John Ruth wrote:> Note that the tool held its value.  It cost $1.00 or $1.25 in
1939, and 78
> years, and presumably some use, later it was still worth $1.00.


> write this only partially tongue-in-cheek; I think there is a real point here.

Would that point be that good tools are a safer investment than my retirement
plan-- though there isn't growth, at least they aren't worthless-- and at least
as safe as shoving cash under the mattress?
 *** This message was sent from a convenience email service, and the reply
address(es) may not match the originating address