credit crunched boaters

[carlt]

I'd have said:

 

Cheap 0 - 20k

mid-range 20k - 70k

Top 80k (though some top boats can be had in the cheap range)

[Machpoint005]

For the purposes of assessing saleability in the current climate, let's get the ball rolling with:

Cheap: Less than £15000

Mid: £15000 - £80000 (yeah, big range, I know)

Top: £80000+ and anything that's considered 'niche'

Just a finger in the air, open to critique.

 

 

I'd have said:

 

Cheap 0 - 20k

mid-range 20k - 70k

Top 80k (though some top boats can be had in the cheap range)

You two are agreeing, more or less - and I'd go along with the 15k and 70k divisions. Mid-range ain't 'arf big, though - say 75% of the boats out there?

Edited November 19, 2008 by Machpoint005

[Denis R]

You two are agreeing, more or less - and I'd go along with the 20k and 70k divisions. Mid-range ain't 'arf big, though - say 75% of the boats out there?

Yep, and I think that's why the market may appear stuffed.

[carlt]

Of course, on my guesstimate, I'm not sure what happened to 70k - 80k (whoops)

[Machpoint005]

I was too polite to point that out, of course.

 

But the falling value thing is only a problem if you're selling.

[churchward]

Yep, and I think that's why the market may appear stuffed.

 

It's a big range all right and will include the majority of second hand boats I imagine and some new build price ranges too.

 

I have no idea nationally what is going on with boat sales I can only go by what I have seen at Wigrams where nearly all the boats for sale (give or take the odd one or two) fall in the mid-range bracket. There the good boats seem to sell reasonably quickly i.e. within a few weeks. There are boats that hang around longer and have been there all this year. It is also true that the price ticket on some of the longer stay boats do get adjusted downwards but without a comparison to previous years I had regarded this as normal practice i.e. the broker starts with an ambitious price then drops it if there is not much interest over a given time span.

[KeithL]

I am sure much of this is pure seasonal variation but the longer term trend has got to be far worse than most people imagine..

 

This depression is far more serious than anything I have lived through but it seems to be softened by a lot of lag in the system, the one thing I am sure of is that it will get far worse before it starts to get better and not for the odd year or two that is being talked about, it will be nearer to a decade.

 

For some real doom mongering look here http://www.housepricecrash.co.uk

[Troll]

Well maybe its me but, I see the house prices coming down to a price that is more affordable.

 

Everything went up right? Oil, Council tax, Gas, Electric, water rates, food, taxes.

 

Wages .

 

wasnt it blatantly obvious what was going to happen?

 

I have seen this all before, I say bring back 18% interest rates now, damn it

[Dominic M]

I don't read newspapers I use the internet instead,didn't realise Stirling was now so strong, didn't put a timeline on anything, the public sector pension issue is real,PFI's whilst not knew, are used much more now, Bank regulation - outcry? they were previously regulated and since when did politicians become concerned about what the public thought? Don't recall having any say on wars, HMG obviously disagrees with your view on immigrants as they are changing the rules to reduce the numbers, a crimes a crime.

 

I notice you don't seem to have actually disagreed with what I wrote?

Your post, as I am sure you realise, came across as glass half empty depressive stuff. Because it was. It also appeared to be stated as though all of it was a new infliction on society, which it isn't. Politicians need to be elected - so of course they care about what the public thinks - sadly often leading to short term populist policies instead of longer term ones. It's easy to blame politicians - what about the electorate? Happy to go along with it all (the majority that is) and then whinge like crazy when it goes mammaries northwards. I don't know where you gain your internet info from - perhaps you should broaden your search criteria.

 

I hate saying this... but i have to agree with dominic m. (even my fingers hurt typing it)

 

But I love you!

 

PS - Could you turn that genny off - it's 9:15pm.

To put it bluntly the countries stuffed!

 

Gordo is going to need to pull a pretty impressive white rabbit out of the hat to fix it.

 

By next year he will need to be looking at how the employment figures can be jiggled to keep everyone feeling good!

The fourth, or is it fifth, or sixth, anyway, one of the world's premier economies in the world stuffed. Come on Gary, get a perspective, mate.

 

I don't think any rational person who studies the past decade would conclude that any political party in power would have acted materially differently. They wouldn't have. The market economy is cyclical - always has been, always will be.

Edited November 19, 2008 by Dominic M

[Pretty Funked Up]

Labour forced the banks into giving out their money more freely in order to try and achieve their weighty claims that they made when trying to get into power (moving people into their own house getting mort-gauges etc). Probably copying the Bush way of doing things. Then labour really put the nail in the coffin when trying to fudge the national debt figures, by creating legislation where people can write off their debt.

The banks where told to lend the money then they were told they arent going to get it back. This left a lot of miffed bank managers to say the least.

 

The banks knew what would happen if it carried on but i recon they let it and almost encouraged it after labour made a laughing stock of their practises. They also knew the banking system could never be allowed to fail and the government would absolutely have to bail them out.

 

I do blame blair and his cronies and dont believe for one minute all the parties wouldve played it the same way. We got to be one of the worlds premier ecomomies through these other parties!

 

Labour just wanted to win a popularity contest with the electorate and took a leaf out of bush's book and all it cost was the ecomony.

It wouldnt be a global problem if america and england had put the brakes on earlier - or better still didnt muck it up in the 1st place.

 

 

politics

Edited November 19, 2008 by Pretty Funked Up

[david and julie]

Your post, as I am sure you realise, came across as glass half empty depressive stuff. Because it was. It also appeared to be stated as though all of it was a new infliction on society, which it isn't. Politicians need to be elected - so of course they care about what the public thinks - sadly often leading to short term populist policies instead of longer term ones. It's easy to blame politicians - what about the electorate? Happy to go along with it all (the majority that is) and then whinge like crazy when it goes mammaries northwards. I don't know where you gain your internet info from - perhaps you should broaden your search criteria.

Not sure what your going on about here to be honest. To me your above post reads like your trying to say a lot without actually saying very much - are you a politician?

Heres my post again.

So to summarise we have rising unemployment,sterling dropping like a stone, foreigners owning most of our essential services,no manufacturing industry left,vitually no oil or gas left, kids leaving school who can't read and write, PFI debts out of control, unfunded public sector pensions, skint banks,skint government, 2 wars we can't win, an immigrant problem, public sector unrest, rising crime. But alls rosey in the garden really?

Nothing whatsoever there even remotely implies this is the new infliction on society. Politicians,regardless of shade, care about one thing and one thing only - themselves. The electorate cease to matter immediately after an election and I didn't whinge, I made a comment which you are free to disagree with if you wish.

 

Perhaps you could tell me what is actually untrue in what I wrote though, then I can decide whether I'm wrongly searching or not?

[Sir Nibble]

A point worthy of note is that Gordon Brown collects the blame for this unless you're French, in which case the fault lies with Sarcozy (sic) or German 'cos any fool can see it's all Angela Merkel's fault. The Americans of course blame Bush.

Scapegoats anyone?

[Athy]

I say bring back 18% interest rates now, damn it

OOOhhh, yes please!

[carlt]

I say bring back 18% interest rates now, damn it

 

OOOhhh, yes please!

Why is that a good thing?

 

Surely the idea is to try to get out of a recession upwards, not downwards to a depression.

 

Have you actually thought of the number of people that an interest rate of this magnitude would quite simply destroy their lives?

[churchward]

Why is that a good thing?

 

Surely the idea is to try to get out of a recession upwards, not downwards to a depression.

 

Have you actually thought of the number of people that an interest rate of this magnitude would quite simply destroy their lives?

 

I very much doubt there is any good overall in having 18% interest rates but there are always winners and losers in the financial market whatever is hapening boom or bust.

 

Low interest rates as we have now (probably going to get lower) will effect those people relying on savings to provide an income in retirement say, perhaps to the point where they will not have enough and have to spend capital and so it's a downward spiral for them. High interest rates of course will be a benefit to that group but make life difficult or intolerable for those that have to borrow money for morgages etc.

Edited November 20, 2008 by churchward

[Athy]

Carlt, my reply was partly flippant, but only partly. My wife and I got our first mortgage when interest rates were about 15% in the 1980s; at first our mortgage outgoings amounted to about half our salaries (of two professional people). There was not a great deal left over for beer and skittles, but we got our heads down and got on with it. Now we own our house freehold and we have managed to amass savings which we have invested, so the higher the interest rate , the better it is for us.

Young couples who reckon that it's impossible to get a foothold on the housing ladder have obviously not become accustomed to saving up for what they want, rather than dashing out and buying everything with a credit card. I seem to recall that our first house cost £70,000, and we had saved enough in our first three years together to put down a 15% deposit without undue hardship, though both of us did take on extra work outside our main jobs. It can be done, but you have to want to do it.

Edited November 20, 2008 by Athy

[carlt]

Carlt, my reply was partly flippant, but only partly. My wife and I got our first mortgage when interest rates were about 15% in the 1980s; at first our mortgage outgoings amounted to about half our salaries (of two professional people). There was not a great deal left over for beer and skittles, but we got our heads down and got on with it. Now we own our house freehold and we have managed to amass savings which we have invested, so the higher the interest rate , the better it is for us.

Yung couples who reckon that it's impossible to get a foothold on the housing ladder have obviously not become accustomed to saving up for what they want, rather than dashing out and buying everything with a credit card. I seem to recall that our first house cost £70,000, and we had saved enough in our first three years together to put down a 15% deposit without undue hardship, though both of us did take on extra work outside our main jobs. It can be done, but you have to want to do it.

Personally I reserve my sympathy for those who have never earned enough to save, so only suffer when the mortgage rate is intolerably high.

 

I wasn't thinking about my personal situation, I bought my first house for £5000 (three noughts) and have benefited from the property market ever since and could quite easily absorb whatever rate is thrown my way, enjoying the benefits of improved rates on my savings accounts, too.

 

My comment was in sympathy for those who weren't as lucky as me.

[Athy]

Your stance is laudable, Carl; but in your case how much of your progress towards financial security was due to pure luck? Weren't hard work and determination involved also?

[carlt]

Your stance is laudable, Carl; but in your case how much of your progress towards financial security was due to pure luck? Weren't hard work and determination involved also?

No I don't think so.

 

A genetic accident provided me with intelligence and practical skills, an argument with a landlord determined that I would not rent again and a sympathetic bank manager gave me a bank loan for an unmortgageable house.

[Athy]

No I don't think so.

 

A genetic accident provided me with intelligence and practical skills, an argument with a landlord determined that I would not rent again and a sympathetic bank manager gave me a bank loan for an unmortgageable house.

You're too modest. Like the style, though.

[carlt]

I would add, though, that I am by no means rich, merely content.

 

I think the biggest bit of luck is being fortunate enough to see, as a hobby and pleasure, what many see as hard work. I've probably made far more money, not paying someone to do a job than actually being paid to do one myself.

 

If I'd taken advantage of every bit of luck that has come my way, over the years, I'd probably be considerably richer, and a lot less happy.

[estwdjhn]

Surely however, as Tiger Woods once said "the more I practice, the lucker I get..."

 

I currently work for very little above the minimum wage. I own a boat which is now my home, and have a (fairly small) bank loan with which I am paying for it.

 

Naturally I would sympathise with some of Carlt's point of view - it is true that high interest rates are generally calculated to ensure that the rich get richer, while the poor don't.

 

However, if I am honest, I'm not as sympathetic as I could be. The reason is simple. I work with a large number of people, most of whom are on the minimum wage. A fair percentage of them, have debts, indeed I seem to recall working out that the average debt on our shop floor was about 9/10's of a years wages. The problem is that, for most if not all of these people, their problems are self inflicted. They have simply become so used to spending money that they don't have that they end up in debt.

It can't be that its their housing that costs them - until a few weeks ago I was paying for my way in my own accomodation. I rather doubt its food or clothes - Tesco have ensured to them that the true cost of these is now negligable. All the money these people don't have goes on the un-needed *must haves* of our modern lifestyle - Sky+, ever latest X box game, £40 a month contract phone, eating out EVERY night, more pints of beer than is good for you...

 

Now, for the truely poor, I have sympathy, if people really struggle to pay essential bills of food, light, rent. But most of today's so-called poor are sadly just those who don't know how to stop spending. As rise in interest rates would do them good - it might make them face reality.

 

An interesting parallel world also exists here. We have some Polish people on our shop floor. They seem to live fine on the wages, and none of them owe anyone a penny...

Edited November 20, 2008 by estwdjhn

[carlt]

I think it's a pity that we judge those, we perceive to be "spending beyond their means" at the expense as those who have nothing to spend.

[Sir Nibble]

I think it's a pity that we judge those, we perceive to be "spending beyond their means" at the expense as those who have nothing to spend.

I entirely understand where you are coming from Carl. It seems usual for those who benefit from inequality to deny that inequality and claim their relative prosperity is due to hard work. Having said that, it is self evident that many, many people have put themselves into debt they cannot afford, to buy things they don't need.

Having been one of "Maggies millions" and experienced unemployment then, and having spent 2 weeks out of work earlier this year and seen what it's like now; I am very sorry indeed for anyone unfortunate enough to loose their job in this downturn. I would not have believed it possible, but the degree to which the unemployed are blamed for unemployment is far higher now than even Norman Tebbit could have hoped for. I will also bet that many of those who remain in work will see the unemployed as culpable for their own plight right up to the point where they loose their own job.

[Denis R]

I will also bet that many of those who remain in work will see the unemployed as culpable for their own plight right up to the point where they loose their own job.

At the risk of migrating this thread further, I'm not so sure that's the case this time round SirNib. I get much more of a feeling of 'my God it's hit them, how long before it hits us?'