I guess it just goes to show that we boaters, (who pursue a pastime
that doesn't make any financial sense) will not be deterred when a
single element, such as the price of fuel, makes less sense than ever.

It's interesting to note that these figures are for the 3rd quarter;
before the election season rollback of gas and diesel prices really
began.

From the report:

New boats sold by dealers for the 3nd Quarter were up 6.6 percent
The dollar value of new boats sold by dealers during the quarter was
$110M, up from $93M, an increase of 18.5 percent
3rd Quarter New Boat Sales by Dealers (Units Sold Comparison)
2002: 2,430
2003: 2,828
2004: 2,935
2005: 3,116
2006: 3,321
Overall boat sales (combined new and used) were up 0.9 percent during
the quarter totaling $260M

**

I can get into the specifics as far as number of boats in various size
groups, if anybody has an interest, but it is significant that unit
volume was only up 6.6 percent but dollar volume was up 18.5%. Clearly,
some portion of that is due to retail price increases but it also
indicates that people buying boats in record numbers are buying more
expensive models. I would estimate that with 3321 new boat units
selling for $110M the average sale has to be around $30,000. That
doesn't sound like much; but it's important to remember that this
report includes dinghies, cartop boats,
and a lot of other vessels that sell in big volumes for cheap numbers.
Upper end boats have to be selling well to bring the average up to
$30,000.

"Chuck Gould" wrote in message
ups.com...
I guess it just goes to show that we boaters, (who pursue a pastime
that doesn't make any financial sense) will not be deterred when a
single element, such as the price of fuel, makes less sense than ever.

It's interesting to note that these figures are for the 3rd quarter;
before the election season rollback of gas and diesel prices really
began.

Why the need to politicize this Chuck?

JimH wrote:
"Chuck Gould" wrote in message
ups.com...
I guess it just goes to show that we boaters, (who pursue a pastime
that doesn't make any financial sense) will not be deterred when a
single element, such as the price of fuel, makes less sense than ever.

It's interesting to note that these figures are for the 3rd quarter;
before the election season rollback of gas and diesel prices really
began.

Why the need to politicize this Chuck?

It's called economics, Jim.
You do realize that typically, fuel prices do tend to go downward close
to an election, don't you?

JimH wrote:
"Chuck Gould" wrote in message
ups.com...
I guess it just goes to show that we boaters, (who pursue a pastime
that doesn't make any financial sense) will not be deterred when a
single element, such as the price of fuel, makes less sense than ever.

It's interesting to note that these figures are for the 3rd quarter;
before the election season rollback of gas and diesel prices really
began.

Why the need to politicize this Chuck?

????????????

Is there some question about, or is it somehow a matter of "political
opinion", that fuel prices
are dropping and that an election is imminent?

It's a simple statement of fact that 3rd quarter boat sales were strong
despite the fact that for most of the 3rd quarter there was no relief
from high fuel prices in sight.

It's also a simple fact that for generations incumbent politicians from
both parties have "jawboned" to the best of their ability to frame the
economy in the best possible light
pior to a major election.

Why the need to pull one line out of context and ignore the rest of the
message?

"Chuck Gould" wrote in message
oups.com...

JimH wrote:
"Chuck Gould" wrote in message
ups.com...
I guess it just goes to show that we boaters, (who pursue a pastime
that doesn't make any financial sense) will not be deterred when a
single element, such as the price of fuel, makes less sense than ever.

It's interesting to note that these figures are for the 3rd quarter;
before the election season rollback of gas and diesel prices really
began.

Why the need to politicize this Chuck?

????????????

Is there some question about, or is it somehow a matter of "political
opinion", that fuel prices
are dropping and that an election is imminent?

Give me a break. You obviously inferred (and made similar comments about it
in the past) that GWB and the Republicans somehow and mysteriously "caused"
the drop in fuel prices conveniently just before the election.



It's a simple statement of fact that 3rd quarter boat sales were strong
despite the fact that for most of the 3rd quarter there was no relief
from high fuel prices in sight.

It's also a simple fact that for generations incumbent politicians from
both parties have "jawboned" to the best of their ability to frame the
economy in the best possible light
pior to a major election.

Why the need to pull one line out of context and ignore the rest of the
message?


Because of your need to include a political comment in your otherwise non
political post about boating. In fact, some could say your comment was
"controversial" and was nothing more than a troll. ;-)

Just asking you to practice what you preach Chuck.

Let's move on.

On 25 Oct 2006 07:34:25 -0700, "Chuck Gould"
wrote:

I guess it just goes to show that we boaters, (who pursue a pastime
that doesn't make any financial sense) will not be deterred when a
single element, such as the price of fuel, makes less sense than ever.

It's interesting to note that these figures are for the 3rd quarter;
before the election season rollback of gas and diesel prices really
began.

Funny you should blame the roll back on the election season. CNN, normally
not your most 'conservatively biased' network, had a short special on
either last night or the night before.

Bottom line - the administration had *nothing* to do with the dropping of
oil prices.

Of course, you've managed to slip a little political statement into your
'boating' post. But, it's wrong.

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On 25 Oct 2006 07:34:25 -0700, "Chuck Gould"
wrote:

I can get into the specifics as far as number of boats in various size
groups, if anybody has an interest,

Me do. :)
--

"What the hell's the deal with this newsgroup...
is there a computer terminal in the day room of
some looney bin somewhere?"

Bilgeman - circa 2004

New boat sales:

The greatest change in unit volume was in the smallest boat category of
under 10 -feet.
3Q05 was 871 units, 3Q06 was 975 units.

11-14 feet was just a bit stronger 3Q06 than 3Q05, up three units to
462

15-18 feet was off 83 units, down from 1139 to 1056

19-22 feet was up 59 units, from 1044 to 1103

23-26 feet was up slightly, from 277 to 281

27-30 feet was off just slightly, dropping from 63 units 3Q05 to 53
units 3Q06

31-34 feet may have picked up some of the buyers dropped in the
previous category, as boats in this range were up from 27 units to 31

Numbers were off a bit in the 34-50 foot range, but not significantly.
(The portion of the market over 34 feet only represents a small
percentage of total new boat sales.

35-38 feet, down 4 units to 22

39-42 feet, down 2 units to 17

43-46 feet, down 2 units to 6

47-50 feet, down 4 units to 7

More of the larger boat categories were up, rather than down.

51-54 feet, up 2 units to 5

55-58 feet, up 2 units to 5

59-62 feet, dropped from 2 units 3Q05 to 1 unit 3Q06

63-66 feet, up an infinite percentage. 3 units sold 3Q06, no sales in
this category last year

67-70 feet, one sale in 3Q06, vs. 2 sales 3Q05

Over 70-feet, same as last year, 1 unit sold in the 3rd quarter.


Over all categories, new boat sales were up from 3955 to 4029, (best
3rd quarter in a long time) and dollar volume was up by a much greater
percentage.


Under propulsion: (this categoory is notoriously inaccurate, as some
sailboat dealers check off "inboard" or "outboard" depending upon the
type of auxiliary power the boat is rigged with)

Outdrive units: 1150

Inboard: 664

Jet drive: 856

Outboards: 1293

Sailboats: 27

"unknown": 39

(Balance would be rowing or paddle boats)

"JohnH" wrote in message
...
On 25 Oct 2006 07:34:25 -0700, "Chuck Gould"
wrote:

I guess it just goes to show that we boaters, (who pursue a pastime
that doesn't make any financial sense) will not be deterred when a
single element, such as the price of fuel, makes less sense than ever.

It's interesting to note that these figures are for the 3rd quarter;
before the election season rollback of gas and diesel prices really
began.

Funny you should blame the roll back on the election season. CNN, normally
not your most 'conservatively biased' network, had a short special on
either last night or the night before.

Bottom line - the administration had *nothing* to do with the dropping of
oil prices.

Of course, you've managed to slip a little political statement into your
'boating' post. But, it's wrong.

Yep!

JohnH wrote:

How we do jump to conclusions!

I made no political statement of any kind.

However, if some liberal person decided to climb my frame for posting a
"rosey" report on the health of the economy and therefore promoting or
defending the current administration- he or she would have just as much
basis to call this a pro-Bush political post as you and JimH have to
say it was an anti-Bush political post.

Fact is, it wasn't a political post.

Now, one could turn it into a political post by noting that John Snow's
old futures trading firm
probably contributed 50-cent to last summer's run up in fuel prices by
buying up oil futures at a lot of crazy prices at the same time the
government was filling the strategic reserve. That same point would
continue with the observation that selling those same futures, at the
same time the government is releasing crude from the strategic reserve,
makes a 50-cent difference in the other direction- or a swing of about
a buck a gallon.

OR! To Be Entirely Fair!...............

One could turn it into a political post by noting that Bush's economic
policies have been so beneficial to the US that despite staggering
prices at the fuel pump, less-than-encouraging news on the Iraq and
Afghanistan foreign policy initiatives, rising interest rates,
stabilized or falling home prices, etc etc etc......people still have
enough throw away money to go out and buy a new boat.

So, it wasn't a political post. If it had been, you have no evidence,
(within that specific post), which side of the argument I would have
championed. (I'll concede that my politics are probably well enough
known that you could make a safe and educated guess).

So, my conservative friends, please consider that incidental remark
something less than the
"meat" of the post and rejoice that even a person with my particular
political perspective knows a robust economy (at least in this region)
when he sees one. If you want to give credit for that economy to the
currently sitting president and his congressional majority, that's OK
with me; heck, I once heard about a guy who fell into an outhouse and
found a Rolex. :-)

On 25 Oct 2006 12:33:18 -0700, "Chuck Gould"
wrote:


JohnH wrote:

How we do jump to conclusions!

I made no political statement of any kind.

However, if some liberal person decided to climb my frame for posting a
"rosey" report on the health of the economy and therefore promoting or
defending the current administration- he or she would have just as much
basis to call this a pro-Bush political post as you and JimH have to
say it was an anti-Bush political post.

Fact is, it wasn't a political post.

You are correct! It was not a political post. It was a boating post with a
little political jibe unnecessarily thrown in.