[SoxNation]

http://www.msnbc.msn.../business-autos

Found this interesting a lot of the trade-ins for cash for clunkers either only marginally improved fuel mileage and some were actually the same or worse.

Thoughts?

[King Diamond]

Not surprised, another failed bureaucracy

[Galaisa2]

IT WAS A SUBSIDY TO PROP UP THE AUTO INDUSTRY, NO GOVERNMENT GIVES A SERIOUS !@#$ ABOUT FUEL EFFICIENCY OR EMISSIONS

[-Wolverine-]

SoxNation, on Nov 5 2009, 02:02 AM, said:

http://www.msnbc.msn.../business-autos

Found this interesting a lot of the trade-ins for cash for clunkers either only marginally improved fuel mileage and some were actually the same or worse.

Thoughts?

Government?

Maybe its what happens when you pay people more than what their current vehicle is worth. lol

[Commander Cato]

King Diamond, on Nov 4 2009, 07:03 PM, said:

Not surprised, another failed bureaucracy

This and let’s not forget each car cost the taxpayer 24k

http://features.csmo...rs-was-a-lemon/

[Lord GVChamp]

Commander Cato, on Nov 4 2009, 07:43 PM, said:

This and let’s not forget each car cost the taxpayer 24k

http://features.csmo...rs-was-a-lemon/

That study is almost certainly an overestimate of the cost.




On the environmental efficiency: yeah it got watered down pretty heavily. Oh well. At least we got a good bit of stimulus out of it. That's good enough for me, especially this administration has put fighting the recession on the backburner in order to advance its ideological agenda.

[Commander Cato]

it also killed the car market in the following months reducing demand.

[NewPoseidon]

Ironically, your source seems to contradict the spirit of your argument. It states clearly that the majority of the trade-ins receive superior mileage!!

The cash for clunkers program has been a resounding success. It shifted demand forward, dramatically ending the emotional downward cycle of panic that gripped American automobile producers and consumers. It's a step forward to reducing our overall carbon footprint and our dependence on foreign oil. There's no way in hell it cost the taxpayers 24k for each car -that's childishly incompetent- as the voucher is only worth $3,500 to $4,500 as I recall. I think I'll say it again: childishly incompetent. Apparently Sean there thinks the government essentially bought everyone cars on Uncle Sam's dime. No wonder you're a conservative! Since Cato doesn't know how to use a calculator, I'll do the math for him:

$3,000,000,000 / 677,000 cars = $4431 per car. See! It's not that hard.

[SoxNation]

NewPoseidon, on Nov 5 2009, 08:55 AM, said:

Ironically, your source seems to contradict the spirit of your argument. It states clearly that the majority of the trade-ins receive superior mileage!!

Where does it clearly state that? And what is superior?

[Flatlander]

"The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is still reviewing the reports, and any dealers that submitted invalid trade-ins will be directed to return the government rebate, spokesman Eric Bolton said Wednesday."

If you're asking me if I'm surprised that once the feds got into bed with car dealers, some of those car dealers tried to bend the rules of the program to maximize their profits, I can only say ....

Noooooooooooooooooo, really?

[Lord GVChamp]

NewPoseidon, on Nov 5 2009, 07:55 AM, said:

Ironically, your source seems to contradict the spirit of your argument. It states clearly that the majority of the trade-ins receive superior mileage!!

The cash for clunkers program has been a resounding success. It shifted demand forward, dramatically ending the emotional downward cycle of panic that gripped American automobile producers and consumers. It's a step forward to reducing our overall carbon footprint and our dependence on foreign oil. There's no way in hell it cost the taxpayers 24k for each car -that's childishly incompetent- as the voucher is only worth $3,500 to $4,500 as I recall. I think I'll say it again: childishly incompetent. Apparently Sean there thinks the government essentially bought everyone cars on Uncle Sam's dime. No wonder you're a conservative! Since Cato doesn't know how to use a calculator, I'll do the math for him:

$3,000,000,000 / 677,000 cars = $4431 per car. See! It's not that hard.

The Edmunds study suggested that the majority of cars that were purchased using CARS money were cars that were already going to BE purchased. If the subsidy improved sales from 500,000 to 690,000, but you are spending money on the first 500,000 cars too, you can end up with a very high cost per-car.

[deja]

Yeah it helps to actually read the point being made. Obviously there's something more to it than "OMG $$$ divided by carrrrr" if you have a statement about how expensive a program's real cost was.

This post has been edited by deja: 06 November 2009 - 03:56 AM