On Sun, 23 Apr 2006 10:31:17 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:

Don White wrote:
Harry Krause wrote:
Don White wrote:

RCE wrote:

"RG" wrote in message
m...

That's a bit dramatic. It might create a buyer's market for boats,
but not much more. For the average boater, fuel costs are a
relativley small part of the overall cost of boating.
In today's world, I absolutely agree. The more recent discussions
in this thread have been focused on much more extreme scenarios that
could possibly play out in the future.


Do you really belive that boat owners will default on their loans
just because fuel costs have increased?
Yes, if we are talking per gallon fuel costs deep into double
digits, possibly triple digits, and even possibly unavailable at any
price. That is the framework in which my comment was made, and
which the discussion over the last 24 hours has been focused in this
thread. You may think such a scenario unthinkable, but many
believe it is not.

Everyone's situation is different, of course, depending on what kind
of boat they have and how and what they use it for.

But here's an eye opener for me. In the fall of 2002, I took my
boat from MA to Florida, something that many people here on the east
coast do yearly. That trip's fuel cost was about 4,300 bucks, if I
recall correctly (log book not handy). In many places south of
Virginia diesel was selling for about a dollar/gal at that time.
Right now the same trip would be closer to 14K in fuel costs. I like
boating, but I don't like it that much. So, for now anyway, the boat
stays put. Fortunately I am loan free on it, so it doesn't hurt so
much, but I also think that it's already too late to sell if so
inclined and expect to get fair market value.

Makes a great summer cottage on the Cape, though.

RCE

I'd fly south and charter a boat or borrow a friend's.


I have the vaguest memories of Presidents Nixon, Ford and Carter trying
to push for an energy independence policy, and Ronald Reagan killing the
idea, saying the private sector would provide. Provide indeed. For itself.

I've not seen any aspect of the petrol industry that makes me believe
anything it claims or says. I don't for a New York Minute believe any of
the b.s. it or its accountants put forth as statements on the amount or
percentage of profit the industry "earns." Those books are cooked 1000
different ways.

We're going to be marking time until we have a new President and
Congress, one that is willing to really take on the difficult issues,
stop lying to the American public, and put the future of the majority of
people in this country first.

All Bush is going to be able to do from now until January 2009 is quack.

Up here back in the 70s our federal gov't created a new oil company by
buying out the old Fina Oil Company. This was paid for by a 3 cents per
liter surtax on gas. The new company... Petro Canada.
The idea was to sell gas at a fair price and force the big American
companies to toe the line.
Then that %^$&^ smarmy conservative government of Mulroney came to power
and sold the company back to us as shares. Now it's no better than the rest.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/petrocanada/


I've never been convinced that production or distribution of energy,
operation of infrastructure, operation of hospitals, et cetera, should
be in the hands of the private sector in the absence of strong
governmental and consumer oversight.

Communes and the abolishment of private ownership of *anything* is really
the way to go.
--
'Til next time,

John H

******************************************
***** Have a Spectacular Day! *****
******************************************