Cash for clunkers

[Salty]

I know this is somewhat old news, but this report from Maritz Automotive Research just came out.

Thoughts?

 

[targus]

I'm not buying it. (no pun intended)

"...Cash for Clunkers spurred consumers to buy or lease new, fuel-efficient automobiles without sacrificing future car or truck sales."

So people bought "extra cars"?

Having bought their cash for clunkers car these buyers are still now going ahead and buying another new car anyway?

And at a higher price to boot since they won't get the cash for clunkers discount?

It defies reason.

 

[Salty]

I'm not buying it. (no pun intended)

"...Cash for Clunkers spurred consumers to buy or lease new, fuel-efficient automobiles without sacrificing future car or truck sales."

So people bought "extra cars"?

Having bought their cash for clunkers car these buyers are still now going ahead and buying another new car anyway?

And at a higher price to boot since they won't get the cash for clunkers discount?

It defies reason.

and it made less used cars available for sale - which increased their prices.
One advantage, is that many used parts were taken of the "destoryed" cars.

Penny wise - Pound foolish

 

[Deacon]

I sold my 1997 Ford Explorer for a 2009 Honda Civic under the Clunker program.

Call me simple but according to this report 395,000 cars were sold through the program costing the people 3 billion dollars

Simple math tells me the program was very costly.

Rob

 

[preachinjesus]

I'm a big fan of this program. I believe it has been a success.

We need less inefficient vehicles on the road, not more. This was a great way to see if a program like this would work. It did. No longer can the automotive industry drag their feet and say consumers don't want fuel efficient vehicles.

While Mrs PJ and I didn't take part in this program we had some friends who did. It was a terrific incentive and the kind of thing the government should do from time to time.

The market argument, that used cars got more expensive, was only seen short term. The market has settled down. Just the other day we were out looking at some cars and wandered over to the used lot and saw things like a 2006 Nissan Murano going for $17k, a 2008 Nissan Altima going for $15k, and several other recent models at pretty good prices. Just our experience.

 

[Salty]

I'm a big fan of this program. I believe it has been a success.

We need less inefficient vehicles on the road, not more. This was a great way to see if a program like this would work. It did. No longer can the automotive industry drag their feet and say consumers don't want fuel efficient vehicles.

So you would have no problem if I came into your home to make your home more energy efficient.

For example,
1. You should unplug your refrigerator for a total of 4 hours per day
2. You can not use anything more than a 40 watt bulb
3. You must unplug any electrical item when not using for more than 3 minutes.
4. You may only have no more than one telephone (if electric power is needed) per every 4 rooms.
5. You must document and justify all car trips (eg combine all trips, carpool, ect)
6. You may have TV's in multiple rooms, but only one may be used at a time.
7. ect....

You have to admit that my rules would save energy.....

 

[preachinjesus]

I don't see how Cash for Clunkers forced people to trade in their cars.

 

[rbell]

I'm a big fan of this program. I believe it has been a success.

We need less inefficient vehicles on the road, not more. This was a great way to see if a program like this would work. It did. No longer can the automotive industry drag their feet and say consumers don't want fuel efficient vehicles.

While Mrs PJ and I didn't take part in this program we had some friends who did. It was a terrific incentive and the kind of thing the government should do from time to time.

The market argument, that used cars got more expensive, was only seen short term. The market has settled down. Just the other day we were out looking at some cars and wandered over to the used lot and saw things like a 2006 Nissan Murano going for $17k, a 2008 Nissan Altima going for $15k, and several other recent models at pretty good prices. Just our experience.

This is shortsighted, wrong, and uninformed, on so many levels:

• Of course it messed up the used car market: It took cars that the poor could afford, and removed them from the market...thus increasing the price of affordable used cars (echoing Salty's sentiment). I would have thought those of the more leftist persuasion--who supposedly "care more" about the poor--would have thought about this.
• It put government in a role they have no business being in: retail sales. There's a reason that our Founding Fathers wanted government to remain out of private affairs (see "King George and the Tea Party").
• It didn't do what the goverment designed anyway. Many folks replaced cars with trucks--which got 4 MPG more. That's not exactly saving every polar bear on the planet.
• It was based on bad science to begin with. I'm OK with increased fuel economy...but the linking with the global warming fairy tale was over-the-top. And now that the globalwarmingbots (otherwise known as Al Gore's lovers) have been played the fool...this is looking dumber all the time.
• My first job was in the auto industry. My father was in the dealership business for 45+ years. I have a couple of friends that own dealerships now. The onerous paperwork, asinine rules, and typical goverment inefficiency and stupidity made this a nightmare for many dealers. I have one friend who is still waiting for the last of his money from the C4C program! He told me that he would never participate in another program...and if forced by our Emporer or any of his court, he'd sell the dealership first. Many dealerships underwent tremendous cash-flow issues due to the typical inefficiency of this program (it is, after all, run by the government).
• Not all deals were good ones. Some folks had the misfortune of purchasing Government Motors vehicles, or Chryslers. Heck...they're clunkers to begin with!

I could go on...but I think the point is clear.

 

[Salty]

I don't see how Cash for Clunkers forced people to trade in their cars.

You said that car companies should not be draging thier feet - who do you think will make them?

 

[preachinjesus]

You said that car companies should not be draging thier feet - who do you think will make them?

They are dragging their feet saying that people don't want efficient cars as an excuse. I never said anything, anywhere in the above post about the government forcing people or industry to do anything. Please don't suggest that I have.

I have said that this is a good program. It used public funds for the public good. Consumers/tax payers had the option to use the program as they saw fit. Nobody has been forced to do anything. No company has been forced to sell zero emission cars, no consumer has been forced to buy zero emission cars. The government purely decided to make this option available...some people took them up on it.

 

[preachinjesus]

This is shortsighted, wrong, and uninformed, on so many levels:

Okay, I'm not an expert on this stuff. I have simply stated my opinion based upon the information I have read.

[*]Of course it messed up the used car market: It took cars that the poor could afford, and removed them from the market...thus increasing the price of affordable used cars (echoing Salty's sentiment). I would have thought those of the more leftist persuasion--who supposedly "care more" about the poor--would have thought about this.

I keep hearing this line from people. But it didn't remove the majority of these cars. There are still cars available. I would enjoy seeing any one supporting this claim show us proof that the used car inventory dramatically decline and prices were remarkably pushed up. I don't see it though.

Yet isn't this the role of the free market? So many free market conservatives (which I consider myself one) are all about letting the market decide prices but have to speak out of both sides of their mouth on this issue. Which is it?

[*]It put government in a role they have no business being in: retail sales. There's a reason that our Founding Fathers wanted government to remain out of private affairs (see "King George and the Tea Party").

The government only provided cash for the program. Show me where the government forced any consumer to trade in their car. Show me where the government forced any dealer to participate in the program. To my knowledge it was purely a free choice....which I believe most free market conservatives has been asking for in the government.

[*]It didn't do what the goverment designed anyway. Many folks replaced cars with trucks--which got 4 MPG more. That's not exactly saving every polar bear on the planet.

Do you have a citation for this claim? I'm curious because it seems to be an ad hoc statistic.

Anyhoo, even if you buy your claim...4 MPG in a 15 gallon tanks equals 60 more miles. Figure you fill up 25 times a year that's 1,500 gallons a year. (Or $3,750 based on $2.50 gas for a family) If 395,000 consumers did this that is 592,500,000 gallons a year. Seems pretty significant to me.

This point is more of a red herring than anything else though (and not a particularly good one.) Automobiles do contribute to climate decline but not as much as factories, energy production, and such.

[*]It was based on bad science to begin with. I'm OK with increased fuel economy...but the linking with the global warming fairy tale was over-the-top. And now that the globalwarmingbots (otherwise known as Al Gore's lovers) have been played the fool...this is looking dumber all the time.

So you want more energy inefficient cars out there. You desire the industry to go back to 5 to 10 MPG?

This isn't about global warming. It is about helping consumers make a purchase most want to do anyways.

[*]My first job was in the auto industry. My father was in the dealership business for 45+ years. I have a couple of friends that own dealerships now. The onerous paperwork, asinine rules, and typical goverment inefficiency and stupidity made this a nightmare for many dealers. I have one friend who is still waiting for the last of his money from the C4C program! He told me that he would never participate in another program...and if forced by our Emporer or any of his court, he'd sell the dealership first. Many dealerships underwent tremendous cash-flow issues due to the typical inefficiency of this program (it is, after all, run by the government).

Like I said I'm not in the industry and am not an expert. To my knowledge no dealership was required to participate.

I guess the huge commission checks many of the dealership employees got was a minor thing too...

[*]Not all deals were good ones. Some folks had the misfortune of purchasing Government Motors vehicles, or Chryslers. Heck...they're clunkers to begin with!

Well yet another reason that the top two product lines purchased were 1) Toyota, 2) Ford. But we don't buy domestic autos anyways.

I could go on...but I think the point is clear.

I don't think it is. You just threw up a lot of unfounded accusation and speculation. Without any citation or references you just stated the old argument and didn't offer anything new.

So how is saving $3,700+ a year per family on gas a bad thing?
So where did the government force anyone to participate in the program?

I have yet to see substantive points from objective sources on this.

 

[Salty]

Lets start with the basics - where does the Constitution authorize the expenditure of such funds. Since it doesn't, then the money spent was unconstitutional!

 

[preachinjesus]

Where does the Constitution say that such an expense is prohibited?

 

[Robert Snow]

I believe it was a successful program, but many here will never admit it regardless of the facts. It would be something positive about President Obama, and that is something that cannot be tolerated by many here.

 

[billwald]

>Lets start with the basics - where does the Constitution authorize the expenditure of such funds.

It promotes the general welfare.

 

[FR7 Baptist]

Cash for Clunkers was a dumb idea and it hurts poor people by taking used cars off the market. It requires the cars to be destroyed. There are a lot of people who could use a used car. Besides, who buys new cars anyway? It's so stupid to buy a new car. Instead, you should buy a 3-4 year old one so the previous owner takes the bulk of the deprecation.

 

[Salty]

Where does the Constitution say that such an expense is prohibited?

The Constituiton LIMITS federal power. In addition the 10th admendment says "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

I think that is plain enough.

 

[Salty]

>Lets start with the basics - where does the Constitution authorize the expenditure of such funds.

It promotes the general welfare.

It help a few people,

Building a highway for all to use, plowing snow, having reasonable rules for air travel, ect is general welfare.

If costing MOST people billions of dollars in taxes / federal debt is general welfare, then we are doomed.

 

[KenH]

Lets start with the basics - where does the Constitution authorize the expenditure of such funds. Since it doesn't, then the money spent was unconstitutional!

The same could be said for 90% of what the federal government spends. It's a huge mess we are in and it's been getting worse ever since Grover Cleveland left office.

 

[targus]

They are dragging their feet saying that people don't want efficient cars as an excuse. I never said anything, anywhere in the above post about the government forcing people or industry to do anything. Please don't suggest that I have.

I have said that this is a good program. It used public funds for the public good. Consumers/tax payers had the option to use the program as they saw fit. Nobody has been forced to do anything. No company has been forced to sell zero emission cars, no consumer has been forced to buy zero emission cars. The government purely decided to make this option available...some people took them up on it.

Except that taxpayers will be forced to cough up yet more money to pay for all of this.