|
Post by fauxmaha on Nov 21, 2014 11:13:27 GMT -5
Getting thoroughly adrift of the thread topic here, but there are still a number of two-wheeled options that are at least in the ballpark of reasonable money. I used to have a Suzuki SV-650, bought new in 1990 or so for around $6k. The current equivalent model is not too much more. But I don't like the new bikes, from any manufacturer. They violate my sense of what a proper motorcycle should be. They are all very high-tech, with computers and digital gauges and fuel injection and anti-lock brakes and all the rest. In my (perhaps twisted) mind, a proper motorcycle is, first and foremost, simple. Any complicated motorcycle (and I define "complicated" as "has anything digital on-board") is self-contradictory. Anyone know where I can find a "Luddites Anonymous" meeting? But all this does seem to have some relevance to how we treat debt. Its all built on an underlying philosophy that "just a little bit more" doesn't matter. What's the difference if my payments go up by just a few dollars per month? Its just a little bit more. So never mind that the aggregate emissions from every motorcycle in the country is absolutely negligible, we have the EPA imposing all manner of regulations. New models have fuel injection and catalytic converters and are programmed to run so incredibly lean as to automatically ensure a robust after-market for tuners and enhancements. All of this is nonsensical to me. There aren't enough "bike-miles" ridden annually to make a bit of difference to the environment. And particularly for a tractor-engine-simple setup like a low-output, single point induction V-twin, fuel injection is stupid. But why not have the regulations? When money is free, nothing costs anything anyway. It all comes down to our philosophy of rejecting the very concept that we are subject to any limits in any form.
|
|
|
Debt
Nov 21, 2014 11:40:59 GMT -5
Post by aquaduct on Nov 21, 2014 11:40:59 GMT -5
We miss our Electraglide and have had several conversations about it recently. It's currently the only thing we'd consider going into debt to acquire again. The market for those seems pretty soft right now, just in general and on a time of year basis. There are a lot of them out there for fairly short money. Our biggest debate right now is whether we step up to the trike variant to ensure that we can continue to ride until I fall out in the saddle.
|
|
|
Debt
Nov 21, 2014 11:52:25 GMT -5
Post by Doug on Nov 21, 2014 11:52:25 GMT -5
I bought a bike once, cost me $75.
Same can be said for cars. If it's got a computer it ain't a car. I bet my car is more fun to drive. And my will still be running after the EMP. nana nana And I ain't picking up hick hikers unless they got a guitar. AZ may have as many classic cars as Cuba.
|
|
|
Debt
Nov 21, 2014 11:52:22 GMT -5
Post by fauxmaha on Nov 21, 2014 11:52:22 GMT -5
Our biggest debate right now is whether we step up to the trike variant to ensure that we can continue to ride until I fall out in the saddle. You're way too young to be talking like that.
|
|
|
Debt
Nov 21, 2014 11:57:31 GMT -5
Post by aquaduct on Nov 21, 2014 11:57:31 GMT -5
Our biggest debate right now is whether we step up to the trike variant to ensure that we can continue to ride until I fall out in the saddle. You're way too young to be talking like that. I've also got a wife that owns the bike and the back seat.
|
|
|
Debt
Nov 21, 2014 12:24:34 GMT -5
Post by Marshall on Nov 21, 2014 12:24:34 GMT -5
. . . , But I don't like the new bikes, from any manufacturer. They violate my sense of what a proper motorcycle should be. They are all very high-tech, with computers and digital gauges and fuel injection and anti-lock brakes and all the rest. In my (perhaps twisted) mind, a proper motorcycle is, first and foremost, simple. Any complicated motorcycle (and I define "complicated" as "has anything digital on-board") is self-contradictory. I agree with you. I love the simple nature of a good bike. I'm OK with my messy 4 carburetors. It's a machine that I could actually work on, if I decided to do that. Not that I do for anything major. But it's there. I change my oil and fiddle with little things; install aftermarket windshield; sissy bar; new seat; grips; rider pegs; etc. I even raised the handlebars 1" (as far as i could safely go without having to redo ALL the cables.) Oh. And i noticed in your picture that your pipes are blue by the engine. My mechanic former SIL told me that's a sign that a bike was run for a long while without the exhaust baffles in place. More noise. But the exhaust runs hot in the pipes when the baffles are removed and the engine isn't re-calibrated for the different back pressure. No biggy. But it's not real good for the engine.
|
|
|
Debt
Nov 21, 2014 12:30:11 GMT -5
Post by fauxmaha on Nov 21, 2014 12:30:11 GMT -5
Baffles are in, but its still got the stock "EPA-lean" jetting in the carb. That's on the winter project list.
|
|
|
Debt
Nov 21, 2014 12:49:19 GMT -5
Post by majorminor on Nov 21, 2014 12:49:19 GMT -5
Millring - it must be abundantly clear to you by now why the national debt is not a looming crisis issue. It's because of motorcycles.
|
|
|
Debt
Nov 21, 2014 12:55:55 GMT -5
Post by millring on Nov 21, 2014 12:55:55 GMT -5
Millring - it must be abundantly clear to you by now why the national debt is not a looming crisis issue. It's because of motorcycles. The Soundhole hath spoken.
|
|
|
Debt
Nov 21, 2014 13:01:48 GMT -5
Post by fauxmaha on Nov 21, 2014 13:01:48 GMT -5
I do wonder sometimes....
It seems like the sane and rational thing to do today is to borrow up to your eyeballs and use the money to buy as much gold as you can.
There is just no way our current trajectory ends without at least a solid decade of brutal inflation. Put all your money in gold and real estate*, and you'll come out smelling like a rose.
* And motorcycles.
|
|
|
Debt
Nov 21, 2014 13:16:27 GMT -5
Post by millring on Nov 21, 2014 13:16:27 GMT -5
I really am curious why the debt doesn't matter.
I thought the net neutrality thread was awesome. It was a good mix of thought from as many sides of the issue as are represented here, and an honest reading of it all would, I think, lead one to some pretty sound conclusions and some better understanding of alternatives.
I'm really trying to figure out why the preponderance of economists (like Krugman, for example) who have the ear of our government and policy makers are not at all alarmed by the debt. Is it really as simple as the thought that at some point we can simply inflate the currency and we'll be all better? Doesn't that inflation most hurt the weakest among us? Don't we have lots of historical examples from many economies of some really bad stuff that has happened when that kind of inflationary correction occurs?
Or is it just alarmist speculation? Is the debt as huge as it seems to me to be?
|
|
|
Debt
Nov 21, 2014 13:25:08 GMT -5
Post by fauxmaha on Nov 21, 2014 13:25:08 GMT -5
Doesn't that inflation most hurt the weakest among us? Of course it does. What makes you think the government/Krugman/etal are concerned about them? They are treated as chattel, useful to the extent that feigned sympathy and concern prove politically advantageous.
|
|
|
Debt
Nov 21, 2014 13:40:42 GMT -5
Post by millring on Nov 21, 2014 13:40:42 GMT -5
I don't agree with that. I think Krugman et al are just like me and suppose the best direction for the most people. And that's why it puzzles me so that something so concrete -- so objective -- as the debt is of such little concern. Maybe it's because I see what debt can do on a personal level (and, yes, I understand there are some differences between personal and governmental debt) that I see a different reality when I look at what we collectively owe.
I get it that much of the debt we owe to "ourselves". But doesn't that make it worse, not better? I mean, doesn't that mean a great burden is on the government to somehow find investments in order to pay off that debt....when it is currently acting as the only and final rung in the investment ladder? Isn't that exactly the danger of inflation and the devaluation? Isn't it exactly that problem -- that the government borrowed from "us" and will be paying it back with nothing? How does that help us?
|
|
|
Post by dickt on Nov 21, 2014 13:51:32 GMT -5
The deficit is way below even Paul Ryan's wet dreams and the great Republican plan. So yeah something is being done about debt.
|
|
|
Debt
Nov 21, 2014 13:56:56 GMT -5
Post by millring on Nov 21, 2014 13:56:56 GMT -5
The deficit is way below even Paul Ryan's wet dreams and the great Republican plan. So yeah something is being done about debt. But it's still up. And the perception that it is down is only due in large part to the extreme to which it went as we tried (or succeeded, depending on your pov) to spend our way out of the crash of 2008.
|
|
|
Debt
Nov 21, 2014 14:15:56 GMT -5
Post by majorminor on Nov 21, 2014 14:15:56 GMT -5
Hillary should just use these as business cards and run campaign commercials with that emergency broadcast sound and a static image of this on the screen.
|
|
|
Debt
Nov 21, 2014 14:32:46 GMT -5
Post by millring on Nov 21, 2014 14:32:46 GMT -5
Hillary should just use these as business cards If a business man carries business cards, wouldn't Hillary carry political cards?
|
|
|
Debt
Nov 21, 2014 14:35:56 GMT -5
Post by PaulKay on Nov 21, 2014 14:35:56 GMT -5
Why are the debt and the money bubble not a looming crisis? Probably because the world can't get enough of U.S. treasury bills. It's still considered the safest debt in the world.
|
|
|
Post by majorminor on Nov 21, 2014 14:37:43 GMT -5
Perhaps. And the catchy slogan: "Vote Clinton if you want to get it up again!!!"
|
|
|
Debt
Nov 21, 2014 14:38:58 GMT -5
Post by brucemacneill on Nov 21, 2014 14:38:58 GMT -5
John, the reported debt, roughly 18 trillion bucks, pales in comparison to the "Unfunded liabilities" the government has, roughly 120 trillion dollars spread over the next 50 years or so. As far as I can tell, no, there is no way out in reality other than devaluing the currency, as in inflation, and yes that will wreck all but the very richest of the rich who will probably have left the country before it falls if they can find somewhere better to go, gold in pocket. Still, as far as I can tell, we're better off than most countries really are because we have natural resources we could, and probably eventually will, exploit to delay the problem awhile. We cover enough latitudes and longitudes to survive, speaking of food now, natural disasters which will destroy many smaller countries. We have coal and oil to keep us warm for a couple of hundred years, which most countries do not have. There are options available to get the members of this forum beyond caring. Maybe with luck we'll get hit by an asteroid before the bills come due. The worst those of us over 40 or so can expect is $200/loaf bread. All that In My Humble, and sad, Opinion, of course. Today my biggest problem is that they're raising the dues at the country club because there aren't as many golfers as there used to be. I'll just give myself a raise from my IRA to cover the increase and take a little off my life expectancy calculation to make up for the short fall.
|
|