"Gogarty" wrote

So you may be able to buy a boat cheap but you might have to pay cash for
it.


At probable prices, that shouldn't be a problem for anyone who can afford
the upkeep and maintenance. Used sailboats are going to be like some of
those cell phone deals or how Gillette became big in razor blades. The boat
will be essentially free but it's still going to cost a lot to keep and
maintain them. Yard and dockage costs are the same for the 32 footer I
bought for 15 grand as they would be for a brand new, 250 grand, 32 foot
Morris.

OTOH the stock of used sailboats got dramatically reduced last week except
for those interested in restoration projects.

--
Roger Long

*So you may be able to buy a boat cheap but you might have to pay cash for
it.

At probable prices, that shouldn't be a problem for anyone who can afford
the upkeep and maintenance. *

But the cost of inflation will make sure that the $$$ you have are
greatly reduced in purchasing value; plus, the cost of maintenance,
etc. will escalate by the same value % of what you lost in capital
value ..... double whammy = your money is now less valuable and
everything will cost a LOT more.
Two 'characters' are essentially and primarily responsible for all
this - senate banking and house banking committees. These two vital
congressional committees for the past 10 years (!!!!!) saw that the
underpinnings of the financial system (Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac) were
increasingly weakened to the point of corrupt, gave no warnings, and
simply sat on their dead asses. The chairmen (Dodd and Frank) of
these committees are leading socialistic members of the US Congress.
This is the 'change' that everyone voted for in 2006; I hope you all
are happy now.

I won't touch the politics but the rest is close to my essential point.
Used sailboat prices have been incredibly depressed over the last decade
because just the cost of keeping a boat is too high for something many
people only end up using once or twice a year. Inflation and investment
losses will make it impossible for many people to keep maintaining the boats
they have and prices will go even lower, a trap for dreamers.

I used to have people come to me who wanted to convert my designs to ferro
cement because they just figured out they could build a 45 foot hull for
$6000. I'd say, "Look at your financial situation. If someone GAVE you a
45 foot unfinished hull right now, you would be immediately in deep
financial trouble because you would be responsible for the costs of storing
it. How are you going to find the $100,000 for materials to finish it?
(Assuming funky ferro cement style finish and outfit.) If someone gave you
an operating 45 foot boat right now you would be in immediate financial
crisis because you wouldn't be able to afford the $10,000 a year to dock and
maintain it."

It was tough watching the light of dreams die in someones eyes but it was a
necessary service.

--
Roger Long

RichH wrote:
But the cost of *inflation will make sure that the $$$ you have are
greatly reduced in purchasing value; plus, the cost of maintenance,
etc. will escalate by the same value % of what you lost in capital

Just wait until Uncle Sam loses his AAA+ bond rating.

Two 'characters' are essentially and primarily responsible for all
this - senate banking and house banking committees.....
simply sat on their dead asses. *The chairmen (Dodd and Frank) of
these committees are leading socialistic members of the US Congress.
This is the 'change' that everyone voted for in 2006; I hope you all
are happy now.

I know you want to say, it, go ahead and get it out of your system...

IT'S ALL CLINTON'S FAULT!!!!

The problems in the insurance & finance sector never really were cured
from the 1987 meltdown under President Reagan. It's been building a
long time; but if the smart bankers like AIG and UBS didn't see it
coming then how do you expect a bunch of dumb politicians? Especially
when most of them are being "lobbied" by the very crooks they are
supposed to be protecting us from.

Dodd & Frank may be "Socialistic," but the "free-market" Republicans
certainly share a lot of the blame... why didn't they do a better job
during the 14 years *they* had a strong majority, hmm???

I think it may be time to build a fence around Washington DC and
simply hang everybody inside from the nearest lamp post. Let God sort
'em out.

DSK

Dave wrote:
On Thu, 18 Sep 2008 05:52:56 -0700 (PDT), RichH said:

Two 'characters' are essentially and primarily responsible for all
this - senate banking and house banking committees. These two vital
congressional committees for the past 10 years (!!!!!) saw that the
underpinnings of the financial system (Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac) were
increasingly weakened to the point of corrupt, gave no warnings, and
simply sat on their dead asses. The chairmen (Dodd and Frank) of
these committees are leading socialistic members of the US Congress.
This is the 'change' that everyone voted for in 2006; I hope you all
are happy now.

You left Chuck Shumer out of your cavalcade of heroes. He was right there
alongside Barney a few weeks ago leading the cheering section for Fan and
Fred to buy more mortgages.

Wait a minute Dave. Didn't you tell me the gummint had nuttin to do
with the problems?
Gordon

"Gordon" wrote in message
news
Dave wrote:
On Thu, 18 Sep 2008 05:52:56 -0700 (PDT), RichH said:

Two 'characters' are essentially and primarily responsible for all
this - senate banking and house banking committees. These two vital
congressional committees for the past 10 years (!!!!!) saw that the
underpinnings of the financial system (Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac) were
increasingly weakened to the point of corrupt, gave no warnings, and
simply sat on their dead asses. The chairmen (Dodd and Frank) of
these committees are leading socialistic members of the US Congress.
This is the 'change' that everyone voted for in 2006; I hope you all
are happy now.

You left Chuck Shumer out of your cavalcade of heroes. He was right there
alongside Barney a few weeks ago leading the cheering section for Fan and
Fred to buy more mortgages.

Wait a minute Dave. Didn't you tell me the gummint had nuttin to do with
the problems?
Gordon


Yeah he did, but that's typical of right-wing nuts. Even Greenspan has
admitted some responsibility.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

On Sep 18, 7:16*am, Dave wrote:
On Thu, 18 Sep 2008 05:52:56 -0700 (PDT), RichH said:

Two 'characters' are essentially and primarily responsible for all
this - senate banking and house banking committees. ...

You left Chuck Shumer out of your cavalcade of heroes. He was right there
alongside Barney a few weeks ago leading the cheering section for Fan and
Fred to buy more mortgages.

It's all political name calling at this point but
http://bigpicture.typepad.com/commen...tory-exem.html
is interesting.

To put a sailing bent on it my plan is to go cruising in the
developing world; a place where everyone understands that most folks
are broke.

-- Tom.

Duhh... Clinton did it (you pick which one) because Karl (Achtung) Rove said
so.

Yeah, they, in the developing world, know what the definition of poor is.

wrote in message
...
On Sep 18, 7:16 am, Dave wrote:
On Thu, 18 Sep 2008 05:52:56 -0700 (PDT), RichH said:

Two 'characters' are essentially and primarily responsible for all
this - senate banking and house banking committees. ...

You left Chuck Shumer out of your cavalcade of heroes. He was right there
alongside Barney a few weeks ago leading the cheering section for Fan and
Fred to buy more mortgages.

It's all political name calling at this point but
http://bigpicture.typepad.com/commen...tory-exem.html
is interesting.

To put a sailing bent on it my plan is to go cruising in the
developing world; a place where everyone understands that most folks
are broke.

-- Tom.



--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

wrote

It's all political name calling at this point but
*http://bigpicture.typepad.com/commen...tory-exem.html
is interesting.


That *is* interesting, thanks.

(brief quote)
"...the events of the past year are not a mere accident, but are the
results of a conscious and willful SEC decision to allow these firms
to legally violate existing net capital rules that, in the past 30
years, had limited broker dealers debt-to-net capital ratio to 12-
to-1.
...... the five that received this special exemption? You won't be
surprised to learn that they were Goldman, Merrill, Lehman, Bear
Stearns, and Morgan Stanley. " (end quote)

I dunno if it's the same with fiscal regulations as it is with
environmental & safety regs, but federal agencies handing out 'get-out-
of-jail-free' cards defeats the whole purpose of regulation. Why
didn't the competing companies call foul, and why didn't our
supposedly free press get the word out? Betcha this was not mentioned
in any of the five's report to their stockholders, either.


To put a sailing bent on it my plan is to go cruising in the
developing world; a place where everyone understands that most folks
are broke.


Good thinking.

I lost enthusiasm for piddling around in the tribal areas, myself...
not as afraid of being knocked on the head as I am of picking up
intestinal parasites or malaria or something. Besides, it's easy to
go to someplace along the swampy south-east US coast where there
aren't any people at all.

As for good boat bargains, the window of opportunity may be rather
short, since the time frame between sellers needing cash deciding to
unload cheap, and sellers needing cash deciding to simply duck out
from under and letting the boat go to pot, may be short

An awful lot of the boats I saw destroyed in pics of Hurricane Ike's
aftermath were obviously not taken care of. Case in point- I would not
buy a boat from the sort of owner who left a roller-furler jib in
place with a hurricane imminent, no matter how good a deal it is. You
just don't know what other sorts of dumbass things he's done with/to
the boat, and those kinds of surprises are usually unpleasant.

Fresh Breezes- Doug King

On Sep 18, 12:54*pm, wrote:
....
I lost enthusiasm for piddling around in the tribal areas, myself...
not as afraid of being knocked on the head as I am of picking up
intestinal parasites or malaria or something. ...

We've had a lot of good experiences in seriously tiny and remote
places, but we've had some _interesting_ talks with our travel doctor,
too. Also, had a good friend pretty much wiped out for years because
of malaria and another on permanent disability because of a horrid
belly bug. And, we hear lots of horror stories. So, I understand your
view on this. We do take some precautions --we epically try to avoid
large population centers in the 3rd world and malaria hot spots-- but
we realize that we are at enhanced risk not just from tropical rot but
from acute medical issues that would be dealt with easily in the
States but will kill you in the bush. In the Pacific Islands we've
been lucky and happy. I'm keeping an open mind about Mexico, but if
it sucks the islands are to leeward!

-- Tom.