"Evicted": Marina Won't Renew Contract for Next Year to maximize Profit

[David Ess]

This thread shows that many dont know what capitalism is, or just plain dont like it. Capitalism is about: respect for property and free trade. Thus a marina can charge market rates, but if say, it bribes the government to disallow a competitor marina , then that is a violation of capitalism. Capitalism also allows for any boater to refuse their custom to any marina they dont like. Capitalism has no responsibility to those who think they are poorer than than they deserve to be.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by David Ess

This thread shows that many dont know what capitalism is, or just plain dont like it. Capitalism is about: respect for property and free trade.

No, capitalism is people and businesses free to generate a profit by any legal means. Law is about respect for property - it's 9/10ths of the law, as the saying goes.

And with respect to marinas, capitalism doesn't recognize any commons, or public rights of access, or notions of public goods. Again, those rights come from laws and permits.

Land, especially desirable shoreline, is finite. Absent any laws and regulations about its use and public access, just about all shoreline would already be snapped up and mostly occupied or controlled by the wealthy, used for whatever they choose, and maybe some rented to the rest of us at whatever rate they can get.

[lestersails]

Originally Posted by wingssail

Even in a capitalist country unfettered open markets sometimes need some regulation especially when it comes to auctioning off a rare public resource, such as our shorelines. I think it is appropriate, and some locales apparently agree, that restraints on rates and the reservation of lower cost berths go along with the granting of the lease, since it was an allocation of a public resource for a private use, and the marina operator needs to take that into consideration when he goes into business. If the profit margin is not great enough he should put his capital to work on a different project.

I really don't see how it is right (and don't say "that's just capitalism") that we allow a business to buy the rights to a public resource, owned by all, and then to sell it off piece by piece to the 1% until the rest of the public is excluded forever. If that is capitalism, I'd say it should be adjusted a little.

You have a good point here - big difference between leasing public property and ownership of private property. The taxpayers are owed a benefit for the operator's privilege of getting the lease. That benefit could be rate setting that is generally appreciated to be within reason, and any rate change could be subject to review and approval by that government body. In effect, this is pretty close to socialism. The government owns the 'means of production' (in this case property) and operates it, either by hiring its own employees or by leasing it to an operator.
If privately owned, then no price constraints for this private good - that is closer to capitalism. The sky is the limit on rates and even its existence - the owner can close the marina and make it into a waterfront resort.
Did the OP make clear if his/her marina was on private land or leased public land?

[capn_billl]

Originally Posted by malbert73

I’m maybe missing something- but the only way said worker actually has 1.2 million dollars is with 0 expenses along the way. And, they invested 100K of the 700K wages in the retirement fund so you can’t count it twice. So with NO expenses they have 1.1 million.

Instead what we have is possibly 500K in retirement expenses and social security, with this very diligent worker saving 20% of pay. The wages got spent along the way living paycheck to paycheck trying to afford food, rent, transportation to the minimum wage job, etc.

Regardless, doubtful this person will be at a marina on their boat, sadly

It works if you are single, and live with your parents, or are in a stable relationship, and live on one income.

Still doable in US outside high cost of living cities on the coasts.

This is how I personally afford a boat.

[S/V Illusion]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

No, capitalism is people and businesses free to generate a profit by any legal means. Law is about respect for property - it's 9/10ths of the law, as the saying goes.

And with respect to marinas, capitalism doesn't recognize any commons, or public rights of access, or notions of public goods. Again, those rights come from laws and permits.

Land, especially desirable shoreline, is finite. Absent any laws and regulations about its use and public access, just about all shoreline would already be snapped up and mostly occupied or controlled by the wealthy, used for whatever they choose, and maybe some rented to the rest of us at whatever rate they can get.

No right and certainly no right codified in The Bill of Rights is unlimited. Capitalism is fundamentally about commercial relationship, not about providing any entitlement to anyone so contrasting that with what some laws dictate about property use should be self-evident. They are mutually exclusive.

[Tequesta]

Unregulated capitalism is a failure. Period.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by S/V Illusion

No right and certainly no right codified in The Bill of Rights is unlimited. Capitalism is fundamentally about commercial relationship, not about providing any entitlement to anyone so contrasting that with what some laws dictate about property use should be self-evident. They are mutually exclusive.

Agreed. This is why no functioning state allows unfettered capitalism to operate. I doesn't -- isn't intended to -- incorporate any other societal values and needs.

It's also why I said, at the beginning, that the OP's circumstances is just capitalism operating as intended.

[lestersails]

Originally Posted by David Ess

Capitalism is about: respect for property and free trade.

Not really correct.
More precisely, as stated in one of my prior posts, a key attribute of capitalism is the private ownership of the means of production. Socialism instead has state ownership of the means of production. An individual can own a farm or a factory in the US, but not in Cuba. In fact, both systems have 'respect for property' - another entity cannot take property from its owner, whether that owner be the state or an individual.
Parenthetically, 'respect for property' is a funny thing. For example, in the US and Canada, all private property was stolen or taken by force from indigenous people. Those who stole it or grabbed it at the point of a gun now fiercely defend their right to protect their property. Private property is an economic tool, manipulated for gain. In Cuba, the state forcibly took property from individuals. But of course, those individuals stole it from the Taino and Carib indigenous people. The rule setting regarding private property rights is not primarily about justice. It is instead a social contract rule, which is an important feature of capitalism, whose intent is to increase economic efficiency.
Free trade is also not the correct term to use - it should be 'free market' ('free trade' is typically applied to trade agreements between countries, which have the right to regulate trade that crosses their borders) while there is an indirect relationship between 'free trade' and a 'free market' setting of prices, they really should be considered separately.
So, mostly 'no' to your two assertions. As another poster asserted, a fair number of people on this thread fundamentally don't understand what capitalism is. By weaving in the words 'respect' and 'free' you cleverly try to attach capitalism to virtue. You are either uninformed, not a careful writer, or are using propaganda techniques to make a virtue argument. (Not that I think capitalism is intrinsically evil - but neither do I think it is intrinsically morally or ethically superior to other economic systems.)

[lestersails]

Originally Posted by Tequesta

Unregulated capitalism is a failure. Period.

Most definitely. Adam Smith's philosophy has been proven to be wrong over and over again, the Austrian school notwithstanding. Pure capitalism harnesses many useful human motivations, but cannot put a lid on the worst of our human traits.
It should also be said that full-blown socialism is just as much of a failure. The extreme socialist policies of the USSR, Maoist China, Cuba, and Venezuela are abject failures.
It seems pretty clear that a blended, mixed or hybrid system of state-regulated capitalism and socialism is the only workable model. Politics is a lot about the fight over what that blend should be - do people want a Sweden model or a U.S., model, for example? Some things must be state owned. Armies or prisons, for example (even though, in the US, there is a push to privatize a good bit of it.)
There is a whole lot of screaming from both extremes. Adam Smith, Karl Marx, yedda, yedda. To my mind, they are nearly useless themselves. What they do is define the outer limit of a philosophical line of thinking, from which one can derive some useful things and calibrate where you are - from one extreme to the other.

[S/V Illusion]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

Agreed. This is why no functioning state allows unfettered capitalism to operate. I doesn't -- isn't intended to -- incorporate any other societal values and needs.

It's also why I said, at the beginning, that the OP's circumstances is just capitalism operating as intended.

History teaches us that, had it not been for the absence of regulatory constraints in the early 20th century, there would have been no industrial revolution.

While some government intervention is arguably a value to today’s society, dependence on entitlements continues to be our biggest problem and is the genesis of flawed perceptions like we are entitled to shoreline access. The shoreline is freely available to anyone willing and able to bear (read - pay for) the value attached to it. I hate cliches but the free lunch one seems to resonate in a number of comments here.

[David Ess]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

No, capitalism is people and businesses free to generate a profit by any legal means. Law is about respect for property - it's 9/10ths of the law, as the saying goes.

And with respect to marinas, capitalism doesn't recognize any commons, or public rights of access, or notions of public goods. Again, those rights come from laws and permits.

Land, especially desirable shoreline, is finite. Absent any laws and regulations about its use and public access, just about all shoreline would already be snapped up and mostly occupied or controlled by the wealthy, used for whatever they choose, and maybe some rented to the rest of us at whatever rate they can get.

Check the literature on it, sure free to try to profit, but it doesnt say you have to. Capitalism is fine if you dont make a profit, just spend it on wine, women and song, or even just blow it all.

Wrong on ...commons too. If you have a beachfront property, capitalism doesn mind if you make a lane way for people to use. It says others must respect that part of your property.

[David Ess]

Originally Posted by Tequesta

Unregulated capitalism is a failure. Period.

How would you know that, after all, there is no ...unfettered capitalism? Every country violates capitolism(respect for property and free trade) to various degrees. If the USG for example puts a huge tariff barrier on me importing gasohol from Brazil, that is a VIOLATION of Capitolism....not unfettered at all.

[David Ess]

Summary of Thread: some members can afford to be betters in the manner they would like, and that includes me. Wait a minute, I also cant afford to live in the houses I prefer..

[MicHughV]

I can remember....back in the day...my day that is...when having a plain 'ole fishing boat was considered a luxury...no center console's back then...a 50 hp on a Boston Whaler fitted with a bimini cover, marked you as a "serious" fisherman...

The really big boys had a 200 hp 2-stroke Suzuki on the back with a 15 hp " get home emergency" kicker strapped on the transom of a variety of boats....with an outfit like that, many folks could...and did...run way of shore...

That was then.....

Then the center console arrived....oh boy....and then, not one engine, but two....that was the epitome of true luxury...the boat was still around 22-24'. Twin 150's gave you braggin' rights.

Nowadays, that is chump change...

Your modern day fishing boat is now around 30', even 50' long, and equipped with 3, 4 engines...outriggers.....toilets, and every electronic device and gadget you can think off. Engines are 300-400 hp each

These boats don't come cheap, a " base" twin engine 24' footer will set you back $150K plus, the bigger one's $250-500K plus..and this is before you spend another $15-30K plus on electronics.

With Marine fuel hovering around $4.50/gal and a prodigious fuel burn rate, you're looking at $100/hr or more to run out to the fishing grounds....

Your average guy in the street cannot afford this...fair.....unfair....for the marina owners, it's business, plain and simple. A 20' center console takes up the same rack space as a 30', but the 30 footer gives the marina, 30% more income for the same space........

you gotta pay to play....

[Pelagic]

I think an interesting segue in this discussion is:

What "should" be the rights for fulltime liveaboards, in the USA, living on a US registered boat?

Many people assume someone living on a nice sailboat has a lot of disposable income. But if this is their only residence, both are working hard to save freedom chips, paying income taxes etc...

Should they be given better residence rights and protected from eviction if they can prove their need to have a stable address?