Category Archives: Economics

Miscellaneous economy stuff

A Useful Move

Posted on by
Reply

The Senate—at least the Republicans in the Senate; the Progressive-Democratic Party’s Senators remain ensconced in their knee-jerk Nothing Republican mode—is working toward easing Corporate Average Fuel Economy requirements by eliminating the penalties associated with failing to comply with ever-increasing and increasingly impossible fuel efficiency standards. Of course there are objections, but most of them are empty.

From the news writers’ own bias:

nullifying rules that for generations have pushed automakers to churn out ever cleaner and more fuel-efficient vehicles. That technology has saved two trillion gallons of gasoline over the past 50 years, according to the journal Energy Policy.

Ignored here, as the writers cite the journal, is the fact that cost of operation—fuel costs, for instance—remain a competitive selling point, and market forces will drive fuel efficiency. That drive will occur on us average Americans‘ schedule, though, instead of by government fiat. Car companies will continue to seek competitive advantages through such techs as turbocharged engines that deliver more power, transmissions with more gears and powertrains that automatically shut off at stoplights to conserve gasoline along with a host of other pathways, including some not yet thought of, but which competitive R&D will bring out.

Other objectors include Chris Harto, a Consumer Reports policy analyst:

Automakers have proven time and time again that without strong and enforceable fuel-economy standards, many of them will leave proven, popular, and cost-effective technologies like hybrids sitting and gathering dust on the shelf[.]

Aside from the fact that simple competitive pressures in a truly free market, shorn of excessive government regulation, will push “automakers” to continue to work toward, among other things, fuel efficiency. What Harto is ignoring, though, is that his favored vehicles are sitting on the shelf because consumers don’t want them and aren’t buying them.

And this:

Consumer advocacy groups warn that the move could result in…further dependence on foreign oil sources.

This is just disingenuous. The US is the world’s largest producer of oil and a net exporter of it. What would be beneficial here would be a parallel move to deregulate oil production and refining (and exporting).

Also absent is any rationale for why we should care about gasoline savings of that magnitude. My back of the envelope estimation of how much that actually works out to is based on there being 105 million cars on the road in 1975 (those 50 years ago) and 299 million cars and now light trucks and SUVs (which burn gasoline and are much more ubiquitous than 50 years ago) on the road today. A naïve average of that is 201.5 million gasoline-burning vehicles on the road each year. 40 billion gallons of gasoline “saved” each year (those 2 trillion spread across the years) works out to 200 gallons “saved” per car per year.

To achieve that tiny savings, a ton of money has been spent on CAFE compliance rules, on building compliant and so very expensive vehicles, and on wasted money pushing those far more expensive CAFE-meeting vehicles out the factory door in order to meet the mandated manufacturer’s fleet average fuel efficiency numbers. This wastage includes, over the last several years, pushing battery cars and hybrids out the door only to sit unsold on dealer lots as us average Americans refuse to pay the enormous cost of those battery-dependent vehicles.

This is a good beginning, if the Republicans can pull it off, and the Republican caucus in the House goes along. Better would be elimination of CAFE altogether, that should be for a later day.

Tariffs and the Fed

Posted on by
Reply

The Federal Reserve Bank is facing a conundrum:

First, they [tariffs] raise prices, which weakens the case for cutting interest rates. Second, they sap confidence and demand, which strengthens the case.

There’s this, too:

In May, the Treasury Department collected roughly $15 billion more in customs duties than in February. That is equal to about 3% of total consumer spending on goods. Some goods prices have risen, but not by that much. And in May, prices fell on some obvious tariff targets such as apparel and new cars.
This is a head scratcher. If consumers aren’t paying the tariffs, who is? Not foreign producers, at least through April, when import prices excluding fuel rose. Not, apparently, retailers and wholesalers, whose margins took a hit in April but bounced back in May, according to the producer price report released Thursday [12 June].

For me, though, the head scratcher is straightforward: it’s been so long since we had significant tariffs, and economies have evolved so much in that interim, that we don’t yet understand the lags that are involved between the onset of tariffs and allegedly associated price increases. This is further contaminated by the confusion by folks who should know better of highly variable tariff rhetoric with actual tariffs in place.

And a second contaminant: how much do tariffs raise prices, really, in a global economy that has supply chains that are much more mobile (or at least much less fixed in place) than in those prior economic environments?

And a third: a measure of flexibility in cost transfer techniques: keeping prices stable while doing away with free shipping or raising existing shipping charges, for instance.

Oh, and energy costs are down; lowering prices here counterbalances, in the larger scheme, price increases there.

Tariff Bankruptcy?

Posted on by
Reply

Or is that just an excuse? Marelli, which supplies Nissan and Stellantis with auto parts like lighting and internal electronics, has filed for bankruptcy and is blaming the current tariff environment for the filing.

However, as Marelli’s CEO David Slump admitted in his company’s bankruptcy filing, as summarized by The Wall Street Journal,

…the company had already been struggling with long-term supply-chain issues stemming from the Covid-19 pandemic….

The company also has been struggling with losses and a hefty debt load for years.

Slump said the pandemic restricted access to both raw materials and the labor market, and set off a series of events that led to Marelli being unable to sustain its nearly $5 billion of debt. Even after the pandemic subsided, the impeded supply chain for semiconductors had an acute effect on automotive production.

Obvious questions arise:

  • what has the company been doing to reduce and then eliminate those losses over those years?
  • how assiduously has the company been working to pay down that debt? Has it only been paying the contractually obligated minimum payments, or has it been paying something extra against the principle in each payment period? Coupled with that, the company’s debt repayment has been heavily complicated by operating at a loss for years.
  • what has the company been doing to readjust its own supply chains? It saw, empirically, those five years ago during the supply chain disruptions of the Wuhan Virus situation, that its existing supply chains were heavily vulnerable.
  • what has the company been doing to develop new products and new buyers?

Slump’s claim of macroeconomic headwinds associated with the imposition of tariffs in countries around the world may well have been the trigger, but those “headwinds” are only that. This has been a bankruptcy building toward actuality for a few years. Excuse-making isn’t much in the way of a solution.

Ending a Market Distortion

Posted on by
Reply

The Trump administration is moving to eliminate tax credits for buying battery cars. The Left and their news writers don’t like this.

The removal of the credit, created to incentivize US consumers to purchase electrified vehicles, would likely lead to a drop in EV sales and production.

NSS. The credit was created explicitly to “encourage” purchase of battery cars. On the other hand, Lauren Fix, a co-host of Talk 2 DIY Automotive, has this:

Getting rid of this $7,500 tax credit should not impact [Tesla] sales. People buy Teslas because they like the product…. They know what their customers want, and those that like Teslas will continue to purchase that product.

And [phrase substitutions in the original, emphasis added]

Once that tax credit goes away, I’m expecting [electric vehicles] to be about 2% of sales. There will still be electric vehicle sales, Tesla will still survive, and [Elon Musk] will do well. And other brands will make what consumers want.

There’re hints there. Get rid of government-created market distortions, and the market will produce economically viable products at far less cost without our tax dollars added in. That product mix will include plenty of battery cars as soon as they become technologically and economically viable—and are what us consumers want at prices we’re willing to pay without taxpayer handouts.

That May Be

Posted on by
Reply

The Trump administration is moving to withdraw the visas for People’s Republic of China students at American colleges and universities. There is concern that the loss of these students at those schools would negatively impact the schools’ bottom lines.

A Trump administration announcement Wednesday that it would “aggressively” begin revoking visas for Chinese students confronts universities across the US with the prospect of a hit to their finances and talent pool.

There is, of course, a hue and cry from the press and their Party politicians. For instance, “US experts,” one of the many childhood imaginary friends so often consulted by news writers and opinionators, claim

A big decline in Chinese enrollment could severely cut into schools’ bottom line [sic] and damage US competitiveness[.]

And this: the People’s Republic of China “buys”—the news writer’s term—

education-related services, including spending on tuition and books, from the US, at $14.3 billion in 2023, 21% more than the $11.8 billion spent by students from India, and more than six times as much as students from South Korea, another major supplier of international students to the US.

That may be, but it isn’t relevant. Stipulate even that most of the PRC’s students here are entirely on the up and up. The question is not how much money the PRC spends on our schools, it’s the risk from the many who are here to spy directly, or are here to learn our technologies and our social techniques in order to take them back to the PRC to use against us.

The breadth and depth of that risk makes the group of them not worth the trouble to vet—an imperfect process at its best. The schools can adapt and adjust their budgets.