating jobs, he is shifting jobs. He is shifting economic activity from things that people choose for themselves to activities that politicians choose for them.

[Lynn Garthwaite]

So you disagree that the measures taken by the Obama administration are working? Don't take my word for it, take the reports released just the other day:

First quarter GDP numbers up 3.2% due to increased consumer spending. This is the third consecutive quarter of growth. Warren Buffet said that the industrial economy is "firing on all cylinders."

The 3.6% rise in spending is the best since Q1 2007.

For those people who know nothing about the economy - they sure got lucky and accidentally did the right things.

Yes - we need less regulation. Sure. Let's quit regulating the banks and see what other high risk activity they can get away with using our money. I love having someone risk my retirement funds on speculative exchanges. Probably less regulation on the insurance industry would be good too because they haven't abused enough customers by kicking them off their rolls when they become sick. History has proven that most of these industries work best when the inmates are allowed to run the asylum. {sarcasm}

And your comment about new jobs just taking away old jobs - seriously, you said that out loud? So when word processors gained in popularity did you put up a big fuss because the people that make typewriters were going to suffer? When gas powered lawn mowers were all the rage, did you lose sleep worrying about the people who made the old-fashioned push mowers?

Businesses thrive when they evolve to meet the changing world. If a company wants to stay in business, they'll quit making rotary phones and switch to push button phones. That's the way it has always been, and right now green energy is the place for growth.

[Ted S]

I love having someone risk my retirement funds on speculative exchanges.

In my world you would have the responsibility for saving and investing for your own retirement. You could assume as much or as little risk as you were comfortable with. Your employer and your government don't know what's best for you. Ideally you would have full control over your own retirement planning.

Probably less regulation on the insurance industry would be good too because they haven't abused enough customers by kicking them off their rolls when they become sick.

Nobody would purchase insurance if they dropped you the instant you got sick. Insurance companies are in business to make money by managing risk. If they are forced to write new policies for people who are already sick it ensures that they will lose money on the new customer. How will they make up for the loss? By raising the premiums on the healthy. Get ready for your premiums to enter an even steeper climb than they have in the past.

History has proven that most of these industries work best when the inmates are allowed to run the asylum. {sarcasm}

Actually the profit and loss system called capitalism (AKA free markets) has been proven to be far superior to tightly regulated economies of socialism and communism. You are aware that the USSR collapsed a number of years ago right?

So when word processors gained in popularity did you put up a big fuss because the people that make typewriters were going to suffer? When gas powered lawn mowers were all the rage, did you lose sleep worrying about the people who made the old-fashioned push mowers?

The world is better because of gasoline powered mowers and computers however you completely miss a critical component. Those two industries were born and thrive today because they produced products that were better and cheaper than their predecessors. That can't be said for "green energy". To the best of my knowledge there is no a single form of alternative energy that can stand-on-its-own. All of them require government subsidies to remain in business. Neither the powered equipment industry nor the computer industry need handouts. Both survive without any help from the government but the green industry gets lots of taxpayer money. Every green energy business is essentially bankrupt because they cannot pay their bills on their own. People were all up-in-arms because of one time financial industry bailouts but the green industry is in a perpetual bailout. They receive money taken from taxpayers every single month.

Businesses thrive when they evolve to meet the changing world. If a company wants to stay in business, they'll quit making rotary phones and switch to push button phones. That's the way it has always been, and right now green energy is the place for growth.

Clearly now isn't the time for green energy because if it were it would be able to survive without the corporate welfare.

[Lynn Garthwaite]

Well one thing we've learned for sure ...

there is no a single form of alternative energy that can stand-on-its-own.

... Ted knows everything about every alternative energy form that is being researched right now. That probably numbers in the hundreds, possibly even thousands. Green energy is probably the biggest category for entrepreneurial research right now.

It's good to know you're so on top of things.

Speaking of being so on top of things - in your imagination every single person has the time, knowledge and interest in researching (and keeping on top of daily news) all investment possibilities? I used to be a registered stock broker, and I'll be the first to admit I can't keep up with all of the daily nuances to manage my own retirement fund. I buy mutual funds in certain industries to spread out the risk, and I still lost 30% of value under that fancy de-regulation you are so fond of. Luckily I'm not ready to retire yet, so I have years to see it build back up again.

[Ted S]

Ted knows everything about every alternative energy form that is being researched right now. That probably numbers in the hundreds, possibly even thousands. Green energy is probably the biggest category for entrepreneurial research right now.

I don't know everything but I have sources that I respect and I believe that there is no alternative to oil that is financially self-sustaining right now. There may be be in the future but right now, wind, solar, bio-mass, ethanol, etc all rely on government subsidies for their very survival. I'd be happy to amend my statement if you can prove me wrong.

The biggest and most obvious proof that alternative energy is not viable is that if it were, it would be in wide use today. Nobody has any love for the oil companies -- including me -- and people would be more that happy to move to alternative sources if they were less expensive and/or more convenient. But the fact that oil lives on is all the proof one really needs. As you noted, typewriters and push lawnmowers went away quickly when better and cheaper alternatives became available.

Speaking of being so on top of things - in your imagination every single person has the time, knowledge and interest in researching (and keeping on top of daily news) all investment possibilities?

I generally don't have the time to do deep research either, nor do I for most of the things I buy. I rely on pricing, market trends, word-of-mouth recommendations, etc. The more important something is the more effort I put into research. Since hundreds of thousands of dollars are at stake I would say that people with the correct priorities would be able to find the time.

I should also note that nearly every investment got hit in the downturn. No matter how much research one does if the entire economy goes south you aren't going to be able to avoid it.

... and I still lost 30% of value under that fancy de-regulation you are so fond of.

Your money was lost because of excessive regulation. As I noted in an earlier post, the Federal Reserve kept interest rates too low for too long which encouraged businesses to build goods and property that wasn't truly needed. The Community Reinvestment Act and other dictates from the federal government encouraged people to buy things (houses) they really couldn't afford. This meddling by the government is known as REGULATION.

Capitalism is self-regulating. Businesses that make wise decisions prosper, businesses that make mistakes suffer -- unless the government steps in and encourages more bad decision making by bailing-out the failing business (GM) or by punishing businesses that made wise decisions (Goldman Sacks).

[Lynn Garthwaite]

Capitalism is self-regulating

I hate to be the one to tell you this - but we are not a pure capitalistic society. Haven't been for about a century or so. We have what's called a mixed economy - with features of both capitalism and socialism mixed in.

If we were pure capitalists, your position might have merit.

As for regulation, after the Great Depression, it was concluded that one of the biggest causes was that commercial banks had become too speculative, making investments in risky propositions. There were bad loans given to companies in which the banks had an interest and clients were encouraged to invest in those same risky markets. There was too much risk taken with client's money. Sound familiar?

The Glass-Steagall Act was enacted to specifically respond to that. The Act separated investment and commercial banking activities and was intended to stem overzealous commercial banks' interest in the stock market. The Act stood until it was repealed in 1999, and less than ten years later we found ourselves in pretty much the same boat.

So you can argue that regulation is just a bad deal, and the banks would certainly agree with you. When Glass-Steagall was repealed in 1999 the banks wept with joy. As for how the de-regulation has helped the average yokel? Not so much.

[Ted S]

I hate to be the one to tell you this - but we are not a pure capitalistic society.

Well, we suddenly find something that we both agree on. We do indeed have a mixed economic system and it is producing highs that are too high and lows that are too low. So what are we do about it?

My idea is to move back toward the country's origin of free markets and capitalism. The economic system that built the USA and facilitated its most rapid growth in history. A system that immigrants from all over the world flock to.

Your idea is to move toward a more centrally planned and controlled economic system. A system more like that of the failed Soviet Union where officials decide the winners and losers. An economic system that individuals flee.

As always, you want a powerful government that forces equal outcome, I want a limited government that preserves liberty. Such a fundamental difference that we aren't going to agree on much.

[Lynn Garthwaite]

As always - you misrepresent what I want.

[Ted S]

You are calling for more regulation which means more government control. I want less regulation which means less government control. Exactly how is that misrepresentation?

[Lynn Garthwaite]

Just stop it - being intentionally obtuse is NOT an endearing quality.

I'm going to save the poor people who have been reading this from any more of the back and forth by letting you have the last word.

[Ted S]

I'd say that Lynn's dodge proves it wasn't a misrepresentation.

[Ted S]

I'm going back a pew posts to this gem:

Much of Obama's spending has been to stimulate the economy - and happily it is working. At the time he took office, the economy was contracting at 3%. It is now growing at 3%. The numbers for the 1Q of this year were just released and they are the best they've been since 2007. The market is up, companies are again hiring, and consumer spending has gone up by 50%. Unemployment is a lagging indicator, so the positive numbers for that are still ahead of us.

THAT is what is the result of stimulus spending. So sure, you can isolate what Obama did when he took office and say he has been spending in high numbers. But without the understanding of how a government uses stimulus spending to get a country out of a recession, you wouldn't be telling the whole story.

I would bet that to many people what Lynn wrote makes sense. She is correct that many common economic indicators show a recovery in progress however some of us are frantically waving red flags because debt is not being considered.

Consider this scenario: What would happen if your spouse lost control of their senses for an evening and went out and and bought a new vacation home, a pair or brand new cars, a motorcycle, an RV, new high definition TVs for the house, a new wardrobe, fancy jewelry, and lots of other stuff that you would like to have but can't afford at all. What would you say when you learned of this spending spree? Would you say "Great honey, thanks for providing for our family!" No, you would likely faint because you would instantly realize that the bills eventually will come due and you won't even come close to being able to pay them. If you're like me you would be furious and sweating profusely.

What would your neighbors think of your new lifestyle? From the outside they would see all of the new stuff and be very envious. They would think that you must have received some new found income. They of course are only looking at the spending side of the equation much like Lynn is doing when she highlights the GDP increase and the consumer spending figures. Shop owners around town would be doing a happy dance too because of all the money that was spent in their establishments. The entire local community would be better off...... for a while.

I'm sorry folks but I'm afraid that like the scenario I painted above this Obama recovery is based on false prosperity. It's a bubble. If Obama's reaction would have been to cut government spending and let the market bottom out on its own then we would be looking at a true recovery but Obama chose the opposite path and is furiously inflating another bubble. If he's lucky it will pop on the next guy's watch and if he's even luckier that guy will be a republican so the blame can be fixed on conservatives. Of course the liberals, the uninformed, and the uninterested will be happy to blame the GOP once again.

Lest you think I'm blaming all of this on Obama I'm not. The previous bubble was largely inflated under Bush's watch and republicans were awful at restraining themselves fiscally but Obama and the democrats have proven themselves to be world-class at irresponsible spending.

Peter Schiff earned much recognition for correctly predicting the 2008 economic collapse. He recently spoke with Lew Rockwell about the current state of the economy among other things. It's only about 15 minutes long and isn't very optimistic.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/lewrockwell- ... ckwell.mp3

Now you can call me a whiner.