Gene wrote:
>The bigger house phenomenon is at once reassuring and sad. Reassuring that
>our economy is so strong that Americans can have so much and sad that our
>values are so dollar driven.
Unfortunately that's largely two sides of the same coin. The way we
measure a 'strong' or 'weak' economy is based on the assumption that
earning dollars is the only way to profit and the more dollars the
more profit. Profit has (or at least once had) a much larger meaning
than income-expenses. If everybody in the country decided to live the
way you do, Gene, the economic indicators would go haywire, but people
wouldn't care about them.
> I was looking through the book, The Not So Big
>House again last night. The houses featured are smaller than the behemoths
I have a book called something like "Authentic Small Houses of the 1920's"
that is a newish reprint of floorplans the government published in the
1920's. These were nice houses, not just cheap boxes. They were small
but well thought out. The only problem that most of them have is the
kitchen is too out of date. Many of them had modern' refrigerators
that let the ice man reload them from the porch.
I haven't spent more than a month at a time in my trailer, but with the
exception of storage space I could live fine in a 20' by 7' camper. I'd
have to do all of my casual entertaining when the weather was nice, but
I can live with that. I'm going to add a 10 by 12' room as soon as I
can. That will help the storage space troubles and give me a place to
put my woodstove. I just wish I could get out of here. The snow this
week and the expected storm tomorrow were/will be the latest kink in my
plans.
>I am a wealthy person but I have very few dollars.
Mind the sense and the dollars will take care of themselves.
==>paul
