I did get it painted. We had a yellow paint that we used in another room but it was a bit darker so we thinned it down with some white and got a really nice pastel yellow color. Really brightens up the room. There are cupboards along one side so I plan to get some blue and white tiles for between the cupboards and counter. Since it is a room I will be using for planting, and I'm messy, I decided to get some paint for the floor, the kind they use in garages. I'm also planning on putting the same tile in the kitchen.

I haven't been around in years, Christine. Good to see a familiar face.

Sorry...had the same problem you did, prairiemoon. Here's a clean version: I've decided to make one last effort to acquaint you with the significance of economics in understanding the world around you and distinguishing between effective and ineffective solutions to society's many problems. But before I do that, let me first acknowledge that perhaps my efforts thus far reflect my limitations in clearly communicating my points. For example, when referencing Karl Marx, I was NOT intending to disparage you by labeling you a communist or inferring that you supported his views. Rather, I was trying to make the point that many times an apparently sensible principle such as those espoused by Mr. Marx (or you) can prove to be totally dysfunctional in practice as explained by economic principles. But I'd like to walk you through a specific example of the application of microeconomics (i.e., the application of economics on a small scale, as distinguished from macroeconomics which looks at issues affecting, say, the national economy). Here in California, we've had our share of droughts in the past and we were experiencing a particularly prolonged drought when I was in business school. People were being forced to cut their water usage by 20% or face stiff fines. We were being required to only water our lawns on alternate days. "Water police" were issuing citations when landscape runoff was found in the street. Because of the drought, we were told, there was simply not enough water to go around. My econ professor used the occasion to make a strong point about the importance of understanding economics. He proclaimed, "Our current water shortage has nothing whatsoever to do with the drought!" What??? How could that be??? Economics tells us that the most efficient way to allocate scarce resources is through a market exchange, where the price of a given good or service is determined by the price that a willing buyer will pay a willing seller. Such a system GUARANTEES that the supply of a given good or service will always be sufficient to meet the demand (except for very short-term, unanticipated distribution problems, such as supplying drinking water immediately following the Haitian earthquake or introducing virtually ANY new Apple product). So how could CA be experiencing a water shortage? Very simple. The Public Utilities Commission was unwilling to allow the price for water to be set by the marketplace. Their reasoning was paved with good intentions (as is the proverbial road to Hell). They didn't want the burden of a decreased supply of water to fall disproportionately on those least able to pay for it. And, after all, isn't water a necessity of life? Yet each of their "solutions" created its own set of problems. Restricting landscape irrigation placed a disproportionate burden on those with large properties while apartment residents could continue to take half-hour showers. Requiring a reduction in water usage from the prior year disproportionately punished those who had always conserved water and those who had recently put in a yard. And these regulations did NOTHING to increase the supply of water. If instead they had let the price of water rise to a level that reflected its scarcity, the demand for water would be brought into equilibrium with supply. Consumers would have reduced their consumption in response to the higher price (as occurred during last year's spike in gas prices) and there would have been adequate water for all those willing to buy it. But wait, you say...what about fairness? Is it fair that the poor, who may be least prepared to deal with an increase in water prices, assume such a disproportionate hit? Well, the poor already have to pay for all the other necessities of life: food, shelter, transportation, heating, etc. Why should water be any different? (And to restate a previous remark, a ten-fold increase in water prices would still mean less than $10/YEAR to stay alive.) Our free market system works because it forces those who would be satisfied with only the necessities of life to get off their duffs and contribute to society...or they'll starve, freeze, etc. (Thank God for Clinton putting an end to Johnson's ill-conceived War on Poverty, which expanded the ranks for the impoverished and nearly bankrupted the nation.) If we feel that some are UNABLE to provide for themselves, we can (and do) establish welfare programs, charities, homeless shelters, etc. to help them deal with the price of necessities. But using PRICE to allocate scarce resources gives each individual the freedom to make decisions on how he/she would prefer to allocate their scarce dollars. But even more important, price provides the capacity for us to actually increase a dwindling supply by providing an economic justification to drill new wells, import water from areas having an abundant supply, expand water conservation technology, build desalinization plants, plant xeriscape landscapes, etc. And unlike wishing and hoping that citizens would simply act on the need for conservation by being RESPONSIBLE, a market allocation of scarce resources ACTUALLY WORKS! But couldn't a group of evil rich meanies corner the market on water, driving the price higher to satisfy their own greed? Sure, that could happen. And that's where government has a role in preventing the manipulation of the marketplace and the creation of monopolies. It takes vigilance to keep markets free. A good example of our government's failure to do so is in allowing China's currency manipulation to capture a disproportionate share of the American market. Why aren't we more aggressive in stopping this? Because China buys off our politicians by purchasing Treasury bonds which enables them to finance their on-going deficit spending. Oops...sorry, I'm slipping into macroeconomics and politics. That's a much more involved lesson. Market solutions aren't perfect but, as Churchill said about democracy, "...the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried" (Of course, he also said, "The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter." He might well have been referencing their ignorance of economics!) Dr. Granfield likely would be rather disappointed with the superficial job I've just done in recreating his lesson on CA's water shortage but I hope it's given you a flavor of some of the considerations in looking at society's challenges through the lens of economics. Any questions?

A group of 50+ of us went to a state park in TN (east of Nashville) so we were there for totality (2 minutes, 34 seconds) It was so cool watching the moon eat the sun, bit by bit. At totality, everyone whipped off their eclipse glasses and cheered and was just amazed. I stood there looking up--those 2.5 minutes passed really quickly. I got to see the diamond ring effect both at the beginning and end of the eclipse, as well as being able to see Mars. It didn't get as dark as I expected--we could see stars and Mars, but it wasn't dark--it was deep twilight. I didn't take pictures, but friends who are with me are sharing theirs. It was an amazing experience and well worth the 9+ hour drive!