Honda has New Electric Car that gets 118 Miles per Gallon of Gasoline

Posted by PITHOCRATES - June 10th, 2012

Week in Review

Honda is selling an electric car that can get 118 miles per gallon of gasoline.  Even though this car doesn’t consume a drop of gasoline to go those 118 miles (see Honda electric car gets 118 mpg, but costs add up by Jonathan Fahey and Tom Krisher, Associated Press, posted 6/7/2012 on Yahoo! Autos).

At 118 miles per gallon, the Honda Fit electric vehicle is the most fuel-efficient in the United States. But getting that mileage isn’t cheap — and it isn’t always good for the environment…

The electric Fit has an estimated price tag nearly twice as high as the gasoline-powered version. It would take 11 years before a driver makes up the difference and begins saving on fuel…

People drive an average of almost 13,500 miles a year, so a typical driver would spend $445 on electricity for an electric Fit over a year, and $1,552 on gasoline for a regular Fit…

A fully charged Fit EV can go 82 miles, meaning a daily commute could cost nothing for gasoline.

First of all the 118 miles per gallon is meaningless.  An electric car doesn’t go a single mile on gasoline.  So if you divide the miles you’ve driven by the amount of gasoline you used to go those miles you’re dividing by zero.  When you divide anything by zero you get infinity.  But 118 is NOT infinity.  So there is a formula they use to give you a comparable mpg by calculating cost per mile.  But as gasoline prices and driving distances vary this number is a moving number based on some assumptions.  And, in the end, meaningless.

And speaking of driving distances, who has ever leased a car?  I have.  My lease was for 15,000 miles per year, though.  Not 13,500.  And I went over on miles.  About 3,000 miles.  So let’s assume that the average miles people drive per year is 18,000.  If you divide 18,000 miles by 365 (the number of days in a year) you get 49.3 miles per day.  Leaving you a cushion of 32.7 miles (82-49.3).  Unless you’re running the air conditioner (or heater in winter).  If so subtract about 20% from that 82 miles.  Giving you a range of 65.6.  And a cushion of 16.3 miles.  Or less if you’re car pooling (more weight means shorter battery life).   Or if you’re stuck in rush hour traffic with the air conditioning (or heat) on.  Or run an after work errand.

Pretty soon you’ll be worrying about making it back home.  We call this range anxiety.  Also, few people own a car for 11 years.  The two-year lease is a popular lease for the car may remain under the factory warranty for the term of that lease.  But if you buy an electric car and hold it for 11 years to get your investment out of it there’s a chance it will be out of warranty when you’ll need some big ticket repairs.  Such as replacing the batteries.  It’s why a lot of people lease.  They’ll live with a car payment forever just to have a car that is no older than 2 years and will always start when they need it.  And never have to deal with the hassle of taking the car in for service.  Or get a very expensive out or warranty repair bill.

The electric car market is confusing.  Because we understand gasoline-powered cars.  We understand mileage.  How far we can go on a tank of gas.  And know that it takes only a few minutes to top off the tank.  Which feels like forever if you’re in a hurry.  Imagine having to wait an hour or two to recharge.  That will really feel like forever.  But if you never drive more than 20 miles a day and don’t care about cost savings, you can enjoy driving a car without ever having to visit another gas station.  Which wouldn’t be bad for a retiree.  But not very practical for someone who really puts some miles on a car.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

LESSONS LEARNED #43: “If business ain’t selling, business ain’t hiring.” -Old Pithy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - December 9th, 2010

Before Competition, the Big Three were Living Large

President Obama bailed out GM and Chrysler in 2009.  And why did they need financial help?  The same reason any company needs financial help.  They weren’t selling enough.

I had a finance professor who said few companies have a debt problem.  Companies struggle because they have a revenue problem.  They’re simply not selling enough.  And when a company goes into bankruptcy reorganization, they emerge with the same revenue problems.  Which is why so many still fail after reorganizing and slashing their debt costs.

For decades, the Big Three had a monopoly on the automotive market.  Wherever you lived in the world, if you wanted a car you bought a Ford, GM or Chrysler product.  So the Big Three could charge whatever they wanted for their cars.  That is, until the Japanese entered the market.

Unskilled Line Workers Living Better than Doctors

It was their great success that led to their downfall.  Selling cars with fat profits allowed the Big Three to pay fat wage and benefits.  And they did.  Then the UAW got greedy.  An unskilled line worker could own two houses, a boat, 2 new cars, take expensive vacations, own the latest in toys, etc.  They lived better than doctors.  And doctors were highly skilled.  They spent 8 years in medical school.  And spent a decade of their life paying off the debt from that medical school.  And to add insult to injury, doctors worked 80+ hours per week during that decade when they lived like paupers.  Line workers worked only 40.  And lived like kings.

It was nice work if you could get it.  And many did.  Before the Japanese.  But it all started to come apart in the 1970s.  When the Big Three were selling junk.  Cars that rusted out in a few years.  Unreliable.  Ugly.  These just screamed “we just don’t give a damn anymore.”  More money went to the workers.  Less into making quality cars people wanted.  No problem for the UAW.  I mean, who else were you going to buy a car from?

Hello, what’s this?  Honda?  What’s that?  I’m not sure but it costs less.  And looks pretty good.  Nice quality.  So why should I continue to pay more for less and buy this junk from the Big Three?  Or so went the thinking.  Yes, the Japanese had arrived.  And they were selling something the people wanted.

Fat Wage and Benefit Packages come back to Bite the Big Three in the Ass

So that was the beginning of the end.  Those fat wage and benefit packages for unskilled labor required higher sticker prices than the market was willing to pay.  So they sold fewer cars.  And the Japanese (and, in time, the other imports) sold more.

But it got worse.  Not only were their revenues falling, but their costs were rising.  The Big Three were around for awhile.  They had an aging work force that was retiring.  And getting sick.  Pension and health care costs soared.  Costs per car soared.  While the Japanese were enjoying economies of scales (the more you sell the less each unit costs to make), the Big Three were bleeding red ink all over their balance sheets.

I was in a meeting one time on the floor of an assembly plant.  I was staring at the part of the line where a worker threw insulation into the bottom of the trunk.  She threw in a pad.  Walked over to her coworker at the next station.  Chatted a bit.  Walked back to her station.  Talked to someone else.  Then threw a pad into the next car on the line.  I could just see the red ink bleed.

The Big Three screwed themselves.  In order to cover those fat wage and benefit packages for their unskilled workers, they have to sell cars for a whole lot more than their competition was.  And they couldn’t.  Imagine McDonald’s workers receiving the same wage and benefit packages as the UAW.  And cooking hamburgers at the same pace.  You’d have to wait in line for 45 minutes for your burger.  And you’d pay over $20 for a Quarter Pounder with Cheese.

Buying American is not Necessarily American

I often see those bumper stickers that ask, “Unemployed?  Keep buying foreign.”  Or something like that.  What these people don’t understand, or choose not to understand, is that more people buy cars than make cars.  Paying more for less helps the few people that build cars.  While they enjoy a very good life, the greater number of buyers of those cars have to get by on less.  So the economy as a whole gets worse.  To help a group of unskilled workers live a better life than our own.

Is that fair?  Making the majority subsidize a minority elite?  Unless you live in North Korea or Cuba, the answer is, of course, ‘no’.  So we choose to buy what gives us the most value for our money.  Which is why the Japanese upstart Toyota would see the day when they would sell more cars than GM.  And why did they reach this remarkable milestone?  Because they were selling what people were willing to buy.

Interestingly, the GM and Chrysler bailouts were not your run of the mill reorganizations.  By the power the government gave itself, they walked all over the Rule of Law.  These companies didn’t have a debt problem.  Not anymore, at least.  Because the government screwed the bondholders.  And who did they reward?  That’s right, those unskilled UAW line workers.  The reorganization gave them shares in the new company for no other reason other than being politically loyal to the Democrat Party.  They weren’t even in the line of secured creditors, but that didn’t stop them from jumping to the head of that line.  Remarkable, really.  The Rule of Law had become merely a suggestion.

And when the union sold those ‘gift’ shares of stock they funded their unfunded pension liabilities.  While retirees who invested their life savings into GM bonds lost everything and had to get a job at McDonald’s.  Because McDonald’s is always hiring.  Because they are always selling something people want to buy.

McDonald’s can still Hire during Bad Economic Times

Like my finance professor said, no company fails because of a debt/cost problem.  A debt/cost problem happens when something happens to revenue.  And the biggest reason a business has a revenue problem is because of competition.  Someone somewhere is selling more for less.  Giving the people more bang for the buck.

During bad economic times, revenue problems quickly turn into cost problems.  For some.  Auto manufacturers may idle a shift at an assembly plant, laying off hundreds.  Because there’s no point in making cars no one is buying.  And these manufacturers simply cannot afford to pay these fat wage and benefit packages if they’re not selling cars.

But not everyone has the same financial problems during a recession.  Some still hire during bad economic times.  McDonald’s for one.  Why?  A couple of reasons.  Their workers don’t belong to the UAW.  Because of this we can still call McDonald’s fast food.  And your typical McDonald’s worker doesn’t own two houses, two cars and a boat.  So we don’t have to pay $37.50 for a #2 combo meal. 

We’re buying what McDonald’s is selling.  So they can hire people.  Even during bad economic times.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

LESSONS LEARNED #27: “Yes, it’s the economy, but the economy is not JUST monetary policy, stupid.” -Old Pithy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - August 19th, 2010

WHAT GAVE BIRTH to the Federal Reserve System and our current monetary policy?  The Panic of 1907.  Without going into the details, there was a liquidity crisis.  The Knickerbocker Trust tried to corner the market in copper.  But someone else dumped copper on the market which dropped the price.  The trust failed.  Because of the money involved, a lot of banks, too, failed.  Depositors, scared, created bank runs.  As banks failed, the money supply contracted.  Businesses failed.  The stock market crashed (losing 50% of its value).  And all of this happened during an economic recession.

So, in 1913, Congress passed the Federal Reserve Act, creating the Federal Reserve System (the Fed).  This was, basically, a central bank.  It was to be a bank to the banks.  A lender of last resort.  It would inject liquidity into the economy during a liquidity crisis.  Thus ending forever panics like that in 1907.  And making the business cycle (the boom – bust economic cycles) a thing of the past.

The Fed has three basic monetary tools.  How they use these either increases or decreases the money supply.  And increases or decreases interest rates.

They can change reserve requirements for banks.  The more reserves banks must hold the less they can lend.  The less they need to hold the more they can lend.  When they lend more, they increase the money supply.  When they lend less, they decrease the money supply.  The more they lend the easier it is to get a loan.  This decreases interest rates (i.e., lowers the ‘price’ of money).  The less they lend the harder it is to get a loan.  This increases interest rates (i.e., raises the ‘price’ of money). 

The Fed ‘manages’ the money supply and the interest rates in two other ways.  They buy and sell U.S. Treasury securities.  And they adjust the discount rate they charge member banks to borrow from them.  Each of these actions either increases or decreases the money supply and/or raises or lowers interest rates.  The idea is to make money easier to borrow when the economy is slow.  This is supposed to make it easier for businesses to expand production and hire people.  If the economy is overheating and there is a risk of inflation, they take the opposite action.  They make it more difficult to borrow money.  Which increases the cost of doing business.  Which slows the economy.  Lays people off.  Which avoids inflation.

The problem with this is the invisible hand that Adam Smith talked about.  In a laissez-faire economy, no one person or one group controls anything.  Instead, millions upon millions of people interact with each other.  They make millions upon millions of decisions.  These are informed decisions in a free market.  At the heart of each decision is a buyer and a seller.  And they mutually agree in this decision making process.  The buyer pays at least as much as the seller wants.  The seller sells for at least as little as the buyer wants.  If they didn’t, they would not conclude their sales transaction.  When we multiply this basic transaction by the millions upon millions of people in the market place, we arrive at that invisible hand.  Everyone looking out for their own self-interest guides the economy as a whole.  The bad decisions of a few have no affect on the economy as a whole.

Now replace the invisible hand with government and what do you get?  A managed economy.  And that’s what the Fed does.  It manages the economy.  It takes the power of those millions upon millions of decisions and places them into the hands of a very few.  And, there, a few bad decisions can have a devastating impact upon the economy.

TO PAY FOR World War I, Woodrow Wilson and his Progressives heavily taxed the American people.  The war left America with a huge debt.  And in a recession.  During the 1920 election, the Democrats ran on a platform of continued high taxation to pay down the debt.  Andrew Mellon, though, had done a study of the rich in relation to those high taxes.  He found the higher the tax, the more the rich invested outside the country.  Instead of building factories and employing people, they took their money to places less punishing to capital.

Warren G. Harding won the 1920 election.  And he appointed Andrew Mellon his Treasury secretary.  Never since Alexander Hamilton had a Treasury secretary understood capitalism as well.  The Harding administration cut tax rates and the amount of tax money paid by the ‘rich’ more than doubled.  Economic activity flourished.  Businesses expanded and added jobs.  The nation modernized with the latest technologies (electric power and appliances, radio, cars, aviation, etc.).  One of the best economies ever.  Until the Fed got involved.

The Fed looked at this economic activity and saw speculation.  So they contracted the money supply.  This made it hard for business to expand to meet the growing demand.  When money is less readily available, you begin to stockpile what you have.  You add to that pile by selling liquid securities to build a bigger cash cushion to get you through tight monetary times.

Of course, the economy is NOT just monetary policy.  Those businesses were looking at other things the government was doing.  The Smoot-Hartley tariff was in committee.  Across the board tariff increases and import restrictions create uncertainty.  Business does not like uncertainty.  So they increase their liquidity.  To prepare for the worse.  Then the stock market crashed.  Then it got worse. 

It is at this time that the liquidity crisis became critical.  Depositors lost faith.  Bank runs followed.  But there just was not enough money available.  Banks began to fail.  Time for the Fed to step in and take action.  Per the Federal Reserve Act of 1913.  But they did nothing.  For a long while.  Then they took action.  And made matters worse.  They raised interest rates.  In response to England going off the gold standard (to prop up the dollar).  Exactly the wrong thing to do in a deflationary spiral.  This took a bad recession to the Great Depression.  The 1930s would become a lost decade.

When FDR took office, he tried to fix things with some Keynesian spending.  But nothing worked.  High taxes along with high government spending sucked life out of the private sector.  This unprecedented growth in government filled business with uncertainty.  They had no idea what was coming next.  So they hunkered down.  And prepared to weather more bad times.  It took a world war to end the Great Depression.  And only because the government abandoned much of its controls and let business do what they do best.  Pure, unfettered capitalism.  American industry came to life.  It built the war material to first win World War II.  Then it rebuilt the war torn countries after the war.

DURING THE 1980s, in Japan, government was partnering with business.  It was mercantilism at its best.  Japan Inc.  The economy boomed.  And blew great big bubbles.  The Keynesians in America held up the Japanese model as the new direction for America.  An American presidential candidate said we must partner government with business, too.  For only a fool could not see the success of the Japanese example.  Japan was growing rich.  And buying up American landmarks (including Rockefeller Center in New York).  National Lampoon magazine welcomed us to the 90s with a picture of a Japanese CEO at his desk.  He was the CEO of the United States of America, a wholly owned subsidiary of the Honda Motor Company.  The Japanese were taking over the world.  And we were stupid not to follow their lead.

But there was no invisible hand in Japan.  It was the hand of Japan Inc.  It was Japan Inc. that pursued economic policies that it thought best.  Not the millions upon millions of ordinary Japanese citizens.  Well, Japan Inc. thought wrong. 

There was collusion between Japanese businesses.  And collusion between Japanese businesses and government.  And corruption.  This greatly inflated the Japanese stock market.  And those great big bubbles finally burst.  The powerful Japan Inc. of the 1980s that caused fear and trembling was gone.  Replaced by a Japan in a deflationary spiral in the 1990s.  Or, as the Japanese call it, their lost decade.  This once great Asian Tiger was now an older tiger with a bit of a limp.   And the economy limped along for a decade or two.  It was still number 3 in the world, but it wasn’t what it used to be.  You don’t see magazine covers talking about it owning other nations any more.  (In 2010, China took over that #3 spot.  But China is a managed economy.   Will it suffer Japan’s fate?  Time will tell.)

The Japanese monetary authorities tried to fix the economy.  Interest rates were zero for about a decade.  In other words, if you wanted to borrow, it was easy.  And free.  But it didn’t help.  That huge economic expansion wasn’t real.  Business and government, in collusion, inflated and propped it up.  It gave them inflated capacity.  And prices.  And you don’t solve that problem by making it easier for businesses to borrow money to expand capacity and create jobs.  That’s the last thing they need.  What they need to do is to get out of the business of managing business.  Create a business-friendly climate.  Based on free-market principles.  Not mercantilism.  And let that invisible hand work its wonders.

MONETARY POLICY CAN do a lot of things.  Most of them bad.  Because it concentrates far too much power in too few hands.  The consequences of the mistakes of those making policy can be devastating.  And too tempting to those who want to use those powers for political reasons.  As we can see by Keynesian ‘stimulus’ spending that ends up as pork barrel spending.  The empirical data for that spending has shown that it stimulates only those who are in good standing with the powers that be.  Never the economy.

Sound money is important.  The money supply needs to keep pace with economic expansion.  If it doesn’t, a tight money supply will slow or halt economic activity.  But we have to use monetary policy for that purpose only.  We cannot use it to offset bad fiscal policy that is anti-business.  For if the government creates an anti-business environment, no amount of cheap money will encourage risk takers to take risks in a highly risky and uncertain environment.  Decades were lost trying.

No, you don’t stimulate with monetary policy.  You stimulate with fiscal policy.  There is empirical evidence that this works.  The Mellon tax cuts of the Harding administration created nearly a decade of strong economic growth.  The tax cuts of JFK were on pace to create similar growth until his assassination.  LBJ’s policies were in the opposite direction, thus ending the economic recovery of the JFK administration.  Ronald Reagan’s tax cuts produced economic growth through two decades. 

THE EVIDENCE IS there.  If you look at it.  Of course, a good Keynesian won’t.  Because it’s about political power for them.  Always has been.  Always will be.  And we should never forget this.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,