A Turning point?

[hayder]

10 minutes ago, locky82 said:

Is that true? Do you have links? I can see replacing a working petrol wouldn’t be better for the environment but someone buying there first car, walking into Nissan. Surely over it’s life a leaf is better than a micra 

I think the approach taken by BMW and some others of having a range extending hybrid with smaller batteries is the most efficient and environmentally friendly (as well as practical).

[ccc]

46 minutes ago, locky82 said:

Is that true? Do you have links? I can see replacing a working petrol wouldn’t be better for the environment but someone buying there first car, walking into Nissan. Surely over it’s life a leaf is better than a micra 

I would be interested in this too. I suppose on the 2nd part its the batteries and what cost they are to produce that's the big difference.

And then - well they need to be charged - and so where does that energy come from.

Funnily enough watched a programme on Tesla last night - he was a rather interesting chap.

 

[scottbeard]

1 hour ago, IMHAL said:

I have been reading 'Donughnut Economics' by Kate Raworth. It talks about how economics went wrong, the fixation on GDP, homo economicus and the need to make economics 'be like a science' by over simplifying and mimicking Newton's laws of physics. She recognises the finite resources of the earth, the need for economics to work for society as a whole, the positive role that government can play, the need to take into account the by products of our consumer society (pollution). She advocates a new, holistic approach. It's a good read. 

I am about half way through the book but I can already see the issues with any approach that requires cooperation across the majority if not the whole planet. Beggar thy neighbour is the usual pitfall to any cross the board country approach. She, I think, is trying to achieve buy-in to the new approach through education. The other approach that has been suggested her is some sort of over arching authoritarian government. Does nature provide any solutions to this conundrum?

 

I am an Economics graduate (of the 1990s), so the criticism of Economics interests me a lot.  It's important to remember that Economics isn't trying to "solve" the world's problems with one perfect solution, but rather provide a framework for describing production and allocation of resources.  That's because there IS no single perfect solution - it all depends upon your beliefs as to what's "fair" or right.

There's a reason that Oxford pairs it with Philosophy and Politics, because you need to know:

- What do you want the world to look like? (philosophy)
- What actions in theory would need to occur to move the current world to that ideal world? (economics)
- What actions in practice can you take in the real world given that you have to deal with people ? (politics)

A great philosophy falls down if it can't be achieved either because you haven't worked out how to do it (economics missing) or people wouldn't stand for it (politics missing). 

For example, Economics can't tell you whether it's FAIR that single parents jump ahead on a social housing queue.  But Economic techniques can be used to answer questions like "if we want to reduce teenage pregnancies, would it be more effective to (a) give more sex education, (b) give out free contraception or (c) reduce benefits for teenage parents". 

(And for clarity I didn't do PPE at Oxford myself, although I now regret it and wish I had!)

[Freki]

One of the thing with electric cars is that aside of the battery the rest is extremely durable. The motor has 6 movings parts, they predict a Tesla motor can run in the million of miles.

I can see a business for cars to be refurbished and less production of new cars

[IMHAL]

30 minutes ago, scottbeard said:

I am an Economics graduate (of the 1990s), so the criticism of Economics interests me a lot.  It's important to remember that Economics isn't trying to "solve" the world's problems with one perfect solution, but rather provide a framework for describing production and allocation of resources.  That's because there IS no single perfect solution - it all depends upon your beliefs as to what's "fair" or right.

There's a reason that Oxford pairs it with Philosophy and Politics, because you need to know:

- What do you want the world to look like? (philosophy)
- What actions in theory would need to occur to move the current world to that ideal world? (economics)
- What actions in practice can you take in the real world given that you have to deal with people ? (politics)

A great philosophy falls down if it can't be achieved either because you haven't worked out how to do it (economics missing) or people wouldn't stand for it (politics missing). 

For example, Economics can't tell you whether it's FAIR that single parents jump ahead on a social housing queue.  But Economic techniques can be used to answer questions like "if we want to reduce teenage pregnancies, would it be more effective to (a) give more sex education, (b) give out free contraception or (c) reduce benefits for teenage parents". 

(And for clarity I didn't do PPE at Oxford myself, although I now regret it and wish I had!)

I am interested in economics but, unlike you, I did not graduate in it (I wish I had).

I believe that the issue that Kate Raworth has with current economics is that GDP and growth is the single statistic that is the focus of most economies to the exclusion of all else.

Perhaps it's worth a read and then you could provide some of your thought on it's merits or otherwise.

[ccc]

31 minutes ago, Freki said:

One of the thing with electric cars is that aside of the battery the rest is extremely durable. The motor has 6 movings parts, they predict a Tesla motor can run in the million of miles.

I can see a business for cars to be refurbished and less production of new cars

So how are Tesla ever going to make money ?

Making the battery replacement uber expensive [See what I did there ] could be one way.

IMO its not the engine type parts of a car that are the things that go wrong. Its springs, bushes, brake pads etc.. that cause the ongoing costs to older cars. This wont be any different for an electric car.

[Wayward]

11 minutes ago, IMHAL said:

I believe that the issue that Kate Raworth has with current economics is that GDP and growth is the single statistic that is the focus of most economies to the exclusion of all else.

Yes ...Is it not obvious that the focus should be on GDP PER CAPITA...this seems to be neglected.  Crime, pollution, natural disasters etc all increase total GDP..not sure so great.  Someone throws a brick through my window, I go and buy a new window - increase in GDP a positive outcome.

Mass immigration increases total GDP - reported as a positive whilst GDP per capita is swept under the carpet.  The reality being lower wages and increased housing costs.

I think the neglect of the GDP per capita metric illustrates TPTBs lack of interest in the welfare of the populace..it is self evident.

[HairyOb1]

I think we're about to see some movement in super capacitor charging (I think that's what it's called) which will revolutionise the electric car industry, in that if you can recharge in 5 minutes and have a range of 40 miles, I think most folk would buy into it. I tend to buy a new family car every 3 or 4 years, and run mine until it's no longer economically suitable to keep.  The family car is up for change this year and I am very, very tempted to go electric, but might lease for a couple of years just to see what happens. My car will go on until the government want me to buy a new one and make it hard to keep my existing one.

I had a new leaf on trial fora week.  I was quite taken with the instant torque, near silent running and the ability to pay for it running off the roof.  I'm on a tipping point.

I read once that a Prius, once you'd taken into account the raw materials, and transportation, was worse than a new traditional car, but I'd be surprised if there weren't vi's at play in that report.

[Confusion of VIs]

2 hours ago, Errol said:

Absolutely not. Far worse for the environment. They've done studies on this and electric vehicles are worse for the environment over their life than petrol ones - once you factor in the manufacturing, all the mining/digging for rare-earth minerals that go in batteries etc etc. 

Earth-movers often have to shift 40+ tonnes of earth just to get 1 ounce of rare-earth material. The whole manufacturing process of so-called 'clean' vehicles is just ludicrously bad for the planet.

Studies funded by the oil industry by any chance. Certainly bad news for Russia and the OPEC their little price fixing cartel will be hard to maintain once the move to electric starts gathering pace.  

Anyway

Rare earths aren't that rare, China captured the world market by undercutting and bankrupting just about every other producer. Now the world is concerned about China having a monopoly new deposits are being looked for and found all over the world. Just last month Japan found a deposit large enough to supply the world for hundred of years

Once mined these rare earths are effectively here for ever as recycling of car batteries/motors will be the norm - although with batteries already likely to last +500k miles and motors +1m the need for recycling will be some way down the road.

The need for these rare earths is likely to decrease at much of the current research on motors is aimed at reducing the amount of rare earth metals in motors. Already this year Toyota has announced an EV motor that uses 20% less, and Honda has announced a hybrid car motor that uses none.   

[scottbeard]

32 minutes ago, Wayward said:

Yes ...Is it not obvious that the focus should be on GDP PER CAPITA...this seems to be neglected.  Crime, pollution, natural disasters etc all increase total GDP..not sure so great.  Someone throws a brick through my window, I go and buy a new window - increase in GDP a positive outcome.

Mass immigration increases total GDP - reported as a positive whilst GDP per capita is swept under the carpet.  The reality being lower wages and increased housing costs.

I think the neglect of the GDP per capita metric illustrates TPTBs lack of interest in the welfare of the populace..it is self evident.

Regarding the "brick through the window", I'm not sure that this would increase GDP.  If you buy a new window using money that you'd otherwise have spent on something else (let's say an evening at the pub just as an example) then all that happens is GDP for window firms goes up, GDP for the pub goes down, net no change.

Regarding GDP per capita, I agree it's probably a better measure than GDP, but even GDP per capita doesn't account for inequality.  For example, if GDP per capita rises because the rich are getting massive pay rises whilst the poor get small pay cuts (kind of what's actually happening at the moment) that still is not a good measure to target. 

[Confusion of VIs]

42 minutes ago, ccc said:

So how are Tesla ever going to make money ?

Making the battery replacement uber expensive [See what I did there ] could be one way.

IMO its not the engine type parts of a car that are the things that go wrong. Its springs, bushes, brake pads etc.. that cause the ongoing costs to older cars. This wont be any different for an electric car.

Battery life is yesterday's problem. The batteries in EV's are degrading far more slowly than expected, Tesla remotely monitors the state of the batteries in all of its cars and is predicting a battery life of +250k miles for its early cars and +500k for its current battery.

You won't have to worry about changing your brake pads as in modern EVs 90% of the time regenerative braking is all you need letting manufacturers  introduce sealed for life brake systems.

 

 

[ccc]

13 minutes ago, Confusion of VIs said:

Battery life is yesterday's problem. The batteries in EV's are degrading far more slowly than expected, Tesla remotely monitors the state of the batteries in all of its cars and is predicting a battery life of +250k miles for its early cars and +500k for its current battery.

You won't have to worry about changing your brake pads as in modern EVs 90% of the time regenerative braking is all you need letting manufacturers  introduce sealed for life brake systems.

 

 

Sounds great but as I said - how are they ever going to make money if the cars they sell last for so long ?

The PCP plan could of course be a solution. Constantly getting the latest model to continue paying that monthly fee for eternity.

Maybe that's the plan.

[macca13]

3 hours ago, hayder said:

I think the approach taken by BMW and some others of having a range extending hybrid with smaller batteries is the most efficient and environmentally friendly (as well as practical).

Friend of mine says there is a 1 year waiting list for a hybrid BMW.. 

[macca13]

15 minutes ago, ccc said:

Sounds great but as I said - how are they ever going to make money if the cars they sell last for so long ?

The PCP plan could of course be a solution. Constantly getting the latest model to continue paying that monthly fee for eternity.

Maybe that's the plan.

I believe there was an article on here? Not sure. 

VW crushing new cars/2nd hand. Was mainly to do with the emmisions scandal but got me thinking if this is something that goes on within the industry to keep 2nd hand stock down.. 

[ccc]

20 minutes ago, macca13 said:

I believe there was an article on here? Not sure. 

VW crushing new cars/2nd hand. Was mainly to do with the emmisions scandal but got me thinking if this is something that goes on within the industry to keep 2nd hand stock down.. 

They wouldn't be that devious....

[winkie]

2 hours ago, ccc said:

So how are Tesla ever going to make money ?

Making the battery replacement uber expensive [See what I did there ] could be one way.

IMO its not the engine type parts of a car that are the things that go wrong. Its springs, bushes, brake pads etc.. that cause the ongoing costs to older cars. This wont be any different for an electric car.

The money will not be made on the cars per sey.....it will be made on the rental of the road to drive on....freedom to roam will be replaced with tolls.......the cost of the new infrastructure to necessitate electric cars, the rental of electric cars and the rental of the roads they drive on and the recharging points required........watch this space, you will no longer be able to use it unless can pay for it....

[hayder]

21 hours ago, macca13 said:

Friend of mine says there is a 1 year waiting list for a hybrid BMW.. 

same as the story over at VAG with the golf GTE. 

[Wayward]

23 hours ago, scottbeard said:

Regarding the "brick through the window", I'm not sure that this would increase GDP.  If you buy a new window using money that you'd otherwise have spent on something else (let's say an evening at the pub just as an example) then all that happens is GDP for window firms goes up, GDP for the pub goes down, net no change.

Regarding GDP per capita, I agree it's probably a better measure than GDP, but even GDP per capita doesn't account for inequality.  For example, if GDP per capita rises because the rich are getting massive pay rises whilst the poor get small pay cuts (kind of what's actually happening at the moment) that still is not a good measure to target. 

Not sure scottbeard...brick through the window creates demand that would not have existed previously and it is this demand supported by easy money supply which increases total GDP.

Agree on the inequality point...need to look at other measures such as median income etc.  That said wealth inequality is the issue of the day as much as income inequality and it is wealth inequality and the deliberate transfer of wealth (HPI as mechanism) to make this inequality even worse that angers me...

[HairyOb1]

1 hour ago, Wayward said:

Not sure scottbeard...brick through the window creates demand that would not have existed previously and it is this demand supported by easy money supply which increases total GDP.

Agree on the inequality point...need to look at other measures such as median income etc.  That said wealth inequality is the issue of the day as much as income inequality and it is wealth inequality and the deliberate transfer of wealth (HPI as mechanism) to make this inequality even worse that angers me...

But demand would decrease due to no money being able to be spent at the pub.

It's this that I think subtly explains the malaise in the country: If you're on median income, the Getting by's or what they're called, all of your money is spent on necessities.  If there's a squeeze on that, through inflation up wages stagnant, then less money is spent.  However, the top 2% can only spend so much on supercars and yachts, most of which are from foreign companies anyway.  The reduction in benefits and wages will always affect the country as that end of the scale, the money is always spent, so reducing it sees lots less spent.  

 

[HairyOb1]

23 hours ago, macca13 said:

Friend of mine says there is a 1 year waiting list for a hybrid BMW.. 

Neighbour has a 530e, got it a couple of weeks after filling in the business lease forms.  I am bombarded pretty much daily with offers on the new i3

[macca13]

7 minutes ago, HairyOb1 said:

Neighbour has a 530e, got it a couple of weeks after filling in the business lease forms.  I am bombarded pretty much daily with offers on the new i3

I think he was trying to buy a 3 series and it was not on the company car list due to availability problems.. I know Tesla’s production problems are well publicised, but I guess the new systems would require new production techniques.. 

if anything a hybrid is way more complicated than a full electric.. 

[HairyOb1]

33 minutes ago, macca13 said:

I think he was trying to buy a 3 series and it was not on the company car list due to availability problems.. I know Tesla’s production problems are well publicised, but I guess the new systems would require new production techniques.. 

if anything a hybrid is way more complicated than a full electric.. 

I agree they are more complicated, but I do seem to be getting emails from BMW and Mercedes quite a lot regarding their hybrids and electrics at the moment.

 

[Wayward]

7 hours ago, HairyOb1 said:

But demand would decrease due to no money being able to be spent at the pub.

It's this that I think subtly explains the malaise in the country: If you're on median income, the Getting by's or what they're called, all of your money is spent on necessities.  If there's a squeeze on that, through inflation up wages stagnant, then less money is spent.  However, the top 2% can only spend so much on supercars and yachts, most of which are from foreign companies anyway.  The reduction in benefits and wages will always affect the country as that end of the scale, the money is always spent, so reducing it sees lots less spent.  

 

Spending in pub may or may not happen but window needs to be fixed.

Your second para is well understood principle in economics...the poor spend all their money and so welfare spending in theory is circulated...I forget the jargon...scts as an accelerator I think.  Tax cuts for rich howeveris more likely to be saved...taking demand out of the economy...

[HairyOb1]

9 hours ago, Wayward said:

Spending in pub may or may not happen but window needs to be fixed.

Your second para is well understood principle in economics...the poor spend all their money and so welfare spending in theory is circulated...I forget the jargon...scts as an accelerator I think.  Tax cuts for rich howeveris more likely to be saved...taking demand out of the economy...

I get what you're saying, but of that money would have been spent in the pub, but then wasn't as the window was broken, then it's the same.  However, I do understand.

It makes sense it's a known principle, but I've often thought it crazy to reduce benefits which are always spent, rather than tax breaks, which are generally saved, pushed offshore or spent on items that don't contribute to our economy.

[winkie]

7 minutes ago, HairyOb1 said:

I get what you're saying, but of that money would have been spent in the pub, but then wasn't as the window was broken, then it's the same.  However, I do understand.

It makes sense it's a known principle, but I've often thought it crazy to reduce benefits which are always spent, rather than tax breaks, which are generally saved, pushed offshore or spent on items that don't contribute to our economy.

If there is a window to fix, and still want to go down the pub......easy money allows to do both, get credit to pay for the window 0% interest payable over 36 months......just need to buy a cheaper pint to cover for the extra monthly debt repayment obligation........so it goes on and on and on......two sales rather than one.....one sale using earnings the other using debt.....