Funding space - How much do Americans pay for sneakers?

clark · 2004-10-18 12:01:17

:;):

Martian Republic · 2004-10-18 12:45:51

Larry,
I feel for you. :laugh:
Pray tell, how in the hell does anything ever get built if what you claim is true?
New jet planes routinely make their appearance, and they cost billions to research and millions more to build. Somewhere, a profit is made to pay for the loans and maintance costs of all of this.
I looked at your website, and I'm sorry, I find it all a bit odd. It seems that people are claiming that how money is printed, via a congressionaly authrozied arm of the federal government, is secretly siphoning off all our hard gotten gains and preventing any actual building.
But that defies reality- things get built. Economies expand. A large percentage of wealth is distributed among a larger portion of the population.
I don't think there are a bunch of wild eyed men sitting on top of a heap of money controlling what we read.
To go and build a hotel, it costs "X" dollars. In order to get a loan to pay for the hotel, one must show the banker how one will pay pack "X" dollars, and how long it will take. Right now, it costs a lot of money, more than anyone can rightly figure out how to pay in a reasonable amount of time.
Enter creativity and human ingenuity, which looks for ways to reduce the amount it costs to build something, and looks for ways to pay back the "X" amount of dollars in a shorter amount of time. This is the system. I really don't understand what you're yammering about that somehow it can't be done under the current system since it IS done everyday.
Everday people use the current system to build things. How do you argue against reality?

I know that people use the current banking system to build things. I know about creative financing to build something. I have no problem with that part of the system. We have good bankers that do a good job, that not the issue here.

It the private nature of the Federal Reserve System that is the issue here. We have a small number of private individual of the banker type that own the Federal Reserve System. They have the right to generate credit or print money out of thin air when ever they choose to do it. They have the right to generate Federal Reserve Note to buy government debt and charge interest against it and demand that the U.S. Federal Government pay them. Those Federal Reserve Notes can be cycled through banks like Chase Mahatten so a membered bank can make money off the U.S. Government debt. A fair portion of the U.S. National Debt was generated by using Fiat Money generated by the Federal Reserve. What actually boils down to is, the U.S. Government and the American tax payer is actually subsidizing those big banks with there tax money. Currently about 50% of your tax money goes to subsidizing those big banks. So beside having the power to generate money out of thin air, they also have the power to increase or generate a larger National Debt for us to pay in taxes. Besides the U.S. Government not having the power to control there own credit in accordance with the U.S. Constitution, they are also paying a larger and larger debt to these banks in interest payment as the debt increases. Which means they have tax money to spend whether it for healthcare, Social Security, jobs program or a new National Space Program.

Did you understand that?

Larry,

GCNRevenger · 2004-10-18 13:05:45

The only trouble is MR, that your above statement is simply untrue. Innaccurate. Unfactual. Hogwash. Fictional. Not real. False. A product of fevered madmen. The-opposit-of-true... And, considering the ultimate source, fraudulent.

Not one single point of your last post is true, none of it.

clark · 2004-10-18 13:06:13

Oh, I understand.

But of course, I have questions...

We have good bankers who seem to be doing their job... but those same bankers are the problem?

Perhaps this is my own failing, but I was under the distinct impression that the Federal Reserve, which you seem to take issue with, was headed by Greenspan, who is chosen for a 6 year term by the President, and authorized by the Congress to carry out a function of the US government on their behalf.

I always thought that Greenspan, and those in his position, went to Congress to let them know how they were running the business of keeping the economy sound. I also was under the distinct impression that Congress sought his advice on different economic choices they might enact in order to improve the economy.

You see, the way I understand it all works out is like this: Congress borrows money. It can't just print it and say, "look magic money, there it is! It's worth something cause we say so!" People have to believe it is worth something. That's how magic works. Belief.

So how do you get people to believe? Why, you tell people who have money that you will give them this thing called a goven'ment bond. They give you some of their cash for it with the promise that the goven'ment will pay it back sometime later. The goven'ment now has real money, traded on a promise, to back the new money it is putting out.

What i have just described is the basis of every bank loan in exsistence. This is why economists say the US goven'ment should pay off it's debt. Not because the debt is bad, but because the goven'ment is competing with private enterpise (that's blokes like you and me) for the available money that can be lent out. Now, we can go a step further and even claim some public debt is a good thing. "What?!" Well, it seems some smart economists, and I tend to agree, point out that by borrowing some money the goven'ment forces the private lending instutions to be more circumspect in who they lend their money to. It causes a bit of effeciency we might not otherwise observe. I know, I was shocked by the mental jump once, but there it is.

Now, this whole issue of where we borrow our money from, I don't think it's a big deal. Why? Because the major shareholder in the loan of Uncle Sam is you and me and every other American that might get social security. We borrow from the future primarily.

And while we can make a stint that some foreign born rich guy has a stake in our country- so freaking what? Ownership is only 9/10ths of the law- the other 10th is a gun, and we have quite a few of them. I don't see them forcing us to pay something we refuse, and I don't see them coming in to take it from us. So these cries of a loss of independance are farsical.

The Federal Reserve is controlled by Congress, can be undermined by Congress, and can be shut down on a whim by Congress. If Congress tells them to raise or lower interest rates, they will. Congress dosen't because the business community generally prefers, and the stock market appreciates it, when they but out.

Cobra Commander · 2004-10-18 13:15:37

Okay, I've got some (non conspiratorial) issues with the Federal Reserve system, partly in line with your claim that the Fed's problem is that it creates money out of thin air. Okay, seems reasonable.

So you propose a solution that... makes money out of thin air? ???

BWhite · 2004-10-18 13:55:38

Okay, I've got some (non conspiratorial) issues with the Federal Reserve system, partly in line with your claim that the Fed's problem is that it creates money out of thin air. Okay, seems reasonable.
So you propose a solution that... makes money out of thin air? ???

All property "rights" are created out of thin air, especially patent, trademark and copyrights.

The "value" of Cola-Cola brand identity - - its name and trademarks - - are "worth" many, many billions of dollars.

Made out of air? Yup. And you can take it to the Bank.

clark · 2004-10-18 14:04:50

Made out of air? Yup. And you can take it to the Bank.

Afterwards, you can take it to the Bank afterwards.

The Bank won't give you a nickel for the loan until after the jingle has worked its magic.

Cobra Commander · 2004-10-18 14:15:41

All property "rights" are created out of thin air, especially patent, trademark and copyrights.
The "value" of Cola-Cola brand identity - - its name and trademarks - - are "worth" many, many billions of dollars.

Because it's backed by a tradeable commodity of some sort. In the case of Fed notes, it get's shadier.

BWhite · 2004-10-18 14:18:20

Made out of air? Yup. And you can take it to the Bank.
Afterwards, you can take it to the Bank afterwards.
The Bank won't give you a nickel for the loan until after the jingle has worked its magic.

All property exists only in the minds of people. Even land. The land exists outside my mind (no solipsism here) yet my potential "ownership" of 5000 acres of farmland or a 3 flat rental building does not exist except in our minds.

BWhite · 2004-10-18 14:19:13

All property "rights" are created out of thin air, especially patent, trademark and copyrights.
The "value" of Cola-Cola brand identity - - its name and trademarks - - are "worth" many, many billions of dollars.
Because it's backed by a tradeable commodity of some sort. In the case of Fed notes, it get's shadier.

No inherent right to life, but an inherent right to own property?

clark · 2004-10-18 14:31:43

No inherent to life, but an inherent right to own property?

:laugh:

You're killing me Bill.

BWhite · 2004-10-18 14:34:15

No inherent to life, but an inherent right to own property?
:laugh:
You're killing me Bill.

What?

The typo or the content?

= = =

Funny? You think I'm funny? Funny how?

Martian Republic · 2004-10-18 14:40:35

Well, yes of course and it does inclued making money out of thin air or to be more accurate credit out of thin air. What we are going to do is decide who has that power to do it and what that credit is going to be used for. Once you understand that a certain amount of credit has to be produced to keep economic system functioning or it will implode on itself.

Let keep it simple and say we have ten company in our economy and they sell to each other and that how they make there money. For nine of those company's to consistantly make money the tenth company has to consistantly lose money. But, if it does that, it will go business. So your economy shrank by 1/10th. Everybody downsizes because of the lost business by 1/10th. If you keep doing this, you will distroy your economy.

The banker say I see the problem. He say's I can solve this problem I will generate 3% money out of thin air and that will solve our problem. But, he going to charge 5% for that new money to the people who are going to be borrowing it, so all ten companies can make a profit. Or at least it seam
like they were making a profit. The problem is, they will whined up with debt up to there eye balls to that bank. Each one of those presidents of those ten companies go to that banker and banker ask can you pay this debt. Each one say, we can not pay that debt and the only we could pay that debt is drive one of the other corporation out of business and trip there assets to pay you.

The National Government show up and say's beat that deal. I will generate that 3% more money or credit to keep this economy going. Only I don't have to make a profit 3% new money or credit and I could even lose the entire 3% that I generated too. I can get my return on have a bigger more
productive economy with a bigger tax base that can pay taxes. However, we don't want to just throw out there because that won't serve our purpose of what we want to do. Besides if we did just throw money out there, we would generate a run away inflation condition and we don't want to do that. So we will create a credit system for long range projects in the 20 to 30 year time frame to improve productivities work force and quality of life. But, we want to drible it into the economy on our target areas. We also may choose to have a Kennedy type tax rite off to those companies to encurrage them to buy new machined so there work force can produce more per man hour. We don't want our newly generated credit causing run away inflation, we want it targeted infrastructural that we choose to build. Well that fine, what are you going to do next year? We will target something else next year that needs to be built. No problem!

The founding father of the United States understood this principle of economics and that why only the United States Government under the U.S. Constitution has the right to generate credit. Consider this, that there were 1.5 million farmer during the Revelution in population of 3 million people inside the American population. Today we only need about 2 to 3 million farmer inside the United States to feed almost 300 million people. This is that principle that our founding father
understoot that existed and that having the Federal Government alone having the power to wheel is that power to generate credit from nothing. Read the Preamble of the U.S. Constitution and when you get to the General Welfare cause and Posterity cause stop and think what there talking about
or what there intension was. With control over the banking system and the power to generate credit, there would be absolutly no way to honor that General Welfare or Posterity cause in the U.S. Constitution. I'm assuming that they had ever intended for us to serve and honor the General Welfare and Posterity cause in that Constitution.

Larry,

BWhite · 2004-10-18 14:47:38

All property "rights" are created out of thin air, especially patent, trademark and copyrights.
The "value" of Cola-Cola brand identity - - its name and trademarks - - are "worth" many, many billions of dollars.
Because it's backed by a tradeable commodity of some sort. In the case of Fed notes, it get's shadier.

Back on thread. Whew.

25 years ago EVERY corporation at the top of Fortune's lists (Fortune 100 or Fortune 500) dealt in things. Raw materials or manufacturing or selling things. Tangible things.

Mining, manufacturing, processing, etc. . .

Today, 1/2 of those top companies sell "air" - - Air Jordans for example. Nike owns "air" - - a label, a brand identity - - and it buys shoes from low paying factories and sells those shoes through various outlests and the only value it adds is brand identity, the "air-iest" of all air-like property rights.

Sara Lee has stopped baking cheesecakes. Yup. It buys cheesecakes from anonymous sub-contracted bakeries (subject to rigorous quality control) and packages them in Sara Lee boxes. I now a guy who works in management at Sara Lee and their express goal is to remove themselves from the business of making or baking anything,

They want to own brands, period. That way, they can earn the distillation of profit without all the messy overhead.

= = =

I am astonished that space advocates talk about mining the Moon! Mining the Moon? Come on people.

Why couple 21st century technology to a 19th century business model?

No wonder Wall Street will not invest in lunar or NEO mining schemes. High risk with minimal profit ratios compared to betting on some guy to invent a new jingle for an ad campaign.

clark · 2004-10-18 14:48:29

No, funny. I mean, you're funny. The way you tell your story. Just funny is all.

Here's one for you Spider. :;):

clark · 2004-10-18 14:50:57

Why couple 21st century technology to a 19th century business model?

At the end of the day Bill, someone has to bake the cheesecake. :;):

You can sell a dream, but someone has to make it...

BWhite · 2004-10-18 14:56:04

No, funny. I mean, you're funny. The way you tell your story. Just funny is all.
Here's one for you Spider. :;):

Actually, IIRC, its said, "Uz dink I'm funny?"

BWhite · 2004-10-18 14:59:42

Why couple 21st century technology to a 19th century business model?
At the end of the day Bill, someone has to bake the cheesecake. :;):
You can sell a dream, but someone has to make it...

True.

But given high double digit profit margins in the marketing arena, mining isn't a great place to start.

Tourism is a "charm" industry like marketing and brand creation yet its the most difficult of the three because you need to actually feed and transport people.

Martian Republic · 2004-10-18 15:02:22

All property "rights" are created out of thin air, especially patent, trademark and copyrights.
The "value" of Cola-Cola brand identity - - its name and trademarks - - are "worth" many, many billions of dollars.
Because it's backed by a tradeable commodity of some sort. In the case of Fed notes, it get's shadier.
Back on thread. Whew.
25 years ago EVERY corporation at the top of Fortune's lists (Fortune 100 or Fortune 500) dealt in things. Raw materials or manufacturing or selling things. Tangible things.
Mining, manufacturing, processing, etc. . .
Today, 1/2 of those top companies sell "air" - - Air Jordans for example. Nike owns "air" - - a label, a brand identity - - and it buys shoes from low paying factories and sells those shoes through various outlests and the only value it adds is brand identity, the "air-iest" of all air-like property rights.
Sara Lee has stopped baking cheesecakes. Yup. It buys cheesecakes from anonymous sub-contracted bakeries (subject to rigorous quality control) and packages them in Sara Lee boxes. I now a guy who works in management at Sara Lee and their express goal is to remove themselves from the business of making or baking anything,
They want to own brands, period. That way, they can earn the distillation of profit without all the messy overhead.
= = =
I am astonished that space advocates talk about mining the Moon! Mining the Moon? Come on people.
Why couple 21st century technology to a 19th century business model?
No wonder Wall Street will not invest in lunar or NEO mining schemes. High risk with minimal profit ratios compared to betting on some guy to invent a new jingle for an ad campaign.

You hit the problem right on the head Bill and that my point. If you don't have a government that encurages production, then you will have an empty shell of businesses that no longer produce anything. If you don't produce anything, you don't have a serious space program.

And that the way it is!

Larry,

clark · 2004-10-18 15:04:38

Actually, IIRC, its said, "Uz dink I'm funny?"

Fugidaboutit. :laugh:

But given high double digit profit margins in the marketing arena, mining isn't a great place to start.
Tourism is a "charm" industry like marketing and brand creation yet its the most difficult of the three because you need to actually feed and transport people.

Granted, and if all you want to do is sell a dream then marketing is the way to go. You don't have to sell something, you just have to sell an idea.

Which is why I suggested way back yonder my speel on setting up a humanistic approach to developing art centered on the ineffible universe...

That leads to a greater number of people clamoring to take part in the dream, which leads to people wanting to go, which leads to tourism, which leads to mining to support the tourists.

You already know what I'm talking about anyway- go reread if you forget. :;):

BWhite · 2004-10-18 15:07:28

Because it's backed by a tradeable commodity of some sort. In the case of Fed notes, it get's shadier.
Back on thread. Whew.
25 years ago EVERY corporation at the top of Fortune's lists (Fortune 100 or Fortune 500) dealt in things. Raw materials or manufacturing or selling things. Tangible things.
Mining, manufacturing, processing, etc. . .
Today, 1/2 of those top companies sell "air" - - Air Jordans for example. Nike owns "air" - - a label, a brand identity - - and it buys shoes from low paying factories and sells those shoes through various outlests and the only value it adds is brand identity, the "air-iest" of all air-like property rights.
Sara Lee has stopped baking cheesecakes. Yup. It buys cheesecakes from anonymous sub-contracted bakeries (subject to rigorous quality control) and packages them in Sara Lee boxes. I now a guy who works in management at Sara Lee and their express goal is to remove themselves from the business of making or baking anything,
They want to own brands, period. That way, they can earn the distillation of profit without all the messy overhead.
= = =
I am astonished that space advocates talk about mining the Moon! Mining the Moon? Come on people.
Why couple 21st century technology to a 19th century business model?
No wonder Wall Street will not invest in lunar or NEO mining schemes. High risk with minimal profit ratios compared to betting on some guy to invent a new jingle for an ad campaign.
You hit the problem right on the head Bill and that my point. If you don't have a government that encurages production, then you will have an empty shell of businesses that no longer produce anything. If you don't produce anything, you don't have a serious space program.
And that the way it is!
Larry,

Larry, brands have value because many people choose to value them. Government cannot create brand value by fiat.

In some ways, its very democratic.

Yet harnessing that power cannot be done by fiat and harnessing that power is scary because politicians cannot control it.

Martian Republic · 2004-10-18 15:20:05

Back on thread. Whew.
25 years ago EVERY corporation at the top of Fortune's lists (Fortune 100 or Fortune 500) dealt in things. Raw materials or manufacturing or selling things. Tangible things.
Mining, manufacturing, processing, etc. . .
Today, 1/2 of those top companies sell "air" - - Air Jordans for example. Nike owns "air" - - a label, a brand identity - - and it buys shoes from low paying factories and sells those shoes through various outlests and the only value it adds is brand identity, the "air-iest" of all air-like property rights.
Sara Lee has stopped baking cheesecakes. Yup. It buys cheesecakes from anonymous sub-contracted bakeries (subject to rigorous quality control) and packages them in Sara Lee boxes. I now a guy who works in management at Sara Lee and their express goal is to remove themselves from the business of making or baking anything,
They want to own brands, period. That way, they can earn the distillation of profit without all the messy overhead.
= = =
I am astonished that space advocates talk about mining the Moon! Mining the Moon? Come on people.
Why couple 21st century technology to a 19th century business model?
No wonder Wall Street will not invest in lunar or NEO mining schemes. High risk with minimal profit ratios compared to betting on some guy to invent a new jingle for an ad campaign.
You hit the problem right on the head Bill and that my point. If you don't have a government that encurages production, then you will have an empty shell of businesses that no longer produce anything. If you don't produce anything, you don't have a serious space program.
And that the way it is!
Larry,
Larry, brands have value because many people choose to value them. Government cannot create brand value by fiat.
In some ways, its very democratic.
Yet harnessing that power cannot be done by fiat and harnessing that power is scary because politicians cannot control it.

I understand that brands are made by private people or companies, but the U.S. Government can affect the market place with there tax policies and government loans. when ever they deem it in the National Interest of the American people or that it promote a general good to do so, they should do so. That one way they can defend the American factories and promote American made quality products. They were also given that authority under the U.S. Constitution to do that. Which means that they can also use terriff to serve that goal too.

Grypd · 2004-10-18 16:07:18

You hit the problem right on the head Bill and that my point. If you don't have a government that encurages production, then you will have an empty shell of businesses that no longer produce anything. If you don't produce anything, you don't have a serious space program.
And that the way it is!
Larry,
Larry, brands have value because many people choose to value them. Government cannot create brand value by fiat.
In some ways, its very democratic.
Yet harnessing that power cannot be done by fiat and harnessing that power is scary because politicians cannot control it.
I understand that brands are made by private people or companies, but the U.S. Government can affect the market place with there tax policies and government loans. when ever they deem it in the National Interest of the American people or that it promote a general good to do so, they should do so. That one way they can defend the American factories and promote American made quality products. They were also given that authority under the U.S. Constitution to do that. Which means that they can also use terriff to serve that goal too.

What you are discussing is called protective measures. These are used by goverments to protect industries that they consider vital. But there is a drawback, usually by virtue of international treaty they tend to be illegal and countries that produce the same or similar products will retaliate in kind. So we have a trade war where markets are blocked.

And these countries will usually block other products your country makes or tax them till they are too expensive to sell. Why to pressure the goverment that originally put the protective measure in place in the first place. And what happens you find that your industry is unable to compete anyway as it is too used to the luxury of the protection of the protective measure. Look at the steel industry.

It is very sad but we are in a global economy the world has shrunk that much.

Martian Republic · 2004-10-18 17:02:13

Larry, brands have value because many people choose to value them. Government cannot create brand value by fiat.
In some ways, its very democratic.
Yet harnessing that power cannot be done by fiat and harnessing that power is scary because politicians cannot control it.
I understand that brands are made by private people or companies, but the U.S. Government can affect the market place with there tax policies and government loans. when ever they deem it in the National Interest of the American people or that it promote a general good to do so, they should do so. That one way they can defend the American factories and promote American made quality products. They were also given that authority under the U.S. Constitution to do that. Which means that they can also use terriff to serve that goal too.
What you are discussing is called protective measures. These are used by goverments to protect industries that they consider vital. But there is a drawback, usually by virtue of international treaty they tend to be illegal and countries that produce the same or similar products will retaliate in kind. So we have a trade war where markets are blocked.
And these countries will usually block other products your country makes or tax them till they are too expensive to sell. Why to pressure the goverment that originally put the protective measure in place in the first place. And what happens you find that your industry is unable to compete anyway as it is too used to the luxury of the protection of the protective measure. Look at the steel industry.
It is very sad but we are in a global economy the world has shrunk that much.

But, without protectionism, you have no manufacturing sector and so you economically colapse and your country will disintegrate and will become a third world nation. So you either run the risk of having a trade war with other nation by setting up duties and tarriff or having a bankrupt nation that will cause the people rebel to against your economic policies which are causing mass starvation. I suppose it all depend on which decease you rather catch. That assuming that we can't negotiate duty and tarriff system that agreeable with the rest of the world that is.

If we continue with this free trade, free enterprise system, the United States will be destroyed. The United States can not and will not continue servive much longer and will soon be on it deathbed if it continue these policies. But, other nation are suffering from the same decease, so negotiation might be an option here.

Americas only recourse for saving itself, is to protect the steel industry, auto plants, air craft factories and they can not be put on the chopping block, if the United States is to servive. Americas only chance for servival is to put the Federal Reserve through bankrupsy re-organization and then do a FDR type government projects of rebuilding America. The only other choice is for America to invade other countries and wipe them out so we can steal there natural resources. Kind of like what George Bush is doing right now in Iraq and Afghanistan and what he want to do in Iran and Saudia Arabia.

I don't think the rest of the world wants that second option. I can tell you for a fact, that I'm not interesed in that second option.

Larry,

RobS · 2004-10-18 20:09:31

Larry, the situation is so much more complicated than you think. Take call centers. It is cheaper to hire people in India to answer calls about computer software, or how to set up one's VCR, than to hire Americans; but study after study has shown that the Americans do a better job for a variety of reasons, some of which are cultural (they can intuit the person's problem better). As a result, many overseas companies with an international clietele are now moving their call centers to the US, because Iowans and North Dakotans (popular places for call centers; well educated, speak average English, accept relatively low wages that are good for their area, hard workers) do a better job.

This is even true of some factory work. If you add robots to an assembly line, the Americans can be more productive and cheaper than a country where the workers don't have the training to work with the robots.

Furthermore, there's nothing wrong with some outsourcing. Some tasks can be obsolete in some places or for the entire planet. We no longer need very many blacksmiths because horses have been replaced by cars. Newspapers no longer need armies of typesetters because the word processing programs handle the task. Sewing together clothes is a labor intensive job and will probably be replaced by very smart computers in a decade or two. Why shouldn't the US export the textile industry to places wher it can be done more cheaply? Because the alternative is to keep the industry in the United States, and then hire ILLEGAL ALIENS to do most of the work. Not many Americans want to do that kind of work; it's very demanding and tedious.

Your statement that if we export our industrial sector, the economy will collapse is simply false. First of all, we have already exported parts of the manufacturing base, and there are parts we won't be exporting for a long time; manufactuing of missiles for example. Second, manufacturing already makes up less than half of our economy; the rest is services, and services are a growing segment, including exported services (such as filling orders for items sent via the internet). There are areas of the US that have no industrial facilities at all and they do fine. To argue that exporting industry will make out economy collapse is like an early nineteenth century American arguing that exporting agriculture will make our economy collapse; before the industrial revolution, after all, agriculture was 80% of the economy (today it's about 1%, and a major export segment as well).

As for the alternative to protectionism being war to expropriate resources, I think it is rather the opposite. In the 1920s when the world economy shrank, everyone slapped on protectionist controls. Goods couldn't be imported, so they couldn't be exported; currency couldn't be exported either. What was the result? A further shrinkage in all the national economies, especially the big exporters. Germany was a big exporter and its economy tanked as a result of the depression and protectionism. And what resulted from Germany's economic collapse? Desperation, and the election of a certain national socialist named Adolph Hitler. He proceeded to solve the problem of global trade by trying to take over the globe.

-- RobS

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#76 2004-10-18 12:01:17

Re: Funding space - How much do Americans pay for sneakers?

#77 2004-10-18 12:45:51

Re: Funding space - How much do Americans pay for sneakers?

#78 2004-10-18 13:05:45

Re: Funding space - How much do Americans pay for sneakers?

#79 2004-10-18 13:06:13

Re: Funding space - How much do Americans pay for sneakers?

#80 2004-10-18 13:15:37

Re: Funding space - How much do Americans pay for sneakers?

#81 2004-10-18 13:55:38

Re: Funding space - How much do Americans pay for sneakers?

#82 2004-10-18 14:04:50

Re: Funding space - How much do Americans pay for sneakers?

#83 2004-10-18 14:15:41

Re: Funding space - How much do Americans pay for sneakers?

#84 2004-10-18 14:18:20

Re: Funding space - How much do Americans pay for sneakers?

#85 2004-10-18 14:19:13

Re: Funding space - How much do Americans pay for sneakers?

#86 2004-10-18 14:31:43

Re: Funding space - How much do Americans pay for sneakers?

#87 2004-10-18 14:34:15

Re: Funding space - How much do Americans pay for sneakers?

#88 2004-10-18 14:40:35

Re: Funding space - How much do Americans pay for sneakers?

#89 2004-10-18 14:47:38

Re: Funding space - How much do Americans pay for sneakers?

#90 2004-10-18 14:48:29

Re: Funding space - How much do Americans pay for sneakers?

#91 2004-10-18 14:50:57

Re: Funding space - How much do Americans pay for sneakers?

#92 2004-10-18 14:56:04

Re: Funding space - How much do Americans pay for sneakers?

#93 2004-10-18 14:59:42

Re: Funding space - How much do Americans pay for sneakers?

#94 2004-10-18 15:02:22

Re: Funding space - How much do Americans pay for sneakers?

#95 2004-10-18 15:04:38

Re: Funding space - How much do Americans pay for sneakers?

#96 2004-10-18 15:07:28

Re: Funding space - How much do Americans pay for sneakers?

#97 2004-10-18 15:20:05

Re: Funding space - How much do Americans pay for sneakers?

#98 2004-10-18 16:07:18

Re: Funding space - How much do Americans pay for sneakers?

#99 2004-10-18 17:02:13

Re: Funding space - How much do Americans pay for sneakers?

#100 2004-10-18 20:09:31

Re: Funding space - How much do Americans pay for sneakers?

Board footer