Cash for Clunkers - Yay or Nay?

[quote name='UncleBob']And what, exactly, is the behavior that we were trying to incentivize here?[/QUOTE]

holy christ, you really can't even see past your own nose with anything can you?

Auto industry is down
auto industry goes up if people buy cars
create an incentive for people to trade in vehicles (under the guise of a green initiative to get low mpg vehicles off the road)
people trade in vehicles to purchase new vehicles
new vehicles benefit manufactures while used sales are lost opportunity
manufactures produce more vehicles to replace inventory
cars get delivered
cars get sold
sold car produces license/title/sales tax income and employs sales. Not too mention creating consumer debt which is about all our economy is good for anymore

Of those 8 super simplified points, where does your lack of cogetation begin? The auto industry creates these jobs from consumer all the way back to manufacturing:
Mechanics
Sales
Loan origination
Accountants at the dealership
Detail
Delivery
Loading those crazy haulers that have cars double decker cars like WWWW
Assembly
Delivery of parts to the plant
loading the parts
parts inventory
parts sales
parts manufacture
R&D

Other stuff thrown in for good measure:
EVERY one of those jobs produces state and federal income tax, leads to property tax, allows people that are employed to buy other things.
While you may feel distressed that the total cash for clunkers program cost you mr taxpayer roughly $0.00000000000001, the cost/benefit analysis would show that for every car given $8k (or whatever it was) saved jobs within the industry (leading to those taxes and purchases) and new car sales likely resulted in at least 2x that amount in GDP.
 
So... we gave more taxpayer-funded support to failing businesses, hurt the environment, got people to spend money they didn't have on something they didn't really need, hurt other businesses (used car sales, auto repair, etc.), and lied about the reason we did it.

Sounds great.
 
Jesus mother mary fucking christ...

"failing business" that employs what, 1 in 6 americans via industry?
Taxpayer sponsored that you kindly ignored the c/b analysis because it doesn't fit your reality.
Spend money they don't have on cars/food/mortgage/rent/durable goods/tvs/etc... Take your pick. At what point are you going to pick up on consumer debt being good for GDP?
Used car sales is not an industry. It is a secondary market. Cheney was wrong, eBay does not help the economy. See revenue v production.
Auto repair? Good god young man, an oil change at 3k miles is the same as an oil change at 75k miles. A brake job at 50k miles costs the same as one at 200k miles and the interviening 150k miles usually require one or less brake job which is made up by suggested 25k mile services that new car owners get well more than used car owners that spend 1/5th on their vehicle will seek.

Let's put this into king of the universe terms. Bob buys a used camry for $5k. How much will he spend on upkeepmof that car?
Bob buys a new Malibu for $26k. How much will he spend on upkeep of that car?

Facepalm ub, facepalm.

Wasn't trade deficit a complain of yours at one point? If we let the auto industry of the us tank and actually import cars, isn't that double plus ungood? Wouldn't a stupendously small amount of tax payer money per capita be immensely prefferable to an even greater trade deficit?

Higher tax revenue by volume v higher rates

Higher revenue via volume v rates.

Less govt dependence by individuals that keepmtheir jobs v a one time short term rebate

Sounds actually quite reasonable despite not being ideal.

I know that subscribing to the ideology is easy. Try thinking about things for an extra 45 seconds on a scale that goes macro instead of micro. You'll be amazed at what you find.
 
I don't care how many people are employed, if the business is failing, there's no reason to keep sinking money into it. Let it evolve or let it die and something else take its place. Darwin was right. The longer you artificially sting it along, the harder it is for new, replacement businesses to come in and the harder the fall will be when they finally take the hit (Hey, now if they fail, instead of folks being out of a job, now they're all out of jobs *and* they've taken billions of taxpayer dollars with them. Hope we don't need that money to help all those folks who just lost jobs and all... whoops).

Your entire cost benefit analysis was simply numbers you made up with no relation to reality. You didn't even have the amount correct for the cost ("$8k or whatever"), even though it's been posted multiple times in this very thread. Beyond that, you randomly threw in every potential good thing and added it to the "benefit" without any of the potential (or since realized) bad stuff that could (or has) happened as a result of this.

Did I say used car sales was an industry? I said "business". And yes, it's a business. If you're trying to say used car sales don't help the economy, then let's go around and stop everyone from buying used cars and see what happens with half of middle-to-lower class America can't get to work. Talk about not seeing the forest for the trees.

Now you're confusing automotive maintenance with automotive repair. Hint: they're not the same and if you have to get your transmission repaired at 3,000 miles, I suggest not buying that type of vehicle next time.

I don't think I've ever complained about trade deficit. I'd like more stuff to be made in the US and exported out (aside from the debt you're so fond of), but I realize that buying a couple of cars isn't going to make that turnaround happen.

"Less government dependence by... getting people into more debt with free government money. And we'll base it all on a lie."

Sounds like a solid plan.
 
So something above 10% of people employed isn't worth floating a govt program that costs next to nothing? Cyndi Lauper appreciates your true colours. What industry replaces cars? Just curious.

Apologies for not grabbing the exact amount. Nonetheless, one cannot argue that the c/b wasn't positive if they wish to hang out in the real world.

Depends on the used car. A sub $20k new car is easily within the reach of almost anyone. Not everyone needs to grab a $32k C-Class Merc. Claiming business v industry doesn't address the point. Your used Camry in my example does not contribute to GDP.

Maintenence also fails to address my point. Your Camry at $5k will receive less repair in the long run than the Malibu. Unless your point is that it's better to sink $20k into a $5k used car than it is to do general maintenence of $10k over the course of 5 years on a $20k car with a resale twice the other used car.

Might have the wrong person on TD, either way, you're claiming the US auto industry and the ensuing supply chain is better off dying than receiving a bump that is profitable in the long run. It costs money to make money. Ever heard that? At risk of redundancy, your meager contribution to this program as a tax payer resulted in a greater outcome.

You're still unwilling to admit that consumer debt drives our economy. Please elude us as to how it does not.

As to your last bit, note that it was not ideal but also reasonable. Think of it as an above ground swimming pool in our lovely humid midwest summers.
 
[quote name='nasum']holy christ, you really can't even see past your own nose with anything can you?

Holy cheeseballs batman! I am going to be super dramatic so that my point seems so sensible and you seem so stupid!

Auto industry is down
auto industry goes up if people buy cars For a short time, then you assume it will keep going up? I guess we call it the snowball effect?
create an incentive for people to trade in vehicles (under the guise of a green initiative to get low mpg vehicles off the road) You mean to destroy vehicles that were in perfect good working condition
people trade in vehicles to purchase new vehicles Most likely when they were not looking to buy a car, and they most likely had not saved a down payment, or planned for a $300 car payment. Heck I even thought about it and I had a perfectly working car. I almost rushed to go out and look for one, but then used my better judgement. (I still have the car I had then, today)
new vehicles benefit manufactures while used sales are lost opportunity If this were true, people wouldn't point to this as why used games shouldn't be blamed for the game industries woes.
manufactures produce more vehicles to replace inventory This is related to the above point, where we don't really know if vehicles were produced to replace inventory. If you really think about it, they had a ton of cars in their inventory that noone was buying, they have an established program that increased sales for a specific amount of time. You really think that they made the same amount of inventory to sit there again after the program went away? Probably not.
cars get delivered So?
cars get sold Ok?
sold car produces license/title/sales tax income and employs sales. Used cars sales produce sales tax, and employs sales as well.

Not too mention creating consumer debt which is about all our economy is good for anymore

I bet you said the same thing when banks were giving out all those mortgages too right?
[/QUOTE]

..
 
[quote name='nasum']So something above 10% of people employed isn't worth floating a govt program that costs next to nothing?[/quote]

You know, as much crap as you've given me for sticking to ideology, you think you'd recognize when you're doing the same.

I don't believe it's the role of government to ensure anyone's gainful employment. It's that simple.

What industry replaces cars? Just curious.
Click to expand...

More public transportation, different (potentially new) automotive manufactures, etc.

Nonetheless, one cannot argue that the c/b wasn't positive if they wish to hang out in the real world.
Click to expand...

Says the guy who pulled a bunch of non-numbers from imaginary land to base his argument on.

Unless your point is that it's better to sink $20k into a $5k used car than it is to do general maintenence of $10k over the course of 5 years on a $20k car with a resale twice the other used car.
Click to expand...

Depends on the situation. That $20k car is going to cost more than that after you figure in the increased cost associated with financing it (which was required as part of the CARS program) and the increased cost of insurance (including the requirement of full coverage).

You're still unwilling to admit that consumer debt drives our economy. Please elude us as to how it does not.
Click to expand...

Well... [quote name='Knoell']I bet you said the same thing when banks were giving out all those mortgages too right?[/quote]

All that consumer debt sure helped our economy, right?
 
Short term - that was the point.

Not Looking to buy a car - that was the point.

Let's not compare $60 video games and cars that cost 500x that amount.

We do know they were produced. How? Go to manufacture's investor relations sites.

By the very nature of a used vehicle, it produces less sales tax since it has depreciated in value.

"giving out" mortgages? Wow.
 
[quote name='nasum']Short term - that was the point.[/QUOTE]

I, too, think the leaders of our country should focus on short term efforts without regard to long term effects.

Where's that "I like where this is headed" .gif when you need it?
 
You're coming up with a lot of assumptions there.

How many of those cars where repossessed? How many of the owners found themselves deeper in debt (which you don't care about) because of the car payments and higher insurance? How many used car salesmen are out of jobs now because of the decrease of used cars and the increase in prices? Auto repair?

What's the extended cost of propping up the failing industry vs. the potential cost of allowing a newer, better and stronger business to take over?

Additionally, what's the extended cost on the damage to the environment?

If you want to break it down to "We sold $XX and it only cost $X", then, sure. Points for you.

But it gets into that entire macro vs. micro thing you were ranting about earlier.

Oh, PS - out of that $20.7 Billion, how much was pumped into, say, the Japanese economy from selling Toyota cars? What was it you said about trade deficit?
 
[quote name='UncleBob']You're coming up with a lot of assumptions there.

How many of those cars where repossessed? How many of the owners found themselves deeper in debt (which you don't care about) because of the car payments and higher insurance? How many used car salesmen are out of jobs now because of the decrease of used cars and the increase in prices? Auto repair?

[/QUOTE]
Just some info since you were asking:
http://www.thedetroitbureau.com/2012/08/auto-loan-delinquencies-drop/

I didn't really dig far enough to find out all the info, but this should give you a start. I don't believe that the used car salesman was affected that much, except for those independent places that generally rip you off worse then the dealerships anyway. I will say that I've seen a lot of auto repair places go out of business around where I live, but that could just be localized to this area. For the record, I was not for the auto bailout.
 
So you decide to shop at target one day. Is that money spent improving my minneapolis economy or your elgin economy? That foreign auto sales are a negative is a complete misnomer.

You're confusing consumer debt as bad for the individual with being a gdp driver. One has little to do with the other.
 
[quote name='soulvengeance']Just some info since you were asking:
http://www.thedetroitbureau.com/2012/08/auto-loan-delinquencies-drop/

I didn't really dig far enough to find out all the info, but this should give you a start.[/QUOTE]

Unfortunately, as was mentioned earlier in this thread, without data that's reflective of those who participated in CARS, we don't really have any information to go off of. The way loans where approved at this time changed significantly enough (thanks to the fallout from the housing issues) that just using the overall number doesn't really tell us if this has anything to do with the folks who participated in CARS specifically or is just an overall improvement due to the changes in the qualifiers for the loans.

[quote name='nasum']So you decide to shop at target one day. Is that money spent improving my minneapolis economy or your elgin economy? That foreign auto sales are a negative is a complete misnomer.

You're confusing consumer debt as bad for the individual with being a gdp driver. One has little to do with the other.[/QUOTE]

Money spent at Target goes towards several different economies. You know that.

And ignoring the effect that consumer debt has on the economy is one of those "short term" things. Sure, in the short term, as we saw with the housing crisis, consumer debt is awesome for the economy. But, as we saw from the fallout of the housing crisis, in the long term, it has nasty effects.
 
[quote name='nasum']So you decide to shop at target one day. Is that money spent improving my minneapolis economy or your elgin economy? That foreign auto sales are a negative is a complete misnomer.

You're confusing consumer debt as bad for the individual with being a gdp driver. One has little to do with the other.[/QUOTE]

I think it is safe to say you have won the argument.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top