Jeff Bezos adds some more overheads to his $485m yacht by taking down historic bridge When buying a 40m-tall, three-mast luxury yacht is like you or I popping to the corner shop for a Freddo, what does it matter if a 144-year-old bridge has to be dismantled to get the thing out of the shipyard? freddo cadburys cheap frog shaped choc A Freddo is an 18g frog-shaped piece of chocolate that Brits informally use to …
That boat is large enough to be classified as Titanic in the making. There are still some icebergs left in the ocean.
Not that I wish the crew anything bad, but having this monstrosity go down would give the envious part in me some satisfaction. I can imagine others may feel a similar urge, somewhere. If it were to happen, one could only hope that the insurance policy excluded icebergs. The very rich can afford a crash once in a while.
Good analogy, though it's "only" around half the length of the Titanic. It is about the same height give or take. Adjusting for inflation, the build cost for this yacht is approximately on a par with all three Olympic class liners combined however, and in their day they were intended to be the last word in comfort and luxury.
Old sail ships could remove them for maintenance - I've visited one of the towers in the old Copenhagen harbor used to remove and fit masts to ships. Remove the masts, tow the thing out of that harbor, and then fit them again elsewhere. Tell Bezos he as to pay for that, of course.
They likely can - but - the cost of dismantling the bridge and rebuilding it is likely less.
This shipyard has mega yachts before - it built the black pearl back in 2010(ish) which has 70 mtr tall masts).
Likely in this case, it wont even have its masts on at this stage - the hull is to be moved and it sits on a barge. The total height of the hull (including draft) and the barge itsself is likely >40M (max height of the bridge)
The masts for Black Pearl, incidentally, were made in Portsmouth.
Black pearl made it past with something like 4M clearance - that is one deck or so difference....
There are 3 other super sailing yachts >100m in existence and more motor variety - many from this yard. Most of them are owned by Russian Olligarchs
"This shipyard has mega yachts before"
This is the root of the problem. Nice as it would be to simply tell Bezos "Nice boat, but you'll just have to sail it up and down the canal because it can't go any further" reality is that they probably want to keep the shipyard in business contributing to the city's economy. Longer term they should maybe look at relocating the shipyard as being preferable to keeping dismantling the bridge or losing the business.
Of course they could replace the bridge with something equally iconic but designed to open. If all else fails a sightseeing visit to the Tower of London might help.
It is designed to lift open, isn't it? Tower Bridge opens, yes, but there's the walkway above which, if the masts are too big, will foul that too.
SpaceX has the answer. Launch the masts into space every time before going under a low bridge, then land them back on deck the other side of the bridge. Simple!
Launch the masts into space every time before going under a low bridge
No. The problem here is the locals wanting to keep their iconic bridge.
The solution is to make the bridge even more iconic.
So fly the top of the bridge into the sky, wait until ship has passed, land it. It doesn't need to go into actual space, and Bezos himself has the tech to achieve this. Or just have multiple replaceable tops and fire the bridge top into the sea, everytime something huge needs to pass. Bonus points for strapping a million fireworks to it, each time you do this.
"Of course they could replace the bridge with something equally iconic but designed to open. If all else fails a sightseeing visit to the Tower of London might help."
Tower Bridge has 44m clearance a between high tide and the two walkways - not much more than the bridge in Rotterdam.
Longer term they should maybe look at relocating the shipyard as being preferable to keeping dismantling the bridge or losing the business.Of course they could replace the bridge with something equally iconic but designed to open. If all else fails a sightseeing visit to the Tower of London might help.
Since the bridge is no longer used for trains, they could just jack* the whole thing up 10-20m so that future ships (as long as they fit under this new height) can just sail under it as well.
*as in create new permanent additions to the foundations/support pillars to make them taller, raising the entire bridge up.
Yeah, but he will then plan a bigger boat, just because He Can.
Perhaps one way round this egotistical attitude is to emphasise that the best limbo dancers are those that can navigate the lowest bars.
Since the bridge is no longer used for trains, they could just jack* the whole thing up 10-20m so that future ships (as long as they fit under this new height) can just sail under it as well.
*as in create new permanent additions to the foundations/support pillars to make them taller, raising the entire bridge up.
While it is a pretty obvious solution, there are some problems with that, most important one being that it is an official monument so changes to it are absolutely forbidden, even temporary removal for anything else than necessary maintenance is already brushing the edges of the law. Besides that, while the rails have been removed, in case of need it can still be lowered and used as a bridge, which might come in handy if the sea level rises too much as the current bridge right next to it is a lot lower (about five or six meters, say 16 to 20 feet).
>There are 3 other super sailing yachts >100m in existence and more motor variety - many from this yard. Most of them are owned by Russian Olligarchs
But these obviously fitted under this bridge...
Suggest's Bezos wanted something bigger than those oligarchs and the yard got blinded by the money and took the order. It is only now they are having to move it that someone has woken up to the logistics challenge.
Mind you this does seem to indicate Bezos won't be able to sail up the Thames beyond Tower Bridge...
The masts on this thing are not stayed in the conventional manner so unstepping may not be as relatively simple as on conventional modern sailing boats.
The filthy rich are not that bothered by other people's historic bits and pieces, so dismantling a bridge and disrupting the local's is all a part of floating their boat.
I was expecting.the masts to have a bulbous bit at the top though.
Isn't it better that he's spending some (1/2 billion is quite a lot) of his money and not just sitting on it like the aforementioned Smaug? Trickle down economics and all that? Shouldn't we be encouraging MORE of this sort of thing. If he starts spending a few Billion here, a few Billion there (and the rest of them do too) then we all get better off?
Don't get me wrong, I can't stand the little pr1c4. I stopped using the shop several years ago.
Interesting article. I have a radical idea, but YOU AREN'T GOING TO LIKE IT. The problem is that most people, when they get this rich don't pay ANY tax at all. They domicile themselves offshore. And it's almost impossible to stop that, and we've been trying for many years. How about taxing them at a very low rate, say 10% or 15% on anything over £250,000? You could tinker with the figures, but work out a number that the vast majority of rich bastards will ACTUALLY PAY. That way you *might* find that the tax revenues you receive actually go up, because it's not worth trying to dodge it. Also, this might be popular as people would actually expect them to pay this. Make it public and shame those who avoid it.
Of course this all depends on how you measure inequality. Does it matter if the poor get richer (even if the rich get even richer and richer again).
Once you've paid a certain amount into the system, it doesn't make sense to keep increasing the percentage that you put in as you earn more. At least not in my mind. But this might actually make us all better off. I did warn you that you weren't going to like it.
I absolutely agree with the concept, but I don't believe that the rate matters: the wealthy hire tax advisors to minimize their obligations, and as the figures get astronomical, so does the amount of potential savings that can be used to e.g. pay tax advisors.
I think a better approach is to revisit the concept of taxation on stock valuation. A key issue is the idea of taxing unrealized gains, which is currently not possible (for pretty obvious reasons). However, the UK's HMRC is perfectly happy to tax trusts based on their anticipated income in a "it'll all come out in the wash" philosophy, so I wonder if it could be possible to impose recoverable down-payments on people with huge wealth tied up in a single company's stock...?
But HMRC already do tax unrealised gains - look at the pensions of those earning >£120k : get a bonus/increment and the projected pension at age 67 is taxed right now. Even if you are planning to leave earlier.
These bills can be >annual salary and end up being paid out of the pension pot right now (scheme pays).
I know ordinary (well paid) people having to take out second mortgages to cover these.
And don't forget the black hoe of HMRC & NI between 120k and 180k where marginal rate of tax is ~60%
But HMRC already do tax unrealised gains - look at the pensions of those earning >£120k : get a bonus/increment and the projected pension at age 67 is taxed right now. Even if you are planning to leave earlier....
I know ordinary (well paid) people having to take out second mortgages to cover these.
Someone in the UK earning >£120k can't be classed as ordinary - that's four times the British median and in the top two percent of incomes.
The problem with Taxing them, is all taxes are based on income or gains at time of sale.
Rich people don't make most of their money via income. Its all investments, and other financial papershifting.
So, they could be worth a bazillion billion $$, but most of that is paper until it is excised out somehow at just the right time and rate to minimize their capital gains obligation.
As slave labor is frowned upon in the Netherlands the the workers who built Jeff's Yacht and those that made the stuff to go in it were paid for their labors. They then spent some of those wages providing a livelihood to shops and people in the businesses and farms suppling those goods. Income tax and VAT would also have been paid by a great many of those extended pool of workers some of which would be used to pay benefits to those at need. That's trickle down economics working.
I seriously doubt that the state could have done better by taking the money directly from Jeff and distributing it.
Trickle down economics doesn't work.
The article you link to says something very specific. It looks at trickle-down economics from the angle of cutting taxes to "the rich" (that includes companies, etc.). It says that trickle-down economics assumes that the savings will be invested in the economy one way or another and, well, trickle-down will occur. It then says that oftentimes the savings are not put back into economy, so the aforementioned assumption of trickle-down economics is, in general, unfounded.
All that is fine. In this case though, Mr. Bezos whom many love to hate has actually spent almost half a billion bucks. Some of it will, in fact, be paid as taxes, some will get transferred to various vendors up the shipbuilders' supply chain, salaries and bonuses will be paid, employees (and owners, and their families) will spend their income, shops and restaurants and pubs and service providers and employees thereof will get their share, etc.
So in this specific case the basic assumption of trickle-down economics is factually correct and Steve Button's comment was exactly on point. IMHO.
I totally agree that the issue with "trickle down" economics is limited to government intervention to allegedly stimulate spending by providing people who already have tons of cash with more cash.
This idea (and Laffer's literal napkin curve) was fabricated out of whole cloth (or napkin) to justify a "starve the beast" policy designed to make government less relevant to the "left leaning" poor: cut off government programs that might make poor folks care about government, and the rich folks will have even greater control. This has worked exactly as predicted.
[ It is clear that, with all it's faults, taxing the wealthy and then spending the proceeds on society as a whole works better than not taxing the wealthy and hoping they Do Good Things. ]
The problem with Bezos is that he created a hugely successful organization that employs millions of people and took advantage of a (global) tax system that had already been rigged to benefit the wealthy. But he still created the organization and the jobs.... so it would seem clear that the problem isn't him, but the system!
Incidentally, the underlying theory of the Laffer Curve was obviously bogus: countries that had high marginal rates (e.g. the USA prior to 1980) did OK. Many romantically look at the 1950s / 1960s as a time of boom growth, yet the highest marginal rate in 1955 was... 91%. By the 1960s, it was down to 70%. It's now 37%. A key point is that while the 91%/70% figures were high, you could deduct all sorts of things that are now non-deductible, which meant that prior to Laffer wealthy individuals were encouraged to spend on things which would reduce their taxable income. Houses, company cars, boats... oh, look, that's where we came in!
Incidentally, the underlying theory of the Laffer Curve was obviously bogus
No it's very real. The two end points of the curve are undeniable: a tax of 0% will raise nothing and a tax of 100% is not going to raise anything longer than the short term as people will stop working and paying tax if they get no money. The fact that a tax rate between those points does raise money shows there is a curve. It's just the shape of the curve that we might argue about. Doctors are a great example of people currently on the peak of the curve. Changes to pension contribution taxation pushed a lot over the edge who then they choose to retire rather than paying masses of tax. I did too and a close friend of mine now only works 2 days a week as he doesn't fancy working long hours only for the government to take it and piss it away. People trade their time for money in their pocket not money before tax. That is exactly what the Laffer curve is about.
@phuzz
"Trickle down economics doesn't work."
So where did his money go for the boat and for work on the bridge? Does nobody get it? And the people paid by that money do they not spend it?
The link isnt quite correct. This is a curve created by Arthur Laffer, who showed the way that tax cuts create a powerful multiplication effect Arthur Laffer didnt create it although he did make it famous.
Trump’s Tax Cuts and Jobs Act is concerning since this trickle-down policy seems to exacerbate the income inequality spurred by Reaganomics Trump inherited Obama's 'new normal' sluggish economy propped up by government subsidy. Trumps tax cuts increased employment across the board and a white hot economy. The wet pants cry about income inequality is worthless, improved living standards matter and it delivers.
If you do want to live where inequality is small you should try socialist countries where most everyone is equally poor.
@codejunky is, as usual, wrong. This time he might be telling deliberate fibs, too.
Trump oversaw the LOWEST annual GDP growth (1.03%) since President Hoover in the Great Depression.
Obama wasn't much better (1.59%), but the only Presidents who exceeded 3.5% were Democrats (Roosevelt, Kennedy, Johnson and Clinton). Nixon got 3.5% exactly, while Saint Ronald of Reagan missed by a whisker at 3.49%.
True, Trump did increase employment in my sister-in-law's line of business.
She runs mortuaries.
@Malcolm Weir
"as usual, wrong. This time he might be telling deliberate fibs, too."
How? Obama's new normal? He said it. Unemployment fell to the lowest in decades under Trump? True. The stock market reached record levels? True. Obama having 3 terms for you to compare against Trumps 1? Still beat expectations. Are you picking and choosing to claim fibs? I think you are...
You may wish to compare on differing metrics but to claim I am telling fibs is a bit strong.
"True, Trump did increase employment in my sister-in-law's line of business.
She runs mortuaries."
Trump who didnt start wars but ended them? Or do you mean from covid because more have died under Biden than Trump. Not that I credit that to the presidents but it is amusing how Biden claimed Trump shouldnt be president letting so many die.
First, only a complete idiot thinks the stock market has anything much to do with the economy, as this whole article so deftly illustrates: Amazon is listed on NASDAQ, yet here's their founder spending tons-o-cash in Holland. Perhaps you can get a friend to explain how that doesn't help the *US* economy.
Moving on, only a total ignoramous and fool of the highest order would claim that Obama had THREE terms despite, you know, the 22nd Amendment and, well, facts. But even trying to stack the deck (e.g. by creating arbitrary period boundaries), anyone looking at a graph spots the fact that the worst GDP in Obama's terms started in Bush's (the financial crisis), which makes it hard to blame Obama for the policies... Still, he did better than Trump even though he had to clean up Bush's mess, which is sadly for you the facts...
And did unemployment fall to it's lowest level under Trump? It's true, he failed to bugger up the trend that started in 2010, but it's also undeniably true that unemployment under Trump was the highest it's been since 1948! An honest person trying to allocate credit would also acknowledge the blame, so if Trump's policies were responsible (despite the trend line) for the lowest, then they also are responsible for the highest.
As to the COVID deaths and policies that Trump *is* responsible for, have you noticed that it's his "deplorables" that are mostly dying now? I'm kinda OK with that, to be honest, although it would have been better if the silly sod hadn't spend as long denying the problem and personally exposing people to the virus when he had it....
@Malcolm Weir
"First, only a complete idiot thinks the stock market has anything much to do with the economy"
Except to increase the wealth of the people. Be it through investment in companies (which may or may not reside in the country of the market) and through increasing peoples personal wealth such as their pension plans and investments.
"Amazon is listed on NASDAQ, yet here's their founder spending tons-o-cash in Holland. Perhaps you can get a friend to explain how that doesn't help the *US* economy."
Not sure I have that many dumb friends but I do have some acquaintances who might. The idea that money should not be spent beyond the nationalistic shore has been tried and failed over and over. Damaging the currency being 'protected'.
"only a total ignoramous and fool of the highest order would claim that Obama had THREE terms despite"
True. Good catch. My bad for hitting the key next to the one I intended.
"the worst GDP in Obama's terms started in Bush's (the financial crisis)"
Obama inherited Bush's financial crisis Trump inherited Obama's 'new normal'.
"Still, he did better than Trump even though he had to clean up Bush's mess, which is sadly for you the facts..."
Obama inherited a recovering economy from Bush. It was already heading back up from the crash.
"which makes it hard to blame Obama for the policies"
Obama's policies were to continue the policy of Bush in propping up the recovering economy.
"And did unemployment fall to it's lowest level under Trump? It's true, he failed to bugger up the trend that started in 2010"
And managed to plunge unemployment below what was considered the point of full employment. This resulted in serious wage growth.
"but it's also undeniably true that unemployment under Trump was the highest it's been since 1948!"
You dont mean the time of the pandemic caused by China which has buggered economies around the world?
"An honest person trying to allocate credit would also acknowledge the blame, so if Trump's policies were responsible (despite the trend line) for the lowest, then they also are responsible for the highest."
Was it his policy for China to allow the spread of a virus (lab or not) to become a global pandemic? Is that while colluding with Russia?
"As to the COVID deaths and policies that Trump *is* responsible for, have you noticed that it's his "deplorables" that are mostly dying now?"
Thats a pretty disgusting comment. What defines a 'deplorable'? Starting to sound like Hillary telling part of the electorate not to vote for her.
"although it would have been better if the silly sod hadn't spend as long denying the problem and personally exposing people to the virus when he had it...."
Trump acted before the WHO dared call it a pandemic (they held off so as not to offend the Chinese) and got vaccine ordered and delivered to states. Not panicking and overreacting is a fairly good trait.
He doesn't sit on the money - most of it is in the form of Amazon. He just sells some of Amazon (thereby forgoing any future profits on that bit) and someone else takes the profit instead - this is how investments work. Anyhow, him spending money on a yacht just means some of the world's resources have been spent on a yacht, rather than being spent on whatever the person who invested in Amazon shares would have spent it on. The only people better off are yacht manufacturers - the industries where the investor would have otherwise spent their money are worse off by the same amount.
A more extreme example would be someone throwing rocks at your windows. Window manufacturers will be better off, but other businesses where you would otherwise spend your money are worse off.
TLDR: Trickle down economics is a fiction.
No no, he doesn't sell any shares. He goes to the bank and says "give me a loan of $485m". The loan is secured based on the fact that he has access* to that and more in Amazon shares.
That's how rich people end up paying very little/no tax - their personal finances show massive debts, rather than vast amounts of money under the mattress.
*He doesn't really - Bezos couldn't sell any significant number of shares, as (a) if the owner sells shares in their company, it's bad news and the share price would tank, leading to (b) the market probably wouldn't buy them.
The running costs per year are normally 10% of the cost of the thing (according to a mate of mine who likes boats). That’s north of $50m a year which ain’t chump change although probably a drop in the ocean for Mr Bezos. Then there’s tax although there are schemes and the such like to help offset that. Register the thing as available for charter, so set it up as a business and VAT on supplies like fuel evaporates. Although it doesn’t actually need to be able to be chartered just registered as such. So you may find that the super rich list their yacht for charter, but you can’t actually hire it. Wall Street Journal Article
As the old saying goes a yacht will give you the two happiest days of your life: the day you buy it, and the day you sell it.
With apologies for the awful gags, mine’s the one with the book of dodgy nautical sayings in it.
Channel 4 did a comedy show in the 90s with Mark Thomas - just looked it up, 'The Mark Thomas Comedy Product'.
Where they went to various stately homes that the owners had registered as museums for tax purposes, but didn't let the public actually visit. And they tried to visit.
I probably disagree with Mark Thomas on most political subjects. But he usually manages to be funny when having his go, rather than just smugly preaching at people. He's also capable of laughing at himself and 'his own side' - where far too many comedians get sanctimonious instead.
Plus I like his style of bloody-minded protesting. So for example opposing the last Labour government's laws on having to register protests in Central London. His first was to ice their slogan onto a cake - and argue that they weren't having a protest, they were having a tea party. He did an excellent comedy show for Radio 4 about the various barrack-room-lawyering shennanigans he pulled in finding loopholes in the rules and exploiting them for both comedy and political purposes.
the shipyard would have just handed him the boat and said "Here's your new yacht Mr Bezos, exactly as you specified".
But they obviously want to get the contract in 18 months time when he's got bored with it and decides he wants one twice as big. However, as they've demonstrated that they were too stupid to realise this would happen, I think that ship might have, as they say, already sailed.
And this isn't really anything to do with Bezos: the shipyard quoted him the cost of ship (including taking the bridge apart for one day) and he accepted. It's the shipyard at fault (if anyone is), and the local city government seems OK with it (as the shipyard is paying), so there's even more work (apart from building the boat), this time for Rotterdam's bridge construction operatives!
One hopes the City of Rotterdam uses each of these take-bridge-apart/ put-bridge-together exercises as an opportunity to do end-to-end inspections, repairs/ upgrades, &c to the bridge and tags those costs onto whatever Mr. Bezos (and other yacht-builder customers) is paying for the opportunity to say he has something that is "so big" (how big is it, Jeff?), it's so big I had to dismantle a bridge to let it loose.
Well it's really Oceanco's fault for building their shipyard the wrong side of the bridge. Bezos has offered to stump up for the work, which, if it hadn't been agreed to, would mean his yacht being built elsewhere and Rotterdam losing his business. Can't really see how this is Bezos fault, to be honest.
> "The brits can buy real chocolate frogs?!?!" C
But only:
"the finest baby frogs, dew picked and flown from Iraq, cleansed in finest quality spring water, lightly killed, and then sealed in a succulent Swiss quintuple smooth treble cream milk chocolate envelope and lovingly frosted with glucose."
Ah bartender my good man, I fear there may have been some slight, shall we say, creative and not to put too fine a point on it, misunderstanding over what I asked you to provide vis a vis the beverages on offer in this fine establishment, when you suggested you had something on tap that was particularly hoppy...
lightly killed, and then sealed in a succulent Swiss quintuple smooth treble cream milk chocolate
Two errors here. Firstly you don't want to kill them, that ruins the taste. They should be eaten fresh, and 'on-the-hop'.
Secondly posh chocolate descriptions do not use such vulgar descriptions as "sealed" Posh stuff is "enrobed" in the finest Peruvian single estate chocolate, picked by the most beautiful virgins under moonlight...
Here's a pic of the moving part of the bridge lifted out by sheerlegs for the most recent restoration.
https://www.telegraaf.nl/nieuws/1607046888/rotterdamse-brug-de-hef-een-dag-uit-elkaar-voor-megajacht-jeff-bezos
Also includes a pic of the yacht in the yard, on SPMTs to take it for a spin.
It's a monumentally dull looking yacht. Quite apt, I suppose, for an equally dull owner.
Whilst I agree it’s understated on the outside, it still looks better than this ”the Lady K” or this ”Saluzi”.
That picture tells a thousand words. Looks like a large scale, but relatively straightforward procedure. And one that appears to have been routinely done before.
Other than "OMG, look how big a rich guy's yacht is", I don't see any real story here. Probably wouldn't have even been a news article if the yacht's buyer had been kept confidential. Gets the commoners all riled up with wealth envy though.
I wonder if he bought it from an Amazon seller called "Bezo's Floaters" who pays fees to Amazon.ie via Amazon.es, Amazon.uk and Amazon.nl? Of course, as there's a bridge to move as part of the bill, the bridge cost will be ten times what it needs to be and tax deductable as the ship bill is for a floating office ... and there'll probably be a tax rebate for restoring an historic monument ... I wouldn't be surprised if he doesn't make a profit on buying this ship.
More like capitalism’s very own Frankenstein’s monster. No doubt he’ll be looking to save a few euro’s on unnecessary staffing for this bridge deconstruction project... the first time civil engineers in such a project were required to wear a comfort break tracker.
This is all just standard. Strangely enough shipyards have to plan for this sort of stuff all the time. So for example HMS Queen Elizabeth and Prince of Wales have one massive radar mast that won't fit under the Forth Bridge - and so it's on a hydraulic pivot and can lowered so they could get the ship out to sea. Even then I think the clearance was pretty tight, so it probably had to be done when the tide was right.
Whenever big shit gets made, people have to check whether it can be got in and out of the big shit factory, and delivered to wherever it's going to be operated.
The BBC's documentary on Crossrail was fun for rhat sort of thing. London is absolutely full of stuff, and is also very busy. So Crossrail would sometimes have crews out dismantling bridges at midnight to move stuff, and then putting them back in place for the morning rush-hour. Or trying to get loads down roads that were only 10cm wider than they were.
Meanwhile, the rich get richer
It reminds me the end of the Roman Empire. The wealth was more and more concentrated in less and less hands, so finally the Empire was unable to pay for a good army. It had to rely on "barbarians" and wanderers to fill the ranks of what was before an army of well-trained professionals. This led to loosing crucial battles, and in the annihilation of the Western Empire.
We are going the same way. Poor and middle classes crumbles under taxes, when the wealthy ones are more and more wealthy. Because the latter avoid to pay their fair share, States are more and more crumbling under debt and are going straight to the collapse.
Beautiful bridge. As far as I can see, it is useless now and was kept only for the beauty of it.
Yes, it's a great statement for an industrial age now past.
There are local elections coming up and it looks to be turning into a political football (if you could ever play keepy uppy with such a thing). The council says that a 2017 decision for it to never be changed remains, the mayor says no application for dismantling the bridge has been requested, engineers say it could be done in a day, while Bezos the Bald stamps his foot and waves a fistful for Amazon vouchers - which aren't much use to anyone as amazon.nl is pretty shite.
Many people buy paintings purely to stick in security vaults, rather than put on walls, as the Mark Thomas comment earlier demonstrates. I suppose the difference is that paintings naturally appreciate in value, whereas a boat wouldn't, particularly if it was custom-built with no thought to its value at disposal when the ash-trays get full.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
