This part appears to be holding true. The largest U.S. automaker has the most sales under the “cash-for-clunkers” program.
General Motors.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=akjL3wiDVfnU
I’m curious, what about this Cash for Guns program in California? Is it a destruction of wealth? How does it rate to the C4C program?
First off, that’s a rather poor assumption on your part. Second, the stupid usually outnumber the correct. Witness the fact that Obama is president.
Of course it’s a destruction of wealth. But it’s not analogous, it’s not like they’re trading in the guns for more efficient upgrades here. It’s a really stupid use of taxpayer money to, in most cases, buy up junker guns and pretend that hey, if we got a few guns off the street from people who voluntarily turned them in we’re all better off!
From the article:
“The guns were mostly rifles and handguns. But there were seven assault rifles, five sawed-off shotguns and two machine guns.”
There is not even the slightest possibility that this is true. (I wonder what other issues the media could so blatantly lie about comfortably). I do find myself curious - I know what they probably mean by “assault rifles” - they’re wrong but I can see where they’re confused after a deliberate media campaign to confuse people - but I wonder what it is they think are “machine guns”, as a seperate category.
So?
We paid cash. And for all you (individually) paid I hope you enjoy your nanosecond on the soft, creamy leather.
Nothing perfect about it except for its crappitude. In my opinion, the Ford Expedition should have rolled directly from the assembly line into a car shredder.
They are probably better off.
Why do you assume it’s a lie? Why don’t you think it’s possible that a couple dozen guns actually were combat weapons?
So the stupid outnumber the correct? Is that your argument?
So Intelligent Design is real, because the vast majority of highly trained biologists think it’s hooey?
So the moon landing is faked? Because the vast majority think it’s not?
That’s simply a stupid argument. First off the vast majority of trained economists aren’t stupid. Second off, the ones that disagree tend to belong to ideological groups.
So please, try to keep some semblance of sanity in your posts. That one was simply drivel.
" A 9 mpg gain translates into annual savings of 3.8 million barrels of oil per year and nearly $1,000 for consumers at the pump -– not to mention that it will reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 660,000 metric tons a year. Okay, not a cost-effective emission reducer, but still, given the multiple benefits of the program, pretty darn good."
I hate when people/articles/announcements/whatevers do that. And they all virtually frackin do.
They give a number without any damn context. 3.8 million outa HOW many million barrels? 660,000 metric tons outa how many total?
Those numbers dont mean a damn thing without context. Even the 1000 dollar part is some somewhat vague .
Local county budget short 1.5 million this year!!!
BFD. WTF does that mean? 1.5 outa 3 or 1.5 outa 50? Big frickin difference.
Rant and personal pet peeve over. Back to your current debate…grrrrr…crap like this makes me all stabby…
touche teacher, touche
For the record, I’m not sure I pay enough in federal taxes to even warrant the nanosecond, but that leather sure sounds nice.
Was it this thread or the other on the same subject that had some one pointing out all the economists that were against the program.
I stand by my assertion, “you ask two economists a question, you get three answers.”
“If you lined up all the economists end to end you would never reach a conclusion.”
Any gun that would legally legitimately qualify as an assault rifle or machine gun would be worth at least $10,000, often much more. The idea that those people, who went through a very long and arduous application process, would turn in their guns to receive a gift card is absurd.
Illegal “machine guns” of any sort are exceedingly rare, and I doubt someone who’s such a hardcore criminal as to have one would be turning it in in a guns for cash drive, especially when it would receive significant attention and make their crime obvious. I suppose it could’ve been a “turn in your illegal guns, no questions asked” type of deal, but given the rarity and the criminal mindset, I doubt it.
The media deliberate attempts to confuse the public as to the nature of the weapons, so any sort of military-looking rifle gets labelled “assault rifle” - but to say “7 assault rifles, 2 machine guns” confuses me as, if they’re throwing military looking weapons into the category of assault rifles, what is it that they’re calling machine guns?
The news clip I saw showed a police officer holding up what looked like an UZI. Would you feel better if the story said “2 sub machine guns?”
Also, I’m not sure if there were any requirements for the guns to actually work. Don’t know if that matters or not.
What do you suppose the street value of a 10 year old UZI is?
Dunno I can think of some scenarios. Babydaddy had it, got shot in a drive-by. Need cash to buy formula, don’t want to put the gun out on the street so someone else’s babydaddy gets killed by it in a drive by.
It’s not entirely implausible that people would actually do such things. Two things that create a synergy, “Well I want to get this gun off the street anyway, and I could use this gift card.”
In New York they give you cash.
The data is misleading. The reason the small cars are at the top of the list is that they are made in very few trim levels. Trucks aren’t on the list because they are available in front-wheel drive, all-wheel drive, club cab, crew cab, extended box, you name it - and the government counted each model variant separately to make the list look good.
If you correct for that, you find this list of the top 10:
- Ford Escape
- Ford Focus
- Jeep Patriot
- Dodge Caliber
- Ford F-150
- Honda Civic
- Chevrolet Silverado
- Chevrolet Cobalt
- Toyota Corolla
10.Ford Fusion
So the number one vehicle purchased was an SUV, as was the #3. Two pickup trucks and a mid-size sedan also made the list. In fact, that list looks suspiciously like the normal mix of vehicles you’d expect to see purchased.
In addition, a couple of days ago I posted an Edmunds report saying that the ‘Cash for Clunkers’ actually had the effect of delaying auto sales, because people heard about the program a couple of months ago and delayed buying vehicles until then. According to Edmunds, about 200,000 of those 250,000 sales under ‘cash for clunkers’ were actually delayed sales or sales you’d expect in that month anyway.
I said then that we’d know if the report was correct if the demand for ‘cash for clunkers’ dropped when the second 2 billion was approved, because all those pent-up demand vehicles would be gone.
Well…
Interest in ‘Cash for Clunkers’ sputters.
So… sales may return to ‘pre-clunker’ levels, even with the $4500 rebate! If that happens, it suggests that the original 1 billion simply pulled in buyers who were about to buy anyway, and delayed buyers who wanted to buy but who were waiting for the program. If that’s the case, we may find out six months from now that if you take the whole second half of the year as a whole, ‘cash for clunkers’ may not have had much, if any effect.
There are also reports that because of the shortage of high-efficiency vehicles like hybrids, ‘cash for clunkers’ may have actually pushed buyers into accepting vehicles with LOWER mileage than they otherwise wanted. Yes, overall mileage of these cars appears to be higher than the mileage of the cars traded in, but the question is whether it’s higher than it would otherwise have been without the program. After all, there have been major gains in engine efficiency in the last ten years, so any trade in to a roughly equivalent vehicle would almost certainly result in a mileage gain.
Finally, in the end you have to ask yourself if any potential gains were worth it. If the program stimulated 50,000 car sales overall, that’s $20,000 per car. Is that a good use of borrowed money? How many dollars per gallon of gas saved did the program cost? Was that a better expenditure than using the 3 billion to buy a nuclear plant or subsidize wind? Where’s the cost-benefit calculation? Any program can be made to look good if you ignore the costs.
You shouldn’t believe government reports - especially when they’re coming straight from the people who endorsed the program. They have an incentive to spin the program in the best possible light.
Here’s a list of the best-selling cars for May:
- Ford F-Series: 35,915
- Toyota Camry: 26,394
- Chevy Silverado: 24,766
- Honda Accord: 23,995
- Honda Civic: 20,954
- Toyota Corolla: 19,935
- Ford Fusion: 18,561
- Nissan Altima: 16,350
- Ford Escape: 15,385
10)Chevy Impala: 14,931
Let’s see: Six of the vehicles are the same. The only differences are the Nissan Altima, The Chevy Impala, the Honda Accord, and the Toyota Camry. All mid-size sedans. Their replacements on the other list are the Jeep Patriot, the Dodge Caliber, the Chevy Cobalt, and the Ford Focus.
I believe the Focus makes the list in part because it’s a brand-new model and much better than the outgoing car. One mid-size sedan replaced by an SUV, and the other by a Caliber, which is not a particularly high-mileage vehicle.
The Dodge and Jeep vehicles probably made it onto the list because Chrysler had a ‘double the clunker deal’ incentive on them, making the rebate $9000. For a Caliber, that’s more than half the value of the vehicle. Of course they’re going to sell more. They probably sold them at a loss.
I’m having a hard time seeing the big move to high mileage vehicles. I’ll bet if you compare the fleet averages between the two lists, there will be very little difference between them.
Sam, could you please scan back to a few posts I made earlier, all your points were addressed, in detail, and backed up with cites, from edmunds.com.
Basically, you are correct about list, but here is what is significant: edmunds.com compiled a list of cars/trucks bought when people made trade ins. What they found was that the list of traded in cars tends to be heavily weighted towards trucks and suvs, and likewise, the people that traded in the trucks and suvs turned around and bought a second (or third, or forth) truck/suv.
The Ford F150 and Escape were top selling vehicles in the 90s, and now people are trading them in. Last year (and last month) people trading them in bought F150 and Escapes. The list of vehicles bought during trade ins was pretty much the same last year as this year, UNTIL the C4C program, and then suddenly the list included:
8. Chevrolet Cobalt
9. Toyota Corolla
10.Ford Fusion
That is a HUGE change. That 8,9,and10 slot USED to be suv’s and small trucks. So last year, the same types of purchases (trade ins of F150s) resulted in low mpg trucks (people replaced it with an F150). But now, a significant chunk of buyers switched from the F150 to the Fusion. That’s a move from 12-14mpg to 30-35mpg, is that not significant enough for you?
Without the program, the list of new cars/trucks bought was the same as the list of cars/trucks traded in. Now there has been real change, resulting in a significant improvement in mpg.
It’s all about putting stats into context. You can’t measure change unless you know what your initial conditions were. I’m really tired, so please, take a look back to see the stats I posted.
Sam, it’s entirely possible all the data I posted was in the other C4C thread, I’m going to try and track it down.
Found it, http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=526908&page=3
my last three or four posts cover this in detail, I apologize for being short with you, I got confused which thread was which.