As featured in The Wall Street Journal, Money Magazine, and more!

Search: automobiles


About the author: This is a guest post by Carson Brackney, writer for Personal Finance Analyst. Personal Finance Analyst is an online community of bloggers dedicated to taking the mystery out of money and helping you to live a happier, more successful life with the money you have.

In the wake of 9/11, President Bush encouraged Americans to keep shopping. He was worried that fears associated with the attack would slow the economic engine as concerned citizens might opt to “sit on” their money instead of spending it in a way that would keep the economy chugging along.

Apparently, Americans responded. We spent. We shopped. We felt that changing our behavior in response the tragedy would represent a victory for the enemy. In some weird way, we seemed to have felt a patriotic duty to maintain our spending habits.

Those of us who embrace sound personal financial management concepts never really bought into the “shop until the terrorists drop” line of thinking. Others, however did. And many of those others are actively encouraging the same kind of behavior in the face of current economic problems.

A recent piece of proposed legislation is a perfect example. In a rare show of bipartisanship, Republican Senator Kit Bond and Democratic Senator Barbara Mikulski are proposing a tax rebate to encourage the purchase of new automobiles. Their goal? To get some cash headed in Detroit’s direction.

Those of us who recognize the poor quality (in financial terms) of the decision to buy new cars know that the tax rebate won’t make things any different. We won’t buy that new car, even if it would give Detroit a boost.

Sometimes, it really seems like those of us interested in better personal finance decisions are doing our best to strangle an already-choking larger economy by reducing our own spending and consumption. Although that really isn’t the case (we’ll see why smart money management is a net plus for the economy as we work through this), there is a certain face-value irony in economizing during a time of wider economic turmoil.

As I write this, the heads of America’s three automotive giants are huddling together in Washington, trying to perfect a sales pitch for a multi-billion dollar bridge loan/bailout. Detroit is in trouble. People aren’t buying new cars and Big Auto claims that we’re only months away from an industry collapse that’s going to destroy hundreds of thousands of jobs and lives…

Meanwhile, Mint is telling us that cars are one of the eight things we should never buy new. Dave Ramsey is chastising someone for financing a new car. People are opting to stick with their old beaters in an effort to save money.

The stock market isn’t treading water. It’s sinking. One of the reasons? Consumer spending is in the tank. Browsers outnumber buyers and those who are willing to open a wallet are spending less. Based on those scary consumer confidence numbers, we can expect more of the same and that’s scaring money away from Wall Street. Our 401(k) numbers are bleak and the entire economy is grinding to a halt as we watch the Dow dip.

Meanwhile, personal finance experts are advising everyone to save more. Frugal living is “in” while conspicuous spending seems like a vestige from the days when women wore shoulder pads and guys wanted to be Gordon Gecko.

New housing starts are down and property values are in a freefall. Homes are no longer the safe buy they once were. People are waking up to discover that they’re upside-down on their largest single investment. Contractors are struggling, workers are standing in unemployment lines, vendors are suffering and development projects are suspended.

Meanwhile, advisers are telling people not to try to catch a falling knife. They’re recommending against the purchase of existing properties and are laughing outright at the idea of building a new home. This isn’t the time to spend, this is the time to sit on your money.

Are you seeing a trend here?

We’re actively engaging in the very behavior that encourages a larger financial crisis in order to protect ourselves from that very same financial crisis.

If you don’t buy that car, that makes it harder for GM or Ford to stay afloat. If they flop, your neighbor loses his job on the assembly line. He falls behind on house payments. The home enters foreclosure. Your property value takes a hit in the process.

You’re studying the Economides family’s every move, trying to cut your spending down to the bare minimum. You aren’t dropping big money at the grocery store anymore. That means the store isn’t ordering as much. The company selling those green beans has to let someone go. The cannery employee can’t find another job in her neck of the woods. She has to go on unemployment and then welfare. What’s paying for the food stamps and Section 8 housing? Your tax dollars.

As the economic crisis has advanced, we’ve heard more and more about businesses and industries that are now on the very brink of collapse. We all know that the only way many of these outfits can stay open is if they continue to sell their products. Yet we’re still preaching the gospel of recession-proofing your life.

Is this the irony of economizing? By protecting our own interests with conservative money management are we actually encouraging the economic slowdown? Do our efforts at self-defense empower our enemy?

Don’t worry. You can be a good personal money manager and good for the economy. The apparent tension isn’t quite as significant as it looks at first glance.

First, it’s almost certain that those who look after their money carefully will remain in the minority. Yes, everyone seems to be cutting back these days, but I doubt that a significant percentage of that decreased consumer spending stems from intentional, voluntary “austerity measures.” The economizers and those who are smart about personal finances are the exception to the larger rule. Thus, those efforts to manage money correctly will be swamped on a macro-level by those who will continue to act without much consideration for the protection of their financial interests. That’s just an “accidental” situation, though. What’s more important is that smart money handling actually benefits the economy.

That brings us to the second reason you shouldn’t feel guilty for exercising good decision making. Smart personal financial management and decreased spending has an economic upside. Those who are in control of their money and debt are able to invest their resources while “the rest” stay on an ugly barely-making-it treadmill. Those investments provide needed capital to the most deserving and potentially valuable institutions and businesses. While we might be taking our money out of the loop on one side of the equation, we’re feeding the economy on the other.

Third, “you gotta have it to spend it.” If we’ve learned anything over the years, it’s that wild spending and bad financial management eventually come back to haunt us. Those who do economize and invest wisely are later positioned to contribute to consumer spending in a way that those who are constantly on the brink of personal financial collapse can’t. The current economic crisis is PSA for responsible spending. We’re living through the nasty hangover that comes after a weekend of binge drinking. Foolish credit purchases are the stand-in for the keg.

We didn’t really have a patriotic duty to maintain spending habits in late 2001 and we certainly don’t have a national economic obligation to go out and buy new cars and other unneeded consumer goods today.

Sometimes it seems as if we’re working at cross-purposes with our best interests. We’re watching a struggle born of reduced economic activity while intentionally reducing our own spending. If you look at it on that level, it appears as if we’re intentionally punching ourselves in the gut. If you view it from a broader perspective, however, it’s clear that there is no tension between economization and a stronger economy. If anything, more responsible personal money management is exactly what our economy needs.

If you enjoyed this article, please visit Personal Finance Analyst and subscribe to the RSS feed. We would appreciate your comments and reactions, so if you would like to contribute to the discussion, leave a comment below.

{ 4 comments }

Ethanol: a study of unintended consequences

As recently as two years ago, ethanol was considered by many to be the solution for this country’s reliance on imported oil. Ethanol can be produced domestically, and it costs no more to make a car that runs on ethanol than it does to make a car that runs on gasoline. Following Brazil’s example with sugar cane, farmers began converting their corn crops into ethanol for use in automobiles.

Like this 2006 story from 60 Minutes, not many people were considering some of the downstream effects of using food crops for other purposes. The Earth Policy Institute provides a good example how ethanol has been a victim of the “law of unintended consequences” through two of its articles, separated only by time and events. In 2005, the institute praised efforts to promote ethanol.

Agricultural residues, such as corn stalks, wheat straw, and rice stalks, are normally left on the field, plowed under, or burned. Collecting just a third of these for biofuel production would allow farmers to reap a sort of second harvest, increasing farm income while leaving enough organic matter to maintain soil health and prevent erosion. The agricultural residues that could be harvested sustainably in the United States today, for example, could yield 14.5 billion gallons of ethanol — four times the current output — with no additional land demands.

The organization does not hold this opinion today. Earlier this year, the Earth Policy Institute called ethanol production “the beginning of one of the great tragedies of history.” This opinion is fostered by the unintended consequence of the popularity of and demand for ethanol. The prices of food worldwide are sharply increasing.

From 1990 to 2005, world grain consumption, driven largely by population growth and rising consumption of grain-based animal products, climbed by an average of 21 million tons per year. Then came the explosion in demand for grain used in U.S. ethanol distilleries, which jumped from 54 million tons in 2006 to 81 million tons in 2007. This 27 million ton jump more than doubled the annual growth in world demand for grain. If 80 percent of the 62 distilleries now under construction are completed by late 2008, grain used to produce fuel for cars will climb to 114 million tons, or 28 percent of the projected 2008 U.S. grain harvest.

cornMoving father down the chain of cause and effect, rising prices of food staples are “translating into social unrest.” Across the world, protests and demonstrations are increasing. While originally studying Brazil’s success with ethanol, these consequences were not anticipated.

Unintended consequences in your life

On a more personal level, the law of unintended consequences is present. Often, unintended consequences arise as a result of ignorance, error, or immediate gratification. Using credit to fund purchases beyond the level of affordability can have unintended consequences, fueled by ignorance. In this case, the consequence can be a lifetime of debt. Certainly this was not the predicted outcome when signing up for the first credit card offer. Immediate gratification can result in unintended consequences when dealing with credit as well.

The decision not to fund an emergency plan can have unintended consequences. Without the obligation to create an emergency fund, you have more cash available for spending — even if all you spend money on are necessities. But all other things being equal, it’s easier to divert $10 a week to a high-yield savings account now than it will be do scrounge several thousand dollars for vehicle repair, a hospital bill, or emergency house maintenance later, if you don’t have a buffer.

stressHere’s another example. Let’s say you have two job offers. One offer includes a $100,000 annual salary, long hours, responsibility, and growth prospects. The other offer is a $60,000 annual salary and a more manageable work-load, and a more enjoyable and emotionally fulfilling career. Many people will take the $100,000 salary, no questions asked, and “learn to deal” with the feeling.

There could be unintended consequences to this decision. Yes, you may move up the corporate ladder faster, but perhaps the stress will take a toll on your health. The high-powered career and resulting stress may knock a decade off your life span, providing you with ten years less to enjoy with your family. The desire for more money, more recognition, even more freedom, satisfies immediate gratification, one of the causes of unintended consequences.

What can you do to prevent unintended consequences?

Not all unintended consequences can be avoided. Many smart economists never expected the increased demand of ethanol to cause a deathly stampede in Chongqing, China.

No matter how much you go over a decision, considering its effects, it’s unlikely you’ll think of everything. It might help to staying away from instant gratification and short-term satisfaction that conflicts with long-term growth. Educate yourself about your situation so you can make your decisions as complete as possible.

Taking the example of the first credit card with the consequences of years of debt, when signing up for the card. you might have known you’d be in debt. The knowledge may have only been on a superficial level. The number of years it may take to pay back your debt at a particular interest rate and a particular monthly payment is a piece of information that will help you understand your decision on a deeper level. It may be this deeper knowledge that prevents unintended consequences.

Image credits: r-z, @aius

{ 9 comments }

Consumer Reports published their latest top picks for the best cars of 2008, and some of the selections may surprise faithful followers of the magazine. Here’s the list.

Green car: Toyota Prius. This was the same selection as last year, so there’s no surprise here. A co-worker who owns a Honda Fit, who’s happy with the mileage he gets but is unsatisfied with just about everything else, eyes the Prius when we see one.

Small sedan: Hyundai Elantra SE. The Elantra may be the first surprise on the list. This car usually loses to the Honda Civic (which I own). Apparently, electronic stability control in the lower-priced models made the difference in the magazine’s selection.

Family sedan: Honda Accord. The Accord took this prize last year, as well.

Upscale sedan: Infiniti G35 Sedan. The G35 is another repeat winner.

Luxury sedan: Lexus LS 460L. Last year, the winner for luxury sedan was the Infiniti M35. For $77,000, the 460L was the best performing car tested by Consumer Reports.

Mazda MiataFun to drive: Mazda MX-5 Miata. The MX-5 Miata was last year’s winner for the “fun to drive” category. It’s about half the price of the Porsche Boxter but provides the same experience.

Small SUV: Toyota RAV4. My girlfriend is eying this car for her next purchase (when necessary). It was last year’s winner in the same category.

Midsized SUV: Hyundai Santa Fe. The Toyota Highlander Hybrid was last year’s pick, but it lost out to the improved Santa Fe.

Minivan: Toyota Sienna. This is last year’s winner, but this year, Consumer Reports also recommends the Honda Odyssey.

Pickup Truck: Chevrolet Silverado 1500 Crew Cab. What’s this? An “American” car on a list from Consumer Reports? Well, they do qualify their choice: “The redesigned Toyota Tundra outscored the Silverado in our tests, but first-year reliability of the 4WD, V8 version was below average.”

Members of Consumer Reports can compare the new ratings they have compiled for 2008 cars.

Top Picks 2008 [Consumer Reports]

{ 19 comments }

Consumer Reports released its top picks for 2007, which lists the organization’s favorite cars in several categories. Here is their methodology:

Our Top Picks are recommended vehicles that have met our stringent requirements in three key areas: Testing. Of the more than 250 vehicles we’ve recently tested, each Top Pick has scored at or near the top of its category. Reliability. Each has proven average or better in reliability, which is based on more than 1.3 million responses to our Annual Car Reliability Survey. Safety. Top Picks also performed at least adequately in overall crash protection if tested by the government or the insurance industry…

2007-miata.jpgHere is the list of Consumer Reports’ choices.

Fun to Drive: Mazda MX-5 Miata
Small SUV: Toyota RAV4
Small Sedan: Honda Civic (I drive a 2004 Civic)
Family Sedan: Honda Accord
Minivan: Toyota Sienna
Luxury Sedan: Infiniti M35
Midsized SUV: Toyota Highlander Hybrid
Budget Cars: Honda Fit
Green Car: Toyota Prius
Upscale Sedan: Infiniti G35

This list has much in common with Car and Driver’s 10 Best in 2007 list, but there are some notable differences. Consumer Reports includes not one American car, while Car and Driver includes the Corvette and Chrysler 300, as well as representation from BMW, Volkswagen, and Porsche.

Why such a wide discrepency between the two lists? Here’s Car and Driver’s methodology:

First, how well the car performs its intended functions. We expect sports cars to be fast and exhilarating, while we presume a family sedan will be practical. Second, we show a preference for the more engaging cars in each category; be it better driving manners, a double-take-inducing look, or a powerful engine. Finally, we are suckers for a good deal, so an inexpensive car that’s fast, fun, and practical will certainly rise to the top of our list.

It’s interesting the Car and Driver mention getting a “good deal,” while Consumer Reports doesn’t. However, the latter seems to feature more generally affordable vehicles, like the Honda Civic and Accord. Do these lists reveal a bias against or towards manufacturers headquartered in the United States (“American” cars)?

Cameron Johnson says American cars are high-quality but have a bad reputation. Then again, his family has been in the Ford business for generations and he is a business consultant for the automaker.

Here is how I judge quality. I mentally tally cars I see disabled in the breakdown lane (shoulder) while I travel every day on the highway. If all cars are created equal, the proportion of brands broken down should equal the proportion sold. There are of course other variables. For example, perhaps some cars are more likely to be owned longer and thus the average condition is worse. Regardless, my informal survey makes me feel comfortable about my Honda Civic. The only one I’ve ever seen towed is mine, but that wasn’t due to the quality of the car.

{ 8 comments }

Hybrids Now Allowed in Turnpike HOV Lanes

by Flexo

Starting today, hybrid vehicles are allowed to travel in the HOV (high-occupancy vehicle) lanes of the New Jersey Turnpike regardless of how many passengers are in the car. This is a nice non-monetary incentive to switching to a hybrid vehicle. During rush hours, the HOV lanes are practically empty while the other lanes are backed ... Continue reading this article…

0 comments Read the full article →

Honda Civic Hybrid Has Best Gas-Mileage

by Flexo

According to the Environmental Protection Agency, the Honda Civic Hybrid beats out the Toyota Prius for best gas-mileage (61 mpg city/66 mpg highway versus 60/51). The non-hybrid Civic is the best gasonline-only vehicle with 36/44. In my driving experience with my manual-transmission 2004 Honda Civic LX, I usually get between 32 and 37 mpg, and ... Continue reading this article…

4 comments Read the full article →