That was quick. :huh:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/31/business/31clunkers.html?hp
QuoteBy MATTHEW L. WALD
Published: July 30, 2009
WASHINGTON — After an unanticipated level of response from car shoppers seeking new auto discounts under the "cash for clunkers" program, the government was reported Thursday evening to have exhausted the funds available, leaving unclear whether further applications would be accepted.
The National Automobile Dealers Association surveyed its members in recent days and told the Transportation Department Thursday that it had a very large backlog of applications, according to Bailey Wood, a spokesman for the association.
Late in the day the group said the Transportation Department had responded by telling it to stop taking applications at midnight. Both the government and the dealers were concerned that buyers would drive off the lot assuming they had a big rebate that would not, in fact, be available.
The Transportation Department had no official comment on Thursday, but in the evening, a White House official, who refused to be identified, said that the program had not, in fact, been suspended. The dealers' group said, though, that the last instructions it had were to cut off applications at midnight Thursday.
The Transportation Secretary was making calls to the House and Senate Thursday to try to line up more money. The House leaves town for its August recess on Friday.
About a quarter-million vehicles were sold under the program, which offered payments of $3,500 to $4,500 for people who traded in old cars for new ones that had higher fuel economy. The average payment worked out to about $4,000, and the total payout, about $1 billion, the amount allocated by Congress under the program, formally called the Car Allowance Rebate System, or CARS.
A statement issued Thursday evening by the White House said: "We are working tonight to assess the situation facing what is obviously an incredibly popular program. Auto dealers and consumers should have confidence that all valid CARS transactions that have taken place to date will be honored."
Mr. Wood, of the dealers' group, said, "We believe that the Department of Transportation is doing the responsible thing to suspend the program." Mr. Wood said that his group would ask Congress and the White House to add money to the plan.
The sudden depletion of the fund was a surprise.
On Thursday evening, the government Web site describing the program, http://www.cars.gov/still showed a chart shaped like a fuel gauge that indicated $779 million was available for trade-ins of cars and light trucks. Earlier Thursday, the Transportation Department issued a news release that said that applications for fewer than 23,000 vehicles had been submitted as of Wednesday, with a rebate value of just under $100 million.
The Transportation Department had begun accepting applications on Monday, when rules putting the program in place took effect. But car dealers had been accumulating the applications since July 1, when Congress put the law into effect.
Congress evidently did not anticipate that the money would fly out the door so fast; it said that applications would be accepted until Nov. 1 or the money ran out.
The program had two goals: aiding the ailing car industry and improving fuel economy in the fleet on the road.
Cars submitted under the program were to be junked. They had to be less than 25 years old, and have a fuel economy, as rated by the window sticker, of 18 miles a gallon or less.
The size of the rebate depended on the fuel economy of the replacement vehicle. Consumers were also supposed to receive the scrap value of their trade-in.
From the dealer's point of view, the program was a resounding success.
"Two hundred and fifty thousand vehicles in four weeks?" Mr. Wood said. "One word comes out of my mouth: Wow."
As word spread unofficially on Thursday night, car dealers were suddenly plunged into confusion.
A Ford dealership in Paramus, N.J., did not know of the apparent suspension until a reporter called seeking comment.
Other dealers said they had no idea what the suspension meant or whether the deals that they had already signed would be honored by the government. Some said they were notified by e-mail message by fellow dealers.
The dealers' association, however, had been warning that the money would go quickly.
Under the program, buyers who picked a car with a mileage improvement of more than four miles per gallon but less than 10 were eligible for $3,500; those whose new vehicle was rated 10 miles per gallon or more better than the old one were eligible for $4,500.
Until the cash-for-clunkers program began, the auto industry had been on track for annual sales of about 10 million units, down from the peak of about 16 million units a year.
Katharine Q. Seelye contributed reporting from New York.
This is totally inept bureaucratic planning. If you design a scheme like that with a cap in the amount of money available, you have to have a plan to deal with the possibility that the number of applications may exceed the amount of funds available. They seem to be taken by surprise, and this should not have happened. Heads would roll in HK if this happens.
Quote from: Monoriu on July 30, 2009, 09:51:18 PM
This is totally inept bureaucratic planning. If you design a scheme like that with a cap in the amount of money available, you have to have a plan to deal with the possibility that the number of applications may exceed the amount of funds available. They seem to be taken by surprise, and this should not have happened. Heads would roll in HK if this happens.
LOL---This is despite the fact that nobody's actually getting any rebates. :lmfao:
http://www.startribune.com/business/51943937.html?page=1&c=y
Quote
Scott Lambert, vice president of the Minnesota Auto Dealers Association, said he was "astounded" to learn at a meeting Tuesday representing about 150 Minnesota dealers that not one has had a deal approved.
"We had dealers representing 1,500 to 2,000 transactions," he said. "We asked how many had a deal approved yet, and not one hand went up."
Well, it is a trade off really. In the HK government, every new initiative goes through very rigorous procedures before they are announced. Every plan has to be approved by multiple levels of bureaucrats and then by multiple committees comprising multiple departments. Only schemes that survive the scrutiny survive. The bosses are supposed to attack the idea from every angle and prepare for every eventuality. Only then do we seek funding from the legislature (they can't propose anything, only vote yes/no on government proposals).
The other way is to conceive something and then rush it out. Very fast response to economic crisis. But many bad things happen.
Germany had a car scrappage scheme too and when they ran out of money they just threw more money at it. That's how a Western democracy works, Mono. :P
America isn't a democracy. President Bartlett said so himself.
Quote from: The Brain on July 31, 2009, 02:54:54 AM
America isn't a democracy. President Bartlett said so himself.
Actually I think a distinguished Languishite (redundant, I know) told us that America is a Republic, not a Democracy...
Oh, and I wouldn't define having spent the allocated budget 'being broke'. In fact, I would go sa far as to say spending that money was the target of the plan.
Quote from: Monoriu on July 30, 2009, 09:51:18 PM
This is totally inept bureaucratic planning. If you design a scheme like that with a cap in the amount of money available, you have to have a plan to deal with the possibility that the number of applications may exceed the amount of funds available. They seem to be taken by surprise, and this should not have happened. Heads would roll in HK if this happens.
You're in charge of clunkers. How do you design a program so that there are no applications in the works when the program runs out of money?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 31, 2009, 05:13:32 AM
Quote from: Monoriu on July 30, 2009, 09:51:18 PM
This is totally inept bureaucratic planning. If you design a scheme like that with a cap in the amount of money available, you have to have a plan to deal with the possibility that the number of applications may exceed the amount of funds available. They seem to be taken by surprise, and this should not have happened. Heads would roll in HK if this happens.
You're in charge of clunkers. How do you design a program so that there are no applications in the works when the program runs out of money?
1. Set up a quota system. First 100 who applies will get the money. The rest get zilch. Alternatively, the rest gets an IOU that may or may not be honoured subject to availability of additional funds from Congress.
2. Draw lots. Everybody who applies before 1 August gets a chance to win the lottery.
3. Points system. You get points based on objective criteria, income, age, location, anything that does not involve human judgement. The people who gets the most points get the money.
4. Delegate. This is the amount of funds that we allocate to the states, and each figure out a way to do it. I don't care how you do it, but I won't give you a cent more if you run out of money.
1 and 2 are preferred over 3 and 4 for corruption prevention reasons.
Quote from: Alatriste on July 31, 2009, 04:13:37 AM
Quote from: The Brain on July 31, 2009, 02:54:54 AM
America isn't a democracy. President Bartlett said so himself.
Actually I think a distinguished Languishite (redundant, I know) told us that America is a Republic, not a Democracy...
Exactly, just like Bartlett. Not a democracy.
Quote from: Monoriu on July 31, 2009, 05:27:14 AM
1. Set up a quota system. First 100 who applies will get the money. The rest get zilch. Alternatively, the rest gets an IOU that may or may not be honoured subject to availability of additional funds from Congress.
2. Draw lots. Everybody who applies before 1 August gets a chance to win the lottery.
3. Points system. You get points based on objective criteria, income, age, location, anything that does not involve human judgement. The people who gets the most points get the money.
4. Delegate. This is the amount of funds that we allocate to the states, and each figure out a way to do it. I don't care how you do it, but I won't give you a cent more if you run out of money.
1 and 2 are preferred over 3 and 4 for corruption prevention reasons.
#1 doesn't get rid of the current problem. Neither does #4.
I just bought a car two weeks ago. According to research I did, my old car did qualify for the clunkers program. However the dealer was iffy on the program, said the details on it and money available were in question. So to compensate they gave me more money off on the new car deal. I felt that was ok, and in retrospect it might have been best for me given that the program is out of money now, and there are so many applications waiting.
Good deal though and this should spur car sales. Chrysler is matching the clunker money, or I think more like giving an equal amount off of the new care price regardless of it qualifying for the clunker program. I guess that's what they can do with government money backing them up, but that should get them some nice sales increases.
Cool, what kind did you get KRonn?
Quote from: Caliga on July 31, 2009, 07:50:47 AM
Cool, what kind did you get KRonn?
I traded a 1998 Ford Explorer for a 2009 Ford Escape, a small SUV. New car has a 4 cylinder engine, pretty peppy engine and much better on gas.
Nice. :)
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 31, 2009, 06:06:35 AM
Quote from: Monoriu on July 31, 2009, 05:27:14 AM
1. Set up a quota system. First 100 who applies will get the money. The rest get zilch. Alternatively, the rest gets an IOU that may or may not be honoured subject to availability of additional funds from Congress.
2. Draw lots. Everybody who applies before 1 August gets a chance to win the lottery.
3. Points system. You get points based on objective criteria, income, age, location, anything that does not involve human judgement. The people who gets the most points get the money.
4. Delegate. This is the amount of funds that we allocate to the states, and each figure out a way to do it. I don't care how you do it, but I won't give you a cent more if you run out of money.
1 and 2 are preferred over 3 and 4 for corruption prevention reasons.
#1 doesn't get rid of the current problem. Neither does #4.
Thing is, they shouldn't get into this situation in the first place. Before they announced the whole thing, they should've added a footnote saying that we only allow this number of applications. If the number of applications exceeds this number, we will not entertain them. Congress has authorized you to spend this amount of money. Civil servants must take measures to ensure that that is the maximum amount that will be spent. If you design a system that will commit Congress to spend more than that, you have failed in your basic duty.
Maybe this kind of program is a good economic stimulus? Gets people buying cars, increases auto company sales/profits, money gets moved around. Maybe more like this should be done, or should have been done. Only a billion allocated to it; maybe add a lot more, that is, if we can afford to given all that was spent elsewhere in the economic stimulus bill. Instead of some of the more long term Congress member's pet type projects/programs.
I'm impressed by Mono's seeming bureaucratic competence.
Go ask for a raise.
Quote from: saskganesh on July 31, 2009, 10:03:08 AM
I'm impressed by Mono's seeming bureaucratic competence.
Go ask for a raise.
Actually, my salary is going to be cut soon. I think this is the 4th time in recent years.
Quote from: Monoriu on July 31, 2009, 10:40:46 AM
Quote from: saskganesh on July 31, 2009, 10:03:08 AM
I'm impressed by Mono's seeming bureaucratic competence.
Go ask for a raise.
Actually, my salary is going to be cut soon. I think this is the 4th time in recent years.
well, that should double your motivation to ask for a raise! ;)
We have pay scales. Everybody with the same seniority and rank are paid the exact same amount. The problem is that the entire pay scale is shifting toward the wrong direction :weep:
You should work on increasing your seniority and rank then.
Quote from: DGuller on July 31, 2009, 11:15:34 AM
You should work on increasing your seniority and rank then.
I am working on it - my seniority increases every day :lol:
Looks like Congress is scrambling to find more cash for clunkers! Man the printing presses!! :cool:
A couple of things though. Vehicles taken with this program need to be scrapped, destroyed. This seems a waste of materials, and vehicles, since some of these vehicles are still quite usable. Spare parts that junk yards could sell are destroyed also. That was one concern that was voiced in an article I read earlier, the shortage of those spare parts.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32228179/ns/business-autos/
Congress trying to rescue 'cash for clunkers'
Lawmakers aim to pass $2 billion bill to keep rebate program alive
I don't get why spare parts need to be destroyed. Wouldn't destroying just the frame pretty much guarantee that no one could be gaming the system?
Quote from: saskganesh on July 31, 2009, 10:03:08 AM
I'm impressed by Mono's seeming bureaucratic competence.
Go ask for a raise.
We need more people like Mono to help run US govt bureaucracies more efficiently. Mono, maybe you could get a consulting job teaching efficient procedures. :bowler:
Quote from: DGuller on July 31, 2009, 11:24:06 AM
I don't get why spare parts need to be destroyed. Wouldn't destroying just the frame pretty much guarantee that no one could be gaming the system?
My understanding is that the cars are crushed. But it it's being done differently, the parts stripped first or something, that's better.
The vehicles must be destroyed, otherwise the system will collaspe due to abuse. Imagine: me and the car dealer reaching a deal. Me trade in the vehicle, gets the rebate. He gets back the car, and sells it. We split the rebate and the proceeds from the car. From a taxpayer perspective, the money is spent, but the car that supposedly pullutes the environment still runs on the street, just by someone else. The taxpaper pays but does not achieve anything.
Quote from: Monoriu on July 31, 2009, 11:27:12 AM
The vehicles must be destroyed, otherwise the system will collaspe due to abuse. Imagine: me and the car dealer reaching a deal. Me trade in the vehicle, gets the rebate. He gets back the car, and sells it. We split the rebate and the proceeds from the car.
Right, and that was my understanding. I just don't know if there have been any changes where some spare parts can be removed. But yeah, that would get messy and allow a corruption of the program.
Quote from: Monoriu on July 31, 2009, 11:27:12 AM
The vehicles must be destroyed, otherwise the system will collaspe due to abuse. Imagine: me and the car dealer reaching a deal. Me trade in the vehicle, gets the rebate. He gets back the car, and sells it. We split the rebate and the proceeds from the car. From a taxpayer perspective, the money is spent, but the car that supposedly pullutes the environment still runs on the street, just by someone else. The taxpaper pays but does not achieve anything.
That's why I said that crushing just the frame would be enough. You can't game the system if the frame is crushed, you're still take the car off the road.
point of interest. in the last Saskatchewan election, the party that got elected waived the provincial sales tax IF you bought a used vehicle. so maybe you can export those vechiles to the clunker-enabling Canadian prairies.
... we call them "beaters" though.
I'm glad that the House was eager to give this program another 2 billion. :swiss:
Quote from: garbon on July 31, 2009, 01:23:55 PM
I'm glad that the House was eager to give this program another 2 billion. :swiss:
Heh, maybe instead of an "economic stimulus" of over $700 billion (plus another few hundred billion for interest on that debt), Congress and the Obama admin should have stuck to ideas like this, and given at least 5 billion to this one starting out. :cool:
If I drive an old clunker (beater) south of the Line can I turn it into cash too?
Quote from: Monoriu on July 31, 2009, 08:58:33 AM
Thing is, they shouldn't get into this situation in the first place. Before they announced the whole thing, they should've added a footnote saying that we only allow this number of applications. If the number of applications exceeds this number, we will not entertain them. Congress has authorized you to spend this amount of money. Civil servants must take measures to ensure that that is the maximum amount that will be spent. If you design a system that will commit Congress to spend more than that, you have failed in your basic duty.
Still doesn't get rid of the problem that money runs out in real time (or application slots in your alternative system) whereas applications process with a lag.
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 31, 2009, 04:11:41 PM
If I drive an old clunker (beater) south of the Line can I turn it into cash too?
If it's been registered in US for the last year, sure.
What about chunkers?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 31, 2009, 04:22:51 PM
Quote from: Monoriu on July 31, 2009, 08:58:33 AM
Thing is, they shouldn't get into this situation in the first place. Before they announced the whole thing, they should've added a footnote saying that we only allow this number of applications. If the number of applications exceeds this number, we will not entertain them. Congress has authorized you to spend this amount of money. Civil servants must take measures to ensure that that is the maximum amount that will be spent. If you design a system that will commit Congress to spend more than that, you have failed in your basic duty.
Still doesn't get rid of the problem that money runs out in real time (or application slots in your alternative system) whereas applications process with a lag.
The key thing is expectations management.
If you announce a system with no caveats attached, people will naturally expect that they will get the rebate. Whether you run out of money or not is your problem. If you run out of money, the people will expect the bureaucrats to seek additional funding. They will raise hell if they don't get the rebate.
If you design the system with quotas attached, and announce it, it doesn't matter if the applications keep coming in. They will know they may not get the money. The bureaucrats can defend their position if some people aren't paid.
They need to do a Chinks 4 Cash program so I can turn Mono in for money. He'd be living out his life dream of being worth something and I'd get a weekend with the hookers and Jamaicans.
Quote from: Monoriu on July 31, 2009, 06:00:43 PM
The key thing is expectations management.
If you announce a system with no caveats attached, people will naturally expect that they will get the rebate. Whether you run out of money or not is your problem. If you run out of money, the people will expect the bureaucrats to seek additional funding. They will raise hell if they don't get the rebate.
If you design the system with quotas attached, and announce it, it doesn't matter if the applications keep coming in. They will know they may not get the money. The bureaucrats can defend their position if some people aren't paid.
Expectations were managed. They announced that the program would run until October 1 or until the money ran out, whichever came first. They had a meter running on their web site showing how much of the billion was left.
There do seem to be problems with this bill. I don't think they've figured out who gets the money or rights for the parts that can be stripped off vehicles. Vehicles are supposed to be destroyed in two days or something, which is very hard to do. Dealers have to fill out complex and confusing paperwork, and they're being turned down on requests. Then as I said before, destroying so many usable autos is just a waste of resources. Lots of kids or poorer people would buy these older cars. Too many issues with this plan. The upside is the increase in auto sales, which helps the economy, but i'm beginning to think this is more of a boondoggle plan. Let's see how it goes.
My 1987 Toyota 4Runner was not enough of a clunker to qualify. I think my kids would beg to differ.
A more basic issue is just the fact that this is, in effect, a voucher system, and we had pretty good evidence this year that those tend to be overloaded quickly- the digital TV converter box vouchers.
Quote from: KRonn on July 31, 2009, 11:29:32 AM
Right, and that was my understanding. I just don't know if there have been any changes where some spare parts can be removed. But yeah, that would get messy and allow a corruption of the program.
Cars are always stripped before they are crushed (except when the Mob pays for the crushing in the movies). Why would this be different?
Quote from: DontSayBanana on July 31, 2009, 09:27:14 PM
A more basic issue is just the fact that this is, in effect, a voucher system, and we had pretty good evidence this year that those tend to be overloaded quickly- the digital TV converter box vouchers.
Yes, but you cannot expect Congress to react based on mere facts.
Quote from: grumbler on July 31, 2009, 10:14:42 PM
Quote from: KRonn on July 31, 2009, 11:29:32 AM
Right, and that was my understanding. I just don't know if there have been any changes where some spare parts can be removed. But yeah, that would get messy and allow a corruption of the program.
Cars are always stripped before they are crushed (except when the Mob pays for the crushing in the movies). Why would this be different?
Because these are cars paid by government money and the junkie gets use of the parts that taxpayers paid for. This seems a freebie given to him, courtesy of the taxpayers, where usually the spare parts dealer or junkie would have to pay something to get the car. Or if he does pay, someone else makes money off of something that was paid by the govt. Just messy, though I don't know the details of how it all works. But I saw questions like this raised on the news.
Quote from: Jaron on July 31, 2009, 06:06:22 PM
They need to do a Chinks 4 Cash program so I can turn Mono in for money. He'd be living out his life dream of being worth something and I'd get a weekend with the hookers and Jamaicans.
Jamaicans? :unsure:
Quote from: KRonn on July 31, 2009, 10:25:21 PM
Because these are cars paid by government money and the junkie gets use of the parts that taxpayers paid for. This seems a freebie given to him, courtesy of the taxpayers, where usually the spare parts dealer or junkie would have to pay something to get the car. Or if he does pay, someone else makes money off of something that was paid by the govt. Just messy, though I don't know the details of how it all works. But I saw questions like this raised on the news.
Whoever crushes the car buys it at auction, transports it, strips it, crushes it, and sells the scrap metal and parts. It is the latter sales that pay for the former costs. The dealer and manufacturer get the rebate, because it is coming off the price of the car and they cannot then re-sell the traded-in car.
If the dealer gets much from the auction, this could be an issue, I suppose.
Quote from: KRonn on July 31, 2009, 10:25:21 PM
Because these are cars paid by government money and the junkie gets use of the parts that taxpayers paid for. This seems a freebie given to him, courtesy of the taxpayers, where usually the spare parts dealer or junkie would have to pay something to get the car. Or if he does pay, someone else makes money off of something that was paid by the govt. Just messy, though I don't know the details of how it all works. But I saw questions like this raised on the news.
:yes: If the dealer is prohibited from profiting on a vouched vehicle, why should the junker be able to?
Quote from: DontSayBanana on July 31, 2009, 10:34:20 PM
Quote from: KRonn on July 31, 2009, 10:25:21 PM
Because these are cars paid by government money and the junkie gets use of the parts that taxpayers paid for. This seems a freebie given to him, courtesy of the taxpayers, where usually the spare parts dealer or junkie would have to pay something to get the car. Or if he does pay, someone else makes money off of something that was paid by the govt. Just messy, though I don't know the details of how it all works. But I saw questions like this raised on the news.
:yes: If the dealer is prohibited from profiting on a vouched vehicle, why should the junker be able to?
I'll assume it's been taken care of with how the program works, don't know for sure. But I was a bit surprised by news reports asking the questions.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on July 31, 2009, 10:34:20 PM
:yes: If the dealer is prohibited from profiting on a vouched vehicle, why should the junker be able to?
Because that's his business. He has to absorb all of the up-front costs. Why shouldn't he be able to recoup his costs + profit on the back end? The market is gonna be flooded with used parts, driving down prices. How can you create a sensible regulatory scheme that takes that into account?
Simpler to let the existing system handle it, and if some junk dealers make some extra cash, to live with that.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 31, 2009, 06:21:45 PM
Expectations were managed. They announced that the program would run until October 1 or until the money ran out, whichever came first. They had a meter running on their web site showing how much of the billion was left.
If they keep eating their own words by throwing more money into the programme, they'll create an expectation that whoever applies for the rebate will get it, that metre be damned.
Quote from: grumbler on July 31, 2009, 10:39:29 PM
Simpler to let the existing system handle it, and if some junk dealers make some extra cash, to live with that.
Let it be known that Grumbler supports a tax payer "Bail out" of junk dealers.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 01, 2009, 04:46:24 AM
Let it be known that Grumbler supports a tax payer "Bail out" of junk dealers.
Well, since the wackos try to turn managing health care costs into "kill Granny," I am sure they can try to turn 'allow the existing system to work' into ' a tax payer "Bail out" of junk dealers!' :lol:
Coming back to the spare parts question, I saw the piece on the news that said that dealers were asked to pour caustic liquid into the engine to ruin the car. This makes it sound like the car is not salvaged for the spare parts, or at least not the spare parts for the engine or fuel system. What a waste.
Quote from: DGuller on August 03, 2009, 10:05:33 AM
Coming back to the spare parts question, I saw the piece on the news that said that dealers were asked to pour caustic liquid into the engine to ruin the car. This makes it sound like the car is not salvaged for the spare parts, or at least not the spare parts for the engine or fuel system. What a waste.
When a window is broken, it must be repaired, which requires the purchase of a new window and installation services. That will employ both window makers and installers. But to get those people jobs, someone needs to throw bricks through windows. That is where the cash for clunkers program comes into play.
Quote from: alfred russel on August 03, 2009, 10:16:01 AM
When a window is broken, it must be repaired, which requires the purchase of a new window and installation services. That will employ both window makers and installers. But to get those people jobs, someone needs to throw bricks through windows. That is where the cash for clunkers program comes into play.
:lol: To be fair, though, broken window fallacy is not necesserily a fallacy during periods of high unemployment. Premature destruction of the window is a waste, but so is a large chunk of the worforce sitting on its hands when it could be doing something useful.
I do think that there are good things that are coming from this program. The old cars are much dirtier, and much less safe, than the new cars. Giving people a push to get rid of those cars does have some societal benefits. Is it worth the price tag? By itself, probably not.
Quote from: DGuller on August 03, 2009, 10:28:41 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on August 03, 2009, 10:16:01 AM
When a window is broken, it must be repaired, which requires the purchase of a new window and installation services. That will employ both window makers and installers. But to get those people jobs, someone needs to throw bricks through windows. That is where the cash for clunkers program comes into play.
:lol: To be fair, though, broken window fallacy is not necesserily a fallacy during periods of high unemployment. Premature destruction of the window is a waste, but so is a large chunk of the worforce sitting on its hands when it could be doing something useful.
I do think that there are good things that are coming from this program. The old cars are much dirtier, and much less safe, than the new cars. Giving people a push to get rid of those cars does have some societal benefits. Is it worth the price tag? By itself, probably not.
I agree, I just wanted to post that. :p
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32269548/ns/business-autos/
'Cash for clunkers' boosts Ford sales in July
1.6 percent increase is first year-over-year sales rise since Nov. 2007
Lured by the government's cash-for-clunkers campaign, car and truck buyers started to return to Ford Motor Co. showrooms last month, with the automaker reporting its first U.S. sales increase in nearly two years.
July sales of Ford, Lincoln, and Mercury light vehicles rose 1.6 percent from the same month last year. Ford sold 158,354 vehicles, a 2.2 percent increase over last month and a sign that consumer fears that fueled the worst U.S. auto sales slump in a quarter-century may be easing.
Ford's sales, led by the redesigned midsize Ford Fusion, and strong sales of the Escape crossover vehicle and F-series pickup line, offered encouraging signs for industry analysts who predicted a modest improvement in the second-half of the year.
The clunker program boosted Ford's sales despite concerns about whether it would be suspended during the final two sales days of the month. The program was expected to boost industry sales overall, which were down 35 percent in the first half of 2009.
Called the Car Allowance Rebate System, or CARS, the clunkers program offers owners of old cars and trucks $3,500 or $4,500 toward a new, more fuel-efficient vehicle, in exchange for scrapping their old vehicle.
Congress approved the plan early in July, but the government considered suspending it on Thursday after an overwhelming response threatened to deplete the $1 billion allocated for the rebates.
But the program continued and the House voted to allocate another $2 billion to keep the sales going. Senators were to vote on the plan this week.
Tom Libby, an independent Detroit-area auto analyst said the government rebate program provided a big shot in the arm to automakers at a time when it appeared overall sales may be stabilizing after months of sharp declines.
"It has psychologically been had a huge positive effect for the industry, which is what it needed," Libby said.
Video
Ford: 'Clunker' sales put us over the top
Aug. 3: George Pipas, Ford's Chief Sales Analyst tells CNBC that the "cash-for-clunkers" program created traffic and sales for Ford vehicles, that they otherwise wouldn't have had.
CNBC
But it remains unclear whether customers will keep buying cars when the program is over, he said. Often, demand falls off after large incentive programs end.
"Almost without exception, we have seen a drop off," he said.
George Pipas, Ford's top sales analyst, attributed the company's higher sales to its more fuel-efficient products, saying that consumers are trending toward better gas mileage despite gasoline prices around $2.50 per gallon.
Analysts expect other automakers to turn in strong performances for the month, most notably Korea's Hyundai Motor Co., which may pass Chrysler Group LLC and Japan's Nissan Motor Co. in sales for the first time in history. Subaru of America Inc. on Monday said its US sales leaped 34 percent in July on sizable sales improvements for most of its models.
German automaker Daimler AG said its sales in the U.S. fell by 24 percent in July, amid plunging sales of its Smart minicar and Mercedes-Benz luxury vehicles.
Still, industry analysts predicted that July sales, if converted to an annual rate, would top 10 million cars and trucks. It would be the first month this year that sales rose above the depressed 10 million figure.
General Motors Co. and Chrysler, both of which have gone in and out of bankruptcy protection and are surviving on a total of $65 billion in government aid, each have said their expenses are so low that they can break even if U.S. sales run around 10.5 million per year.
"There's no question that the clunkers are going to help us get above the 10 million unit mark this month," said Erich Merkle, president of the industry consulting firm autoeconomy.com in Grand Rapids, Michigan.
If more money is allocated to the CARS program, then August could also see a boost, and that could keep sales going until employment losses stabilize in the fall and consumers' fears of making big-ticket purchases start to ease, Merkle said.
While the clunkers incentives could pull some sales ahead from later in the year, most people who trade clunkers wouldn't have been looking for new cars without the government incentives, Merkle said.
In the fall, if job losses start to abate, then typical new car buyers who don't have clunkers might come back into the market, he said.
As recently as 2007, U.S. car and light truck sales topped 16 million vehicles, but economic troubles, tight credit and a lack of consumer confidence sent sales plunging late last year and during the first half of 2009.
Led by clever marketing and strong new products like the Genesis luxury sedan, Hyundai was expected to see an 8 percent sales increase, Edmunds predicted.
Quote from: DGuller on August 03, 2009, 10:05:33 AM
Coming back to the spare parts question, I saw the piece on the news that said that dealers were asked to pour caustic liquid into the engine to ruin the car. This makes it sound like the car is not salvaged for the spare parts, or at least not the spare parts for the engine or fuel system. What a waste.
The thinking is owever is that these spare parts would only be used to repair other gas guzzling cars, keeping them on the road longer. The intent of the program is to get older cars off the road altogether.
Quote from: Monoriu on July 31, 2009, 11:13:28 AM
We have pay scales. Everybody with the same seniority and rank are paid the exact same amount. The problem is that the entire pay scale is shifting toward the wrong direction :weep:
Quit. Get a real job.
Quote from: Siege on August 03, 2009, 01:51:34 PM
Quote from: Monoriu on July 31, 2009, 11:13:28 AM
We have pay scales. Everybody with the same seniority and rank are paid the exact same amount. The problem is that the entire pay scale is shifting toward the wrong direction :weep:
Quit. Get a real job.
WHether it's a good job or not is up for debate, but the HK Public Service is certainly a real job.
Mono certainly takes all the fun and excitement out of a bureaucratic job.
Quote from: DGuller on August 03, 2009, 02:23:11 PM
Mono certainly takes all the fun and excitement out of a bureaucratic job.
His workplace doesn't have the hijinks of the actuarial world, does it?
Quote from: DGuller on August 03, 2009, 02:23:11 PM
Mono certainly takes all the fun and excitement out of a bureaucratic job.
There are some bureaucratic jobs that are fun and exciting. :cool:
Those gas guzzlers aren't all old cars, and many of them, older ones but still quite serviceable, would be cheaply priced for a teenager's first car. Or a cheap older car for someone who can't afford a more expensive one. So it could be a problem to take so many older cars off the road by destroying them in the clunker program, especially since I think used car prices have gone up pretty heavily due to high demand. This should make things worse.
Quote from: KRonn on August 03, 2009, 02:37:54 PM
...since I think used car prices have gone up pretty heavily due to high demand. This should make things worse.
Indeed. I just bought my first new car in my life. I was looking at three-year-old used cars, but the new car was only about 25% more and featured a six-year bumper to bumper warranty. How could I pass that up? The new cars isn't quite as nice, but gets better milage, has more safeety features, and has satellite radio.
When I was thinking about buying a car, I did the math, and the new car didn't come out to be much higher than the used car. In my case it was due to high fixed costs that would be the same regardless of what car I would get. I figured that since I'm a new driver, I better get a new car with the newest safety features, particularly stability control and side curtains, both of which would be rare in used cars. It's also a lot nicer than any used car could be.
Quote from: grumbler on August 03, 2009, 10:53:45 PM
Quote from: KRonn on August 03, 2009, 02:37:54 PM
...since I think used car prices have gone up pretty heavily due to high demand. This should make things worse.
Indeed. I just bought my first new car in my life. I was looking at three-year-old used cars, but the new car was only about 25% more and featured a six-year bumper to bumper warranty. How could I pass that up? The new cars isn't quite as nice, but gets better milage, has more safeety features, and has satellite radio.
Congrats on the new car, enjoy! :) Yeah, definitely looks like the better deal going with the new car.
I'm thinking of getting an '85 Thunderbird, just because.
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 04, 2009, 07:59:52 AM
I'm thinking of getting an '85 Thunderbird, just because.
Get an IROC-Z. Goes well with your Burgundy Members Only jacket. :)
Quote from: Caliga on August 04, 2009, 08:03:07 AM
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 04, 2009, 07:59:52 AM
I'm thinking of getting an '85 Thunderbird, just because.
Get an IROC-Z. Goes well with your Burgundy Members Only jacket. :)
My jacket is tan. TAN! And fuck camaros.
Still fits after all these years too. I got more tail with that Thunderbird and jacket than you can imagine.
Good times.
I had a '68 Pontiac GTO convertible. Friends had Camaros, SS Chevelles, Mustangs and all manner of similar type hot cars.
Ahhh, those were the days. :cool:
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 04, 2009, 07:59:52 AM
I'm thinking of getting an '85 Thunderbird, just because.
Excellent. I think they started making them smaller by then. I would suggest going with the 82 model.
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 04, 2009, 10:37:41 AM
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 04, 2009, 07:59:52 AM
I'm thinking of getting an '85 Thunderbird, just because.
Excellent. I think they started making them smaller by then. I would suggest going with the 82 model.
Yep, a big box with a 115 HP V8 engine, a crown jewel of American automotive engineering. Be careful, you might get a whiplash if you gas it too much.
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 04, 2009, 07:59:52 AM
I'm thinking of getting an '85 Thunderbird, just because.
I wish I could have, by some miracle of finance, kept my '85 535i. I had a steady girlfriend at the time, but that car could have gotten me a lot of action. It certainly garned more comments and compliments than any car I've ever owned since then.
The BMW marquee has been: deflated. Half of the ones around here are driven by black dudes.
Quote from: Caliga on August 04, 2009, 10:56:51 AM
The BMW marquee has been: deflated. Half of the ones around here are driven by black dudes.
Around here, 100% of them are driven by complete assholes.
BMW is a taxi in a lot of places.
Quote from: Caliga on August 04, 2009, 10:56:51 AM
The BMW marquee has been: deflated. Half of the ones around here are driven by black dudes.
This was a 1985 though. It was still - quirky looking, but could also fly when I had the chance. And besides I owned it in university, so to university girls it gained a lot of attention.
Here's a pic:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bilgalleri.dk%2Fuploads_large_wm%2F909170.jpg&hash=ef5b0e160396e52c63e64fcade8c69886f1e7b9f)
Quote from: DGuller on August 04, 2009, 11:00:28 AM
Around here, 100% of them are driven by complete assholes.
The other 50% are salesmen who want you to think they're successful just 'cause they drive a BMW. ^_^
Come on people, the BMWs sold here are manufactured in FREAKING SOUTH CAROLINA.
I agree - although I certainly wouldn't say no to a modern BMW, it would have far less appeal than an older model to me.
Quote from: Caliga on August 04, 2009, 11:02:56 AM
Quote from: DGuller on August 04, 2009, 11:00:28 AM
Around here, 100% of them are driven by complete assholes.
The other 50% are salesmen who want you to think they're successful just 'cause they drive a BMW. ^_^
Come on people, the BMWs sold here are manufactured in FREAKING SOUTH CAROLINA.
:frusty:
Not in 1985 they weren't.
Quote from: Barrister on August 04, 2009, 11:03:45 AM
Not in 1985 they weren't.
I was talking about the ones driven by black dudes and jerk salesmen here and now. I can't be bothered to follow along with your little sidebar conversation. -_-
BMW drivers have a pretty piss poor rep.
Quote from: Barrister on August 04, 2009, 11:02:03 AM
Quote from: Caliga on August 04, 2009, 10:56:51 AM
The BMW marquee has been: deflated. Half of the ones around here are driven by black dudes.
This was a 1985 though. It was still - quirky looking, but could also fly when I had the chance. And besides I owned it in university, so to university girls it gained a lot of attention.
Here's a pic:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bilgalleri.dk%2Fuploads_large_wm%2F909170.jpg&hash=ef5b0e160396e52c63e64fcade8c69886f1e7b9f)
Ugly.
:huh: It's not an ugly car. Remember, cars started getting really streamlined only in the 90s.
Quote from: Caliga on August 04, 2009, 11:17:43 AM
:huh: It's not an ugly car. Remember, cars started getting really streamlined only in the 90s.
:yes: I'm actually nostalgic about the shitbox style of the early 1908ies. Nostalgia is a funny thing.
Quote from: DGuller on August 04, 2009, 11:24:10 AM
:yes: I'm actually nostalgic about the shitbox style of the early 1908ies. Nostalgia is a funny thing.
Yes, I pine for the days of those boxy Stanley Steamers. :wub:
BB, why is CC next to your car?
Quote from: Grey Fox on August 04, 2009, 11:30:09 AM
BB, why is CC next to your car?
CC has my car? You monster - sell it back to me! :mad:
Nah - mine was gold, not white. And it had Canadian plates, not German. :P
Quote from: Barrister on August 04, 2009, 11:34:41 AM
Nah - mine was gold, not white. And it had Canadian plates, not German. :P
Those are Danish license plates. :mad:
no one really gives a shit about all the badly polluting cars that are disappearing because of this so-called "failed initiative"? To me, what it really accomplishes is getting cars that aren't up to current emmisions codes off the roads, hopefully destroyed... the big car companies can die for all I care. If they couldn't see this crisis coming they had their heads in the sand and deserve to get fucked by it.
Quote from: Barrister on August 04, 2009, 11:34:41 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on August 04, 2009, 11:30:09 AM
BB, why is CC next to your car?
CC has my car? You monster - sell it back to me! :mad:
Nah - mine was gold, not white. And it had Canadian plates, not German. :P
Most German cars have german novelty front plates here, I just assumed.
Quote from: Syt on August 04, 2009, 11:44:52 AM
Quote from: Barrister on August 04, 2009, 11:34:41 AM
Nah - mine was gold, not white. And it had Canadian plates, not German. :P
Those are Danish license plates. :mad:
Meh - Danish, German, Romanian, whatever - it all sounds like "blah blah blah" to me.
Quote from: Grey Fox on August 04, 2009, 11:30:09 AM
BB, why is CC next to your car?
That guy is way too short.
Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on August 04, 2009, 12:01:14 PM
no one really gives a shit about all the badly polluting cars that are disappearing because of this so-called "failed initiative"? To me, what it really accomplishes is getting cars that aren't up to current emmisions codes off the roads, hopefully destroyed... the big car companies can die for all I care. If they couldn't see this crisis coming they had their heads in the sand and deserve to get fucked by it.
The Daily Show had a funny segment about this last night. If you can find it on the net somewhere you would probably get a good laugh.
Quote from: Barrister on August 04, 2009, 12:11:05 PM
Quote from: Syt on August 04, 2009, 11:44:52 AM
Quote from: Barrister on August 04, 2009, 11:34:41 AM
Nah - mine was gold, not white. And it had Canadian plates, not German. :P
Those are Danish license plates. :mad:
Meh - Danish, German, Romanian, whatever - it all sounds like "blah blah blah" to me.
Just like one lawtalker looks like another from me, no matter whether from New York, Yukon, or Warsaw.
Quote from: DGuller on August 04, 2009, 10:49:57 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 04, 2009, 10:37:41 AM
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 04, 2009, 07:59:52 AM
I'm thinking of getting an '85 Thunderbird, just because.
Excellent. I think they started making them smaller by then. I would suggest going with the 82 model.
Yep, a big box with a 115 HP V8 engine, a crown jewel of American automotive engineering. Be careful, you might get a whiplash if you gas it too much.
Such a negative nelly.
Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on August 04, 2009, 12:01:14 PM
no one really gives a shit about all the badly polluting cars that are disappearing because of this so-called "failed initiative"? To me, what it really accomplishes is getting cars that aren't up to current emmisions codes off the roads, hopefully destroyed... the big car companies can die for all I care. If they couldn't see this crisis coming they had their heads in the sand and deserve to get fucked by it.
Yeah, they use more gas and older SUVs weren't subject to the same pollution standards. That always annoyed and surprised me, that Congress had the waivers in for SUVs. But I guess about ten years ago, I'm pretty sure, that SUVs had to meet the same pollution and safety standards as autos.
As for the car companies and what they build, the demand has driven what they build too, and demand has been there for larger vehicles. In fact, I read something recently saying that small car sales have suffered as gas prices stabilized or went lower from last year's high gas prices. That surprised me - I figured people still weren't choosing the bigger cars unless they really needed one, for a large family, work or what ever. Last summer SUVs and larger gas guzzling cars were on the outs in sales, people preferring smaller cars. It's amazing how quickly people change their thinking.
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 04, 2009, 12:22:44 PM
Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on August 04, 2009, 12:01:14 PM
no one really gives a shit about all the badly polluting cars that are disappearing because of this so-called "failed initiative"? To me, what it really accomplishes is getting cars that aren't up to current emmisions codes off the roads, hopefully destroyed... the big car companies can die for all I care. If they couldn't see this crisis coming they had their heads in the sand and deserve to get fucked by it.
I know. That's where I got that information. :blush:
The Daily Show had a funny segment about this last night. If you can find it on the net somewhere you would probably get a good laugh.
Quote from: KRonn on August 04, 2009, 01:51:25 PM
Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on August 04, 2009, 12:01:14 PM
no one really gives a shit about all the badly polluting cars that are disappearing because of this so-called "failed initiative"? To me, what it really accomplishes is getting cars that aren't up to current emmisions codes off the roads, hopefully destroyed... the big car companies can die for all I care. If they couldn't see this crisis coming they had their heads in the sand and deserve to get fucked by it.
Yeah, they use more gas and older SUVs weren't subject to the same pollution standards. That always annoyed and surprised me, that Congress had the waivers in for SUVs. But I guess about ten years ago, I'm pretty sure, that SUVs had to meet the same pollution and safety standards as autos.
As for the car companies and what they build, the demand has driven what they build too, and demand has been there for larger vehicles. In fact, I read something recently saying that small car sales have suffered as gas prices stabilized or went lower from last year's high gas prices. That surprised me - I figured people still weren't choosing the bigger cars unless they really needed one, for a large family, work or what ever. Last summer SUVs and larger gas guzzling cars were on the outs in sales, people preferring smaller cars. It's amazing how quickly people change their thinking.
Yeah but the auto industry needs a big shakeup down to it's very core. as does our auto culture. Big cars make sense if you have a family. Who has a family? Most people. People like me take the bus, or catch a lift.
Even if I were really wealthy I wouldn't bother with a car unless I lived in the boonies (and that's an alternate earth me) or LA. I think all single or at least not bechildrened people should avoid big cars... take the time to enjoy cars get a sporty two seater, or a Bike. Hell a Segway if that floats your boat... or a boat.
I'll get an extra car to make up for you Budda.
I don't see a bike or a sporty two seater being able to tow my boat. -_-
Some cash for clunker news.
This surprised me - people could get rebates to buy new gas guzzlers, a somewhat little publicized provision in the bill. Probably one of those changes that always get snuck in to "encourage" the vote of a few Congress members.
http://www.bostonherald.com/business/automotive/view/20090814clunker_bucks_buy_guzzlers/srvc=business&position=recent_bullet
Clunker bucks buy guzzlers
-----------------------------------
This is a positive trend. Seems small but it's probably a large increase in gas mileage, as the article says.
July sees big jump in fuel efficiency of new cars
Research suggests Cash for Clunkers getting old polluters off the road
WASHINGTON - Cars and light trucks sold in July got more miles per gallon than those sold in previous months, say researchers, who credit the Cash for Clunkers program.
The average mileage for new vehicles rose from 21.4 miles per gallon in June to 22.1 mpg in July. That may not sound like much, but it's the highest mileage that researchers at the University of Michigan have seen since the Environmental Protection Agency reconfigured mileage estimates in October 2007. It's also the biggest one-month jump.
----------------------------------
I guess it was figured this would be part of the results. Increased prices and shortage of used cars and parts. Charities that in donated cars feeling the pinch.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32334931/ns/business-autos/
Cash for Clunkers throws some into reverse
Dealers in used cars, parts join charities in feeling popular program's bite