All Star Tailgating Trailer for Ultimate Al-Fresco Celebrations

Conspicuous over-consumption of resources. Just the thing to take to the next political convention in your immediate vicinity. Oh, no, I guess if you can afford this monstrosity, you can afford the fuel needed to haul it across country, right? FEH! I like it not.

I really don't care about tailgating and the football that goes with it, but I do understand that there are those who tailgating is at least half, and sometimes even most of the fun going to a football game.

It is not unusual for a group of people to load a U-Haul truck with a couch, big screen TV, the grill and other necessities and go camp out in the parking lot (which costs to enter). Often a game is sold out, or in most cases the cost of tickets is out of sight.

For a fraction of the cost of sitting in the stands they can pay to park, have the same (or more fun) outside the stadiam.

And yes, if they can afford such a trailer and the vehicle to tow it - all the more power to them. It's no secret that the yachts that the company I work (in the design office) for hold more fuel than I will use in a lifetime. When the 50m boat is running wide open at 28 kts (advertised as making 24 kts max) the mains suck down nearly 400 gph. I don't think I could empty 400 gallon jugs by hand in an hour. Do I begrudge the person who owns the yachts we build? Absolutely not. They pay my salary and that of over 1000 others. On their way to being able to buy one of our boats (the 50m boat starts at $30M, the 40m boat is about $15M and the 112 ft boat is about $8-10M) the people who purchase our boats have directly and indirectly paid the salaries of countless other people. How many other salaries are paid when they operate the boats? Hundreds directly and indirectly.

So, I would not begrudge someone who has a small trailer with a generator, TV, grill, fridge and beer tap.

As far as conspicuous over-consumption goes, talk about the enviro-god Algore who's energy consumption went UP at his home after installing countless "green" and "energy saving" devices. Look at the celebrities who fly cross country in their private jets to adress the masses and preech energy conservation. I don't begrudge them the jet, but have to call them on the double standard.

Yes, if someone can afford it, more power to them. As they say, a rising tide lifts all boats. Taking or denying something from someone you deem to be a conspicuous waste of energy and resources will NOT make a bit of difference to the person standing next to them let alone someone on the other side of the world in a developing country.

Recently a representative of India stated that they (India) would make no efforts to reduce their energy usage. India is a rapidly developing country who's energy consumption is growing faster than that of the US. His position was that India would not be denied energy and demanded that the US, China and others cut their consumption to accomodate them. So see, conservation is NOT the order of the day even within the circles of those who are shoving the Kyoto Acords down our throats.

Travis

Well, I'm glad someone's paying your salary. Personally, I'd save the entry fees, the travel costs, and the other expenses and watch the game on TV at home, where I have many friends, a sofa, a grill, a fridge full of beer, and a perma-john (not a porta-john). As to your customers who pour 400 gph of fuel (REALLY?!?) through that yacht, I can only ask WHY? That seems a particularly pointless activity to me. I would not do that if I COULD afford it. I do not envy them, I almost pity them. I do not begrudge them any more than I understand them. I feel them to be fools, and beyond my comprehension OR scorn. Providing jobs is close to a rationalization, but nowhere near a reason for their behavior. I fail to see how anyone could come by that kind of disposable income through honest work, and strongly suspect a majority of your customers are the same kind of leeches who invest speculatively in commodities markets, including crude oil, and who have gained their wealth at the expense of the majority of their fellow citizen's (of the world, mind you, not just our country) well-being. I like them not!

There's nothing wrong with trading futures on the commodoties markets. I trade futures. Currently the positions I am holding are 3 Long Sep Corn, 2 Long Dec Coco, 2 Long Sept FCOJ and 1 Short Oct Lumber. The commodoties market is not the cause of high oil prices. A person trading commodoties does NOT CARE what the absolute price is but rather is concerned with the CHANGE IN PRICE and that they are on the correct side of the trade. A trader will make the exact same money if oil goes from $75 to $80 a barrel as he would if it went from $195 to $200 a barrel. In either case the trader would make $1000/dollar move per contract - for a total of $5000 return. The exact same holds true if the price goes from $80 to $75 and from $200 to $195 if they hold a short position. For every long position there is exactly one short position. That is to say, for every contract that is bought, someone has to sell a contract. For every contract that earns a dollar, there is a contract that looses a dollar.

There is NOTHING wrong, untort or criminal about trading futures. Without the futures market not only would prices swing wildly but so would supply throughout the year. The price of a futures contract is determined by two things - supply and demand. Those who produce oil are very adept at keeping the supply of oil just ballanced with demand. Along the way events like pipline sabotage (which happens in Nigeria weekly), hurricanes that disable a platform, the Isralies talking about striking Iran or a dictator nationalizing an oil supply will all affect supply. When nearly every drop of oil is spoken for the minute it's pumped, an oil platform or pipeline going down which may represent 1 or 2% of total production will send prices up.

The same happens on the down side. Over the last 6 months or more the price of lumber has plumbeted. This is because the demand for lumber is very low because home building has fallen.

When either the demand for oil falls or the supply of oil increases (drill here, drill now) the cost of oil will come down. When the cost comes down some traders who short (sell) oil contracts will make money and those who sell oil contracts will loose money. When oil prices go down the general population will not be thinking of the traders who loose money, just as they will not think of the traders who make money from the same price action.

Another factor in the high prices of oil and many other commodoties is the weak US dollar. Since most commodoties are priced in US dollars when the value of the dollar declines prices will go up. Unfortunatly the Fed has not taken steps to strengthen the dollar. They continue to lower interest rates which further weakens it. Also, the government by throwing money out of helicopters in the form of a "stimulus" is only a short term solution. An economy can not spend it's way to prosperity. The way to a prosperous economy is savings. The US now has a negative spending rate. Low savings rates makes capital scarce. If savings rates were closer to 10 or 12% more capital would be available for institutions to lent to industry so industry can expand. A low or non existent savings rate will make capitol so expensive that most industry will not be able to afford to expand.

The boats do not run wide open and burn 400 gph non stop. That is what they are capable of. Going 28 kts on a boat that is 50m long is quite a ride. Typically the boats will run in the range of 10 to 12 kts and burn a fraction of the fuel per hour. Slowing down is the only way to make it from the East Coast to Europe. For a trans oceanic they will often run 10 kts or lower. The owner can go anywhere in the world just by slowing down.

To suggest that the majority of the money earned to purchase the boats is ill gotten gain is speceous. One owner in particular, Rich DeVos made his money as one of the founders of Amway. Say what you want about Amway, but it has made a lot of money for a lot of people.

As far as resources goes, if your aim is "fairness" between everyone on earth, me not having a vehicle will not somehow transfer those resources to someone in a third world country. Just the same, me not using oil will not transfer it to someone who does not have any.

There's nothing wrong with someone having a trailer with all the comforts of home to use to tailgate. Just as there is nothing wrong with a person who has a large RV coach with all the comforts of home.

Just because you can't have something the only reason to pitty someone who does have something is to make yourself feel better. Given that, you must feel pretty good.

Travis

Excellent answer. I am constantly amazed at how un-educated the average American is about economics in general, and the commodities market specifically.

My experience is that those who whine the loudest usually know the least about just how our society works, or:

If they do know how it works, want to change it to socialism for some ungodly reason.

I was going to let this stuff slide, but obviously neither of you have the slightest idea what I'm talking about, so here's one last attempt. I have a good understanding of how our economic system is supposed to work. I also have a very good idea as to how it gets perverted to function in favor of some and to the disinterest of others. I am not wealthy, would not care to be, really, but I have been fortunate enough to have known some extremely wealthy people (oil, ranching, software, insurance, banking). Those people I have great respect for, because to look at any one of them, you would not know them from any reasonably prosperous middle-class store owner or farmer. They did not engage in the foolishness (opinion, yes, but a thoughtfully considered one) represented by multi-million dollar yachts, private jets, 60-room mansions, sports team ownership, and a different Mercedes for each day of the week. They provided a nice life for their families, a good living for their employees, and plenty of work for many others in auxillary jobs around the community. Warren Buffett gets my respect, Malcom Forbes did not. John MacAfee does, Bill Gates does not. That's my line of thinking. Whether you concur or not is of no relevance. If you care to delude yourself(ves) that having a swank home in West Palm Beach makes you a better person, forge ahead. I shall follow may own path and sleep well at night because I am living a sustainable life. Please DO enjoy yours.

I believe I understand exactly what you're talking about.

I'm a Libertarian. I begrudge no man the opportunity to act like a horses a$$ as long as it doesn't infringe on anyone else's rights or liberties. In this country you're free to be rich or poor, slovenly or frugal, extrovert or introvert. You're even free to whine about how other people act, short of slander, but seems a waste of fresh air to me.

Take your choice and live with it. Just don't try to take away from one person to give to another without choice or you'll likely get my dander up, as many politicians are doing today.

Happy Fourth. I'm outta here.

Most people of million dollar and even multi million dollar net worth (my parents included) are indistinguisagle from any given Walmart customer. In fact Walmart has many millionaire customers.

Malcom Forbs, the Capitalist Tool - he was indeed a god, with luck his son will be too.

Warren Buffet is also a god in finance, but he is also one of those liberals who like to moan about their wealth as a means to sooth their own (misplaced) guilt.

Nobody should feel guilty (or be made to feel guilty) about fairly gotten gain. Nobody should feel guilty (or be made to feel guilty) for consumption funded by their own fairly gotten gain.

Travis

I know who John Galt is. Do you know who Howard Roark is?

Hello Guest,

Yes, I do know who Howard Roark was. I read that book over 45 years ago.

Do you know who Robert Ruark is?

Kind Regards....

With baubles like these, designed to show the wasteful squandering of resources, it is no wonder that people have switched off to the US and other conspicuous items for the dissipated rich.

I would be more impressed with those who have realised that riches are not able to be taken with them when they die, but that wealth is best used when assisting others who are in need, through no fault of their own.

Kind Regards....