Re: Cash for Clunkers

Guest Wed Aug 05, 2009 3:07 pm

Pez wrote:Speaking of nonsequiturs, an internet survey told me that I'm a conservative... so I could have proibabaly just said STFU you tree hugging faggots... followed by a copy paste from fox news and the eyeroll smiley...

Burrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrn!

Markwes Wed Aug 05, 2009 3:34 pm

Pez wrote:
Conceived primarily to stimulate the economy and jump-start the auto industry... well it's ostensibly done both those things... and the fact that it's the environmental equivalent to shutting down everything for an hour a year seems like a pretty significant statistic to me... that an hours worth of our consumption (likely a staggering figure) can be addressed by a few people buying new cars?

In all honesty, the fact that it's not an effective way to attack climate change is like saying it's not an effective way to pick lotto numbers... a nonsequitur from something it was meant to do (stimulate the economy), into something it wasnt meant to do (stop global warming)...

Speaking of nonsequiturs, an internet survey told me that I'm a conservative... so I could have proibabaly just said STFU you tree hugging faggots... followed by a copy paste from fox news and the eyeroll smiley...

So if we assume the experts are correct and it's insignificant, and that the primary goal is to stimulate the economy, then why add the gas mileage stipulation? If I had an old Dodge Neon and I want to trade it in for a $40,000 SUV, that would do whole lot more stimulating than the other way around. That means there are 2 possibilities. Either they really expected this to reduce CO2 emissions, in which case they didn't do their homework, or they just threw that in there to make it look like they care, in which case it's a bit deceiving. After all the photo ops I tend to think it's the 2nd one.

Markwes Wed Aug 05, 2009 3:37 pm

meta4 wrote:This administration is taking steps now in reforming our international posture as an oil addicted leviathan and taking on a more responsible posture.

Taking steps is fine. Just giving the impression that your feet are moving is another.

LTRT Wed Aug 05, 2009 3:40 pm

Pez wrote:I'm not sure I understand. GM was so near failure that the government didnt really have a choice but to act aggressively, avoiding half measures and tackling the problem in a hand-on approach. While I might agree with you if you said that GM should have been allowed to fail, I would only do so in an otherwise sound economy. With the credit freeze up coupled with the mortage crisis, the loss of GM would have crippled our economy and prolonged the recession...

The mess that GM is in was a result of their indecisiveness in allowing themselves to be pushed around by labor unions. They should have seen the handwriting on the wall and shut down when they were profitable in order to negotiate a better contract... if GM fails, everyone loses. The union "negotiated", GM responded with capitulation in order to avoid strikes... The Unions took everything they could get and shouldnt necessarily be blamed for doing so because GM kept bending over and taking it...

To simplify, there was a startling statistic that a large percentage of profits from the sale of a GM vehicle went to provide health benefits for retired workers. QWe have already established that the government had to take over GM else it would have failed, noiw the government is pushing universal health care, which will free up GM (and ford etc) from the burden of paying these health benefits going forward. The net result of which will be a profitable and eventually growing domestic auto industry that can finally afford to produce a decent vehicle that can compete globally.

Cons can bitch and moan about the government takeover or GM and the socialist aspects of universal healthcare --and certainly both programs have their negative points -- but they fail to see that the socialistic aspect of universal healthcare will result in the domestic auto industry that is able to compete in an international capitalist marketplace.

This we all know, point taken.

I just think it's hilarious that contrary to what is put out in the media, drivers love the imports. Humm, now we have $2.4 billion allocated for electric cars, betcha those will sell like hot-cakes. Smile

What'll be the tag on them, $30k?

Guest Wed Aug 05, 2009 4:16 pm

Markwes wrote:
meta4 wrote:This administration is taking steps now in reforming our international posture as an oil addicted leviathan and taking on a more responsible posture.
Taking steps is fine. Just giving the impression that your feet are moving is another.

Well, it wouldn't exactly be a true statement if you said that it won't help the environment at all. It'll just take a while to see the impact. I mean think about the old 1989 GMC Extended Cab farm pickup which gets 14 MPG as a trade in on a new Prius for the wife (or whoever) that gets 50+ MPG. Rolling Eyes

Call it a photo op if you want. I don't think conservative values necessitate maligning the motives of the program. It certainly isn't the program's fault no American car mfg has marketed a vehicle like the Prius.

Pez Wed Aug 05, 2009 4:27 pm

LTRT wrote:This we all know, point taken.

I just think it's hilarious that contrary to what is put out in the media, drivers love the imports. Humm, now we have $2.4 billion allocated for electric cars, betcha those will sell like hot-cakes. What'll be the tag on them, $30k?

Problem 2 with the domestic auto industry... a capitalist system doesnt breed altruists that will buy an expensive car that is of lesser quality than it's foreign counterpart because it makes them feel good for 'doing the right thing.'

We cant (as much as we want to) have it both ways... a free market in a capitalist economy dictates that price and quality rule. Any company that cant compete on both counts will lose... even if that company is toyota.

The sad fact remains that a true believer in what is billed as the American brand of capitalism will buy a Toyota Camry over a Ford Taurus every time. The irony here is that the 30 year union man with a "Buy American" sticker on his vehicle is expressing a more socialist sentiment than the Obama administration is with universal healthcare. They are essentially saying that we need to buy a lesser quality product because it keeps them employed, and therefore permits them to continue to produce products of a lesser quality. Essentially the same sentiment as iber's topic about the girl suing her college because she cant find a job... ME ME ME ME ME ME.... a 30 year union man driving around with a bumper sticker that essentially identifies him as having the same attitude he bitches about with "those damn Gen X kids"

Pez Wed Aug 05, 2009 4:29 pm

And the Chevy Volt price tag is about estimated to be about $43,000... sigh...

Pez Wed Aug 05, 2009 4:37 pm

Markwes wrote:
So if we assume the experts are correct and it's insignificant, and that the primary goal is to stimulate the economy, then why add the gas mileage stipulation? If I had an old Dodge Neon and I want to trade it in for a $40,000 SUV, that would do whole lot more stimulating than the other way around. That means there are 2 possibilities. Either they really expected this to reduce CO2 emissions, in which case they didn't do their homework, or they just threw that in there to make it look like they care, in which case it's a bit deceiving. After all the photo ops I tend to think it's the 2nd one.

Great point... I agree... it's probably an option 3, that they dont want to appear to be subsidizing large vehicles and pissing off the environmentalists... although the program is full of a lot of loopholes... where I can trade my 1974 Suburban that gets 6 miles to the gallon for a Hummer H3 that gets 8, and the government will give me a few grand to help out.

Further, the program is being heralded as successful because Ford is posting it's first profitable quarter in two years, that statistic is a bit misleading also... I am not sure it's as successful as it is popular (it's a good deal for those wanting a new car)... the Ford profit is a bit misleading also, because when you have 8 abysmal quarters in a row you dont have much to do in order to improve...

SavoyTruffle Wed Aug 05, 2009 4:47 pm

Pez wrote:And the Chevy Volt price tag is about estimated to be about $43,000... sigh...

NOOOOOOOoooooooo!!

Scooby01_98 Wed Aug 05, 2009 5:07 pm

Pez wrote:
Further, the program is being heralded as successful because Ford is posting it's first profitable quarter in two years, that statistic is a bit misleading also... I am not sure it's as successful as it is popular (it's a good deal for those wanting a new car)... the Ford profit is a bit misleading also, because when you have 8 abysmal quarters in a row you dont have much to do in order to improve...

Actually Ford 2nd quarter ended before the cash for clunker deal started. So yeah, Smile

they were profitable without this incentive. Which is good news. However, they did sell more cars July 2009 than July 2008 a 2.3 increase over last year. They did attribute that as a larger increase due to 1 week of cash for clunker.

Guest Wed Aug 05, 2009 5:25 pm

I am seriously considering going back and changing a couple of answers on my political spectrum grid...

Great post Pez!

Canuck Wed Aug 05, 2009 5:51 pm

The government of Ontario will issue rebates of between $4,000 and $10,000 for plug-in hybrid and battery electric vehicles purchased after July 1, 2010.

The Volt is expected to cost approximately $40,000.00 CAD.

Pez Wed Aug 05, 2009 5:51 pm

Scooby01_98 wrote:Actually Ford 2nd quarter ended before the cash for clunker deal started. So yeah, they were profitable without this incentive. Which is good news. However, they did sell more cars July 2009 than July 2008 a 2.3 increase over last year. They did attribute that as a larger increase due to 1 week of cash for clunker.

Interesting... the story I heard on the radio seemed to suggest otherwise... I might have misheard it...

Edit... I did mishear it... it wasnt the quarter to quarter comparison, it was the month this year to the same month last year comparison... I stand humbly corrected :-)

Pez Wed Aug 05, 2009 6:20 pm

good discussion on this topic... seems like old times :-)

LTRT Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:22 pm

Interest in Cash for Clunkers sputters
http://money.cnn.com/2009/08/11/autos/cash_for_clunkers_interest_declines/index.htm?postversion=2009081114

In 'Gold Rush mentality,' demand for cars peaked in July and could fall to pre-Clunkers levels next week, report says.

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- After sparking an initial rush to showrooms, the Cash for Clunkers program seems to be running out of fuel.

Interest in Cash for Clunkers has fallen 15% since its peak, and the number of people planning to buy cars could fall to pre-Clunkers levels by next week, an auto research group said Tuesday.

this is too much...come Bman, help'em out and spring for a few.

Why not call it a day and take back the $2B, oh wait, we never had it in the first place.

**Cincy Fan 44** Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:26 pm

It probably has a lot to do w/ what went on last week with whether or not the program would be bailed out...

LTRT Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:33 pm

Cincy Fan 44 wrote:It probably has a lot to do w/ what went on last week with whether or not the program would be bailed out...

By the way, does Miss Honky Tonk have badonkadonk?

**Cincy Fan 44** Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:48 pm

LTRT wrote:
Cincy Fan 44 wrote:It probably has a lot to do w/ what went on last week with whether or not the program would be bailed out...

By the way, does Miss Honky Tonk have badonkadonk?

Negative.

sliptap Wed Aug 12, 2009 4:57 pm

...getting back on topic:

I love how our government is trying to use money incentives to try to determine what we purchase. It makes sense until you realize that you're actually just getting your own money back in the first place. Geeze, we'd be better with tax cuts, where we could spend the money on things we actually decide is necessary. affraid

Pez Wed Aug 12, 2009 5:39 pm

sliptap wrote:...getting back on topic:

I love how our government is trying to use money incentives to try to determine what we purchase. It makes sense until you realize that you're actually just getting your own money back in the first place. Geeze, we'd be better with tax cuts, where we could spend the money on things we actually decide is necessary.

You are getting your own money back, but that $4500 credit (or whatever it is) should be prorated on the amount you pay in taxes etc...

The idea is to get that tax money into the economy, a lot of the "instant tax cuts" in the form of checks from the government were used to pay down debt... which is certainly a noble thing... but the goods and services that money purchased were built or consumed long ago... so the net effect on indistry would not be the same.

Guest Wed Aug 12, 2009 6:28 pm

sliptap wrote:...getting back on topic:

I love how our government is trying to use money incentives to try to determine what we purchase. It makes sense until you realize that you're actually just getting your own money back in the first place. Geeze, we'd be better with tax cuts, where we could spend the money on things we actually decide is necessary.

and then the auto industry would fail and thousands would be unemployed and the trickle down to other industries would be devasting and our society crumbles ... Nice attempt to insure your FAILURE hope on America.

Scooby01_98 Wed Aug 12, 2009 6:39 pm

Bman wrote:
sliptap wrote:...getting back on topic:

I love how our government is trying to use money incentives to try to determine what we purchase. It makes sense until you realize that you're actually just getting your own money back in the first place. Geeze, we'd be better with tax cuts, where we could spend the money on things we actually decide is necessary.

and then the auto industry would fail and thousands would be unemployed and the trickle down to other industries would be devasting and our society crumbles ... Nice attempt to insure your FAILURE hope on America.

Just because GM or Chrysler would go out of business doesn't mean the demand for those items would disappear they would just go to another company that made the same item. Which would cause those companies to build or buy factories to produce those same goods (probably where the demand is). Which would look for suppliers that could supply the increase demand for parts to supply the manufacturer to build more vehicles. The difference is those small suppliers might have to retool or increase their quality to win those contracts.

No failure of America just normal economics.

**Cincy Fan 44** Wed Aug 12, 2009 6:47 pm

Bman wrote:
sliptap wrote:...getting back on topic:

I love how our government is trying to use money incentives to try to determine what we purchase. It makes sense until you realize that you're actually just getting your own money back in the first place. Geeze, we'd be better with tax cuts, where we could spend the money on things we actually decide is necessary.

and then the auto industry would fail and thousands would be unemployed and the trickle down to other industries would be devasting and our society crumbles ... Nice attempt to insure your FAILURE hope on America.

So are you now advocating "Trickle Down Economics"??? Razz

Guest Wed Aug 12, 2009 7:07 pm

Cincy Fan 44 wrote:
Bman wrote:
sliptap wrote:...getting back on topic:

I love how our government is trying to use money incentives to try to determine what we purchase. It makes sense until you realize that you're actually just getting your own money back in the first place. Geeze, we'd be better with tax cuts, where we could spend the money on things we actually decide is necessary.

and then the auto industry would fail and thousands would be unemployed and the trickle down to other industries would be devasting and our society crumbles ... Nice attempt to insure your FAILURE hope on America.
So are you now advocating "Trickle Down Economics"???

This is more trickle sidewise ... causing the auto industry to uptick causes all industries to uptick puts more $$$$ in the economy BEING spent not saved i.e. buying additional groceries, school supplies etc .... that a tax cut for the rich would not do ... this helps the working class in America ... Joe Six Pack that you guys were SOOOOO concerned with during the election.

sliptap Wed Aug 12, 2009 7:41 pm

Bman wrote:and then the auto industry would fail and thousands would be unemployed and the trickle down to other industries would be devasting and our society crumbles ... Nice attempt to insure your FAILURE hope on America.

...and then you'd have nothing left to exaggerate on, would you? Well, shit, our government REALLY messed up considering that.

Seriously though, get a clue man...because you're WAAAY off the deep end.

Sponsored content