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

[Shanachie]

I keep my sailboat in a city-owned marina in Florida, thank god.


For those of you who claim to understand economics, look at it this way. You can not build any new marinas in many places because of environmental rules and the extremely high value of waterfront land.


Therefore, the existing marina business is a monopoly. Owners can charge whatever they want, without any relation to what their actual costs are, because there is no place else for sailors to go.


A marina near me was bought by a large marina chain a few years back. Dock fees doubled and all boats under 40 feet were evicted. Live-aboard fees skyrocketed.


The marina still isn't full, but stockholders, most of them presumably living far from the marina, are getting a huge return on their investments at the expense of boaters. And the community has suffered.



City-owned marinas like mine tend to keep fees to a reasonable level because, otherwise, taxpayers would complain and vote the politicians out of office.



They are doing what governments are supposed to do -- intervene and provide services to citizens when private businesses can not do so efficiently.


Governments started building roads and bridges when because investors would rip people off when they built them. It regulated railroads for the same reason. It's also why U.S. Steel, AT&T and a bunch of other monopolies were broken up.


I'm waiting for some high-school dropout to read this -- maybe someone is doing it for him -- and cry "socialist." Duh!

[David Ess]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Respect for property comes from LAW, not capitalism. And it predates modern capitalism. Capitalism simply takes this legal foundation as a given.

Wrong, laws can both violate capitalism, or support it. Capitalism is about the respect of property and that its owners be allowed to trade it.

[David Ess]

Shanachie, that marina you mentioned that is a monopoly protected by state force, is a violation of capitalism. Thus its not valid for those who condemn capitalism. If capitalism existed thete, competitors would be allowed, not prevented.

[wingssail]

Originally Posted by David Ess

Certainly many people have varying definitions of words. The type of socialists I mentioned though are those that like nationalizing things. Its great if youre not one of those. And Ibteject the notion that any 'economic aristocracy' will, or even wants to own everything. I cant see why they would want my house or boat or car.

They are well on the way to owning everything.

They don't have to own each little house and boat when they actually already have most of the wealth. In 2016 (and it is still growing) the top 10% of families in the USA made $1.26 million per year each and owned 76% of all the wealth. (https://www.stlouisfed.org/open-vaul...key-statistics)

[David Ess]

Originally Posted by Paul L

Next thing you know after that they'll nationalize the roads. In this manner businesses and farmers will get their lifestyle subsidized by all taxpayers.

For sure, some people decry the fact of private roads, bridges etc. In my are the best roads are the private ones. Even the private roa ds and parking lots, their lighting, maintenance etc, around our malls, and walmart, cosco, are WAAAY better than the government pot holed ones.

[David Ess]

Originally Posted by lestersails

"I know some guys who..."
I know some guys who just make stuff up in posts about imagined ultra-liberal boogey men upon whom they can vent their RIGHTeousness.

I'm glad you're not one of those who likes governments to nationalize things. But even if you dont believe me, or my informants, or those members here who are bad mouthing capitalism, you must have known that there have been groups advocating the nationalization of various sectors, and that various governments have done just that. Some states even nationalized liquor stores!

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by ixnax

In your view at what level of accumulated wealth would an individuals lifestyle and behaviors become a detriment to the rest of society?

Very good question.

I have some preconditions to my answer:

1. We have organized ourselves into countries, not corporations. This implies that there's an interest in the well-being of all citizens, not just some.
2. Any chosen economic system must serve the country, not vice versa.
3. The success of capitalism relies on there being peace, and a system of enforced laws that allow us to make contracts with each other, knowing that breaches or abuses will be punished.(that's the ideal, anyway)

Based on these principles, let me answer this way:

The permissible level of capitalist activity is that which provides opportunity to compete and to seek profit in an open marketplace. But not to generate profit through activities that harm or rob others. (derived from #1 & 2)

It must be recognized that those making profits owe much of their success to the safe and lawful circumstances in which they conduct their business, a healthy(?) and educated workforce, the roads that carry their employees, customers and goods, etc etc. (#3) Therefore they should carry a greater portion of the tax burden.

Shortest answer: profit shouldn't be generated by imposing new hardships on fellow citizens. Capitalism should make things better for everyone, not just a select few.

[David Ess]

Originally Posted by wingssail

They are well on the way to owning everything.

They don't have to own each little house and boat when they actually already have most of the wealth. In 2016 (and it is still growing) the top 10% of families in the USA made $1.26 million per year each and owned 76% of all the wealth. (https://www.stlouisfed.org/open-vaul...key-statistics)

Sorry if youre not richer now, but I am way richer now than when I was young. No rich people ever took anything from me. As rich as Bezos, Oprah are, they didnt get it from me. Indeed, some people think that wealth can be created, not just stolen from others.

[David Ess]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Very good question.

I have some preconditions to my answer:

1. We have organized ourselves into countries, not corporations. This implies that there's an interest in the well-being of all citizens, not just some.
2. Any chosen economic system must serve the country, not vice versa.
3. The success of capitalism relies on there being peace, and a system of enforced laws that allow us to make contracts with each other, knowing that breaches or abuses will be punished.(that's the ideal, anyway)

Based on these principles, let me answer this way:

The permissible level of capitalist activity is that which provides opportunity to compete and to seek profit in an open marketplace. But not to generate profit through activities that harm or rob others. (derived from #1 & 2)

It must be recognized that those making profits owe much of their success to the safe and lawful circumstances in which they conduct their business, a healthy(?) and educated workforce, the roads that carry their employees, customers and goods, etc etc. (#3) Therefore they should carry a greater portion of the tax burden.

Shortest answer: profit shouldn't be generated by imposing new hardships on fellow citizens. Capitalism should make things better for everyone, not just a select few.

Your conclusions are based on those three false premises. I could tell you why all are flawed if youre really interested.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by David Ess

Wrong, laws can both violate capitalism, or support it. Capitalism is about the respect of property and that its owners be allowed to trade it.

It's Sunday, I should know better than to challenge someone's religion.

The goals of society and of capitalism are not always the same. Capitalism is just an economic system, and no such system is perfect. Laws make successful capitalism possible, and also (hopefully) protect us from its excesses.

Originally Posted by David Ess

For sure, some people decry the fact of private roads, bridges etc. In my are the best roads are the private ones. Even the private roa ds and parking lots, their lighting, maintenance etc, around our malls, and walmart, cosco, are WAAAY better than the government pot holed ones.

Mall parking lots are not roads. There are a number of examples where private infrastructure has turned out to be a terrible bargain - eg the Ambassador Bridge. Private ownership of public infrastructure usually ends up as a boondoggle or an opportunity to gouge.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by David Ess

Your conclusions are based on those three false premises. I could tell you why all are flawed if youre really interested.

You seem to regard capitalism (... is it disrespectful if I don't capitalize it?) as a religion and a complete way of life. (sounds like Amway ) Which it isn't. So I doubt we'd agree.

[David Ess]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

You seem to regard capitalism (... is it disrespectful if I don't capitalize it?) as a religion and a complete way of life. (sounds like Amway ) Which it isn't. So I doubt we'd agree.

OK, you dont why to know why your premises are false. Regard capitalism as a religion? No, my views are not faith based or by dogma, but empirical. Capitalism is the system which is most consistent with a free people. And even if you dont agree with it, I will still respect your property and not interfere with your trading it.

[David Ess]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

It's Sunday, I should know better than to challenge someone's religion.

The goals of society and of capitalism are not always the same. Capitalism is just an economic system, and no such system is perfect. Laws make successful capitalism possible, and also (hopefully) protect us from its excesses.



Mall parking lots are not roads. There are a number of examples where private infrastructure has turned out to be a terrible bargain - eg the Ambassador Bridge. Private ownership of public infrastructure usually ends up as a boondoggle or an opportunity to gouge.

Places where people drive cars, like getting to and around malls etc ARE roads, and can validly be compared to equivalent gov run facilities. Also, there are private long range roads in various jurisdictions.

[ixnax]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Very good question.

I have some preconditions to my answer:

1. We have organized ourselves into countries, not corporations. This implies that there's an interest in the well-being of all citizens, not just some.
2. Any chosen economic system must serve the country, not vice versa.
3. The success of capitalism relies on there being peace, and a system of enforced laws that allow us to make contracts with each other, knowing that breaches or abuses will be punished.(that's the ideal, anyway)

Based on these principles, let me answer this way:

The permissible level of capitalist activity is that which provides opportunity to compete and to seek profit in an open marketplace. But not to generate profit through activities that harm or rob others. (derived from #1 & 2)

It must be recognized that those making profits owe much of their success to the safe and lawful circumstances in which they conduct their business, a healthy(?) and educated workforce, the roads that carry their employees, customers and goods, etc etc. (#3) Therefore they should carry a greater portion of the tax burden.

Shortest answer: profit shouldn't be generated by imposing new hardships on fellow citizens. Capitalism should make things better for everyone, not just a select few.

Even if I bought into the notions, and while I don't I'm not sure we otherwise have a huge gap in agreement, it still doesn't answer the question. Really, I'm probably more interested in a number from wingsails or lestersails. That said, I'd be interested to get a number from anyone here.

Another number that would be very illuminating would be what level of personal wealth, in today economy and with todays currencies, should be sufficient to own a boat and pay for a slip.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by David Ess

OK, you dont why to know why your premises are false. Regard capitalism as a religion? No, my views are not faith based or by dogma, but empirical. Capitalism is the system which is most consistent with a free people. And even if you dont agree with it, I will still respect your property and not interfere with your trading it.

Well, I don't need your agreement or permission; there are laws and regulations to ensure we all have those rights.

I didn't say I didn't "want to know", just expressing doubt that you are capable of convincing me. I mean, anyone who thinks that a Wallymart parking lot is the equivalent in scale, traffic, etc of a city's roads...

Capitalism is the system which is most consistent with a free people.

Capitalism is a feature of a free society, not the cause.