Suspended becuase it's..............GASP!! Using up the money set aside for it! BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA Another broken promise by Obama.. BWHAHAHAHAHA

Im not really sure what your issue is.

They started the program. They set aside money for it. So many people took advantage of it that the money ran out.

Whats the problem?

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124898886526095011.html

DOT officials believe all the money may have been spent, but want to suspend the program at least temporarily to allow all transactions to be processed.

Lawmakers had opposed a larger authorization of funds, initially preferring to wait and see how successful the program would be.

would it kill you to do a little research?

Oh I did.. read a few articles on it.. Would it kill you to take obama's schlong out of your mouth?

They said in the very, very beginning it would only operate for a short period of time. You apparently didn't read the right articles.

Yes because they'd prefer to throw money at programs that won't work...

Wait, we're upset because a program worked? I guess I'd be pretty upset if I was one of those "government always fails" nutters...

If just handing out money as fast as possible is the only criteria for success, what subsidy program doesn't "work"?

If replacing rolling safety hazards with poor environmental impact with something modern for a relatively small amount of money isn't more efficient than dealing with their normally externalized costs, I will be shocked. You don't see anyone bitching about the home buyer subsidy, which is functionally the same thing with a narrower scope.

This specific program cost you about $5 (at most). I'm not going to be too furious about that compared to, oh, the Iraq war, or the medical insurance industry.

Well, the net cost is probably a lot less than $5 for most people on this forum. The program's cost was $1 billion spread out over 138 million taxpayers, and we must remember the top 1% pay about 50% of our taxes.

Then, you have to assume that the billion dollars spent at $4,000 per car would be a total purchase of 250,000 new cars. The new cars will average 7 miles per gallon better than their previous cars, and traveling 12,000 miles per year on average, each car saving ~50 gallons of gasoline per year. That is 12,500,000 gallons saved per year.
Demand goes down, gas prices maybe drop a penny per gallon, and we'll all get about 500 gallons of gas this year which is that $5.

Never mind the companies paying taxes on the cars sold, the sales persons paying taxes on their commissions, the various banks paying taxes on the interest made on their loans, and all the people who didn't get laid off who we don't have to pay their unemployment. Not a bad deal, imo.

If replacing rolling safety hazards with poor environmental impact with something modern for a relatively small amount of money isn't more efficient than dealing with their normally externalized costs, I will be shocked. You don't see anyone bitching about the home buyer subsidy, which is functionally the same thing with a narrower scope.

This specific program cost you about $5 (at most). I'm not going to be too furious about that compared to, oh, the Iraq war, or the medical insurance industry.

Pitting it against a couple strawmen doesn't make for a convincing argument.

Throwing money at incentivizing people to buy more things they can't afford is something we celebrate now? Not long ago, you were condemning our consumerism-based economy.

We finally turned our savings rate around this year, so now we should be passing legislation to nip that in the bud ASAP? Yay.

You can choose to believe that all 250,000 people who bought the cars couldn't afford them, but you'd be wrong. Its likely that most people who bought a car had a much stricter time getting credit for it, and car repossession rates in this country are actually pretty low. I have a 770 credit score and still had to put some money down to get my car loan for my new car a few months before this law was put into place.

You can choose to believe that all 250,000 people who bought the cars couldn't afford them, but you'd be wrong. Its likely that most people who bought a car had a much stricter time getting credit for it, and car repossession rates in this country are actually pretty low. I have a 770 credit score and still had to put some money down to get my car loan for my new car a few months before this law was put into place.

People are using these rebates as down payments. They might as well just call them subprime car loans.

Credit is a lot tighter these days San.

But cars really arent as huge a credit liability as homes are. I wouldn't get my panties in too much of a bunch at people being nudged toward new over used to meet needs. The reality is I think you are getting a vastly better deal in buying a new American car over a used car. Seems like a Win (consumer) Win (autos) Win (banks) Win (govt) situation.

You are also making a pretty strange leap here. You posit that a large number of the people who took advantage of this program were poor credit risks. There is no basis for that. This program was open to everyone, and didnt target any specific income range. You also had to be pretty motivated and prepared to take advantage so quickly.

So, you're suggesting that we're paying to "stimulate" people who didn't need the help anyway? Even better!

Im pretty sure the auto makers need it.

Your money (90%) + government money (10%) -------> Auto Companies = Stimulus!

I was being facetious about it helping anyone.

I still don't begin to buy the premise that it's being used by people who can easily afford a new car. Why would they have "clunkers" to begin with? All of the individual examples I've seen written about in news articles are people who absolutely, positively have no business squandering money on a new car.

New cars are better deals than used ones dude. You get better, longer terms on a loan (even as lower as 0%), they cost alot less to maintain and have alot less repairs, they are better on gas.

So maybe what the plan is doing is helping people get over that ledge that kept the new car just out of reach and caused them to buy the used car which in the long run is a much worse deal and does much more damage to their financial situation.

But can we at least come together to agree that Osg has NFC what he is talking about?

Wait, I'm confused. You're saying that they're barely able to afford a new car and remind me that loans are hard to get these days, but then assume they're getting 0% loans? That's not how it works.

Even if we assume they do miraculously get 0% loans, a lack of interest doesn't come close to compensating for the rapid depreciation on a new car.

Anyone in the kind of financial shape where a few grand is pivotal would be foolish to buy a new car. Worse, that sort of behavior is often why they're in the situation to begin with. The last thing we should be doing is hooking more people on this perpetual debt (and interest) cycle.

0% financing isn't just given out to anyone. You pretty much have to have sterling credit AND have a good amount of money down. Maybe the people using the trade in as down payment are doing just that. But even if we put aside the 0%... your loan rate is going to be significantly lower if the car is new.

And people are GOING to buy cars. Its a fact of life. If the 4,500 is enough to put them out of the used car market and into the new car market, then that is a really good thing for everyone.

Anyway...

http://www.bankofamerica.com/financialtools/index.cfm?template=planning_tools&calcid=auto01

No situation is identical. New cars DO make bunch more sense in many cases, especially when you use that calc, you add 4,500 in that Down Payment box. This is a good, working incentive.

At the financial level we're talking about, buying new cars is for suckers. Jumping into that depreciation is foolish unless you're doing well enough that it's is trivial to your finances.

These people would be much better off doing this than stacking up more debt: http://www.daveramsey.com/etc/lms/drive_free/

At the financial level we're talking about, buying new cars is for suckers. Jumping into that depreciation is foolish unless you're doing well enough that it's is trivial to your finances.

These people would be much better off doing this than stacking up more debt: http://www.daveramsey.com/etc/lms/drive_free/


Excellent video presentation on that site. More people should do that.

You mean, save money and buy wisely?

This wasn't limited to that very specific person you are holding up.

Lots of people took advantage of this from all walks of life and you have no possible way of knowing who did and who didnt. Im really not sure why you think this program was limited to only poor people with bad credit or that they were the prime users of this program. My wife and I are pretty comfortable and $4,500 extra had us looking at maybe getting a new car.

Your whole argument is pinned on the strange assumption that the majority of people taking advantage of this are people who are poor and/or bad credit risks. Thats just silly.

You mean, save money and buy wisely?

Really it comes down to patience. I think one of the biggest financial killers in this country is the desire of instant gratification. Back in 2007 I drove a brand new vehicle, payments were $700+ a month...now I drive a very nice $5000.00 Nissan Pathfinder. Funny thing is the other day I saw one that was newer by two years and it was $6200.00 and I realized that I could still get 5k for mine so a new used one would be $1200.00

This wasn't limited to that very specific person you are holding up.

Lots of people took advantage of this from all walks of life and you have no possible way of knowing who did and who didnt. Im really not sure why you think this program was limited to only poor people with bad credit or that they were the prime users of this program. My wife and I are pretty comfortable and $4,500 extra had us looking at maybe getting a new car.

Your whole argument is pinned on the strange assumption that the majority of people taking advantage of this are people who are poor and/or bad credit risks. Thats just silly.

Uh, no? You're moving the goalposts all over the place here.

You can't have it both ways. Either we're subsidizing people that didn't need it to begin with, or we're paying to draw our neighbors even further into debt they cannot afford. Maybe we're simultaneously doing some of both, but neither is good.

What they should have done is apply similar subsidy to qualifying used cars that aren't too old. That could encourage people to be fiscally responsible and still stimulate new car sales when those used cars were sold and replaced.

Really it comes down to patience. I think one of the biggest financial killers in this country is the desire of instant gratification.

Definitely. When I decide to buy, I set some RSS feeds on particular searches on a few sites and take my time. I'm always able to find exactly what I want, like-new and well-maintained.

Hard to beat cash money on the spot in a negotiation too.

You can't have it both ways. Either we're subsidizing people that didn't need it to begin with, or we're paying to draw our neighbors even further into debt they cannot afford. Maybe we're simultaneously doing some of both, but neither is good.

What the fuck are you talking about? So the only people who use coupons are people that couldnt afford what they were buying? Or people who go to sales when stores have them are only there because they can't normally afford what they are buying? This is insanity.

Look. Its simple basic economics.
If you lower the price, you create more demand universally. It cannot be more simple than that. That is a truism for people of all types and economic situations. To say that the only people taking part in this cannot afford a car otherwise is ludicrous.
Maybe they were hemming and waiting for the perfect time... maybe they knew they had to get one sooner or later.. maybe they had their eye on specific model but this pushed them over the edge...

The only hemming and hawing I've seen is your posts on this thread!

Of course throwing money at people will increase demand. I don't think anyone has disputed that.

You can't separate the purchase price from the debt and interest though. Increasing demand is trivially easy if you're willing to push people into debt for it. Have we learned absolutely nothing from the past years of artificial, debt-based demand? Have you not?

It has been reported that lawmakers are seeking an additional $2 billion to keep the program running...

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=addCueoaYvOc

=

You can't separate the purchase price from the debt and interest though. Increasing demand is trivially easy if you're willing to push people into debt for it. Have we learned absolutely nothing from the past years of artificial, debt-based demand? Have you not?

So people should stop buying cars? Wtf? People need cars, they are going to buy them.

Most people can handle debt responsibly and auto loan defaults are very low.

If you need or want a new car, this is a great deal. How is this pushing people into debt? It is an incentive to buy, its not some sirens call people are unable to resist, or something forcing people by gunpoint into a dealers lot. My god...

You make the claim that this program is generating bad debt and risky loans... Do you have any way to prove this? Any facts or any sort or data?

So people should stop buying cars? Wtf? People need cars, they are going to buy them.

Most people can handle debt responsibly and auto loan defaults are very low.

If you need or want a new car, this is a great deal. How is this pushing people into debt? It is an incentive to buy, its not some sirens call people are unable to resist, or something forcing people by gunpoint into a dealers lot. My god...

You make the claim that this program is generating bad debt and risky loans... Do you have any way to prove this? Any facts or any sort or data?

Why do you keep going for the strawmen? Do you honestly think because I say that people shouldn't buy things they can't afford, I'm suggesting that they shouldn't buy things at all?

You could've made this same "people are responsible, so let's incentivize their buying nice things" argument for the entire housing bubble too. Obviously, that theory doesn't hold water.

I do like the suggestion that just because people want new cars, that makes it all okay. Great. I want a new Ferrari right now instead of waiting until I can afford it. Help me Obama!

Data is easy. Calculate how much interest will be paid over the course of the average loan on $1bn (or $3bn now?) worth of subsidy. If you're suggesting that this caused people to go buy cars who wouldn't have otherwise, we just gave them a subsidized incentive to take on a staggering aggregate burden.

Paying people to go deeper in debt is not going to help us become solvent.

Meanwhile, there's not even a guarantee that we as a country are acting any more responsibly (http://mises.org/story/3554) than the individuals we're puppeteering. This truly has become a case of the blind leading the blind. Treasury's down at the title loanshark trying to keep up appearances, and the rest of the country is following the example it is given.

Why do you keep going for the strawmen? Do you honestly think because I say that people shouldn't buy things they can't afford, I'm suggesting that they shouldn't buy things at all?

Its not a strawman. the purchase of cars is inevitable. Incentives adjust the time table, they do not create the demand. And you still havent shown any evidence that the people buying these cars cannot afford them. The average default rate on a car loan is between 1 and 3%

You could've made this same "people are responsible, so let's incentivize their buying nice things" argument for the entire housing bubble too. Obviously, that theory doesn't hold water.
Thats just ignorant. The housing bubble was caused by speculation.. pure and simple.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/24/US_derivatives_and_US_wealth_vs_total_world_wealth _1995-2007.gif

Bad loans were allowed to be too profitable. Nothing like that is going on here and there is no reason to suggest that historic default rates will increase because of this program. There are no ARM's here.

I do like the suggestion that just because people want new cars, that makes it all okay. Great. I want a new Ferrari right now instead of waiting until I can afford it. Help me Obama!

What was that about straw men?

Data is easy. Calculate how much interest will be paid over the course of the average loan on $1bn (or $3bn now?) worth of subsidy. If you're suggesting that this caused people to go buy cars who wouldn't have otherwise, we just gave them a subsidized incentive to take on a staggering aggregate burden.

Paying people to go deeper in debt is not going to help us become solvent.

Meanwhile, there's not even a guarantee that we as a country are acting any more responsibly (http://mises.org/story/3554) than the individuals we're puppeteering. This truly has become a case of the blind leading the blind. Treasury's down at the title loanshark trying to keep up appearances, and the rest of the country is following the example it is given.

OMG WE ARE ALL DOOMED.. DOOMED I SAY.. ITS THE END OF THE WORLD, ALL HOPE IS LOST... CTHULLU IS NIGH!

http://members.cox.net/scoffone/sanc.jpg

Im sick to death of this shit. Its not that fucking bad. Everyone calm the fuck down.

Its not a strawman. the purchase of cars is inevitable. Incentives adjust the time table, they do not create the demand. And you still havent shown any evidence that the people buying these cars cannot afford them. The average default rate on a car loan is between 1 and 3%

Of course it's a strawman to throw up a false dichotomy between buying new cars and buying no cars at all. You do realize that far more people buy used cars than new, right?

Quoting default rates is bunk. I'm sure these people (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jun/26/usa.creditcrunch) can "afford" their cars too. Great. Irrelevant. :rolleyes:

Thats just ignorant. The housing bubble was caused by speculation.. pure and simple.

Bad loans were allowed to be too profitable. Nothing like that is going on here and there is no reason to suggest that historic default rates will increase because of this program. There are no ARM's here.

Speculators didn't buy houses. People who couldn't afford them in a normal market did, because the incentives were out of whack due to the influx of cheap money.

The resulting fallout isn't the point. You're jumping way beyond my statement, if you think I'm suggesting this single program is going to blow up the economy. It's worth observing the similarity in bad incentives though.

OMG WE ARE ALL DOOMED.. DOOMED I SAY.. ITS THE END OF THE WORLD, ALL HOPE IS LOST... CTHULLU IS NIGH!

Im sick to death of this shit. Its not that fucking bad. Everyone calm the fuck down.

It's cute that you started in on this trying to call Osg out, yet now you yourself have regressed to his tactics.

It would've been more interesting if you'd spent less time in MS Paint and any time addressing the amount of debt/interest this generates on both individual and Federal levels.

If the program is expanded to 3bn, I'd very roughly estimate about 2bn in consumer interest payments to finance companies over the next four years. Not to mention the Federal debt to pay for it. What do you think?

Regardless, it is a big deal that the government can't sell anywhere near the amount of treasuries that it needs to in order to finance all this stuff. Hopefully, they'll figure something out before it's too late, but it certainly won't happen if their heads are stuck in the Hopesand.

Speculators didn't buy houses. People who couldn't afford them in a normal market did, because the incentives were out of whack due to the influx of cheap money.

What? Tons of speculators lost their asses because they invested in homes that they could no longer sell.

What? Tons of speculators lost their asses because they invested in homes that they could no longer sell.


LO)L...so true...but it's easier to blame it on those that just wanted homes.

The speculators that drove the bubble weren't the small time house flippers. Those were insignificant compared to the speculators moving billions into the mortgage based derivatives. I assumed that's what L2 was referring to, since he was talking in aggregate terms.

Those speculators didn't buy any houses at all, other than their personal mansions. Many of them had no idea what they were even investing in. They were just a supply of relatively cheap money.

The speculators that drove the bubble weren't the small time house flippers. Those were insignificant compared to the speculators moving billions into the mortgage based derivatives. I assumed that's what L2 was referring to, since he was talking in aggregate terms.

Those speculators didn't buy any houses at all, other than their personal mansions. Many of them had no idea what they were even investing in. They were just a supply of relatively cheap money.

So small time the FBI got involved in making sure the flipping was all on the up and up.

What a fucking mess.... I can't wait to how well they handle health care. They're going to fucking kill millions...

http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/31/dealers-race-to-get-their-clunkers-crushed/?hp

Would be interesting to see a comparison of all the energy used to implement this and crush/dispose of the vehicles, compared to the emissions that are saved. It just seems so profoundly wasteful to destroy the engines, transmissions, etc, when they'd normally be reused even if the car was crushed.

So small time the FBI got involved in making sure the flipping was all on the up and up.

Don't you know? The small time offenders are the ones that bear the full brunt of the law. The key is to get "too big to fail" before you get caught.

What a fucking mess.... I can't wait to how well they handle health care. They're going to fucking kill millions...



I assume you mean government when you say "they"....how come mass amounts of retirees on Medicare are not DEAD yet@!@@@ They are bleeding my money away.

I assume you mean government when you say "they"....how come mass amounts of retirees on Medicare are not DEAD yet@!@@@ They are bleeding my money away.


LOL...the best part is most of the Osg's of the country are not even aware that medicare is government healthcare or that military health care is government health care.

Anyone have a link to the recent NYT editorial piece about how involved government is in heath care already?

I just spent a weekend in northern Wisconsin with a bunch of brain dead zombies like Osg. Its unreal the crap they buy into.

Buddy took in his Ford SUV with 130k miles on (high teens low 20 MPG), got $4700 clunker cash (truck blue booked at 2k), got a deal on the new bare bones Chevy Cobalt ...mid 30's MPG 100K mile warranty out the door for under 10K. Smart buy.

What are they doing with all the clunkers?

Destroying them, including chemically seizing the engines.

You know, we wouldn't want people to have access to affordable used parts to repair the remaining vehicles on the road. Better to have them running inefficiently, polluting more than necessary!

They fill the gas tank with calcium carbonate and run the motor till she blows! Its a bit to swallow but why keep that motor so they can keep burning more fuel? Trash it, if the price is steep enough to fix the used you may just junk it..hence taking more gas guzzlers off the road.

I think the other thing is they probably want the non-rebate expenditure to be as low as possible.

Imagine the headaches and money involved in chopping the cars, separating the non wanted parts from the wanted, and then distributing them to parts dealers.

Keep it simple.

Why? There's been an auto recycling industry running efficiently for decades. This is exactly the opposite of keeping it simple.

The best part? We're saving the environment from cars that weren't being driven to begin with.



But what kinds of vehicles were being turned in?

"We're seeing Dodges, Fords, Tahoes, Suburbans, parked for ages," said Karl Jones, finance director at Team Toyota in Baton Rouge, Louisiana.

blah blah blah

http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1914367,00.html

Can tell you for certain the Ford my buddy turned was driven 5 days a week to work, so although that statement is probably factual, its not the case everywhere...guess I could ask my nephew who works at a large dealer in Milwaukee...what he is seeing.

blah blah blah

http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1914367,00.html

What? You think destroying the most valuable part of the vehicle has no impact on recycling it?

Did you even read what you linked?

The recyclers who process the cars aren't so lucky, according to Michael Wilson, executive vice president for the Automotive Recyclers Association, a trade group that represents 4,500 recyclers across the country. Due to the way dealers must destroy each clunker's engine, fewer parts are salvageable — which means less profit for the recyclers who process the automobiles. Although 60% of a car's salvage value comes from the engine and drive train, Wilson said the original cash-for-clunkers plan — the formal name is the Car Allowance Rebates System (CARS) — called for the obliteration of both. While the ARA and Congress hashed out a compromise that salvages each automobile's drive train, ruining the engine still kills about 30% of a vehicle's recycling value. For recyclers, who pay upwards of $700 to process each vehicle before they know the condition of the model they're getting, the provision eliminates much of the upside. "It's almost like mining for gold," Wilson says. "There's a lot of sifting, and maybe it's worth it for the recycler, but maybe not."

Omg you mean the recyclers arent maximizing their profits?????????????

Stop the programs!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You really dont even have a point. They destroy the engines.. yes, because to do so would be counter productive. The main idea isn't pollution.. its fuel efficiency. Why would the government want to subsidize keeping a 30 year old Dodge or other gas guzzlers on the road? They can still use many parts and make some cash from that. Who knows.. maybe they can even make some extra cash from the increased volume.

Additionally, they have shown to be pretty flexible and listen to the people, making adjustments that make sense. So save the outrage Mrs. Malkin.

Maximizing profits?

"It's almost like mining for gold," Wilson says. "There's a lot of sifting, and maybe it's worth it for the recycler, but maybe not."

Like I said before, it's a stupidly wasteful program. Your article only reinforces that.

except for the fact that its working.

oh snap
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/US-Senate-leader-says-car-apf-1230834201.html?x=0&sec=topStories&pos=main&asset=&ccode=

btw.. Top selling vehicle from the rebates (all brands)? Ford Focus.

As I said in my first post on this thread, http://ayonae.com/showpost.php?p=171989&postcount=7

Is the Kool Aid really so tasty that you see politicians voting to self aggrandize themselves through handouts, and think "OH SNAP IT WORKED"? You're much smarter than this.

You know what I also don't liek about this? It destroys a valuable and viable secondary market for these vehicles.. It hurt the poor. How many poor folks will go buy a 1000 or 1500 dollar car to get back and forth to work. Now that MANY of these vehicles will be off the roar what are they going to buy? Think some family of four making <20k a year is gong to hope in a buy a new Altima?

You know what I also don't liek about this? It destroys a valuable and viable secondary market for these vehicles.. It hurt the poor. How many poor folks will go buy a 1000 or 1500 dollar car to get back and forth to work. Now that MANY of these vehicles will be off the roar what are they going to buy? Think some family of four making <20k a year is gong to hope in a buy a new Altima?

Absolutely. Not only that, but a used engine and/or drivetrain component to repair that $1,500 "clunker" is also now more expensive.

It's a desperate measure, with too little concern for the indirect repercussions.

You know what I also don't liek about this? It destroys a valuable and viable secondary market for these vehicles.. It hurt the poor. How many poor folks will go buy a 1000 or 1500 dollar car to get back and forth to work. Now that MANY of these vehicles will be off the roar what are they going to buy? Think some family of four making <20k a year is gong to hope in a buy a new Altima?

I've thought about this very same thing. While I am in support of the program because it does get many wasteful, inefficient, pollution filled cars off the street. It can't do anything but hurt the poorest segment of the population by removing 700,000 cheap used cars from the market.

LOL, what they should do is find a way to make these "clunkers" more fuel efficient, after they are traded in.

Somewhere, there is a socialist/environmentalist mastrubating to all this.

Redistributing wealth, AND destroying gas guzzling cars? Why not throw in a burning effigy of an oil covered Dick Cheney, and create the perfect storm?

Here in Colorado I saw, through a friend in the car biz, a immaculate 1990 Suburban get munched. Immaculate. The previous owner kept in in GREAT running condition. And not no one benefits from that vehicle.

I do, ...give me more gas to burn in my Honda.

You really dont even have a point. They destroy the engines.. yes, because to do so would be counter productive. The main idea isn't pollution.. its fuel efficiency. Why would the government want to subsidize keeping a 30 year old Dodge or other gas guzzlers on the road? They can still use many parts and make some cash from that. Who knows.. maybe they can even make some extra cash from the increased volume.

Additionally, they have shown to be pretty flexible and listen to the people, making adjustments that make sense. So save the outrage Mrs. Malkin.

I missed this edit before.

Of course I have a point. I have several points. I think I've been very clear and you've been specifically responding to them, so you must obviously know I have a point. Either that or you've been responding to the voices in your head all this time. :rolleyes:

They've clearly stated that reducing emissions is one of the main goals in doing this. In reality, both gas usage and environmental concerns are bunk at this point. The sole goal of at least the second $2bn is economic stimulus.

How could the recyclers possibly make more money from increased volume? They still have to put in at least as much labor, but now ~60% of the value of the vehicle is removed. Please show even some basic numbers that support your theory (which is in direct contradiction with what the people doing it for a living are saying).

This is an exercise in futility. I know.. the Paulites, et al, are ideologically opposed to anything like this from the get go.

Never mind a government program that actually works and does what it is supposed to do.. what a terrible threat to your world view. Attack! Kill it with stupid!

http://www.greencarreports.com/blog/1033891_cash-for-clunkers-the-data-on-why-its-working
As enacted, the Clunkers program was something akin to the definition of a camel: a horse designed by committee. It had two goals that weren't always aligned: It had to increase the average gas mileage of cars on the road, but also encourage new car sales, period.

First, do the vehicles that have been sold get better mileage than the ones traded in? Yes, they do. But they were always going to raise average mileage; the interesting data comes in how much better the fuel economy actually is.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration said that as of yesterday at 4 pm, almost 134,000 vehicles had been traded in, earning rebates of $564 million.

That's an average rebate of more than $4,200--meaning that the mileage increases were far higher than the minimum necessary to earn the base rebate of $3,500.

In fact, the US Transportation Department data showed a mileage gain of nearly 10 miles per gallon overall on the vehicles purchased as compared to the ones traded in, from 15.8 mpg for the trade-ins to 25.4 mpg for the new vehicles. That is far higher than the minimum requirement of a 4-mpg increase for cars and a mere 2 mpg for light trucks.

Of all the new vehicles purchased, initial data suggests that far more than half were built in North America, whether by domestic or foreign carmakers--including six of the top seven, with only the Toyota Prius manufactured exclusively in Japan.

But to the program's second goal, the annualized sales rate for the last week of the month rose well over the watermark 10-million number, to a rate perhaps as high as 12 or 13 million by some estimates.

so like.. whateva...

This is an exercise in futility. I know.. the Paulites, et al, are ideologically opposed to anything like this from the get go.

Never mind a government program that actually works and does what it is supposed to do.. what a terrible threat to your world view. Attack! Kill it with stupid!

It's strange that you'd try the labeling tactic on me, when I was just recently voicing support for a Nationalized health care experiment here. I'm sure it's easier to debate a made-up extremist ideology as if it were my opinions, but it would be a lot more interesting if you were responding to me instead of that imagined boogieman.

Like I said, we have no proof this program has worked. We have proof that it has successfully lured hundreds of thousands of Americans further into debt, but that's about it. Absolutely any program under the sun that involves giving money away is a "success" by some standard, because it's trivially easy to give money away. Color me unimpressed.

I'd still be interested in your numbers showing how recyclers are going to be better off due to volume.

I do, ...give me more gas to burn in my Honda.

You don't really think there is a shortage do you? :rolleyes:

Not in my life time no, but you really dont think we have many 100's of years left do YOU? Something has to change.

I'd still be interested in your numbers showing how recyclers are going to be better off due to volume.


Really? Im still waiting for your data that shows these cars are going to poor credit risks and this program is creating bad debt.

Not in my life time no, but you really dont think we have many 100's of years left do YOU? Something has to change.

Heh.. think about that.. we have only been seriously using oil for 50 years and we are already running out of places to find it.

Not in my life time no, but you really dont think we have many 100's of years left do YOU? Something has to change.

Yes I actually do...

Really? Im still waiting for your data that shows these cars are going to poor credit risks and this program is creating bad debt.

/sigh.

Actually read the whole thing before firing off a knee-jerk response this time (hint: see my fourth paragraph). http://ayonae.com/showpost.php?p=172025&postcount=33

So, let's see those numbers.

Oh golly. You still havent provided anything in terms of proof for your ideological bent.. but because its so damn easy to do.

Yadda Yadda Yadda... but last Paragraph is telling.
http://www.wftv.com/automotive/20202637/detail.html

Despite their misgivings, some auto recyclers are urging dealers to send the trade-ins to them instead of to auctioneers who could serve as middlemen for scrap yards. Recyclers and salvage auctions both have to certify they will follow rules for disposing of clunkers.

Nobody is putting a gun to these dealers heads to take these. If they arent making money.. I guess they wouldnt be taking them now would they?
As for the second part:

I was just happening to be perusing my copy of "Recycling Today" Magazine...

http://www.recyclingtoday.com/news/news.asp?ID=15180

Because scrap metal recycling is a volume and throughput-driven business, an increase in scrap flows can help scrap recyclers improve their margins. Greater quantities of scrapped vehicles also are a benefit on the nonferrous side of the business, as scrapped cars/trucks contain a decent amount of higher value nonferrous material that can be captured with advanced shredding and sorting systems. And of course, any increase in new vehicle demand would also increase demand for ferrous scrap, which would be used to make the steel for new vehicles.

http://www.interestment.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/ball-in-face-380x248.jpg

Oh golly. You still havent provided anything in terms of proof for your ideological bent.. but because its so damn easy to do.

It's weird that you have no concept of not being slave to a particular ideology. Are you that indoctrinated into yours? Is the idea of making up your own mind on each issue so foreign that you can't accept that some of us do that?

Yadda Yadda Yadda... but last Paragraph is telling.
http://www.wftv.com/automotive/20202637/detail.html



Nobody is putting a gun to these dealers heads to take these. If they arent making money.. I guess they wouldnt be taking them now would they?
As for the second part:

I was just happening to be perusing my copy of "Recycling Today" Magazine.

Well, of course the dealers don't care. They outsource the recycling to outside companies, and happily accept the subsidy check from the government. Even the Time article you yourself linked earlier pointed that out.

That's as relevant as saying "Hey, no one's putting a gun to these Congressmen's heads", while they're just outsourcing the cost to the taxpayer anyway. :rolleyes:

But hey, spend more time finding pictures and MS Paint'ing them up. Definitely don't spend that time researching any of this before posting a series of contradicting arguments and articles.

For that matter, read all of the article you just posted:

Used engines and drive trains are a big part of recyclers' income from each scrapped car, and under the federal program those engines must be destroyed. The idea is to promote fuel efficiency and help automakers, but it comes at a time when more than a dozen U.S. auto parts suppliers have filed for bankruptcy this year.

"Why throw away good parts when the supply chain is in jeopardy? It doesn't make a whole lot of sense," said Michael Wilson, executive vice president of the Automotive Recyclers Association based in Manassas, Va.

...

Engines and drive trains account for 60 percent of recyclers' revenue from a used vehicle, Wilson said.

Under cash for clunkers, the government is advising car dealers to replace a trade-in's engine oil with a sodium silicate solution and run the engine to ruin it before giving or selling the car to a scrap dealer.

The Automotive Recyclers Association says that can damage otherwise sellable parts like pistons -- and mean smaller profits for scrap yards, considering it can cost $700 to $1,200 to process a car, including transport and removing toxic items like mercury, Wilson said. Recyclers' profits vary but can reach several hundred dollars for a 6-year-old car.

I really don't see how that even begins to support your assertion. It's refuting it at every turn (like every other bit of information not coming from the hardliner "green" sources).

Hmmm...destroying the engines helps ensure that other clunkers, still on the road, can't be repaired for as long, clearing off more vehicles.

Regarding Osgil's last post - this is why the environmental movement shift to global warming was a mistake. They should have kept the focus on things that don't require decades of data to back up - lets just look at air pollution and immediate damage to the environment in any metropolitan area. Doesn't take much to figure out we need to change our methods, and it has nothing to do with global warming.

As far as the article.. Of course they are lobbying to use 100% of the scrap of the car.. duh. I can't blame them. From their perspective its a big waste. But its counter productive to the goals of the program.

Btw.

Volume = more profit in the scrap business.

Point proven, me right, you wrong, squirm more.

You do understand that "car recyclers" aren't currently making most of their money from scrap metal, right? You seem to think they just throw cars in the recycling bin, put it out at the curb on Thursdays, and get a check in the mail.

Viewing a used car as a hunk of scrap metal does go right along with the mindset of this massively wasteful plan though.

In one of the articles posted previously.. auto salvagers make at least 40% of their profit from non engine parts. Not to mention the fact that they altered the initial rules to allow scrapers to salvage the drive train.

Thus my original (and proven) statement that the increased volume (and thus increased margins) to scrap dealers from this program makes it a winning situation for them.

OMG save the car recyclers!!!!

Maybe the government will have a car recyclers bail out when all is said and done. Get the clunkers off the road, destroy the gus guzzling beasts so no one else can use them...I like it.

In one of the articles posted previously.. auto salvagers make at least 40% of their profit from non engine parts. Not to mention the fact that they altered the initial rules to allow scrapers to salvage the drive train.

Thus my original (and proven) statement that the increased volume (and thus increased margins) to scrap dealers from this program makes it a winning situation for them.

You keep admitting that they're doing the same amount of work for only ~40% the revenue. How can you not see the problem with that?

If there were no labor involved, that might make sense. That isn't how it works though. You're completely ignoring the incremental costs.

Would you give your students a B for turning in twice as many 40% papers in hopes for an 80% "total"? I should hope so, if you're consistent in your logic.

OMG save the car recyclers!!!!

Maybe the government will have a car recyclers bail out when all is said and done.

The point is that this is just one of the many repercussions of what they're doing. L2's insistence on pretending that this particular problem doesn't exist is representative of their new party line approach to everything. That and he keeps linking stories about the recyclers.

Pretending that we can imbalance one side of the ecosystem without countervailing consequences spreading throughout the rest of it is scarily shortsighted.

When do we start the Green for grid guzzlers? Tearing down those houses with big energy footprints and giving the owners all of 1/3 the blue book value , at the tax payers loss of course.

Throwing cash at something like this is short sighted at best. It might pressure the no longer Big 3 to finally fix their business model ( yes something that has to happen still ) but I don't see this as more than cash and spend.

Or pay people to quit having babies because when trying to limit our carbon footprint, producing a baby ...which in turn becomes a carbon producing junky through out its entire life. Think of the possibilities....I WANT MY CHECK!!

Cash for Condoms?

Oh I need more than that...like the blue book worth of a potential NFL starter that was never born would suffice..ok now this is getting silly. Sorry for the side track.

When do we start the Green for grid guzzlers? Tearing down those houses with big energy footprints and giving the owners all of 1/3 the blue book value , at the tax payers loss of course.

Throwing cash at something like this is short sighted at best. It might pressure the no longer Big 3 to finally fix their business model ( yes something that has to happen still ) but I don't see this as more than cash and spend.

The net cost over your lifetime for Cash for Clunkers will be positive, which I explained in my post earlier in this thread. Short sighted for something that worked and eventually costs less than we gain? Not exactly ...

Hell if nothing else there are literally hundreds of thousands of townships and districts across this country who can't make their budget, but thanks to the car sales of July and the income from all the taxes and fees associated with that, its not going to be as hard this month or next. Its probably not a bad thing that our local communities can afford to pay their police officers and teachers, is it?

You keep admitting that they're doing the same amount of work for only ~40% the revenue. How can you not see the problem with that?
Maybe if they were doing the work by hand.. then you MIGHT have a small portion of a point. But they aren't. They are feeding giant machines.
http://www.americanrecycler.com/oct03/page1.jpg
Cars = Raw materials. The more raw material they have, the more they can produce. Individual labor has very little to do with it. If the machines arent running, they arent making money.

They pay 700.00 a car. If they arent making money off them, they wont buy the cars now will they? Simple story.

Welcome to the Industrial Revolution.

And we have already shown that increased volume = greater profit margins. Additionally.. the selling of each new car creates demand for more ferrous material, obtained from........ OMG THE AUTO RECYCLERS.

ITS THE FUCKING CYCLE OF LIFE

http://raresoundtracks.iespana.es/images/thelionking.jpg

The net cost over your lifetime for Cash for Clunkers will be positive, which I explained in my post earlier in this thread. Short sighted for something that worked and eventually costs less than we gain? Not exactly ...

Only if you assume 1) all of the secondary effects will have no negative impact and 2) that those "clunkers" would've been on the road for our entire lifetimes.

Both are bad assumptions.

Maybe if they were doing the work by hand.. then you MIGHT have a small portion of a point. But they aren't. They are feeding giant machines.
http://www.americanrecycler.com/oct03/page1.jpg
Cars = Raw materials. The more raw material they have, the more they can produce. Individual labor has very little to do with it. If the machines arent running, they arent making money.

They pay 700.00 a car. If they arent making money off them, they wont buy the cars now will they? Simple story.

Welcome to the Industrial Revolution.

And we have already shown that increased volume = greater profit margins. Additionally.. the selling of each new car creates demand for more ferrous material, obtained from........ OMG THE AUTO RECYCLERS.

ITS THE FUCKING CYCLE OF LIFE

http://raresoundtracks.iespana.es/images/thelionking.jpg

Do you really believe that they "feed" cars into one end of the "giant machines" and get used parts and recycled scrap metal on the other end? Seriously?

If so, it all makes sense now. I'm talking about reality, and you're talking about the things we saw in cartoons when we were kids...

Or pay people to quit having babies because when trying to limit our carbon footprint, producing a baby ...which in turn becomes a carbon producing junky through out its entire life. Think of the possibilities....I WANT MY CHECK!!

LMAO! yeah!

Do you really believe that they "feed" cars into one end of the "giant machines" and get used parts and recycled scrap metal on the other end? Seriously?

At some point they shred the cars. Yes. That is part of the process. Once they strip the reusable parts, they shred and resell the steel to various interests. Its part of how they make money.
Like the indians with the Buffalo, they use every part.

Because of the economic downturn, people werent getting rid of old cars. Volume was down. Because of this program, volume is up.

The point you can't refute, have no answer for, and avoid is quite simple. If the auto recyclers weren't making money off these, they wouldnt be taking them. They are. They want them and will take all the car dealers have. You can keep dancing.. but the program works.

At some point they shred the cars. Yes. That is part of the process. Once they strip the reusable parts, they shred and resell the steel to various interests. Its part of how they make money.
Like the indians with the Buffalo, they use every part.

Because of the economic downturn, people werent getting rid of old cars. Volume was down. Because of this program, volume is up.

The point you can't refute, have no answer for, and avoid is quite simple. If the auto recyclers weren't making money off these, they wouldnt be taking them. They are. They want them and will take all the car dealers have. You can keep dancing.. but the program works.

Exactly. They must use every part, and every part cannot automatically be salvaged by a shredder. There is significant manual labor involved in removing the good parts, disposing of hazardous elements, etc.

What you've been saying would only make sense in a world where the tradein could be taken directly to a shredder and everything happen automatically. It should be abundantly obvious that is not what happens though.

You simply can't remove 60% of a vehicle's scrap value and pretend that it won't have any impact on the people who make their living from that scrap. You can keep pulling a Ken Lay all you want, but you're not going to change that fundamental fact.

They don't care about parts with the exception of catalytic converters mostly. It's about ferrous and non-ferrous metals and scrap.

Or pay people to quit having babies because when trying to limit our carbon footprint, producing a baby ...which in turn becomes a carbon producing junky through out its entire life. Think of the possibilities....I WANT MY CHECK!!

You have no idea what a fantastic idea this would be, although not strictly for the given reason. Sooner or later we're going to have to look at how we incentivize children, because we're already about 10x over the world's carrying capacity.

40% (and its probably more now they can use the drive trains) is way better than 100% of nothing.

They don't care about parts with the exception of catalytic converters mostly. It's about ferrous and non-ferrous metals and scrap.

40% (and its probably more now they can use the drive trains) is way better than 100% of nothing.

Maybe a lot of our disconnect here is due to the Enron accounting. Any articles suggesting that recyclers are making out are trying to talk about it in a vacuum, separated from the rest of a completely interdependent process.

What do you think the process looks like, before and after this program, from trade-in to the car being shredded and gone? Step by step, including how used parts, tires, gas/oil, and catalytic converter is separated.

You mean it doesn't happen by magic? You mean people actually have to take tools, disassemble the cars, and separate the parts from one another, till you just have piles of raw materials of plastic, rubber, ferrous metals, and non-ferrous metals?

Then, those parts get placed into said shredders, by another person? And those people actually have the audacity to want to be paid a wage that isn't cut by 60% of what it was before this program was put into place? How dare they???!!!11one

It's largely a manual process, anyone thinking different apparently didn't grow up with their heads under hoods rebuilding the engines and such. Didn't spend time diving for parts in local salvage yards or know someone who made their daily bread taking those monsters apart.

Sorry , it's not magic and it's not a massive process. It's elbow grease and low wage labor. I'm sure there are a few "plants" with some automated processes out there now days. However the variety alone in the auto/trucks out there do not pander to such illusion.

Either they make money on it or they don't.
If they don't... they wont be taking the cars now will they?

And shredding the cars for scrap IS a massive machine process. And probably the most useful one in my opinion. Use the steel to make new things, not keep old ones running.

First it was "OH NOZ MASSIVE AMOUNTS OF BAD LOANS ARE COMING FROM THIS"
but no proof.

Now I guess its "BUT THE AUTO RECYCLERS ARENT MAKING HIGH ENOUGH PROFITS!!"
despite being shown unequivocally that higher volume = greater profit margins. BECAUSE of the higher demand for ferrous (metal) material created by new auto sales.

Ignore the fact that Ford had its best quarter in like 8 years because of it.. ignore the fact that more fuel efficient vehicles are on the road because it.. Ignore the fact that other countries have been doing these kinds of programs for years with good success. Ignore the fact this program is actually putting peoples tax money back in their hands to spend. Ignore the fact that 90% of the cars sold in this program were made in the USA and the money is going back into our economy. Ignore the fact this program indeed works.

No.. instead focus meaningless minutia and baseless claims.

Shit.. I hope they do cash for clunkers for MORE shit. Cash for Old refrigerator trade ins, cash for old air conditioner trade ins, cash for old furnaces, washers and dryers and water heaters, anything we make that people can replace with more efficient, newer models.

I can think of no better way to use the stimulus money.. its threefer.. help people out, lower energy use, stimulate the economy... and shit, maybe help the environment for shits and giggles.

Either they make money on it or they don't.
If they don't... they wont be taking the cars now will they?

And shredding the cars for scrap IS a massive machine process. And probably the most useful one in my opinion. Use the steel to make new things, not keep old ones running.

First it was "OH NOZ MASSIVE AMOUNTS OF BAD LOANS ARE COMING FROM THIS"
but no proof.

Now I guess its "BUT THE AUTO RECYCLERS ARENT MAKING HIGH ENOUGH PROFITS!!"
despite being shown unequivocally that higher volume = greater profit margins. BECAUSE of the higher demand for ferrous (metal) material created by new auto sales.

Ignore the fact that Ford had its best quarter in like 8 years because of it.. ignore the fact that more fuel efficient vehicles are on the road because it.. Ignore the fact that other countries have been doing these kinds of programs for years with good success. Ignore the fact this program is actually putting peoples tax money back in their hands to spend. Ignore the fact that 90% of the cars sold in this program were made in the USA and the money is going back into our economy. Ignore the fact this program indeed works.

No.. instead focus meaningless minutia and baseless claims.

Shit.. I hope they do cash for clunkers for MORE shit. Cash for Old refrigerator trade ins, cash for old air conditioner trade ins, cash for old furnaces, washers and dryers and water heaters, anything we make that people can replace with more efficient, newer models.

I can think of no better way to use the stimulus money.. its threefer.. help people out, lower energy use, stimulate the economy... and shit, maybe help the environment for shits and giggles.

Yes, because I'm sure no special interest group is involved or that there are special back hand jobs being passed out to grease the wheels so this thing flys.

Keep sucking it up, yup houses will always rise in value and yes princess Ford had a real good quarter having nothign to do with shitting people out their collective asses in lost production jobs or dealerships.

Yup they done did good, /dangle shiny keys....

My Avalanche got 12 miles to the gallon and guess what....I'd never have fallen for 4500 bucks yipppeeee. Shuffle shuffle find the damn pea, keep looking one way while the other is spoon feeding the ole back side with pain.

If you buy into this stack of cards you are the same as the folks that bought into it 15 years ago.

Enjoy!!!

despite being shown unequivocally that higher volume = greater profit margins.

How do profit margins increase when 60% of your revenue on the same kind of item a year ago gets gutted?

You have to get 2.2 of the same item you would have a year before, to make the same profit margin. The only way to make up the difference is to drop wages.

2.2X the work = the same profit margin the previous year = lose.

I think you mean total profit, not profit margin. There is a difference.

It's largely a manual process, anyone thinking different apparently didn't grow up with their heads under hoods rebuilding the engines and such. Didn't spend time diving for parts in local salvage yards or know someone who made their daily bread taking those monsters apart.

Sorry , it's not magic and it's not a massive process. It's elbow grease and low wage labor. I'm sure there are a few "plants" with some automated processes out there now days. However the variety alone in the auto/trucks out there do not pander to such illusion.


Once the catalytic converter is removed and the tires it becomes a very automated process nowadays. Crush...Shred...use large magnet to extract the ferrous metals and send both types off to the recycler.

The days of junk yard hunting for a carb or a manifold or even a block are pretty much done, and believe me PA is the capital of classic cars.

First it was "OH NOZ MASSIVE AMOUNTS OF BAD LOANS ARE COMING FROM THIS"
but no proof.

Your illiteracy is going to be the end of us both.

http://ayonae.com/showpost.php?p=172025&postcount=33

Once the catalytic converter is removed and the tires it becomes a very automated process nowadays. Crush...Shred...use large magnet to extract the ferrous metals and send both types off to the recycler.

The days of junk yard hunting for a carb or a manifold or even a block are pretty much done, and believe me PA is the capital of classic cars.

I'm sure they have a "very automated process" to strip the valuable used parts from the vehicle before all that crushing and shredding, right? And, the "Crush...Shred...use large magnet" definitely removes all of the hazardous materials from the vehicle, including oil, gas, catalytic converter, etc?

I know reason and perspective are anathema around here at times, but lets try.

First.. we are talking about a minuscule industry. Taking New York State for example, one of the biggest and most populus states.

http://www.health.state.ny.us/environmental/workplace/metal_recycling/metal_recycling_report.htm

Well, it won't remain minuscule very long, if there's a demand for more recycling of these clunkers. Maybe this is the New Age New Deal, and we'll see a boom in the recycling industry. More jobs, ect. You won't if there's a 60% loss on each item you bring in to recycle.

I'm sure they have a "very automated process" to strip the valuable used parts from the vehicle before all that crushing and shredding, right? And, the "Crush...Shred...use large magnet" definitely removes all of the hazardous materials from the vehicle, including oil, gas, catalytic converter, etc?



Please read: They FIRST remove the catalytic converter (they do this because it is filled with these little platinum balls) by the time they get to this point the gas and oil have been drained out (they also recycle this stuff).

Nowadays most engines are aluminum so that, as we know, is very recyclable and probably much more so than the cast iron blocks of the old days. Recycling aluminum is a far less energy using and monied process than making new aluminum.

That is just one example, I'm pretty sure as most everyone is that paying $4500.00 for a car that will be scrapped is a loss leader....but hey...far less of a loss, 3 billion, than dumping money, trillions, into AIG, BofA, Goldman Sachs etc... and this one might, however so small (TBD) save on some type of natural resources.

Its amazing, working program people bitch, failed program people bitch. Come on folks, whats your idea? Do nothing at all, then people bitch. You're damned if you do and your damned if you don't.

How about all those free checks to couples and singles that went out during the Bush regime, wow that was awesome...free money!!! Did that work? I don't think so, lets bitch about that for a while. Lets just have a group bitch.

something happened to my reply there..

but i was going to show how relatively small the group of people working at auto recycling plants are..

http://www.health.state.ny.us/environmental/workplace/metal_recycling/images/figure2_541x273.png

So of all the recyclers in NY state, only 2 have between 50 and 100 people.

Lets also address other factors.. trade ins are not by any means the sole means of income for these people. Traffic accidents, abandonment's, repair shop holds. All of these are probably just as big if not bigger a source for these guys. And the CfCs aren't even all of the trade ins.. not every car people trade in is eligible.
So If they aren't making money on the trade ins.. and nobody has yet answered this despite the fact that ive asked it about 5 times... why would they take the CfC trade ins. Why bother?
BECAUSE THEY ARE MAKING A PROFIT OFF OF THEM.

something happened to my reply there..

but i was going to show how relatively small the group of people working at auto recycling plants are..

http://www.health.state.ny.us/environmental/workplace/metal_recycling/images/figure2_541x273.png

So of all the recyclers in NY state, only 2 have between 50 and 100 people.

Lets also address other factors.. trade ins are not by any means the sole means of income for these people. Traffic accidents, abandonment's, repair shop holds. All of these are probably just as big if not bigger a source for these guys. And the CfCs aren't even all of the trade ins.. not every car people trade in is eligible.
So If they aren't making money on the trade ins.. and nobody has yet answered this despite the fact that ive asked it about 5 times... why would they take the CfC trade ins. Why bother?
BECAUSE THEY ARE MAKING A PROFIT OFF OF THEM.

You are either being intentionally dense or revising history as you read it.

I'll ask you this, why do most companies get in bed with the govt? C'mon, it's not that hard....

Any deal between the gov and the private sector is HISTORICALLY rife with corruption and backroom deals. I doubt profit enters into this discussion, but keep asking away and keep getting ignored because we all know you know this.

carry on with your rant though, there's a reason few are buying it.

Oh, and you keep using language you obviously haven't studied.

Throughput just doesn't happen, you don't dump a pile of raw material ( in this case autos ) and boom it flies out the other end in it's finished product ( seperated materials ).

Volume reveals Choke points, in this case one of them will be the 50 to 100 people you noted, and you can only productively move so much material.

Throughput is developed over time and the process is generally only able to handle as much as it's historically been handling. No owner is going to wake up and say...hey I'll throw in another X(millions) into my production line so it can handle a HUGE overnight increase in demand on both supply chains.

Sorry what you actually are getting is the cars that are eligible are piling up in junkyards awaiting pickup when they can be processed. It's going to be ugly and ineffective as hell.

I should have taken time to explain that earlier, but you got so wrapped up in your posts I wanted you to have a bit more rope.

This is a pipe dream at best, with iron and such rotting away because it can't be developed as quickly as you dream it will be.

Yes , more tax monies are going into the hands of the govt....which strangely enough some folks think is a good thing when few of ya want real transparency in the govt to see where that money is sticking to.

Hmmm talk of refilling that program with another 2billion, where is that money coming from....

FROM US.....save us from folks who sit in those seats.....

A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been about 200 years. These nations have progressed through this sequence: From bondage to spiritual faith; From spiritual faith to great courage; From courage to liberty; From liberty to abundance; From abundance to selfishness; From selfishness to apathy; From apathy to dependence; From dependence back into bondage.

http://money.cnn.com/2009/08/07/autos/cash_for_clunkers_sales/index.htm?cnn=yes

8 out of 10 American!

U-S-A! U-S-A!

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/08/business/08clunker.html?_r=1&ref=todayspaper

The problem, according to market experts, is that nearly everyone who bought new cars would have done so at some point anyway.

So what will sales be like in the coming months, now that many consumers have moved up their plans to buy a new vehicle? There were extra sales in July and the same will be true in August. And the number of sales under the program will be measured precisely — the Transportation Department said 245,384 vehicles had been sold by Friday morning, with rebates totaling $1.03 billion.

But the Transportation Department will not be able to measure how many shoppers would have purchased a car this fall — when the 2010 models go on sale — or in the winter or spring.

...

Likewise the fuel savings will be hard to calculate. Here is a possible best case: The average clunker traveled 12,000 miles a year at 16 miles a gallon, consuming 750 gallons. It was replaced with a new vehicle — probably a car, although the “clunkers” offered by the public were often pickups or S.U.V.’s — that can travel the same 12,000 miles on 480 gallons, a savings of 270 gallons.

Multiply by 245,000, the number of vehicles purchased using the first $1 billion of incentives, and the country burns 66.2 million fewer gallons of gasoline a year, or about 1.6 million barrels. At the rate America burns oil, that is about a two-hour supply.

Here is a possible worst case: The clunker was a pickup or S.U.V. driven only a few thousand miles a year because the family had other vehicles. When the cost of fuel went up, the gas-guzzling clunker was relegated to the back of the driveway.

Now the family has traded the clunker for a new fuel-efficient sedan, which will be driven 12,000 miles a year. The miles it displaces are not the ones that would have been traveled in the old S.U.V., but by another sedan that is still on the road. That, in turn, reduces the mileage improvement and gasoline savings achieved.

/yawn.

But the Transportation Department will not be able to measure how many shoppers would have purchased a car this fall — when the 2010 models go on sale — or in the winter or spring.



Nor can anyone else.

The problem is with available credit, most peoples have been either cut or interest rates increased. Bottom line is very few people pay cash for cars.

Lots of crystal ball reading going on in that article.

But if we except the premise of what you boldfaced.. then doesnt that totally invalidate your first whine that this program created bad debt by people buying what they didn't need?

Yes.. yes it does.

/yawn indeed.

Uh, for the third time now, fourth paragraph: http://ayonae.com/showpost.php?p=172025&postcount=33

Why do you keep repeating that made-up assertion?

People are using these rebates as down payments. They might as well just call them subprime car loans.


lol?

Those who were able to buy vehicles only because of the rebates most certainly are subprime buyers.

However, that doesn't imply "bad debt". As you pointed out, people will usually go to any length to pay for their cars. Often, they'll even prioritize transportation ahead of shelter. So, it's silly to add the implication of bad debt, just because they're marginally qualified buyers.

As I made very clear before, it's all about incentives. At a time when the best minds on both sides of the aisle are talking about how we need to deleverage, it's absurd that the government is throwing billions of our money at incentives to re-leverage instead.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_GM_PRODUCTION_INCREASE?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

Interest in Cash for Clunkers may be waning, though, according to the Edmunds.com automotive Web site, because many customers waiting to buy have made their moves. Also, inventories have dropped and prices are up.

Car and truck inquiries on the Web site fell 15 percent last week from this year's peak in July, when the clunkers program began.

The program initially was swamped and in danger of running out of money until Congress added $2 billion to the initial $1 billion it allocated.

As of Tuesday morning, U.S. car buyers had signed deals to trade in 411,624 clunkers, the government.

"Now that there is plenty of money in the program and the most eager shoppers have already participated, the sense of urgency is gone," said Edmunds CEO Jeremy Anwyl.

Like I suggested earlier in the thread, all this did was pay to compress several months' demand into a shorter window. This whole debacle reminds me of those silly email forwards that tell you to not buy gasoline on a particular day, ignoring the fact that you can't fix anything through temporary, artificial changes to one side of the equation.

Meanwhile, we cannot afford to screw around like this anymore: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8207174.stm

It doesnt matter that its artifical demand San. Its all part of quantitative easing. It has to be done. Its the only way out of a bad recession, despite what Ron Paul says. Its just like the mortgage refi boom earlier this year, its artifical, but it sure helped the banks alot.

Maybe it compressed sales for a few months. That evidence will bear itself in the coming months if car sales fall off a cliff. But we can't know.

What we can hope is that helps provides a stimulus to the economy as a whole, along with other programs and the natural course of things working properly, and that people will be getting rehired or moving into better financial positions.

By itself.. a few thousand cars and a thousand or so jobs isnt much and doesnt do much, a drop in a bucket.... but.. if looked at like a stone in a wall, these things do add up.

time will reveal all.

It doesnt matter that its artifical demand San. Its all part of quantitative easing. It has to be done. Its the only way out of a bad recession, despite what Ron Paul says. Its just like the mortgage refi boom earlier this year, its artifical, but it sure helped the banks alot.

Quantitative easing is a fancy term for generating inflation, which is a not so fancy term for devaluing my savings. Loose money is what got us here. Fighting fire with gasoline at this point.

Quantitative easing is a fancy term for generating inflation, which is a not so fancy term for devaluing my savings. Loose money is what got us here. Fighting fire with gasoline at this point.

No! It's more like setting small controlled fires ahead of a big one, and then putting them out so the big fire has less brush to use as fuel.

Which firemen actually do...

We could've done that in 2006. Maybe 2007.

Not a bad analogy Jedd. However problem here is, the 'firemen' are all arsonists...

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9A63RC81&show_article=1

ROFL

Well, there's a shocker: http://autos.aol.com/article/cash-for-clunkers-greenwash?ncid=AOLCOMMautogenlfpge0006

According to a survey of new-vehicle buyers who participated in the recent Cash for Clunkers program, more than 17 percent now harbor “some” doubt or “serious” doubt about letting a government subsidy convince them to go further into debt. CNW Research of Bandon, Oregon, a firm specializing in automotive marketing research, conducted the survey in late August.

...

Other critics groused that Cars for Clunkers took $2.8 billion from the general roster of 300 million citizens and handed it tax-free to a small group of 700,000 citizens.

To those negative conclusions I would add my own concerns about giving the consumer incentive to ladle more debt into an already reeking punchbowl. Program proponents point with pride to the disproportionate number of young buyers who bought C4C vehicles. I worry about their already disproportionate debt.

"According to a survey of new-vehicle buyers who participated in the recent Cash for Clunkers program, more than 17 percent now harbor “some” doubt or “serious” doubt about letting a government subsidy convince them to go further into debt."


Gee, I am so surprised that some are now going to blame the government for a decision that they, the individual, made.

I think the truth of the matter is it was a POORLY thought out idea and did jack and shit.

Gee, wish someone had caught this earlier..../guffaw

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2010/09/01/clunkers_a_classic_government_folly/

I guess the upshot is, when I go to sell my wife's car it'll be worth more?