Good points, greenguy :-) Unless you can get humans to stop generating garbage, you will never be able to do away with landfills completely. Not everything we throw out as waste is recyclable or compostable. And I'd venture to say commercial waste/garbage is a far bigger contributor to the problem than residential garbage production. And I'd avoid making generalizations about dumping of toxic wastes in landfills. I don't doubt that it HAS happened but I'd venture that it is an extremely limited occurrence. The EPA fines for illegal dumping of toxic wastes are enormous and can carry stiff prison terms as well. Rather than a blanket letter writing campaign, we would all be better served if we individually did our part in changing local practices. Focus on local municipalities and encourage recycling practices and organic waste recycling/composting. Make it a community outreach project. I am fortunate to live in an area that places a huge emphasis on recycling of all kinds. Local waste/transfer stations separate all recyclable products - old appliances, TV's and electronics, light bulbs, metal parts, car batteries and motor oil as well as the more common paper, plastic, tin and aluminum, and yard waste. In fact, ALL areas have curbside recycling for the common stuff and if it is not sorted and placed in the proper recycling pick-up container, you can be fined. Just last year, the yard waste recycling was expanded to include ALL domestic organic waste, including kitchen scraps and compostable food containers (like take-out and pizza boxes). This also includes all the organic waste generated by groceries and restaurants - they have the same recycling requirements. These get taken to a huge, state-of-the-art, commercial composting center and get converted to a highly desirable, certified compost product. Of course those who compost at home can still do so, but the alternative is out there for those who do not.

Has the market hit bottom? I have no idea. But I'm inclined to doubt it. For one thing, I think that the sub-prime mortgage problem has not fully seen the cleansing rays of the sunshine yet. And the gov't.'s current action of throwing some more money at it so soon after earlier and so recently offering remedial supports leads my suspicious mind to think that they don't, either. On the other hand ... There's a guy who writes in what I consider Canada's best personal financial management magazine who has written about guru Benjamin Graham's system, and given us the names of a few U.S. stocks that he has found which survived Graham's exacting standards at various times. That list included five stocks when chosen last September, one being Leggett & Platt LEG at $19.16 on Sept. 28, 2007. He has developed his own modest modification of the Graham system, which some years has offered several stocks, and one recent year only two. His track record (not according to calendar years) has been: ... Period ..... Stingy Stocks .. S&P500 (SPY)ETF .. +/- 2001 - 2002 ...... - 1.90% .......... -22.10% ........ 20.2 2002 - 2003 ....... 33.80% ........... 23.00% ........ 10.8 2003 - 2004 ....... 29.80% ........... 13.40% ........ 16.4 2004 - 2005 ....... 29.20% ............. 8.20% ........ 21.0 2005 - 2006 ....... 28.90% ........... 12.60% ........ 16.3 2006 - 2007 ...... - 5.50% ............. 7.40% ....... -12.9 Total gain since inception .. 168.00% ........... 42.10% ....... 125.9 He told us recently of five stocks that made it through his sieve this year; one of them was Leggett & Platt LEG, priced at $20.58 at Dec. 2 when chosen, $16.26 on Jan 7, $19.22 on Feb. 1 and $17.35 on Feb. 13 close. Three of the five were on his list last year (which also contained five stocks), and all three went down during 2007. LEG was one, and priced at $23.69 on Dec. 2, 2006. I have no idea what may result were one to choose that stock. I haven't bought any, but am considering it. I remember about 25 years ago, when I sold a wide variety of mutual funds for a year, being impressed that the Templeton Growth Fund, which recently celebrated its 50th anniversary, one of the older ones around, after having I think it was a couple of loss years in '73 and '74 ... had a couple of years of substantial growth right after that. I have seen similar results with a few other investment systems managed by reasonably skilled experts ... also by the market as a whole. I've made three purchases since early November (the first in quite a long time) and plan to make some more during coming months. That could develop into several such entries, for I expect to have one major position (Canada's largest phone co. - for years called our major "widows' and orphans'" stock: not sure which best characterizes me) bought out and (drat it!) privatized, which will free up some more reinvestable dollars. And leave some income tax to pay, next year. I need more international exposure, as most of my assets are Canadian: about 2% of world markets. Perhaps some of you should consider some Canadian stocks: similar market, stable economy and politically, inter-related, good oil and gas, plus other resources exposure. On the other hand ... a Canadian Dollar cost a U.S. person about 65 cents four or five years ago and about 85 cents last year, now it's within a cent of a Dollar, one way or the other. Which sure makes me unhappy with regard to the current valuation of my U.S. ones, plus other foreign stocks, as they are New York based via ADRs, but some benefit from appreciation of their local currency compared to the U.S. Dollar. Most advisors seem to think that the Canadian Dollar has more or less shot its bolt, in fact, may retreat some ... which would please our manufacturers, as a number of them have been slaughtered in recent times, when doing over-border business and paid in U.S. Dollars. I'm looking at ways that I may be able to buy in other parts of the world without going through New York. That appears to be quite a difficult task ... differing regulation, evaluation and publicity of stocks available, and friction costs are substantial, I think. Anyway, good wishes for increasing skill at investing. I thought to say, not only regarding what to buy, but when to buy it ... but, as a large number of wise investors have said, over the years, trying to time the market is a fool's game. Sir John Templeton used to say at the annual meeting of his fund that he believed in staying fully invested, through thick and thin markets. Timing's hard for many of us to play, in any case, for usually we save a little at a time so the simplest thing is to buy when we have some money ... getting fewer shares for the same amount of money when prices are high, and more when prices are low. Has it occurred to you that, when withdrawing, the wisest way would be to use the inverse of dollar cost averagig (putting in the same number of dollars, regardless of prices of stock): liquidate the same number of shares at a time, despite number of dollars produced, thus living higher on the hog (maybe trading cars/going on fancier travels or tours) when prices are high, and eating turnips when prices are low? Some more food for thought, I hope. Your contributions anticipated and welcome. ole joyful

With pension programs disappearing, it seems to me that some middle-aged people's idea of borrowing against the equity in their houses in order to consume is foolish, in most cases. It is easy, as our employment income doesn't increase as fast as the cost of living, to decide to continue living at our earlier level, withdrawing equity from our home to finance it. Far better, it seems to me, to decide that we are going to live within our current income. And not only that, but to take the long term view and see whether our asset base looks as though it will fund an extended retirement. On the other hand, with a lot of the baby boomers retiring in a few years, there'll be a shortage of staffing, and quite likely a number of people may well be offered incentives to continue employment rather than retiring. In contrast with the current situation, where a number of pre-retirement highly paid employees are being offered incentives to leave, so that companies can take on lower paid younger people to replace them. But would it be wise to count on that? I think not - unless one has some definite plans for a source of self-employed income following official employment, to subsidize that (inadequate, on its own) retirement income. Retirement planning is different than it was 30 years ago, for people on average are living longer, so need a larger fund on retirement in order to be able to eat and operate comfortably in their last year of life. As pensions die, our equity in our homes becomes more important as one of our sources of funding for our retirements, along with tax-deferred retirement programs and regular savings. As interest rates have dropped, with the requirement to pay part of the earnings in tax, and put part of current income with principal to maintain purchasing power of our shrinking-in-value dollars, there's little actual current gain ... in many years, none at all. If we have no net gain on investments in a given year, it becomes even more important, in fact crucial, that we make new savings in a year in order to add to that highly important retirement fund. The exact opposite of pulling equity from our house-asset now in order to live as high on the hog as we've been used to, in current years. Not only that, many unsophisticated investors are unwilling to get involved in even the equity-based mutual fund segment of the stock market, with the reduced net income that most face annually due to the substantial payments made to the managers, let along being willing to learn how to manage direct investment into the stock markets on their own, with a potentially higher rate of return (as the shrewder investor puts at least part of the money that the mutual fund manager was making into his/her own pocket). Some money management concepts to chew on - if you're interested. Good wishes for increasingly shrewd management of your own income and assets. ole joyful

Oh, gdogni. I tried to make this short, but it can't be said in a few sound bites. Who was doing the jobs before the illegals came? They were being done. Have we been quick to buy the idea that Americans don't want to do these jobs because we, ourselves, wouldn't want to do them? Americans have done jobs for many years I wouldn't want to have to do. I would do anything I could do, if necessary, but I do have my 'druthers. I wish you could have talked with the young woman I just spent time with the other day. She was almost in tears because she was pretty sure she was going to loose her jobs because the company had just brought in a new group of illegals. She commuted 60 miles - one way - to work on the assembly line of a chicken processing plant. I've been just in the office of a processing plant and my stomach lurched from the smell. It's a job I don't want to have to do - but others have for many years. She said, in a shakey voice, 'I've just got to have this job.' The shocking thing she told me is, if this company lays someone off, not fired for reason, but laid off because of slowdowns, etc., they will only rehire you one time. That means you can be rehired, but if laid off again (because a batch of illegals come in) you are no longer 'qualified' to work for that company. By way of their hiring practices, they are creating 'unqualified' workers in the area. People know to not apply for the job again. So when the news media goes to the spokesman for that company he/she can say things like 'we just can't find qualified workers', or 'we just haven't had any applicants' or the old stand by 'no one wants to do these kinds of jobs'. Neither they nor the media are going to tell you they fixed the situation. When you see jobs being filled by illegals - the only thing that means is they have the job. It means absolutely nothing else. We don't know how many others applied for the job, and didn't get it. One thing you have to realize is that in many areas, people are aware that only illegals will be hired, and they don't even apply. I saw illegals building the houses that got built in the frenzy of the last few years. Can we assume that Americans no longer wanted to do carpentry, dry walling, electrical,plumbing, bricklaying?? I don't think so. I know a lot who wanted the jobs. They are a bargain to employers because the employers have no responsibility. They don't have to comply with overtime laws, collect and match taxes, worry about OSHA regulations, workman's comp. If one gets hurt, they are taken to the hospital and the taxpayers pay for it. The media and the politicians are not giving out the true story on this. Now the reason I mentioned illegals was the fact they are working here. Americans already are competing with them for jobs, and if things get bad, it will be even more so. There is nothing wrong with mowing lawns and bussing tables, but that is not the only jobs they are doing. We will be hampered by the fact employers will have to work within the labor laws when hiring Americans, so given the choice, they will take illegals. The illegals are also getting benefits that are going to be needed for American families who loose their jobs. Again, just because Americans aren't doing the jobs, don't assume they won't or don't want to - now - but especially in the future.