Wednesday, June 22, 2011
Monday, May 10, 2010
Hung Parliament 2010
Image by conservativeparty via Flickr
Friday, January 1, 2010
Thursday, December 31, 2009
reBlog from gorseinonboy.co.uk: Gorsein Boy
I found this fascinating quote today:
I’d like to think that I’d take a holiday in France in the year to come. Get down to the Limousin to meet up with friends, relax a little around a lake, take in the sights. Perhaps visit Paris on the way back.BUT……have you seen what’s been happening to the Pound/Euro recently!!!! Can I afford to travel on the continent anymore?
gorseinonboy.co.uk, Gorsein Boy, Nov 2009
You should read the whole article.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_uOfAzx0viMYGjA_R1y8TnGWLHS9An3S4BYMV475h3ImyByyqgWpdDnsbp81pGqSzZjlVHA2zEVWJnXgIWoF3Iv05sI5wBFuXxujJpQW-l9zL80xOzJOYEleLbs0FvWWKo-4SwklBI1xmI1k2XS7Jv7=s0-d)
Wednesday, December 30, 2009
Friday, December 25, 2009
Tuesday, December 22, 2009
Sunday, December 6, 2009
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
Britain's Dope Inc......A study.
EIR Releases New Study on`Britain's Dope, Inc.:Marker for Humanity's New Dark Age'
March 2, 2009 (EIRNS)
—For the first time in 13 years, Executive Intelligence Review magazine has released a new indepth study of the status of the deadly global enemy of mankind called Dope, Inc., the international drug cartel headquartered in London.
EIR's 46-page blockbuster, editted by Ibero-American editor Dennis Small, appears in the February 27th edition of EIR Online.
As Small explains in his introductory survey of the growth over the last decade of the four major narcotic drug groups—opiates, marijuana, cocaine, and amphetamine-type stimulants—which now have a combined street sale value of over $800 billion per year, there are three pressing political reasons for the release of the study at this point.
The first is the fact that the global financial blowout is leading more and more to the expansion of drug money in the system; the second is the accelerated push at present by the drug lobby, headed by Nazi-trained mega-speculator George Soros, for legalization of narcotic drugs; and the third is the accelerating role of the drug trade in brutal narco-terrorism in such arenas as Afghanistan and Mexico—places where only an effective War on Drugs of the mode laid out by Lyndon LaRouche 25 to 30 years ago, can be effective in preventing total devastation.
Conceptually, EIR's approach continues the method outlined in its breakthrough 1978 book, "Dope, Inc.," which elaborated in historical depth, how the British Empire—now transformed into the globalized Anglo-Dutch financial system—imposed the drug trade, from the top down, in the interest of maintaining its political control over the world's population.
The major elements of the EIR package are the following:
A survey of the major drug groups, featuring graphics showing the cultivation, eradication, and seizures of the major drug groups in various regions around the world.
Area studies on Afghanistan, Mexico, and Russia.
A profile of the activities of George Soros's drug legalization activities, both internationally (including in the banking system) and in the United States.
A short refresher course on the original British Opium Wars.
Excerpts from a report by the Russian-based Institute for Demography, Migration and Regional Development and the Development Movement, Moscow 2008, which outlines proposals for a new Russian policy for Afghanistan, based on promoting comprehensive economic development which would help that nation abandon the drug trade, and link up with its neighbors in major transport and other projects.
The full introduction to the report, and subscriptions to EIR, are available through EIR's website, www.larouchepub.com.
March 2, 2009 (EIRNS)
—For the first time in 13 years, Executive Intelligence Review magazine has released a new indepth study of the status of the deadly global enemy of mankind called Dope, Inc., the international drug cartel headquartered in London.
EIR's 46-page blockbuster, editted by Ibero-American editor Dennis Small, appears in the February 27th edition of EIR Online.
As Small explains in his introductory survey of the growth over the last decade of the four major narcotic drug groups—opiates, marijuana, cocaine, and amphetamine-type stimulants—which now have a combined street sale value of over $800 billion per year, there are three pressing political reasons for the release of the study at this point.
The first is the fact that the global financial blowout is leading more and more to the expansion of drug money in the system; the second is the accelerated push at present by the drug lobby, headed by Nazi-trained mega-speculator George Soros, for legalization of narcotic drugs; and the third is the accelerating role of the drug trade in brutal narco-terrorism in such arenas as Afghanistan and Mexico—places where only an effective War on Drugs of the mode laid out by Lyndon LaRouche 25 to 30 years ago, can be effective in preventing total devastation.
Conceptually, EIR's approach continues the method outlined in its breakthrough 1978 book, "Dope, Inc.," which elaborated in historical depth, how the British Empire—now transformed into the globalized Anglo-Dutch financial system—imposed the drug trade, from the top down, in the interest of maintaining its political control over the world's population.
The major elements of the EIR package are the following:
A survey of the major drug groups, featuring graphics showing the cultivation, eradication, and seizures of the major drug groups in various regions around the world.
Area studies on Afghanistan, Mexico, and Russia.
A profile of the activities of George Soros's drug legalization activities, both internationally (including in the banking system) and in the United States.
A short refresher course on the original British Opium Wars.
Excerpts from a report by the Russian-based Institute for Demography, Migration and Regional Development and the Development Movement, Moscow 2008, which outlines proposals for a new Russian policy for Afghanistan, based on promoting comprehensive economic development which would help that nation abandon the drug trade, and link up with its neighbors in major transport and other projects.
The full introduction to the report, and subscriptions to EIR, are available through EIR's website, www.larouchepub.com.
Thursday, March 5, 2009
Thursday, February 5, 2009
Big Mistake by BoE.....Again!!
Why the Bank of England's latest rate cut is a big mistake
By Associate Editor David Stevenson Feb 05, 2009
Further cuts could do more harm than good
Even before midday today, Britain's 1.5% base rate was at its lowest since the Bank of England was founded in 1694. Now the rate's just been cut again – to 1%. And the siren voices of the construction, retail and manufacturing industries will be telling us what good news this is, and will be clamouring for even more rate reductions.
Trouble is, this rent-a-mob's got it wrong. The latest rate cut will do much more harm than good. Here's why.
Low interest rates are doing much more harm than good
Firstly, low rates are dreadful for savers. Remember them? They're the ones who didn't borrow all they could and then, when the going got tough, threw in the towel and bleated for a bail out. They're also the people who kept Britain's banks going before HM government stepped in using taxpayers' cash to keep lenders afloat.
So how have we rewarded savers? By slashing their returns to zilch.
It was time to call a halt. And to be fair to the Building Societies Association, this week it's been urging the Bank not to cut rates any more, pointing out that its members provide more than 20% of both UK savings accounts and mortgage lending. So lower interest paid to savers means less chance that they'll keep their cash in the building society. Which in turn means fewer funds available for borrowers.
Sadly, the Bank of England didn't listen.
What's more, lower interest rates aren't even helping that many borrowers. Even the banks prepared to lend any money these days are being very cagey about passing on the rate cuts. Yes, Barclaycard cut some of its borrowing costs yesterday, but its average rate is still almost 12.5%. So all the Bank's rate reductions are doing is fattening bankers' profit margins, and no doubt their wallets to boot.
Enjoying this article? Sign up for our free daily email, Money Morning, to receive intelligent investment advice every weekday. Sign up to Money Morning.
The damage caused by the weak pound
Then there's the serious damage to the pound. If you've been making holiday plans outside the UK this year, or if your income depends on imports, your costs will have soared as the pound has bought less and less.
At some stage, that's going to help stoke up inflation again. More on this another day. But right now, another rate cut will just do more damage. Just as with domestic savers, even lower rates mean lower returns for foreign holders of sterling, and so less reason for them to hold our currency. And that tends to be self-feeding, i.e. the more the pound devalues, the more reluctant external holders are to own it.
And don't be fooled by the "it doesn't matter if sterling drops" brigade.
It does. Our national debt, i.e. the amount of money we owe the rest of the world, is set to shoot well over £1 trillion within five years. And that's on the official numbers, with the real ones likely to be even worse. So, like it or not, as a country we'll have to borrow vast amounts from abroad, via the government flogging hundreds of billions of pounds-worth of gilts.
There's no way that'll happen if outside investors don't want to invest in sterling assets. Unless of course, we have to entice them by paying much more. In other words, cutting the base rate is simply forcing up the long-term rate of interest that we'll have to shell out.
Then there's those banks who won't lend, mainly because they're terrified about the state of their own finances. At the last count, British banks had borrowed $4.4 trillion from international lenders, according to The Telegraph's Ambrose Evans Pritchard. That's eight times the debt of the bust US investment bank Lehman Brothers.
It's very unlikely that these banks' assets will be appreciating in value as fast as their liabilities are rising. A further sizeable sterling drop could wreak havoc with their already ultra-fragile balance sheets.
Let's hope the Bank of England has learnt from Japan's mistake
But there's also another reason, less tangible, but maybe the biggest of all. And that's confidence. When the general public sees the policy makers panicking, they get the jitters even worse themselves. As Dr Ros Altmann said yesterday, "this negative effect far outweighs the positive possible impact of encouraging already over-indebted consumers to borrow and spend more by lowering interest rates".
On this point, just remember what happened when the Japanese cut interest rates to nearly zero in 1995. All that succeeded in doing was shattering confidence so badly that the economy suffered the so-called "lost decade" of collapsing property and share prices. In fact, the Nikkei 225 index is now no higher than it was fully 26 years ago.
The bottom line? Lowering interest rates from 5.5% made sense. This rate cut is a big mistake.
By Associate Editor David Stevenson Feb 05, 2009
Further cuts could do more harm than good
Even before midday today, Britain's 1.5% base rate was at its lowest since the Bank of England was founded in 1694. Now the rate's just been cut again – to 1%. And the siren voices of the construction, retail and manufacturing industries will be telling us what good news this is, and will be clamouring for even more rate reductions.
Trouble is, this rent-a-mob's got it wrong. The latest rate cut will do much more harm than good. Here's why.
Low interest rates are doing much more harm than good
Firstly, low rates are dreadful for savers. Remember them? They're the ones who didn't borrow all they could and then, when the going got tough, threw in the towel and bleated for a bail out. They're also the people who kept Britain's banks going before HM government stepped in using taxpayers' cash to keep lenders afloat.
So how have we rewarded savers? By slashing their returns to zilch.
It was time to call a halt. And to be fair to the Building Societies Association, this week it's been urging the Bank not to cut rates any more, pointing out that its members provide more than 20% of both UK savings accounts and mortgage lending. So lower interest paid to savers means less chance that they'll keep their cash in the building society. Which in turn means fewer funds available for borrowers.
Sadly, the Bank of England didn't listen.
What's more, lower interest rates aren't even helping that many borrowers. Even the banks prepared to lend any money these days are being very cagey about passing on the rate cuts. Yes, Barclaycard cut some of its borrowing costs yesterday, but its average rate is still almost 12.5%. So all the Bank's rate reductions are doing is fattening bankers' profit margins, and no doubt their wallets to boot.
Enjoying this article? Sign up for our free daily email, Money Morning, to receive intelligent investment advice every weekday. Sign up to Money Morning.
The damage caused by the weak pound
Then there's the serious damage to the pound. If you've been making holiday plans outside the UK this year, or if your income depends on imports, your costs will have soared as the pound has bought less and less.
At some stage, that's going to help stoke up inflation again. More on this another day. But right now, another rate cut will just do more damage. Just as with domestic savers, even lower rates mean lower returns for foreign holders of sterling, and so less reason for them to hold our currency. And that tends to be self-feeding, i.e. the more the pound devalues, the more reluctant external holders are to own it.
And don't be fooled by the "it doesn't matter if sterling drops" brigade.
It does. Our national debt, i.e. the amount of money we owe the rest of the world, is set to shoot well over £1 trillion within five years. And that's on the official numbers, with the real ones likely to be even worse. So, like it or not, as a country we'll have to borrow vast amounts from abroad, via the government flogging hundreds of billions of pounds-worth of gilts.
There's no way that'll happen if outside investors don't want to invest in sterling assets. Unless of course, we have to entice them by paying much more. In other words, cutting the base rate is simply forcing up the long-term rate of interest that we'll have to shell out.
Then there's those banks who won't lend, mainly because they're terrified about the state of their own finances. At the last count, British banks had borrowed $4.4 trillion from international lenders, according to The Telegraph's Ambrose Evans Pritchard. That's eight times the debt of the bust US investment bank Lehman Brothers.
It's very unlikely that these banks' assets will be appreciating in value as fast as their liabilities are rising. A further sizeable sterling drop could wreak havoc with their already ultra-fragile balance sheets.
Let's hope the Bank of England has learnt from Japan's mistake
But there's also another reason, less tangible, but maybe the biggest of all. And that's confidence. When the general public sees the policy makers panicking, they get the jitters even worse themselves. As Dr Ros Altmann said yesterday, "this negative effect far outweighs the positive possible impact of encouraging already over-indebted consumers to borrow and spend more by lowering interest rates".
On this point, just remember what happened when the Japanese cut interest rates to nearly zero in 1995. All that succeeded in doing was shattering confidence so badly that the economy suffered the so-called "lost decade" of collapsing property and share prices. In fact, the Nikkei 225 index is now no higher than it was fully 26 years ago.
The bottom line? Lowering interest rates from 5.5% made sense. This rate cut is a big mistake.
Monday, February 2, 2009
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
Oscar Season.....Who's going to score?
Ohhh, Oscar! The academy's love for Outstanding films brushes off the good ones
By Jay Stone, Canwest News ServiceJanuary 26, 2009Comments (4)
Christian Bale in The Dark Knight.
Photograph by: Handout, Files
Two kinds of films get nominated for Academy Awards: the Outstanding Motion Picture and the good movie. The first, which seems to win more often than not, is exemplified by, say, Gandhi, the 1982 biopic that was large, prestigious, and that you probably never want to see again. The second finds its champion in Martin Scorsese's Raging Bull, the 1980 biopic that was small and fierce and was recognized by many critics as the best film of the decade. It lost the Oscar that year to Ordinary People, which was an Outstanding Motion Picture.
The 2008 nominees are made up of both kinds of movies: The Curious Case of Benjamin Button is a technical marvel that sprawls for close to three hours and envelopes its love story in a lot of history, yearning, and gimmicky impediments.
A lot of people have noticed that it's very much like Forrest Gump - both films were written by Eric Roth - and someone has written a quiz that gives a generic plot that could describe either. (It begins, "A white man is born fatherless in the south with birth defects that lead many to think he will never walk nor live a normal life."
You can read the whole thing.
On the other hand, Slumdog Millionaire is a good movie, a crowd-pleaser that isn't much like anything else, at least outside of Charles Dickens. Benjamin Button has more nominations and has earned twice as much money, but when was the last time someone tried to engage you in conversation about it? It doesn't seem to "mean" anything to filmgoers, at least not in the way that Slumdog Millionaire has them talking about Indian poverty and resilience, a combination that has roused rooting interest in both its characters and the film itself.
The other nominated pictures this year are variations of Outstanding Motion Pictures, some with a bit of good movie thrown in: Frost/Nixon is a solid, talky account of an almost forgotten series of interviews with a much-hated U.S. president; The Reader is an uneven post-Holocaust film that makes the most sense as a metaphor for the New Germany meeting the Old Germany in a question of war guilt; and Milk is yet another biopic, this time closer to the ground than Gandhi, although its tragic, humane story also carries the burden of Historical Import. To its credit, Milk is never ponderous about it: On balance, it's the best Hollywood movie of the year - even if it lacks Slumdog's joyous finale.
As usual, the most interesting part of the Oscars is what wasn't nominated. Revolutionary Road, for instance, is a film whose release was timed to take advantage of Academy Awards season, but it was mostly shut out. It's the kind of thing that would be considered Important if it had been released 50 years ago, when the deadening effects of suburban life was a hot issue: It's the racier version of The Man in the Grey Flannel Suit (1956), but from more of a feminist perspective.
The movie suffers from the performance of Leonardo DiCaprio as Frank Wheeler, the weak, swaggering husband of dissatisfied housewife Kate Winslet: the actor never delves into the shallow intellect of Frank, and the baby-faced DiCaprio, who can be excellent in the right role, looks as if he's dressed up in his father's suit and fedora to play the dad in a high school play. He shouldn't get an Oscar; he should get a Cappie.
The strangest omissions were The Dark Knight and The Wrestler, two good movies. Despite its extravaganza of special effects, The Dark Knight isn't an Outstanding Motion Picture but an entertainment - a category inevitably undervalued at Oscar time - that also has something to say about the world and how it views heroes. However, it is also based on a comic book, and you can't get less Outstanding than that.
The Wrestler, on the other hand, has some precedents: It's this year's Rocky, the gritty little sports picture that won the 1976 Oscar (beating Taxi Driver; Scorsese has had a rough time at the Academy Awards), although some argue that Slumdog Millionaire is this year's Rocky. It's never a bad thing to be this year's Rocky, even though it is not an Outstanding Motion Picture.
The Wrestler is about an over-the-hill athlete undergoing a crisis of the soul and realizing that the only thing he can do is to destroy himself. It doesn't come with the layers of history of the nominated movies, but it does star Mickey Rourke, an actor on a comeback climb that makes him exactly the kind of story you'd think Hollywood would love. Ten years from now, when we've forgotten the Outstanding Motion Pictures, I suspect The Dark Knight and The Wrestler - along with Milk - will be remembered as the good movies of 2008.
© Copyright (c) The Vancouver Sun
By Jay Stone, Canwest News ServiceJanuary 26, 2009Comments (4)
Christian Bale in The Dark Knight.
Photograph by: Handout, Files
Two kinds of films get nominated for Academy Awards: the Outstanding Motion Picture and the good movie. The first, which seems to win more often than not, is exemplified by, say, Gandhi, the 1982 biopic that was large, prestigious, and that you probably never want to see again. The second finds its champion in Martin Scorsese's Raging Bull, the 1980 biopic that was small and fierce and was recognized by many critics as the best film of the decade. It lost the Oscar that year to Ordinary People, which was an Outstanding Motion Picture.
The 2008 nominees are made up of both kinds of movies: The Curious Case of Benjamin Button is a technical marvel that sprawls for close to three hours and envelopes its love story in a lot of history, yearning, and gimmicky impediments.
A lot of people have noticed that it's very much like Forrest Gump - both films were written by Eric Roth - and someone has written a quiz that gives a generic plot that could describe either. (It begins, "A white man is born fatherless in the south with birth defects that lead many to think he will never walk nor live a normal life."
You can read the whole thing.
On the other hand, Slumdog Millionaire is a good movie, a crowd-pleaser that isn't much like anything else, at least outside of Charles Dickens. Benjamin Button has more nominations and has earned twice as much money, but when was the last time someone tried to engage you in conversation about it? It doesn't seem to "mean" anything to filmgoers, at least not in the way that Slumdog Millionaire has them talking about Indian poverty and resilience, a combination that has roused rooting interest in both its characters and the film itself.
The other nominated pictures this year are variations of Outstanding Motion Pictures, some with a bit of good movie thrown in: Frost/Nixon is a solid, talky account of an almost forgotten series of interviews with a much-hated U.S. president; The Reader is an uneven post-Holocaust film that makes the most sense as a metaphor for the New Germany meeting the Old Germany in a question of war guilt; and Milk is yet another biopic, this time closer to the ground than Gandhi, although its tragic, humane story also carries the burden of Historical Import. To its credit, Milk is never ponderous about it: On balance, it's the best Hollywood movie of the year - even if it lacks Slumdog's joyous finale.
As usual, the most interesting part of the Oscars is what wasn't nominated. Revolutionary Road, for instance, is a film whose release was timed to take advantage of Academy Awards season, but it was mostly shut out. It's the kind of thing that would be considered Important if it had been released 50 years ago, when the deadening effects of suburban life was a hot issue: It's the racier version of The Man in the Grey Flannel Suit (1956), but from more of a feminist perspective.
The movie suffers from the performance of Leonardo DiCaprio as Frank Wheeler, the weak, swaggering husband of dissatisfied housewife Kate Winslet: the actor never delves into the shallow intellect of Frank, and the baby-faced DiCaprio, who can be excellent in the right role, looks as if he's dressed up in his father's suit and fedora to play the dad in a high school play. He shouldn't get an Oscar; he should get a Cappie.
The strangest omissions were The Dark Knight and The Wrestler, two good movies. Despite its extravaganza of special effects, The Dark Knight isn't an Outstanding Motion Picture but an entertainment - a category inevitably undervalued at Oscar time - that also has something to say about the world and how it views heroes. However, it is also based on a comic book, and you can't get less Outstanding than that.
The Wrestler, on the other hand, has some precedents: It's this year's Rocky, the gritty little sports picture that won the 1976 Oscar (beating Taxi Driver; Scorsese has had a rough time at the Academy Awards), although some argue that Slumdog Millionaire is this year's Rocky. It's never a bad thing to be this year's Rocky, even though it is not an Outstanding Motion Picture.
The Wrestler is about an over-the-hill athlete undergoing a crisis of the soul and realizing that the only thing he can do is to destroy himself. It doesn't come with the layers of history of the nominated movies, but it does star Mickey Rourke, an actor on a comeback climb that makes him exactly the kind of story you'd think Hollywood would love. Ten years from now, when we've forgotten the Outstanding Motion Pictures, I suspect The Dark Knight and The Wrestler - along with Milk - will be remembered as the good movies of 2008.
© Copyright (c) The Vancouver Sun
Sunday, November 23, 2008
Saturday, August 9, 2008
Monday, August 4, 2008
Recession & Cars
Roll into the recession in style - luxury cars go under the hammer
Potential buyers and onlookers at Saturday's car liquidation sale at Orwell Motors on the Ballymount Road in Dublin.Photograph: Kenneth O'Halloran
In a sign of the times, Porsches and BMWs are sold off as a high-end car dealer goes under, writes Rosita Boland
ON SATURDAY in the packed forecourt of Orwell Motors in Walkinstown, Dublin, most members of the public were eagerly examining the Mercedes, BMWs and Saabs that were due to sold in a receivership car auction.
However, Dubliner Sandra McQueen was staring mesmerized at the large Gucci handbag hanging off the arm of a potential female buyer. "Some of the handbags here are worth more than what I can afford to pay for a car," she confessed.
Ms McQueen had come to the auction looking for a bargain. Unlike most of the others there, her budget of €3,000 was modest, and she was after one of the very few lots of 00- and 01-registered VWs and Peugeots.
Most people were focusing exclusively on the prestige cars: the 05 BMW 630 Sport, the 06 Lexus IS220, the 06 Mercedes E200 and others.
There were a total of 55 lots, most of them high-end cars. Orwell Motors, a long-established Dublin car dealership specialising in expensive cars, went out of business at the end of last month.
Bank of Scotland (Ireland) appointed Paul McCann, of accountancy firm Grant Thornton as receiver, and it carried out Saturday's auction. It was a condition of the auction that all payments had to be made in full, either by bank transfer or bankers drafts, so all transactions on the day were in effect cash.
It was easy to spot the professionals. The expressionless car dealers worked in pairs, took notes, and walked around the cars like farmers examining cattle. They opened bonnets and scrutinised engines with detachment. You could almost see the euro signs in their eyes.
The private buyers, on the other hand, were mostly couples simply dreaming of driving posh cars, like Maurice and Mary Quinn, up for the day from Newtownforbes, Co Longford. They were interested in the 06 BMW 320 and the 06 Lexus IS220, "but only if they're giving them away," stressed Mr Quinn.
Friends and software professionals Kumar Rubra and Ven Ramachandran. both from India, were not surprised that Orwell Motors had gone out of business. "These guys have been caught out because they were high-end. There's no money now in the secondhand market with the VRT [vehicle registration tax]," Mr Rubra commented. His friend was there to try to buy a Saab, BMW or a Lexus.
"It's not going to stop here," declared Bobby Bolger, from Naas, Co Kildare, who was looking for a Mercedes. "More dealers are going to go bust. Secondhand cars have long been overvalued in this country. Cars will have to come down to more realistic prices.
"We're in a recession now, and car sales are going the way of property sales," he added.
The car attracting the most attention was a black 2000 Porsche Boxter 3.2 convertible. Men, in particular, circled it with the frequency of goldfish doing laps, while their female companions stood aside, looking either indulgent or worried.
It was the only car in the auction that one Dublin couple had come to bid on. "We're only interested in one car. The Porsche, if it's a good deal," said the woman firmly. They declined to give their names.
"You can't use my name, because I work in financial services, and I can't possibly be seen to be talking about a recession," explained the man. Isn't that why we're here?
The auction started bang on 11am, by which time more than 130 people had registered as potential bidders, with many more present as onlookers. Bidding was consistently brisk, and it took less than three minutes to reach a selling price of €45,000 for the 05 BMW 630 Sport. It took longer than that to sell a 2000 VW Polo, which went for €2,300.
Other sales included €33,000 for an 06 Mercedes E200; €24,000 for the 06 BMW320 DSE; and €22,000 for an 06 Saab 9-3. The Porsche went for €17,500. The man from the financial services was outbid.
© 2008 The Irish Times
Potential buyers and onlookers at Saturday's car liquidation sale at Orwell Motors on the Ballymount Road in Dublin.Photograph: Kenneth O'Halloran
In a sign of the times, Porsches and BMWs are sold off as a high-end car dealer goes under, writes Rosita Boland
ON SATURDAY in the packed forecourt of Orwell Motors in Walkinstown, Dublin, most members of the public were eagerly examining the Mercedes, BMWs and Saabs that were due to sold in a receivership car auction.
However, Dubliner Sandra McQueen was staring mesmerized at the large Gucci handbag hanging off the arm of a potential female buyer. "Some of the handbags here are worth more than what I can afford to pay for a car," she confessed.
Ms McQueen had come to the auction looking for a bargain. Unlike most of the others there, her budget of €3,000 was modest, and she was after one of the very few lots of 00- and 01-registered VWs and Peugeots.
Most people were focusing exclusively on the prestige cars: the 05 BMW 630 Sport, the 06 Lexus IS220, the 06 Mercedes E200 and others.
There were a total of 55 lots, most of them high-end cars. Orwell Motors, a long-established Dublin car dealership specialising in expensive cars, went out of business at the end of last month.
Bank of Scotland (Ireland) appointed Paul McCann, of accountancy firm Grant Thornton as receiver, and it carried out Saturday's auction. It was a condition of the auction that all payments had to be made in full, either by bank transfer or bankers drafts, so all transactions on the day were in effect cash.
It was easy to spot the professionals. The expressionless car dealers worked in pairs, took notes, and walked around the cars like farmers examining cattle. They opened bonnets and scrutinised engines with detachment. You could almost see the euro signs in their eyes.
The private buyers, on the other hand, were mostly couples simply dreaming of driving posh cars, like Maurice and Mary Quinn, up for the day from Newtownforbes, Co Longford. They were interested in the 06 BMW 320 and the 06 Lexus IS220, "but only if they're giving them away," stressed Mr Quinn.
Friends and software professionals Kumar Rubra and Ven Ramachandran. both from India, were not surprised that Orwell Motors had gone out of business. "These guys have been caught out because they were high-end. There's no money now in the secondhand market with the VRT [vehicle registration tax]," Mr Rubra commented. His friend was there to try to buy a Saab, BMW or a Lexus.
"It's not going to stop here," declared Bobby Bolger, from Naas, Co Kildare, who was looking for a Mercedes. "More dealers are going to go bust. Secondhand cars have long been overvalued in this country. Cars will have to come down to more realistic prices.
"We're in a recession now, and car sales are going the way of property sales," he added.
The car attracting the most attention was a black 2000 Porsche Boxter 3.2 convertible. Men, in particular, circled it with the frequency of goldfish doing laps, while their female companions stood aside, looking either indulgent or worried.
It was the only car in the auction that one Dublin couple had come to bid on. "We're only interested in one car. The Porsche, if it's a good deal," said the woman firmly. They declined to give their names.
"You can't use my name, because I work in financial services, and I can't possibly be seen to be talking about a recession," explained the man. Isn't that why we're here?
The auction started bang on 11am, by which time more than 130 people had registered as potential bidders, with many more present as onlookers. Bidding was consistently brisk, and it took less than three minutes to reach a selling price of €45,000 for the 05 BMW 630 Sport. It took longer than that to sell a 2000 VW Polo, which went for €2,300.
Other sales included €33,000 for an 06 Mercedes E200; €24,000 for the 06 BMW320 DSE; and €22,000 for an 06 Saab 9-3. The Porsche went for €17,500. The man from the financial services was outbid.
© 2008 The Irish Times
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)