Toyota hybrid electric car versus a regular petrol car; Is it worth buying?

Let’s take similar Toyota hybrid electric and petrol Toyota Yaris models for example, both 5 seats, around 10 sec to 100km/h performance.
The Electric Prius C uses at least 3.9L per 100km. The Petrol Yaris Hatch uses around 5.7L per 100Km. The average drive away prices in Australia are $18.500AUD for the petrol car versus $28000AUD for the hybrid electric.
If I drive an average whooping 30,000 km per year I’ll use 1,170L in the electric Prius and 1,710L in the regular petrol Toyota. The Prius will bring me a savings of 540L in petrol. With the Australian price of petrol averaging 1.50$ per liter I will save only $810 per year. I’d have to drive the Prius for at least 11 years just to make the electric hybrid a worthwhile buy! Even when comparing the hybrid Toyota to a powerful, petrol thirsty and expensive hatch like the Honda Civic VTi-S (8L/100km — 30MPG, 104kW, 6.5 sec to 100km/h, $23000AUD drive away) I’d have to drive at least 3 years to break even on the purchase price difference of $5,000AUD. In reality, most people drive less than 30,000 km per year.
And that is not taking into account the extra expenses in maintenance of the electric system, like on batteries and the electric motor.
Maybe you just like showing off that you are saving the environment. But those obvious savings come at an unobvious price for Mother Nature. The problem is that you don’t see the other ends of your consumption chain. Because the global economy and currencies are hardwired to energy resources like oil and coal, every dollar you spend is actually paid by nature! So when you buy expensive electric cars you actually consume much more natural resources than you would buying a regular car. Therefore, in order to produce less carbon dioxide and reduce your ecological footprint, you simply have to earn and buy less!

The Reasons of the world financial crisis.

From Forbes

‘Twelve months ago Moscow overtook New York as the billionaire capital of the world, with 74 tycoons to New York’s 71. Today there are 27 in Moscow and 55 in New York.

After slipping in recent years, the U.S. is regaining its dominance as a repository of wealth. Americans account for 44% of the money and 45% of the list’s slots, up seven and three percentage points from last year, respectively. Still, it has 110 fewer billionaires than a year ago.’

That means that during the crisis richest of the richest in USA become more reach for the expense of foreigners and American people!

A BBC article on the same subject with countries comparison statistics has been rewritten . It had comparison graphs by country.

It was easy to see that for the time of the crisis US wealthiest people lost around %20 while they opponent in Europe %50. That means US rich become 1.6 times richer relatively to the rest of the world and even more compare to other people with less then a billion.

What it means? Assume you have had a $10bn and your Russian concurrent had $10bn before crisis. Now you have 8bn and Russian has 5bn… Besides Russian losers do not get many rescue packages as US’s do.

So who is at fault and who wins?

The crisis was consequences of decisions or luck of responsibility of the few top guys.

Now international economy and working masses will pay them even more!

There is possibility that there isn’t world economic crisis but the biggest scam of all times.

По журналу Форбс

Первая статья появилась в BBC со сравнительными графиками по разным странам, из которых было ясно, что Американские миллионеры потеряли примерно %20, а зарубежные около %50. Это значит что, инициировав кризис, богатейшие люди Америки стали в 1.6 раза богаче зарубежных и ещё больше всех остальных людей!

Спустя пару дней это статью в BBC переписали уже без графика и расклада по странам.

Что это значит? К примеру у вас было 10 миллиардов и у вашего аммериканского конкурента тоже 10 миллиардов. Теперь у вас 5 миллиардов а у американца 8!..

Вот вам причина и цель.

Immortality of excess. Who pays the bill ?

…. While the financial fallout of the mortgage meltdown has been well documented, the moral dimensions have not been widely discussed, religion experts say. ….
.. many homebuyers may have acted immorally by living beyond their means and that borrowers are required to try to make good on their debts…..
……   Lenders who preyed on low-income minorities for high-interest mortgages came up with «a slick way to make money and to really enslave people,» ..
…There is a biblical prohibition on charging interest on loans — the making money by lending money — although today most Jews AND (!?) Christians  view the charging of some interest as acceptable. In Christianity, Martin Luther in the 1500s and other Protestant reformers played a big role in liberalizing views on the charging of interest.
In Islamic finance, there is an official prohibition on interest-based borrowing and lending. That has helped investment funds that adhere to Islamic principles to largely avoid the subprime meltdown because they do not hold traditional banking stocks.
The subprime crisis is likely interpreted differently across the spectrum of Muslim thought, said John Voll, a professor of Islamic history at Georgetown University. He said some conservative Muslims might argue that the mess shows that an «interest-based system is not only immoral but doesn’t work.»
In the Bible, there is also mention of loan forgiveness, something particularly timely as the government has brokered a plan with mortgage lenders to give relief to struggling homeowners who took out adjustable rate subprime loans that are set to go up sharply.
In biblical times «every seventh year, you were supposed to forgive any money that hasn’t been repaid to you,» said Moore, the financial adviser, referring to a passage in Deuteronomy.
There is also a biblical concept of the Jubilee year, in which every 50 years all property should be returned to its original owners. The idea, he said, is to give those who have struggled a fresh start and not be bound forever by their debts….

read on

Who has got the money and who is going to pay the bill ? That is the question.

Dark art of econometrics

Ross Gittins

…. the economics profession… with no disapprobation of dubious conduct is asking to have its reputation trashed.

Economists give no thought to ethics or other social norms of behaviour because such matters find no place in their neoclassical model.

To an economist it’s no insult to assume that businesses are motivated solely by a desire to maximise their profits. Would they sell their services to the highest bidder? Of course; it would be irrational to do otherwise.

Indeed, so far from worrying about ethics, there are some economists who believe it’s irrational to obey the law unless the chance of getting caught, combined with the size of the penalty, is sufficient to outweigh the benefits of breaking it.

….Does anyone believe it’s possible to buy an independent report?…

….The commissioning of special reports, the use of words such as «independent» and «respected», and the quoting of «point estimates» rather than ranges are intended to create an air of certainty and God’s truth revealed.

But everyone in the business knows econometric modelling exercises are as ropy as all get-out. In the jargon, they’re subject to significant limitations that fellow economists could argue over until the cows come home…..