March 13, 2007
No Hi Def?
Now he thinks he's Instapundit!
Anybody talk me out of this TV?
Now that I am one of the mindless masses working for the man, creating no jobs for other people, I have been rewarded by my betters in Washington with a large tax refund. I was thinking I might finally succumb to the hi-def craze.
When I did a little shopping and soul searching, i wondered "What the hell will I watch?" Larry Kudlow's Quotidian Cavalcade of Unattractive Bald Economists? I looked at the HD offerings of may satellite provider and I don't watch any of those channels. I could watch football on the HD broadcast of my local channel, but that's it.
So, $300 bucks more for the HD and $20 a month for HD satellite, divided by 16 Bronco games (playoffs? call it 20) we're talking $25 bucks a game. I don't even see that well.
But this baby matches the resolution of my current Buffy DVDs and satellite broadcast. Big and flat I dig, HiDef, I'm not sold. Any HD fans out there?
InstaKranz,
HD is definitely the way to go. Then again, I am a huge sports fan and sports are a great deal better in HD. If you do not want to pay extra on your cable/satellite bill, you could always opt for a TV with the HD Tuner built-in. In that case, all you would need is an HD antenna and you could get all your local channels in HD for free.
Oh, and I think that it was nice of you to loan that hard-earned money to the government interest free for the whole year. A true patriot!
Posted by: Everyday Economist at March 13, 2007 5:31 PMYeah, you're welcome. Milton Friedman's one regret -- it would seem churlish of me to beat up on the man I respect so highly.
You make a good point about getting the TV but not the satellite. I would keep options open. However, I'm outside of Denver and not sure how well I'd get broadcast HD; regular broadcast is pretty spotty.
Seriously, thanks for the input.
Posted by: jk at March 13, 2007 5:44 PM | What do you think? [2]