tough economic times

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sea Wolf":26ob1bee said:
This is one of those discussions with so many facets and interrelationships that it is possible to discuss all kinds facts and opinions and at the same time find it hard to integrate them all into a understanding of the whole....
:crook Oh.... were we trying to understand something? I thought we were just ranting :sad

Hey, Marty. Give Lee a break. Leaving a job like that is like divorcing a celebrity. They have to continue to support him in the lifestyle that he's accustomed to.

passed censorship screening process due to (marginally) entertaining sarcastic content
 
dogon dory":325i1o0s said:
Hey, Marty. Give Lee a break. Leaving a job like that is like divorcing a celebrity. They have to continue to support him in the lifestyle that he's accustomed to.
What did that Supreme Court Justice say about obscenity? "You know it when you see it"
 
Most of the inflation calculators use the official government Cost of Living figures--which we all know are not accurate. For example a very nice car I purchased in 1961 was $2400, The calculation calculator shows that $2400 would be worth $ a little under $17,000 today. In reality that car would cost over $35,000 today. (Granted that todays cars have more "luxaries". I cannot use my income in 1961, since I was an intern and only earning $50 a month. But my wife was earning $ 350 a month as a research Associate at the VA Hospital--and today that position would pay about $4,500 a month. The house we rented for $75 a month would rent for over $1500 a month today. As Larry says, there are major parts of our necessary costs which are not accounted for in the CPI.
 
dogon dory":bosmq0sr said:
Sea Wolf":bosmq0sr said:
This is one of those discussions with so many facets and interrelationships that it is possible to discuss all kinds facts and opinions and at the same time find it hard to integrate them all into a understanding of the whole....
:crook Oh.... were we trying to understand something? I thought we were just ranting :sad

Well, personally, I would be trying to make sense out of the whole discussion for my own peace of mind and gratification, but I'm not prepared to take on the daunting task of making sense of it to everyone in a reasonable amount of time or effort, even if I thought I understood it fully. If I did, I'd write a book, but I'm not sure any explanation woud satisfy everyone, anyway.

On the other hand, for some it may just be a rant. Or a witch hunt! Or an outlet for the frustration of too many long, lonely winter nights boxed up inside the domicile or dog house, as the case may be. :lol:

I kept my comments out of the oil crisis discussion for a good reason, of course, to avoid the melee.

Sure does look like there's a whole lot of pent up anger with the oil industry, though!

Joe. :teeth :thup
 
Without government intervention like price controls on these fat cat oil Corporations we will likely see prices sooner not later near $10 a gallon for gas. With price controls the price at the pump could be a single dollar or I guess even less. Sure sounds good to me and I suspect to many others also. The reality check would come when arriving at the pump there was no fuel to buy.

One of the main reasons the fuel cost is so low in Mexico is there's no villainous oil Company gouging going on due to the government owning it all from getting it out of the ground to fuel station so very easy to set the price. Problem is there whole system is falling apart and oil has to be about 55 dollars a barrel for them to remain profitable at all. The only reason they still can afford to provide oil for themselves or export is the fear mongering and speculation along with world demand that has driven the price as high as it has been the last two years. Watched a discussion about this on a recent television business channel for whatever that's worth.

Personally would hate to see 10 dollar a gallon gas, but would sure prefer that to none available or rationed for the regular folk. Oversight is great-government set pricing is a proven recipe for disaster

And Dan I liked your rant. Actually made sense to me :thup

Jay
 
It's approximately $2 a gallon! A little over 500 pesos to put in 20-25 gallons. I will look for the price per liter next time I fill. What is the conversion factor to get from liters to gallons?

Warren[/quote]

4 liters = 1.05 gallons
I'm not to impressed with the economy and I'll leave it at that! I do like the example of what percentage of my income I'm paying for gas today compared to 1960. I wonder if Mobile came up with that? When I filled up the boat and jeep today it was $128. Then I went to the local Suzuki dealer and bought 6 quarts of genuine Suzuki Oil and two quarts of gear grease plus a oil filter for a mere $58.
 
<<Gas is still relatively cheap...So 25 cent gas (1962) should be $5.00 a gallon (today)!>>

There has been a lot of talk about numbers. Numbers can used to "prove" almost any point of view. As presented above, we are to believe that the cost of gas was more expensive in 1962 than it is today. However, experientially that was not the case. I don't recall energy prices being a burden on individuals or the economy in general the way they are today. Numbers often serve to obfuscate reality.
 
In the late 50's my Dad had a small river shrimp boat. We sold shrimp for 75 cents a pound. I bought 10 lbs of shrimp today for $3 a pound off the boat. I can't for the life of me see how these guys are making it. This has been the best year in years for the amount of shrimp caught in our area which in turn has driven the price down. It doesn't seem there is a bottom with some things.
 
thataway":61ydhhsv said:
Warren, 3.78 liters a US gallon

So, 3.78 x 5.71 pesos per liter = 21.58 pesos per gallon. The current exchange rate is 10.5 or thereabouts so in US $ 2.05 per gallon for diesel. Have not looked at gas prices.

Warren
 
Besides the economy something else will affect how many boats are sold in the future. That is falling demand. And I predict in Amercia, the demand for cruisers will drop for the same reason fewer people backpack or camp overnight (peaked in Washington in 1970s), fewer people hunt or trap, fewer people change their own oil, fewer people handload cartridges or regularly target shoot, fewer read novels, fewer paint their own houses, fewer make their own clothes, fewer tie their own flies, fewer can create and time a multi-course meal from scratch, fewer know how or are interested in refinishing fine wooden furniture.

The things which interested me and I took pride in accomplishing while growing up (see most of above items) mean much less to most of the young people who are replacing us. They are used to being entertained (usually electronically), have short attention spans and are not good at delaying gratification. They don't have the belly to stick out a complex problem solving task like sorting out what is causing a problem with a fuel system in a boat. And eviscerating a fish or animal is, well, "eewwwwyy".

Crusing boats are expensive, require maintainence, dedication and love. Cruising itself requires a commitment of time, energy and resources. I just don't see as many young people being attracted to it when there are so many things offering quicker gratification competing for their time and money. Like blackberries, wide screen TiVo, cell phones & jet skis. Wham bam let's get another body piercing and put it on U-Tube.

Because of their lack of knowledge in how to maintain things and do it themselves, they're going to end up paying someone else to do it (cars, meals, painting etc.) which will of course leave them even less disposable income, and even less for boating.

C.W.
 
Doryman":3c1k33pv said:
Marooned":3c1k33pv said:
Withdrawn, on account, accountants day off.

Uhhh...did I make a calculation error? :?:

Warren

No, Warren, Dan is saying folks who rail and complain about the oil companies don't want to look at the real facts he has about the industry, but want to continue to see the industry as an evil villain and robber baron in our economic workings. He thinks they are more entertained by their own rantings than looking at the real facts, which they don't want to deal with.

Dan will correct me if I'm wrong!

Enjoy Mexico!

Joe. :teeth :thup
 
Sea Wolf":7xi9aq6t said:
No, Warren, Dan is saying folks who rail and complain about the oil companies don't want to look at the real facts... He thinks they are more entertained by their own rantings than looking at the real facts....

Dan will correct me if I'm wrong!
I was just trying to (belatedly) live up to my pledge to stick to providing entertainment value to the site and avoid confusing issues with factual information. But now that I think about it.....
headscratch.gif
I guess that's why I did that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top