A: All those finicky consumers who don't want to pay for a worthless vehicle.
http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=550957&p=2
Aside from the fact that electric cars are not nearly as 'green' as they are purported to be (post coming on that later this week), the real problem with them is they will not provide consumers with what they want at a price they are willing to pay. I have not seen the movie but I gather from passionate friends that the idea is circulating that some entity 'killed' the electric car in order to preserve the gasoline burning engine's position in the marketplace.
First off, that's ridiculous on its face because there's STILL no electric that will compete for virtually any niche in the auto market! The price/performance tradeoffs are huge - and that's even if you ignore the painful reality that at some point - 3 to 5 years of driving later - you'll be stuck with an old electric car with a dead battery which will require many thousands of dollars to replace. Old gasoline cars may be ugly and less reliable, but they don't generally become worthless overnight due to aging parts.
Secondly, capitalism needn't head off competition by "killing". GM and others are showing now how much they believe a good electric car will make. They bet big (on the equivalent of an inside strait) that the battery technology would mature fast enough that they could bring the Volt to market and profit thereby (if they took this kind of risk with capital for any other reason, they are even more retarded at GM than we generally believe them to be). Capitalists make money by their expertise. The electric car is not a threat to a well run, well funded gasoline auto manufacturer - nor to an oil company - it is another opportunity by which to apply their expertise in transforming stuff that's worth relatively little - steel, copper, rubber, aluminum, vynil, leather, chrome, etc) into something that's worth A LOT MORE. A LOT MORE is a technical term that in this case means "enough money to pay employees, manufacturing overhead, taxes, legal expenses, etc, and still make a hefty profit" but which customers are willing to pay. There's rub for the electric car. It was true when "Who Killed the Electric Car" was made, as it is now.
Excerpts from above linked article:
"Government Motors' all-electric car isn't all-electric and doesn't get near the touted hundreds of miles per gallon. Like "shovel-ready" jobs, maybe there's no such thing as "plug-ready" cars either.
"The Chevy Volt, hailed by the Obama administration as the electric savior of the auto industry and the planet, makes its debut in showrooms next month, but it's already being rolled out for test drives by journalists. It appears we're all being taken for a ride.
"Advertised as an all-electric car that could drive 50 miles on its lithium battery, GM addressed concerns about where you plug the thing in en route to grandma's house by adding a small gasoline engine to help maintain the charge on the battery as it starts to run down. It was still an electric car, we were told, and not a hybrid on steroids.
"That's not quite true. The gasoline engine has been found to be more than a range-extender for the battery. Volt engineers are now admitting that when the vehicle's lithium-ion battery pack runs down and at speeds near or above 70 mph, the Volt's gasoline engine will directly drive the front wheels along with the electric motors.
"So it's not an all-electric car, but rather a pricey $41,000 hybrid that requires a taxpayer-funded $7,500 subsidy to get car shoppers to look at it.
"Popular Mechanics found the Volt to get about 37.5 mpg in city driving, and Motor Trend reports: "Without any plugging in, (a weeklong trip to Grandma's house) should return fuel economy in the high 30s to low 40s."
"Car and Driver reported that "getting on the nearest highway and commuting with the 80-mph flow of traffic — basically the worst-case scenario — yielded 26 miles; a fairly spirited backroad loop netted 31; and a carefully modulated cruise below 60 mph pushed the figure into the upper 30s."
"This is what happens when government picks winners and losers in the marketplace and tries to run a business. We are not told that we will be dependent on foreign sources like Bolivia for the lithium to be used in these batteries. Nor are we told about the possible dangers to rescuers and occupants in an accident scenario.
"In 2008, candidate Obama pledged to put 1 million plug-in vehicles on the road by 2015. Not likely. It was a tough sell when we thought it was all-electric and could get 230 mpg. It will be a tougher sell now that we find it's a glorified Prius with the price tag of a BMW that seats only four because of a battery that runs down the center of the car."
No one had to "kill" the electric car - as the author points out, like the Edsel it was and is a bad idea and perhaps being badly executed as well.
I remain hopeful the technoogy matures, and the electrical power sources to support electric cars evolve, and the sooner the better.
Thursday, October 21, 2010
Harsanyi - "Bitter Clinger" Perspective
http://www.denverpost.com/harsanyi/ci_16379830
"Many of my more enlightened friends like to ask me: How could someone as intellectually gifted, delightfully urbane, profoundly moral and breathlessly handsome [as you] not want to spit at these stupid Tea Party candidates with their stupid positions and their stupid stupidity?"
"Do I wish that Colorado senatorial candidate Ken Buck hadn't declared that being gay was a choice (as if there's something wrong with choosing to be gay)? Yes. Do I wish he hadn't followed up by comparing a gay genetic predisposition with alcoholism? I do. If you were brainy enough to watch "Meet the Press" instead of wasting time in church last Sunday, no doubt you cringed at this primitive lunacy."
--Note from Apolloswabbie to aspiring politicians, if asked this question, answer with the obvious: "Look I'm a politician. What I believe about genetics is irrelevant. Ask me what I think about the Constitution and individual rights. Specifically, does the Constitution afford extra rights, or specify fewer individual rights, due to genetic variation?"
Harsanyi continues: "After all, what's more consequential than a faux pas about nature and/or nurture? Who cares that Democrat Michael Bennet was busy moralizing about the cosmic benefits of dubious economic theory and science fiction environmentalism — ideas that have already cost us trillions with nothing to show for it?
"Just as long as we stay focused on what's important, right? We're so easily distracted.
"Those who believe being gay is a choice are Neanderthals. The enlightened trust science. That's why the president appointed a science czar, people. A science czar who co-authored a textbook arguing for mass sterilizing of Americans to prevent an imagined population bomb. You know, "science.""
--Government is to science what human fertility is to pure thought (Caveat - that's assuming you interpret lust as impurity, in the context of human reproduction, it could be considered with gluttony and thirst as the only pure thoughts)
Harsanyi: "God has no place in this faith. That's not to say that Yahweh has anything on our president, who once claimed future generations would see his election — Goliath government — as the point in history where we finally started "healing the sick" and "the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal . . . ."
"Now, that's the kind of faith-inflected lingo we slack-jawed yokels can comprehend. Otherwise, the left's plans are just too darn complex for us to appreciate."
--I can't figure out why anyone's disenchanted with the President, can you? Certainly not because he built over-much expectation for his Presidency ... But on that topic, I could almost imagine how people would believe that he thought he could slow the rise of the oceans and 'heal' the planet, but how did they ever buy the one about changing fundamentally the way polics and government are done?!?
Harsanyi: ""Part of the reason that our politics seems so tough right now," Obama recently explained, "and facts and science and argument [do] not seem to be winning the day all the time is because we're hard-wired not to always think clearly when we're scared. And the country is scared.""
--The implication being that we WERE thinking clearly and using facts and science two years ago when we selected him ... holy patronization Batman.
Mr. President, I think what a lot of people are scared of is more government intervention.
I think I can understand The President's frustration (and to be clear, I don't mean in this discussion to display any personal disrespect). The Candidate told everyone what he was about - his candidacy was an advocacy of time honored liberal tenets which have all been advocated by liberals since at least FDR, if not before. Certainly he espoused his support for the 'positive rights' which should be added to the Constitution (that is to say, making it a right of one person to have something which government takes from another person, such as medical care or a place to live). He espoused an energy policy that was first articulated well by President Carter. He espoused government intervention in virtually every arena under discussion. He espoused consistent, across the board support of that Federal government supported entity ("unions") which allow one group (those in the union) a coercive government monopoly on employment with their employer. And, he said he would fundamentally change politics, eliminating things like conflicts of interest, partisanship, earmarks, lobbiests employed by those elected to represent the People, etc. He even added his intent to be fiscally responsible. In his mind, everything he's done since then was something he said he would do.
The problem, as best I can tell, is that many of the folks who voted for him heard something entirely different than what he was saying. They didn't hear him saying "I'm going to do this like every liberal has wanted it done for 80 years." They thought he was something that he was not. They were confused, and I assume, heard what they wanted to hear because of the Candidate's considerable charm. Now, they are not charmed. They can see him for what he is, which is someone that believes in a lot more government intervention and power than they do. They no longer support him. The President cannot be blamed for that, but probably feels blamed for that. If I were in his shoes and something like this happened to me, I would be very frustrated. Perhaps I would blame it on something like a conditional irrationality and a sudden distaste for science amongst the masses.
I wonder how good one would have to be as a politician to follow the advice of 'under promise and over deliver' but still get elected in the first place.
"Many of my more enlightened friends like to ask me: How could someone as intellectually gifted, delightfully urbane, profoundly moral and breathlessly handsome [as you] not want to spit at these stupid Tea Party candidates with their stupid positions and their stupid stupidity?"
"Do I wish that Colorado senatorial candidate Ken Buck hadn't declared that being gay was a choice (as if there's something wrong with choosing to be gay)? Yes. Do I wish he hadn't followed up by comparing a gay genetic predisposition with alcoholism? I do. If you were brainy enough to watch "Meet the Press" instead of wasting time in church last Sunday, no doubt you cringed at this primitive lunacy."
--Note from Apolloswabbie to aspiring politicians, if asked this question, answer with the obvious: "Look I'm a politician. What I believe about genetics is irrelevant. Ask me what I think about the Constitution and individual rights. Specifically, does the Constitution afford extra rights, or specify fewer individual rights, due to genetic variation?"
Harsanyi continues: "After all, what's more consequential than a faux pas about nature and/or nurture? Who cares that Democrat Michael Bennet was busy moralizing about the cosmic benefits of dubious economic theory and science fiction environmentalism — ideas that have already cost us trillions with nothing to show for it?
"Just as long as we stay focused on what's important, right? We're so easily distracted.
"Those who believe being gay is a choice are Neanderthals. The enlightened trust science. That's why the president appointed a science czar, people. A science czar who co-authored a textbook arguing for mass sterilizing of Americans to prevent an imagined population bomb. You know, "science.""
--Government is to science what human fertility is to pure thought (Caveat - that's assuming you interpret lust as impurity, in the context of human reproduction, it could be considered with gluttony and thirst as the only pure thoughts)
Harsanyi: "God has no place in this faith. That's not to say that Yahweh has anything on our president, who once claimed future generations would see his election — Goliath government — as the point in history where we finally started "healing the sick" and "the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal . . . ."
"Now, that's the kind of faith-inflected lingo we slack-jawed yokels can comprehend. Otherwise, the left's plans are just too darn complex for us to appreciate."
--I can't figure out why anyone's disenchanted with the President, can you? Certainly not because he built over-much expectation for his Presidency ... But on that topic, I could almost imagine how people would believe that he thought he could slow the rise of the oceans and 'heal' the planet, but how did they ever buy the one about changing fundamentally the way polics and government are done?!?
Harsanyi: ""Part of the reason that our politics seems so tough right now," Obama recently explained, "and facts and science and argument [do] not seem to be winning the day all the time is because we're hard-wired not to always think clearly when we're scared. And the country is scared.""
--The implication being that we WERE thinking clearly and using facts and science two years ago when we selected him ... holy patronization Batman.
Mr. President, I think what a lot of people are scared of is more government intervention.
I think I can understand The President's frustration (and to be clear, I don't mean in this discussion to display any personal disrespect). The Candidate told everyone what he was about - his candidacy was an advocacy of time honored liberal tenets which have all been advocated by liberals since at least FDR, if not before. Certainly he espoused his support for the 'positive rights' which should be added to the Constitution (that is to say, making it a right of one person to have something which government takes from another person, such as medical care or a place to live). He espoused an energy policy that was first articulated well by President Carter. He espoused government intervention in virtually every arena under discussion. He espoused consistent, across the board support of that Federal government supported entity ("unions") which allow one group (those in the union) a coercive government monopoly on employment with their employer. And, he said he would fundamentally change politics, eliminating things like conflicts of interest, partisanship, earmarks, lobbiests employed by those elected to represent the People, etc. He even added his intent to be fiscally responsible. In his mind, everything he's done since then was something he said he would do.
The problem, as best I can tell, is that many of the folks who voted for him heard something entirely different than what he was saying. They didn't hear him saying "I'm going to do this like every liberal has wanted it done for 80 years." They thought he was something that he was not. They were confused, and I assume, heard what they wanted to hear because of the Candidate's considerable charm. Now, they are not charmed. They can see him for what he is, which is someone that believes in a lot more government intervention and power than they do. They no longer support him. The President cannot be blamed for that, but probably feels blamed for that. If I were in his shoes and something like this happened to me, I would be very frustrated. Perhaps I would blame it on something like a conditional irrationality and a sudden distaste for science amongst the masses.
I wonder how good one would have to be as a politician to follow the advice of 'under promise and over deliver' but still get elected in the first place.
Soaked In It
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/25/opinion/25friedman.html?_r=1
This author is so soaked in 'governmentalism' that he can't see the incredible contradictions in what he's writing - he essentially is saying 'we know what works and it's all of our faults that we have not fixed this before by putting the needs of children ahead of the needs of adults.' As if that's possible through government ... Government is the process of using legal coercive power, and it is only justified when that coercive force is used to defend the rights of individuals. With public schools, the government's monopoly on force is used to extract wealth from citizens, and is then distributed to various political entities in order to sustain the status quo the politicians desire. We get a school that is directed according to political whim and near zero accountability, subject to political correctness and feel good logic, and it's amazing any of these schools work or that any good teachers are willing to remain (or enter) such a system - and to those of you who do, thank the heavens (my daughter is in public school this year and her teacher is a treasure).
Political institutions exist to serve political needs, which does not unfortunately include creating excellence in anything - but if Mr. Friedman sees a wave of school performance coming, I hope he's right. There's a first time for everything.
This author is so soaked in 'governmentalism' that he can't see the incredible contradictions in what he's writing - he essentially is saying 'we know what works and it's all of our faults that we have not fixed this before by putting the needs of children ahead of the needs of adults.' As if that's possible through government ... Government is the process of using legal coercive power, and it is only justified when that coercive force is used to defend the rights of individuals. With public schools, the government's monopoly on force is used to extract wealth from citizens, and is then distributed to various political entities in order to sustain the status quo the politicians desire. We get a school that is directed according to political whim and near zero accountability, subject to political correctness and feel good logic, and it's amazing any of these schools work or that any good teachers are willing to remain (or enter) such a system - and to those of you who do, thank the heavens (my daughter is in public school this year and her teacher is a treasure).
Political institutions exist to serve political needs, which does not unfortunately include creating excellence in anything - but if Mr. Friedman sees a wave of school performance coming, I hope he's right. There's a first time for everything.
Wednesday, October 20, 2010
Job Killers
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columns/OpEd-Contributor/Arthur-Brooks-Top-10-ways-government-kills-jobs-in-America-105302968.html
These were the top five from this article. So how does the government help the economy? Get the heck out of the way!
"1. Uncertainty and business: What you don’t know can (and does) hurt you. Businesses plan around rules. And they are unlikely to invest if they can’t be reasonably sure about what the rules will be. When things are uncertain, businesses hold back cash to protect themselves—and this kills jobs. My colleague Allan Meltzer has made this point in two recent WSJ op-eds: “High uncertainty is the enemy of investment and growth,” he declares in one. “The most important restriction on investment today is not tight monetary policy, but uncertainty about administration policy,” he argues in the other.
"2. Uncertainty and the consumer: Uncertainty isn’t just bad for companies—it’s bad for consumers, too. If I think government policy may provoke a double dip in the economy and my job is on the line, there’s no way I’m going out to buy a new car. For that matter, even the possibility of a huge gas tax would make me less likely to make a car purchase decision. All this kills jobs.
"3. High corporate taxes: Americans are shocked to learn that we have some of the highest corporate taxes in the world. In fact, Japan is the only developed country with a higher corporate tax rate than the United States. Whether we like it or not, the corporate tax is a tax on jobs. It makes it more expensive for firms to function, which costs jobs. But even worse, it drives companies to find more tax-friendly environments in other countries.
"4. Unhealthy health insurance costs: The high health insurance costs associated with hiring new workers hits small businesses particularly hard, according to AEI economist Aparna Mathur. Government health mandates specify exactly what kinds of coverage have to be included in insurance policies. This makes increasing headcount a costly exercise, and so kills jobs. One major CEO told me recently that his hiring was stunted by the new mandate to cover workers’ kids up to age 26.
"5. The threat of unionization: In a global economy, it’s fairly simple for a lot of firms to avoid unionization: They can move overseas and take their jobs with them. Policies that favor unions make this decision more attractive."
Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columns/OpEd-Contributor/Arthur-Brooks-Top-10-ways-government-kills-jobs-in-America-105302968.html#ixzz12uWJrp57
These were the top five from this article. So how does the government help the economy? Get the heck out of the way!
"1. Uncertainty and business: What you don’t know can (and does) hurt you. Businesses plan around rules. And they are unlikely to invest if they can’t be reasonably sure about what the rules will be. When things are uncertain, businesses hold back cash to protect themselves—and this kills jobs. My colleague Allan Meltzer has made this point in two recent WSJ op-eds: “High uncertainty is the enemy of investment and growth,” he declares in one. “The most important restriction on investment today is not tight monetary policy, but uncertainty about administration policy,” he argues in the other.
"2. Uncertainty and the consumer: Uncertainty isn’t just bad for companies—it’s bad for consumers, too. If I think government policy may provoke a double dip in the economy and my job is on the line, there’s no way I’m going out to buy a new car. For that matter, even the possibility of a huge gas tax would make me less likely to make a car purchase decision. All this kills jobs.
"3. High corporate taxes: Americans are shocked to learn that we have some of the highest corporate taxes in the world. In fact, Japan is the only developed country with a higher corporate tax rate than the United States. Whether we like it or not, the corporate tax is a tax on jobs. It makes it more expensive for firms to function, which costs jobs. But even worse, it drives companies to find more tax-friendly environments in other countries.
"4. Unhealthy health insurance costs: The high health insurance costs associated with hiring new workers hits small businesses particularly hard, according to AEI economist Aparna Mathur. Government health mandates specify exactly what kinds of coverage have to be included in insurance policies. This makes increasing headcount a costly exercise, and so kills jobs. One major CEO told me recently that his hiring was stunted by the new mandate to cover workers’ kids up to age 26.
"5. The threat of unionization: In a global economy, it’s fairly simple for a lot of firms to avoid unionization: They can move overseas and take their jobs with them. Policies that favor unions make this decision more attractive."
Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columns/OpEd-Contributor/Arthur-Brooks-Top-10-ways-government-kills-jobs-in-America-105302968.html#ixzz12uWJrp57
Tuesday, October 19, 2010
How To Stagflate
"They announced this with a seemingly innocuous statement: that they'd keep their current level of debt at about $2 trillion. In Fed-speak this means they're clearly worried about the sinking economy, and that they'll print as much fiat money as they think is necessary to increase the money supply to induce inflation.
"In economic terms, buying Treasury debt is called "monetizing" debt. In plain English it means that the government prints money to pay for its debts. This policy has been the downfall of many governments who destroy their currency through hyperinflation.
"As soon as unemployment starts to go up again, and I believe it will, the politicians will be all over the Fed to "do something." That "something" will be massive QE. I'm quite sure that the Fed hasn't figured out how much QE they'll need, and that they're unsure of its impact on the economy.
"I have a pretty good idea of where it will all end up. Since they're not dealing with the underlying problems, this papering over of the problems will lead to inflation and economic stagnation, a phenomenon we saw in the 1970s called "stagflation.""
http://www.minyanville.com/businessmarkets/articles/stagflation-inflation-deflation-hyperinflation-money-printing/8/23/2010/id/29730?page=full
A little dated but interesting.
"In economic terms, buying Treasury debt is called "monetizing" debt. In plain English it means that the government prints money to pay for its debts. This policy has been the downfall of many governments who destroy their currency through hyperinflation.
"As soon as unemployment starts to go up again, and I believe it will, the politicians will be all over the Fed to "do something." That "something" will be massive QE. I'm quite sure that the Fed hasn't figured out how much QE they'll need, and that they're unsure of its impact on the economy.
"I have a pretty good idea of where it will all end up. Since they're not dealing with the underlying problems, this papering over of the problems will lead to inflation and economic stagnation, a phenomenon we saw in the 1970s called "stagflation.""
http://www.minyanville.com/businessmarkets/articles/stagflation-inflation-deflation-hyperinflation-money-printing/8/23/2010/id/29730?page=full
A little dated but interesting.
Monday, October 18, 2010
Making Sense of the Tea Partiers
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/18/opinion/18douthat.html?_r=1&ref=opinion
I think for those who can't sort these folk out, they can't quite get their hands around the idea that many Americans really don't trust the government. The feeling amonst the liberal believers was they had finallly found the man who bring the centrists over to the liberal/big government side. They thought the triumph of President Obama was in seducing the many to another perspective. And why wouldn't they believe that - it would be easier to believe that than to believe the truth. The truth is that most of the middle did not understand, could not or would not believe, how far to the left then candidate Obama was. At the time, that's what puzzled me. He was clearly proclaiming what now seems obvious, but folks ignored it. Maybe they had to ignore it because the alternative was a candidate not even the GOP wanted.
The Presidency is a job that would be so distasteful to any 'normal' person that I don't think anyone that we should want to vote for will ever be a realistic candidate.
"Please elect me so that I can not have a personal life, I can be criticized soundly for those things completely out of my control, I can be presented with problems for which there is no solution (but I'm still supposed to act like I think there is a solution), and I can age 8-12 years years in the first four that I'm in office."
Such a deal.
I think for those who can't sort these folk out, they can't quite get their hands around the idea that many Americans really don't trust the government. The feeling amonst the liberal believers was they had finallly found the man who bring the centrists over to the liberal/big government side. They thought the triumph of President Obama was in seducing the many to another perspective. And why wouldn't they believe that - it would be easier to believe that than to believe the truth. The truth is that most of the middle did not understand, could not or would not believe, how far to the left then candidate Obama was. At the time, that's what puzzled me. He was clearly proclaiming what now seems obvious, but folks ignored it. Maybe they had to ignore it because the alternative was a candidate not even the GOP wanted.
The Presidency is a job that would be so distasteful to any 'normal' person that I don't think anyone that we should want to vote for will ever be a realistic candidate.
"Please elect me so that I can not have a personal life, I can be criticized soundly for those things completely out of my control, I can be presented with problems for which there is no solution (but I'm still supposed to act like I think there is a solution), and I can age 8-12 years years in the first four that I'm in office."
Such a deal.
"Posted: 17 Oct 2010 07:14 AM PDT http://www.cafehayek.com/
"Here’s a letter to the New York Times:
"Explaining the political necessity that many Democrats feel to publicly denounce House Speaker Nancy Pelosi – and conceding that these denunciations will cause problems for Democrats in the next Congress – Democratic political strategist Mark Mellman says “But more people are concerned about winning than about whatever post-election problems we might have” (“Pelosi Renounced by Candidates in Her Own Party <http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/17/us/politics/17pelosi.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=%22pelosi%20renounced%22&st=cse> ,” Oct. 16).
"I admire Mr. Mellman’s honesty. Public-choice <http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/PublicChoice.html> scholars, such as my (now-retired) George Mason University colleagues James Buchanan <http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/bios/Buchanan.html> and Gordon Tullock <http://economics.about.com/cs/nobelwinners/p/tullock.htm> , have long argued that politicians’ vision never extends beyond the next election. The consequence of this political myopia is that, contrary to popular myth, government is not uniquely concerned with the future; instead, politicians too frequently sacrifice the public’s long-run welfare in exchange for the cheap and irresponsible thrill of immediate victory at the polls.
Sincerely,
Donald J. Boudreaux"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)