Not to attack your point, which I agree with, but …
Anyone else remember the minor shitstorm that occurred when Obama suggested that checking your tire pressure might be a good way to improve net aggregate mileage?
Anyone want to hazard a guess how big a shitstorm would have occurred if Obama (et al.) proposed to give a few billion dollars to the poor for tune-ups and new tires?
Car dealers are having trouble with the fine print?
[Jerry Lundegaard]
Yah, but I’m saying, that TruCoat, you don’t get it, you get oxidation problems … See, they install that TruCoat at the factory. There’s nothing we can do. But I’ll talk to my boss.
[/Jerry Lundegaard]
I’ll add this to the long list of things that I don’t quite understand why I’m supposed to care about.
You do realize that in order for people to turn those in for this program they would have to be worth UNDER $4500 right? Otherwise the owners are idiots and deserve to lose wealth. These cars on your list are not going to be worth so little in 2009 so there won’t be many (any) of those traded in for the $4500 unless they are damn near undrivable any way.
Actually, my current car gets 40+ mpg city and highway, based upon my actual usage over the past 7 years. Granted, it suits me in other ways, but most certainly the mileage was a factor in the purchase. As it is 7 years old now you can probably figure out that it pre-dated all those incentive programs to get people to buy high mpg cars, so clearly at least some of us will do this on our own even without encouragement.
By the way, it is not a hybrid.
So… by my reckoning such cars are a very realistic option. Granted, it won’t fit everyone but it certainly would fit a lot of folks. In fact, I know of at least one person who purchased the same make and model based on my enthusiasm for my present car, as it fit her needs very well, too.
Hmm… well, I purchased both my car and my truck as new vehicles. Then again, I did that BEFORE I became poor (layoffs suck, you know?). If I had to replace one of them today… Realistically, I’d probably have to buy a used vehicle. On the other hand, if I was working a steady 40 hours a week instead of my current on-again off-again employment, or better yet, was making even 1 more dollar an hour I probably could swing a new vehicle if I was careful about choosing one.
So I’d say it’s possible for at least the upper end of poor to purchase a new vehicle. It would not, however, always be the best option.
If Ford is doing so badly because GM didn’t go out of business why has Ford stock being going up more than down over the past few months? It was GM that declared bankruptcy, not Ford. Do you have any actual evidence that Ford is “hosed” or is that just your belief?
I got two vehicles that could use some work. Had to fix the throttle on my pick-up truck by myself with the help of a friend because I just didn’t have the money that week to take it to a mechanic in a real garage - hell, I had to ask to borrow $20 to buy groceries that week (I’m happy to report I’ve had some better weeks since then). Won’t admit how long I relied on fix-a-flat until I could get that one tire fixed.
Doesn’t even have to be free - some help with routine maintenance costs would mean a great deal to me. Like oil changes for the car. Now before someone suggests I do that myself I have to point out that my car sits quite low to the ground - I might be able to do that if I had A-cups, but my bustline is definitely a C-cup, and I haven’t got a means of safely lifting the car upwards enough for me to get under it. (Heterosexual guys - wipe that expression off your face and and wipe the drool off your chin. Me working on machinery isn’t as sexy as you think it is.) Ditto for tune-ups and anything else you care to name.
My Toyota Echo gets 40-43 mpg based upon actual use over the last seven years. It’s not a hybrid. It’s not a “smart car”. It’s a bog-standard Toyota Echo.
It cost $14,000 brand new.
Um… what was the problem again?
True, it will not serve everyone’s needs. More than 4 adults is cramped. More than three kids in the back would be unsafe. It can’t haul ladders for when I paint houses (well, I also own a pickup that does that quite nicely) or lawnmowers or whatever, but then I don’t need to do that every day. Can’t beat it for running errands around town, though.
I also suspect my driving habits contribute to the mileage, as I avoid driving techniques that waste gas. However, I have maintained the high mileage whether driving around town or on 500 mile road trips through the Appalachians.
I suspect there are other cars that would meet a 35-40 mpg target as well out there, and they aren’t all “pricey hybrids”. I also suspect people could learn more efficient driving methods as well.
Causing an engine to seize can have the secondary effect of messing up the transmission as it attempts to keep turning when connected parts of the engine are no longer able to do so. It’s a side effect, not an intended effect.
I will attempt to be gentle. If you are running a business and any one of your largest competitors goes out of business your business almost certainly benefits. Demand for your product remains constant. It isn’t like the people who need a new car will just pass entirely because they can’t buy a GM car. Maybe they buy a Toyota, maybe a Honda, and for those people that prefer American cars they probably buy a Ford.
The fact that the stock price has risen is irrelevant. Without GM they would have a larger market share. I can’t envision any circumstance in which the failure of GM does not help Ford. I would be happy to hear one, but this doesn’t strike me as an argument that needs charts and graphs and stuff to prove.
The American economy also gets hosed because maybe Ford buys GM’s assets, but maybe an entrepeneur takes this chance to get cheap manufacturing assets and decides to start a new American car company. By artificially propping up a failed business we not only get to spend billions to save it. We also get to spend further billions to encourage people to buy products they otherwise would not.
I, for one, am keeping my clunker, and not asking “the government” to give cash to a car salesman in exchange for it. But what is this “the government” the OP keeps rambling on about? Does the OP mean “The government of the United States of America?” I suspect so.
I’m sure the buggy-whip makers will be thrilled to hear that.
Look, the automakers are in deep doo-doo in part because people stopped buying so many cars. Why is that? Lack of money in many cases. If the demand is gone then having a competitor go out of business will NOT necessarily mean you pick up more business. If the demand isn’t there you aren’t going to sell more widgets.
Or they will buy a used care because it’s cheaper and they lack the money for a new car. Or they’re afraid to spend the money on a new car for fear they’ll be laid off or something, so they buy the cheaper used car. No one “needs” a NEW car, as in brand new never before driven. Buying a used car in good condition is still very much an option for those who require another vehicle.
If people just plain aren’t buying cars the demand just isn’t there and cars will not be sold. The buggy-whip makers went out of business because people stopped wanting/needing buggy whips. I don’t think we’ll see the demand for cars drop quite that low, but with the economy in its current state and so many people just simply short of cash NO ONE is going to be selling many brand new cars for the near future.
“Cash for Clunkers” in parts illustrates that. Clearly, there was a pent up demand of some sort for cars, but why was no one acting on it? The program has the effect of lowering the price of a new car, one which (in theory) will be cheaper to run as it is in good repair and gets better gas mileage - this prompted some people to go out and buy. It’s not that people don’t want cars - they do - but the money isn’t there for them to buy at current prices. Take away the incentive program and people stop buying. They still want a new car, but it no longer makes sense to them to make the leap. Thus, despite demand widgets are not being sold.
That’s another thing I don’t get. No one is being forced to give up their gas guzzler. No one. Want to keep your old oil-belching, out-of-tune petroleum slurping BMW? Go right ahead. No problem. Keep it as long as you want. You feel the program is bad for the environment? Then don’t participate in it. If you want to sell your clunker take it down to the junker yourself and point out there’s a working engine in it (if, in fact, the engine is working) and they’ll be happy to recycle it for you. Don’t want to buy a new car? Then don’t. No one is forcing you to. In fact, if you want to buy a NEW gas-guzzler even bigger than your old one I’m sure you’ll have no trouble finding a car dealer to sell you one, and you’re still free to buy it. You won’t get a rebate or whatever for it, but hey, you’re still free to buy any vehicle you can afford to pay for. What’s the big problem and objection?
(Yes, I agree, there probably were better ways to spend the money, and a better way to run the problem. That doesn’t change the fact no one is forced to participate.)
Of note: Robert A. Heinlein’s 1957 sci-fi novel The Door into Summer is about a Los Angeles engineer who, betrayed by a femme fatale in 1970, opts for The Medium Sleep. He awakes from his cryogenic hibernation capsule in the early 21st Century, and finds himself a stranger in a strange land:
Obviously, writing a half century ago, Heinlein got much wrong about the 21st Century, such as his naive assumptions that America today would still have a steel industry in Pittsburgh or an export market for its new cars.
I have always supported a charity called Vehicles for Change, you can visit them at www.vehiclesforchange.org. Their mission is to accept donations of used but running cars and then fix them up for use by the working poor. Their bread and butter is exactly the type of cars that are being destroyed. I haven’t spoken with them, but I would assume this is devastating to them.
Let’s look at how this program would have unintended consequences for this charity. I donated my 1995 Infiniti J30 to them last year. It got 16 mpg, making it eligible. I recieved a tax deduction for $4,995, which was the value of the car. I was able to take a full deduction for that amount as it was used by the charity and not sold. So I saved about $1,500 on taxes. That is a bit less than the $2,250 I would have listed it for if I sold it privately. Both for convenience and to support the charity I was happy to give up that extra.
Under cash for clunkers I get $4,500 from all of you to destroy the Infiniti. I can’t turn down that large a difference in value. I apply those funds to the Honda Odyssey we bought which gave us 21 mpg. The charity gets nothing. I am not sure what the environment gains. The poor family who would have my Infiniti is presumably driving something. The charity has a shortage of vehicles to provide so they go into the secondary used car market. Unfortunately for them millions of cars in their price range have been wantonly destroyed making it exceedingly difficult to find a good used car under $5,000.
I just love that mantra …the government is inefficient. Repeat it enough and people will believe it. Of course Soc. Sec. is run at a fraction of what a private system would. Medicare is very efficient and on top of everything. When government fails is when private companies get their tentacles into our tax money. Look at Iraq and how much we were robbed of by the contractors. Look at cost over runs in the military procurement. Thats where our dangers are.
That is the second time this statement has been challenged. Do you believe the government would do a better job of building cars and selling them to the public than the private sector would. I understand that we may have some difference in opinion in regards to the level of privatization that would be wise in health care or retirement, but surely there can’t be many people who want the government to take over automobile manufacture and sale.
My 2006 Toyota Scion xB cost less than 17,000 all in, including the extended warranty, and with sensible driving habits it gets in the middle 30s for gas mileage. I check it at each fillup; the last two have been 36 and 35 mpg in mostly local driving. It’s a comfortable, neat little car, surprisingly roomy inside, with power this and that, a CD player, radio/CD control buttons on the steering wheel, and other goodies.
Unfortunately, Toyota redesigned the car in 2007 and rolled out a new version in 2008 that is larger, less boxy, with a heavier engine that gets in the mid to upper 20s for gas mileage.
