|
Home > Archive > Electrical Engineering > June 2006 > Why has Romex wire gotten so expensive?
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Why has Romex wire gotten so expensive?
|
|
| potnisanish@gmail.com 2006-06-18, 1:25 pm |
| Romex wire used to be near $20 or so for a roll, and now its near $100.
Why has the price jumped so high?
| |
| Salmon Egg 2006-06-18, 1:25 pm |
| On 6/18/06 8:29 AM, in article
1150644583.783038.275490@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com,
"potnisanish@gmail.com" <potnisanish@gmail.com> wrote:
> Romex wire used to be near $20 or so for a roll, and now its near $100.
> Why has the price jumped so high?
>
It cannot be! Over the last 10 years we have been assured that inflation is
under control by our Government. Would it lie?
Bill
-- Ferme le Bush
| |
| PanHandler 2006-06-18, 1:25 pm |
|
<potnisanish@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1150644583.783038.275490@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> Romex wire used to be near $20 or so for a roll, and now its near $100.
> Why has the price jumped so high?
At Lowe's:
http://www.lowes.com/lowes/lkn?acti...8223&lpage=none
| |
| repatch 2006-06-18, 5:25 pm |
| On Sun, 18 Jun 2006 08:29:43 -0700, potnisanish wrote:
> Romex wire used to be near $20 or so for a roll, and now its near $100.
> Why has the price jumped so high?
You don't say what length of wire is a "roll", so I can't confirm or not
whether the price has jumped.
That said, if the price has risen, no doubt the price of copper has had a
big impact.
TTYL
| |
| Andrew Gabriel 2006-06-18, 5:25 pm |
| In article <1150644583.783038.275490@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
potnisanish@gmail.com writes:
> Romex wire used to be near $20 or so for a roll, and now its near $100.
> Why has the price jumped so high?
T&E (Twin & Earth) in the UK has also jumped in price, due to
the increase in price of copper due to heavy demand from China.
However, not by anywhere near the amount you cite above.
--
Andrew Gabriel
| |
|
| potnisanish@gmail.com wrote:
> Romex wire used to be near $20 or so for a roll, and now its near $100.
> Why has the price jumped so high?
Simple. The price of copper has gone up. Here in the SF Bay Area you
can get $1.65/lb. at the recyclers for #12 THHN ***with*** insulation.
I know a lot of electrical contractors are hurting because the price is
going up so rapidly. One in particular under bid their job by 50K
because the price of copper went up so much from time of bid.
| |
| Roy L. Fuchs 2006-06-18, 5:25 pm |
| On 18 Jun 2006 12:52:27 -0700, "Matt" <mattandstacey@gmail.com> Gave
us:
>potnisanish@gmail.com wrote:
>
>Simple. The price of copper has gone up. Here in the SF Bay Area you
>can get $1.65/lb. at the recyclers for #12 THHN ***with*** insulation.
>
>I know a lot of electrical contractors are hurting because the price is
>going up so rapidly. One in particular under bid their job by 50K
>because the price of copper went up so much from time of bid.
Raw copper scrap is at like $3 a Lb. That would make processed
copper even higher than that. It used to be a buck a pound.
| |
| electrician@electrician2.com 2006-06-18, 5:25 pm |
|
potnisanish@gmail.com wrote:
> Romex wire used to be near $20 or so for a roll, and now its near $100.
> Why has the price jumped so high?
The price of copper has just about tripled during the last year
according to infomine.com Copper has gone from about $1.30 to $3.15 a
pound. Take a look at this chart.
http://www.infomine.com/investment/...pper&u=oz&x=usd
(According to copper.org it takes about 400 pounds of copper to wire a
home.)
Additionally, the world's second largest deposit of copper, the Pebble
deposit, has been discovered in Alaska but the owners cannot get a
permit to develop this mine because the environmentalists and fishermen
are worried about the effects on the fishing industry near Anchorage.
(link: http://www.northerndynastyminerals.com/ndm/Home.asp Add to this
the cost of doing business in the US. The environmental, safety, and
labor laws triple the cost of production over many other countries.
| |
| sQuick 2006-06-18, 8:25 pm |
|
"Andrew Gabriel" <andrew@cucumber.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:4495a5bf$0$657$5a6aecb4@news.aaisp.net.uk...
> In article <1150644583.783038.275490@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
> potnisanish@gmail.com writes:
>
> T&E (Twin & Earth) in the UK has also jumped in price, due to
> the increase in price of copper due to heavy demand from China.
> However, not by anywhere near the amount you cite above.
>
> --
> Andrew Gabriel
someone told me a few weeks back that a tuppence was worth 3p weighed in at
the scrappy.
| |
| Roy L. Fuchs 2006-06-18, 8:25 pm |
| On Mon, 19 Jun 2006 00:02:33 +0100, "sQuick" <squickdrill@hotmail.com>
Gave us:
>
>"Andrew Gabriel" <andrew@cucumber.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:4495a5bf$0$657$5a6aecb4@news.aaisp.net.uk...
>
>someone told me a few weeks back that a tuppence was worth 3p weighed in at
>the scrappy.
>
Well if that don't just tip your scales!
Over here, we have pennies that are 99.7 percent ZINC. A clad strip
is used to coin them, and it is even done in such a way as to cover
the edges with copper when struck as well.
Next thing ya know, Zinc will be going up too!
RoHS will likely have a hand in that.
| |
| gfretwell@aol.com 2006-06-18, 9:25 pm |
| On Sun, 18 Jun 2006 12:27:38 -0500, "PanHandler"
<panhandler@emptyhat.net> wrote:
>
><potnisanish@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:1150644583.783038.275490@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
>At Lowe's:
>http://www.lowes.com/lowes/lkn?acti...8223&lpage=none
>
That is $135 for 250'
| |
| Beachcomber 2006-06-19, 1:25 pm |
| On 18 Jun 2006 13:52:57 -0700, electrician@electrician2.com wrote:
>
>potnisanish@gmail.com wrote:
>
>The price of copper has just about tripled during the last year
>according to infomine.com Copper has gone from about $1.30 to $3.15 a
>pound. Take a look at this chart.
>http://www.infomine.com/investment/...pper&u=oz&x=usd
>(According to copper.org it takes about 400 pounds of copper to wire a
>home.)
>
>Additionally, the world's second largest deposit of copper, the Pebble
>deposit, has been discovered in Alaska but the owners cannot get a
>permit to develop this mine because the environmentalists and fishermen
>are worried about the effects on the fishing industry near Anchorage.
>(link: http://www.northerndynastyminerals.com/ndm/Home.asp Add to this
>the cost of doing business in the US. The environmental, safety, and
>labor laws triple the cost of production over many other countries.
>
Here in Oregon, there have been several cases of Meth Addicts pulling
all the romex out of partially unfinished houses to sell for scrap.
The homeowner ( or the insurance company) is out for $12,000 or so and
the electrical system has to be rebuilt from scratch.
I'm told the power companies are nevous about idiots who get inside
their substations and start hacking away at the ground system ( or
worse, live copper conductors).
I had a friend once who used to install radio transmitters all around
the world. He said he once worked in an African country where the
natives kept tearing down the power lines to the transmitter site to
make trinkets. It sounds like its getting that bad in the USA in
certain areas.
Beachcomber
Beachcomber
| |
| gfretwell@aol.com 2006-06-19, 5:25 pm |
| On Mon, 19 Jun 2006 16:42:15 GMT, invalid@notreal.none (Beachcomber)
wrote:
>I'm told the power companies are nevous about idiots who get inside
>their substations and start hacking away at the ground system ( or
>worse, live copper conductors).
There have already been cases of this. It works out OK for them until
they cut the last bonding wire and find out why that stuff gets bonded
in the first place.
| |
| Andrew Gabriel 2006-06-20, 3:25 am |
| In article <7q2e9212dob1sit03e1t7ok52igku2crol@4ax.com>,
gfretwell@aol.com writes:
> On Mon, 19 Jun 2006 16:42:15 GMT, invalid@notreal.none (Beachcomber)
> wrote:
>
> There have already been cases of this. It works out OK for them until
> they cut the last bonding wire and find out why that stuff gets bonded
> in the first place.
and here's the rather gruesome results of such activity...
WARNING: DONT CLICK IF BURNED BODY REMAINS MAY UPSET YOU
http://www.ogrish.com/archives/man_...un_13_2006.html
--
Andrew Gabriel
| |
| John Gilmer 2006-06-20, 8:25 pm |
|
>
> Next thing ya know, Zinc will be going up too!
I read "somewhere" that even with the zinc, the $.01 piece cost more than
$.01 to make.
I don't know about the UK, but the time has long since past for the US to be
making the smallest coin ($.01).
| |
| John Gilmer 2006-06-20, 8:25 pm |
|
>
> Raw copper scrap is at like $3 a Lb. That would make processed
> copper even higher than that. It used to be a buck a pound.
The last time it peaked we got stuck will Al wire in homes that caused lots
and lots of problems.
Maybe "this time" the technology will be up to the job. If the problems
are truly solved then copper wiring for power will go the way of the dodo.
| |
|
| On Tue, 20 Jun 2006 18:13:49 -0400, "John Gilmer" wrote:
>
> The last time it peaked we got stuck will Al wire in homes that
> caused lots and lots of problems.
>
> Maybe "this time" the technology will be up to the job.
NOFI, but there _is_ a tried and tested fix available for decades.
It's called 'abandoning 120V' :-P
(Go figure:
Utility-side and 'power hungry' devices 120-0-120 => 240-0 = same power
with 33% less copper
Replacing 120V appliances with 240V ones = 1/2 current = same power with
50% less copper
But seriously, unless someone invents some conductive polymer that
rivals copper in both conductivity and price ('alternative'
metals/alloys obviously won't qualify), phasing out 120V would be a damn
good start at slowing down the copper price hike and keeping wiring
affordable!)
| |
| John Gilmer 2006-06-21, 1:25 pm |
|
"ELAL" <spamhere@elal.tk> wrote in message
news:1039811251299681.NC-1.61.spamhere@news.demon.nl...
> On Tue, 20 Jun 2006 18:13:49 -0400, "John Gilmer" wrote:
>
>
> NOFI, but there _is_ a tried and tested fix available for decades.
> It's called 'abandoning 120V' :-P
>
> (Go figure:
> Utility-side and 'power hungry' devices 120-0-120 => 240-0 = same power
> with 33% less copper
Depends on how you "do things."
If you require a ground wire, then you only save 25% of the copper (savings
depend upon the relative sizes of the neutral and ground conductors.) But
many 240 volt appliances have 120 volt motors and timers and lamps.
Folks like to have 120 volts for "small stuff."
Unless the government steps in and requires 240 volt for anything that draws
more than 9 amps, it just will not happen.
> Replacing 120V appliances with 240V ones = 1/2 current = same power with
> 50% less copper.
True. But only if you go 100% unbalanced and give up 120 stuff (or pay the
penalty of transformers all over the place.)
>
> But seriously, unless someone invents some conductive polymer that
> rivals copper in both conductivity and price ('alternative'
> metals/alloys obviously won't qualify), phasing out 120V would be a damn
> good start at slowing down the copper price hike and keeping wiring
> affordable!)
Well, expensive copper has just about permanently priced itself out of a lot
of applications. It's still used for a lot of residential plumbing but
some of the techniques used for plastic have been transferred to copper.
Next step is to just drop the copper in the first place.
Right now houses keep going up and up in price and folks just don't care
about saving a few $100 in wiring. But when the market shifts and the
builders have to pinch every penny or go out of business, I bet Al will be
back. If will have some kind of "lifetime" guarantee.
>
| |
| Beachcomber 2006-06-21, 5:25 pm |
|
>
>Depends on how you "do things."
>
>If you require a ground wire, then you only save 25% of the copper (savings
>depend upon the relative sizes of the neutral and ground conductors.) But
>many 240 volt appliances have 120 volt motors and timers and lamps.
>
>Folks like to have 120 volts for "small stuff."
>
The 3-wire, single phase 110/220 volt system was deliberately picked
by the Rural Electrification Association in the early days of the
Roosevelt administration becuase it "did" and still does offer the
maximum in safety (most circuits at the lower 110V. level),
flexibility (Two voltage levels available, the higher 220 for
heavy-duty circuits), and simplicity (the ability to power 10 HP and
larger motors) while using single phase transfomer banks. The common
neutral with the higher voltages also minimizes voltage drop when the
loads are balanced.
Keep in mind that this was in the days before GFCI's and any solid
state electronics. The US Government was extending light & power to
the farms of the land and was looking to do it as economically as
possible.
The rejected the choice of the Euro-Continental model, essentially
bringing 3-phase primarys to a central town transformer and using
thick secondary conductors to serve 200 houses or so from one
facility.
American farms were different than what geographically was found in
Europe. Rural Europeans tended to live in clusters in small towns
and villages surrounded by farm fields. America, on the other hand,
consisted of isolated farm houses on each plot of land separated by
great distances. The single phase model, typically served by a set
of poles with a simple neutral and hot primary wire (no crossarms
necessary) and a small distribution transformer at the end made the
most sense.
Beachcomber
Beachcomber
| |
| Michael Moroney 2006-06-22, 3:25 am |
| invalid@notreal.none (Beachcomber) writes:
>American farms were different than what geographically was found in
>Europe. Rural Europeans tended to live in clusters in small towns
>and villages surrounded by farm fields. America, on the other hand,
>consisted of isolated farm houses on each plot of land separated by
>great distances. The single phase model, typically served by a set
>of poles with a simple neutral and hot primary wire (no crossarms
>necessary) and a small distribution transformer at the end made the
>most sense.
Where I grew up (upstate NY) all the really old stuff from that era in
rural areas was two hots on a crossarm, no neutral. Everything seemed
to be wired delta then.
| |
| Roy L. Fuchs 2006-06-22, 3:25 am |
| On 21 Jun 2006 18:45:28 +0200, "ELAL" <spamhere@elal.tk> Gave us:
>(Go figure:
>Utility-side and 'power hungry' devices 120-0-120 => 240-0 = same power
>with 33% less copper
>Replacing 120V appliances with 240V ones = 1/2 current = same power with
>50% less copper
"Big" copper is safer. More surface area contacted on ANY given
wire nutted union! I'll stick with my low resistance, yet higher
current capable big stuff, and let the breaker box manage the shorts
instead of the wire in the wall managing a fire, thank you.
The lower voltage is safer as well.
| |
| Roy L. Fuchs 2006-06-22, 3:25 am |
| On 21 Jun 2006 18:45:28 +0200, "ELAL" <spamhere@elal.tk> Gave us:
>
>But seriously, unless someone invents some conductive polymer that
>rivals copper in both conductivity and price ('alternative'
>metals/alloys obviously won't qualify), phasing out 120V would be a damn
>good start at slowing down the copper price hike and keeping wiring
>affordable!)
Actually getting some large scale aggressive digging done in Alaska
would make US the king in the world copper market!
Not to mention solve our perceived "problem".
| |
|
| On Thu, 22 Jun 2006 04:40:04 GMT, Roy L. Fuchs wrote:
> On 21 Jun 2006 18:45:28 +0200, "ELAL" <spamhere@elal.tk> Gave us:
>
>
> "Big" copper is safer.
And what defines "big"? Right... Current, or more precisely: current
density!
Surely a 50 amp bussbar looks HUGE when only supplying a 15A circuit,
but that perspective quickly changes when you try to bolt the very same
bar into a 4kA feed ;-)
> More surface area contacted on ANY given wire nutted union!
Half the surface area @ half the current = same current density. So the
difference for well-made connections is nil.
For a faulty connection OTOH, things get a lot dirtier (for 120V, that
is). Since faults are non-linear in nature, 240V faults will develop
_much_ more heat than a 120V one (often by a magnitude). This might look
horrible, but it _actually_ means that, in 230..240V-land, most faults
literally go out with a (firecracker-like) bang, either clearing the
circuit or tripping the breaker immediately!
Granted, it scares the cr*p out of people IF it happens, but I somehow
prefer that over 'silently arcing, while lighting yet another electrical
fire'...
> I'll stick with my low resistance, yet higher current capable big stuff
Well, practice what you preach, then!
In practice, however, you'll end up terminating those thicker wires into
gear that (from a .eu perspective) can only described as dangerously
flimsy, despite having to handle twice the current. So much for
safety... ahem...
> and let the breaker box manage the shorts
> instead of the wire in the wall managing a fire, thank you.
Obviously, wire size is still _the_ criterium for rating the breakers.
Huge DUH!
You'll need less current, so it trips at less current... There is
absolutely no practical difference WRT short cicuit conditions.
> The lower voltage is safer as well.
In a 'bare wire to bare wire' comparison it surely is, but:
Using 'lower voltage' and 'safer' in the same sentence for something
that's NOT <42V @ moderate currents, is only self-deception. It's a
breeding ground for complacency!
I, personally, fear complacency (and complaceny-induced lax quality (on
safety-critical components) standards) much more than a small appliance
running off 230V, which had to withstand a 'both prongs floating @ 4kV'
insulation test. But YMMV...
| |
| John Gilmer 2006-06-22, 1:25 pm |
|
>
> Actually getting some large scale aggressive digging done in Alaska
> would make US the king in the world copper market!
>
> Not to mention solve our perceived "problem".
Will not happen for YEARS.
Like it or not, today most money is made in "clean" pursuits.
In Virginia, for example, there is pressure to shut down the commercial
fishing industry (what's left of it) so that "sport fish" have more to eat.
There is more money in tourists than "real" farming. There is more money
in pandering to the "sport" fishermen than the folks who fish and process
the fish to support their families.
It would take another "Great Depression" with folks jumping out of windows
to change all of that.
| |
| gfretwell@aol.com 2006-06-22, 5:25 pm |
| On Thu, 22 Jun 2006 11:29:25 -0400, "John Gilmer"
<gilmer@crosslink.net> wrote:
>n Virginia, for example, there is pressure to shut down the commercial
>fishing industry (what's left of it) so that "sport fish" have more to eat.
They amended the Florida constitution to give mullet rights and put
commercial fishermen out of work
| |
| Roy L. Fuchs 2006-06-23, 3:25 am |
| On 22 Jun 2006 14:33:34 +0100, "ELAL" <spamhere@elal.tk> Gave us:
>On Thu, 22 Jun 2006 04:40:04 GMT, Roy L. Fuchs wrote:
>
>
>And what defines "big"? Right... Current, or more precisely: current
>density!
>Surely a 50 amp bussbar looks HUGE when only supplying a 15A circuit,
>but that perspective quickly changes when you try to bolt the very same
>bar into a 4kA feed ;-)
>
>
>Half the surface area @ half the current = same current density. So the
>difference for well-made connections is nil.
>
>For a faulty connection OTOH, things get a lot dirtier (for 120V, that
>is). Since faults are non-linear in nature, 240V faults will develop
>_much_ more heat than a 120V one (often by a magnitude). This might look
>horrible, but it _actually_ means that, in 230..240V-land, most faults
>literally go out with a (firecracker-like) bang, either clearing the
>circuit or tripping the breaker immediately!
>
>Granted, it scares the cr*p out of people IF it happens, but I somehow
>prefer that over 'silently arcing, while lighting yet another electrical
>fire'...
>
>
>Well, practice what you preach, then!
>
>In practice, however, you'll end up terminating those thicker wires into
>gear that (from a .eu perspective) can only described as dangerously
>flimsy, despite having to handle twice the current. So much for
>safety... ahem...
>
>
>Obviously, wire size is still _the_ criterium for rating the breakers.
>Huge DUH!
>You'll need less current, so it trips at less current... There is
>absolutely no practical difference WRT short cicuit conditions.
>
>
>In a 'bare wire to bare wire' comparison it surely is, but:
No. In a PEOPLE contact comparison.
>
>Using 'lower voltage' and 'safer' in the same sentence for something
>that's NOT <42V @ moderate currents, is only self-deception.
No, it isn't. The only factor in the subject you are begriming to
expound on is CURRENT, not voltage.
> It's a
>breeding ground for complacency!
I can touch 120. I would not touch 240. You have you analyses
screwed up.
>I, personally, fear complacency (and complaceny-induced lax quality (on
>safety-critical components) standards) much more than a small appliance
>running off 230V, which had to withstand a 'both prongs floating @ 4kV'
>insulation test. But YMMV...
Since they aren't using teflon wire, I'd say that 4kV is a bit high.
Also matters if it is AC or DC.
| |
| Roy L. Fuchs 2006-06-23, 3:25 am |
| On Thu, 22 Jun 2006 11:29:25 -0400, "John Gilmer"
<gilmer@crosslink.net> Gave us:
>
>
>
>Will not happen for YEARS.
>
>Like it or not, today most money is made in "clean" pursuits.
>
>In Virginia, for example, there is pressure to shut down the commercial
>fishing industry (what's left of it) so that "sport fish" have more to eat.
>There is more money in tourists than "real" farming. There is more money
>in pandering to the "sport" fishermen than the folks who fish and process
>the fish to support their families.
>
>It would take another "Great Depression" with folks jumping out of windows
>to change all of that.
>
>
Trust me... we'll be mining copper in Alaska. You may be right, it
may take up to a decade, but it will happen.
| |
| John Gilmer 2006-06-23, 5:26 pm |
|
> Trust me... we'll be mining copper in Alaska. You may be right, it
> may take up to a decade, but it will happen.
We will see.
I would have more confidence in your statement were "they" to permit more
drilling "up there."
| |
|
| ELAL wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Jun 2006 04:40:04 GMT, Roy L. Fuchs wrote:
>
>
>
>
> And what defines "big"? Right... Current, or more precisely: current
> density!
> Surely a 50 amp bussbar looks HUGE when only supplying a 15A circuit,
> but that perspective quickly changes when you try to bolt the very same
> bar into a 4kA feed ;-)
>
>
>
>
> Half the surface area @ half the current = same current density. So the
> difference for well-made connections is nil.
Seriously flawed understanding.
pi * r^2 * h is not the same as pi * 2 * r * h
You talked about half the copper in a wire -
that's the volume (pi*r^2*h) of a cylinder
In your reply, you erroneously equate that to
surface area which is pi*2*r*h for a cylinder.
Ed
| |
| Roy L. Fuchs 2006-06-24, 5:25 pm |
| On Sat, 24 Jun 2006 20:09:42 GMT, ehsjr <ehsjr@bellatlantic.net> Gave
us:
>ELAL wrote:
>
>
>Seriously flawed understanding.
>pi * r^2 * h is not the same as pi * 2 * r * h
>
>You talked about half the copper in a wire -
>that's the volume (pi*r^2*h) of a cylinder
>
>In your reply, you erroneously equate that to
>surface area which is pi*2*r*h for a cylinder.
>
Two 14Ga 1.25" long leads helically twisted together at 3 twists per
inch will be far better "contacted". than two 1.25" 16Ga leads at 3
twists per inch. Anybody with a simple CAD package can draw that
tangency up.
Also, his remark that the difference is nil, will ONLY apply to a
working circuit. Since the safety concern revolves around circuit
failure mode conditions, the current density would be much higher.
| |
| Roy L. Fuchs 2006-06-24, 5:25 pm |
| On Tue, 20 Jun 2006 18:06:10 -0400, "John Gilmer"
<gilmer@crosslink.net> Gave us:
>
>
>
>I read "somewhere" that even with the zinc, the $.01 piece cost more than
>$.01 to make.
>
>I don't know about the UK, but the time has long since past for the US to be
>making the smallest coin ($.01).
>
I think it would be nicer to put the value back into it.
A kid should still be able to walk down to the corner store and buy
a penny stick of bubble gum.. Not that a good parent would let their
kid out alone in this world, but I speak of better times past... in
so many ways.
| |
| John Gilmer 2006-06-25, 3:25 am |
|
> A kid should still be able to walk down to the corner store and buy
> a penny stick of bubble gum.. Not that a good parent would let their
> kid out alone in this world, but I speak of better times past... in
> so many ways.
Well, "Penny Candy" was just about history when I will still sort of a "kid"
back in the 1950s.
Since then the cost of just about everything has gone up by a factor of from
5 to 10 times. That's sufficient reason to give the $.01 piece the heave
ho.
If we enter another round of inflation the US should either seriously
consider dropping both the $.05 and the $.10 and/or issue some "new"
currency that's 1/10 the value of the old stuff.
| |
| gfretwell@aol.com 2006-06-25, 1:25 pm |
| On Sun, 25 Jun 2006 00:36:09 -0400, "John Gilmer"
<gilmer@crosslink.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>Well, "Penny Candy" was just about history when I will still sort of a "kid"
>back in the 1950s.
>
>Since then the cost of just about everything has gone up by a factor of from
>5 to 10 times. That's sufficient reason to give the $.01 piece the heave
>ho.
>
>If we enter another round of inflation the US should either seriously
>consider dropping both the $.05 and the $.10 and/or issue some "new"
>currency that's 1/10 the value of the old stuff.
>
The last of the penny gumball machines seemed to be around 66, 67.
Maybe we can blame this oin Vietnam too. ;-)
| |
| Salmon Egg 2006-06-25, 5:25 pm |
| On 6/24/06 9:36 PM, in article 449e12ca$0$13366@dingus.crosslink.net, "John
Gilmer" <gilmer@crosslink.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> Well, "Penny Candy" was just about history when I will still sort of a "kid"
> back in the 1950s.
>
> Since then the cost of just about everything has gone up by a factor of from
> 5 to 10 times. That's sufficient reason to give the $.01 piece the heave
> ho.
>
> If we enter another round of inflation the US should either seriously
> consider dropping both the $.05 and the $.10 and/or issue some "new"
> currency that's 1/10 the value of the old stuff.
>
>
It is clear to me that the average inflation factor over my lifetime is
about 40. Not all price increase is inflation. Similarly, not all price
stability is indicative of no inflation.
Postage is a good example of a service whose price increase is bitterly
opposed by most politicians. First class postage has gone up by a factor of
20 during my lifetime. That is in spite of increased productivity from
automatic sorting machines, zip codes and all that.
One common fallacy is to equate price increase with decline in the value of
money. The electronics industry is one in which price has remained constant
or even gone down. You can buy a much better television set now for about
the same number of dollars than in about 1960. Nevertheless, because of
increased productivity of electronic components, the price should possibly
be lower.
On the other hand, when the price of a scarce commodity goes up, it is not
necessarily a sign of inflation. Certainly, in the US, copper has to be
extracted from poorer ores as the better ones get consumed. It takes more
effort and capital investment for that. Price increase of that nature is not
inflationary but indicative of necessarily lowered standards of living that
will be forced upon us by a poorer environment. That is not to say that
there is no inflation in the price of copper.
As far as I can see, the primary driver of inflation in the US is the
Congress with their profligate deficit spending. Almost all politicians like
to spend--Democrat and Republican alike! They just want to spend on
different things.
One Congressman asked about how he managed to get reelected so many times
said, "I always voted against tax increases and never voted against an
appropriation." We are also our own enemy because we reelect them.
Bill
-- Ferme le Bush
| |
|
| Roy L. Fuchs wrote:
> On Sat, 24 Jun 2006 20:09:42 GMT, ehsjr <ehsjr@bellatlantic.net> Gave
> us:
>
>
>
>
> Two 14Ga 1.25" long leads helically twisted together at 3 twists per
> inch will be far better "contacted". than two 1.25" 16Ga leads at 3
> twists per inch. Anybody with a simple CAD package can draw that
> tangency up.
>
> Also, his remark that the difference is nil, will ONLY apply to a
> working circuit. Since the safety concern revolves around circuit
> failure mode conditions, the current density would be much higher.
Maybe I'm wrong - but it seems his understanding is too
thin for him to get it. Actually, I suspect he doesn't
care.
Ed
|
|
|
|
|