World Turned upside down

[Jazzman]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=Jazzman]
As to whether European powers thought Napoleon a “thug”, the term itself is derived 
from “thugee” a notorious 19th century killer, so the popularized term is unlikely to have been used then. Aside from that, he is considered to be one of the worlds greatest military commanders and is credited with the spread of civil law. His influence was so great, I hardly think other European leaders stooped to condescension other than to express sheer frustration at his brilliance.[/quote]

The use of the word “thug” was mine, and I’m familar with the Thugee of subcontinent fame.

As to the other royal houses: I’d agree with their frustration at his battlefield abilities (“brilliance” is a little strong, given his uneven record as commander of the Grand Armee), but you need to mention their frustration at his treachery, broken treaties and plundering as well..

He was considered a usurper and the royal heads of Europe were aghast when he crowned himself in front of the pope. Bad form and all that.[/quote]

Whatever his military record (or otherwise) may testify to, you will likely find more references to his brilliance than thuggery. I guess it largely depended on how much you were on the receiving end, that determined how much you ascribe to one or the other view. Wellington considered his presence on the battlefield to be the equivalent
of 40,000 troops, and his military tactics are said to have modernized warfare

[sdrealtor]

Those days are long gone. The world is a very different place now. Just like Encinitas is a very different place than it was 20 and even 10 years ago.

[sdrealtor]

Those days are long gone. The world is a very different place now. Just like Encinitas is a very different place than it was 20 and even 10 years ago.

[sdrealtor]

Those days are long gone. The world is a very different place now. Just like Encinitas is a very different place than it was 20 and even 10 years ago.

[sdrealtor]

Those days are long gone. The world is a very different place now. Just like Encinitas is a very different place than it was 20 and even 10 years ago.

[sdrealtor]

Those days are long gone. The world is a very different place now. Just like Encinitas is a very different place than it was 20 and even 10 years ago.

[davelj]

[quote=briansd1]I believe that sdreator brought up some good points.

If people were happy to live in simply ulitarian 1500sf houses, they would have more money to spend on other things. Housing be be cheaper also.

But people want to live ornate houses, with community amenities and HOA. But the want to replace their cars and durables more frequently.

Since clothing, electronics, food now represent a smaller portion of income than in the past, then more could go to savings. But in general, we go out to eat more and we get fat and stressed out. People get stressed out keeping up with their peers.

As dave pointed out, the paradox of thrift would result lower economic growth.[/quote]

I basically agree with this. If folks want to live today as they did in the 60s/70s… they can do so VERY inexpensively.

Much smaller house, well-preserved 10-year old car, furniture from craigslist/thrift store/consignment store, box TVs (I think you can find a well-preserved “old” TV these days for $50), no cable TV, no smart phone (basic cell phones cost very little today), clothing from Target or thrift stores, eat out once a month… you get the idea.

The three areas that have really zoomed out of control are health care, college and fuel. There are many ways to reduce college costs for folks that want to do so (which are covered herein). Fuel costs are up, but so is fuel efficiency (although on a net basis in real terms we’re probably behind compared to the 60s). And where health care is concerned… we’re paying for all of those advances of the last 40 years. But I read somewhere that 80% of Americans would be considerably better off with a (relatively inexpensive) catastrophic health care policy, as opposed to the group/managed care policies that they have. (That is, most Americans over-insure themselves where health care is concerned.)

So, the bottom line is that folks who want to live as we did during the Halcyon Days can do so for fairly little money… but they have to be willing to give up some mod cons… which most folks are simply unwilling to do.

To sdr’s earlier point about eating out, my recollection is the same as his. My family probably ate out at a sit-down restaurant once a month (and there were precious few choices). And then we probably had a bucket of chicken or hamburgers plopped down on the table once or twice a month on top of that. Otherwise, dinner was cooked at home. Today this is almost unimaginable. Folks simply eat out (or get carry-out) considerably more than they used to. Some can afford to do so, but clearly most cannot.

[davelj]

[quote=briansd1]I believe that sdreator brought up some good points.

If people were happy to live in simply ulitarian 1500sf houses, they would have more money to spend on other things. Housing be be cheaper also.

But people want to live ornate houses, with community amenities and HOA. But the want to replace their cars and durables more frequently.

Since clothing, electronics, food now represent a smaller portion of income than in the past, then more could go to savings. But in general, we go out to eat more and we get fat and stressed out. People get stressed out keeping up with their peers.

As dave pointed out, the paradox of thrift would result lower economic growth.[/quote]

I basically agree with this. If folks want to live today as they did in the 60s/70s… they can do so VERY inexpensively.

Much smaller house, well-preserved 10-year old car, furniture from craigslist/thrift store/consignment store, box TVs (I think you can find a well-preserved “old” TV these days for $50), no cable TV, no smart phone (basic cell phones cost very little today), clothing from Target or thrift stores, eat out once a month… you get the idea.

The three areas that have really zoomed out of control are health care, college and fuel. There are many ways to reduce college costs for folks that want to do so (which are covered herein). Fuel costs are up, but so is fuel efficiency (although on a net basis in real terms we’re probably behind compared to the 60s). And where health care is concerned… we’re paying for all of those advances of the last 40 years. But I read somewhere that 80% of Americans would be considerably better off with a (relatively inexpensive) catastrophic health care policy, as opposed to the group/managed care policies that they have. (That is, most Americans over-insure themselves where health care is concerned.)

So, the bottom line is that folks who want to live as we did during the Halcyon Days can do so for fairly little money… but they have to be willing to give up some mod cons… which most folks are simply unwilling to do.

To sdr’s earlier point about eating out, my recollection is the same as his. My family probably ate out at a sit-down restaurant once a month (and there were precious few choices). And then we probably had a bucket of chicken or hamburgers plopped down on the table once or twice a month on top of that. Otherwise, dinner was cooked at home. Today this is almost unimaginable. Folks simply eat out (or get carry-out) considerably more than they used to. Some can afford to do so, but clearly most cannot.

[davelj]

[quote=briansd1]I believe that sdreator brought up some good points.

If people were happy to live in simply ulitarian 1500sf houses, they would have more money to spend on other things. Housing be be cheaper also.

But people want to live ornate houses, with community amenities and HOA. But the want to replace their cars and durables more frequently.

Since clothing, electronics, food now represent a smaller portion of income than in the past, then more could go to savings. But in general, we go out to eat more and we get fat and stressed out. People get stressed out keeping up with their peers.

As dave pointed out, the paradox of thrift would result lower economic growth.[/quote]

I basically agree with this. If folks want to live today as they did in the 60s/70s… they can do so VERY inexpensively.

Much smaller house, well-preserved 10-year old car, furniture from craigslist/thrift store/consignment store, box TVs (I think you can find a well-preserved “old” TV these days for $50), no cable TV, no smart phone (basic cell phones cost very little today), clothing from Target or thrift stores, eat out once a month… you get the idea.

The three areas that have really zoomed out of control are health care, college and fuel. There are many ways to reduce college costs for folks that want to do so (which are covered herein). Fuel costs are up, but so is fuel efficiency (although on a net basis in real terms we’re probably behind compared to the 60s). And where health care is concerned… we’re paying for all of those advances of the last 40 years. But I read somewhere that 80% of Americans would be considerably better off with a (relatively inexpensive) catastrophic health care policy, as opposed to the group/managed care policies that they have. (That is, most Americans over-insure themselves where health care is concerned.)

So, the bottom line is that folks who want to live as we did during the Halcyon Days can do so for fairly little money… but they have to be willing to give up some mod cons… which most folks are simply unwilling to do.

To sdr’s earlier point about eating out, my recollection is the same as his. My family probably ate out at a sit-down restaurant once a month (and there were precious few choices). And then we probably had a bucket of chicken or hamburgers plopped down on the table once or twice a month on top of that. Otherwise, dinner was cooked at home. Today this is almost unimaginable. Folks simply eat out (or get carry-out) considerably more than they used to. Some can afford to do so, but clearly most cannot.

[davelj]

[quote=briansd1]I believe that sdreator brought up some good points.

If people were happy to live in simply ulitarian 1500sf houses, they would have more money to spend on other things. Housing be be cheaper also.

But people want to live ornate houses, with community amenities and HOA. But the want to replace their cars and durables more frequently.

Since clothing, electronics, food now represent a smaller portion of income than in the past, then more could go to savings. But in general, we go out to eat more and we get fat and stressed out. People get stressed out keeping up with their peers.

As dave pointed out, the paradox of thrift would result lower economic growth.[/quote]

I basically agree with this. If folks want to live today as they did in the 60s/70s… they can do so VERY inexpensively.

Much smaller house, well-preserved 10-year old car, furniture from craigslist/thrift store/consignment store, box TVs (I think you can find a well-preserved “old” TV these days for $50), no cable TV, no smart phone (basic cell phones cost very little today), clothing from Target or thrift stores, eat out once a month… you get the idea.

The three areas that have really zoomed out of control are health care, college and fuel. There are many ways to reduce college costs for folks that want to do so (which are covered herein). Fuel costs are up, but so is fuel efficiency (although on a net basis in real terms we’re probably behind compared to the 60s). And where health care is concerned… we’re paying for all of those advances of the last 40 years. But I read somewhere that 80% of Americans would be considerably better off with a (relatively inexpensive) catastrophic health care policy, as opposed to the group/managed care policies that they have. (That is, most Americans over-insure themselves where health care is concerned.)

So, the bottom line is that folks who want to live as we did during the Halcyon Days can do so for fairly little money… but they have to be willing to give up some mod cons… which most folks are simply unwilling to do.

To sdr’s earlier point about eating out, my recollection is the same as his. My family probably ate out at a sit-down restaurant once a month (and there were precious few choices). And then we probably had a bucket of chicken or hamburgers plopped down on the table once or twice a month on top of that. Otherwise, dinner was cooked at home. Today this is almost unimaginable. Folks simply eat out (or get carry-out) considerably more than they used to. Some can afford to do so, but clearly most cannot.

[davelj]

[quote=briansd1]I believe that sdreator brought up some good points.

If people were happy to live in simply ulitarian 1500sf houses, they would have more money to spend on other things. Housing be be cheaper also.

But people want to live ornate houses, with community amenities and HOA. But the want to replace their cars and durables more frequently.

Since clothing, electronics, food now represent a smaller portion of income than in the past, then more could go to savings. But in general, we go out to eat more and we get fat and stressed out. People get stressed out keeping up with their peers.

As dave pointed out, the paradox of thrift would result lower economic growth.[/quote]

I basically agree with this. If folks want to live today as they did in the 60s/70s… they can do so VERY inexpensively.

Much smaller house, well-preserved 10-year old car, furniture from craigslist/thrift store/consignment store, box TVs (I think you can find a well-preserved “old” TV these days for $50), no cable TV, no smart phone (basic cell phones cost very little today), clothing from Target or thrift stores, eat out once a month… you get the idea.

The three areas that have really zoomed out of control are health care, college and fuel. There are many ways to reduce college costs for folks that want to do so (which are covered herein). Fuel costs are up, but so is fuel efficiency (although on a net basis in real terms we’re probably behind compared to the 60s). And where health care is concerned… we’re paying for all of those advances of the last 40 years. But I read somewhere that 80% of Americans would be considerably better off with a (relatively inexpensive) catastrophic health care policy, as opposed to the group/managed care policies that they have. (That is, most Americans over-insure themselves where health care is concerned.)

So, the bottom line is that folks who want to live as we did during the Halcyon Days can do so for fairly little money… but they have to be willing to give up some mod cons… which most folks are simply unwilling to do.

To sdr’s earlier point about eating out, my recollection is the same as his. My family probably ate out at a sit-down restaurant once a month (and there were precious few choices). And then we probably had a bucket of chicken or hamburgers plopped down on the table once or twice a month on top of that. Otherwise, dinner was cooked at home. Today this is almost unimaginable. Folks simply eat out (or get carry-out) considerably more than they used to. Some can afford to do so, but clearly most cannot.

[Author]

Posts