- #71
Phrak
- 4,267
- 6
Besides tax payers, of course, who footing the bill for this? Any takers?
LolAl68 said:So if put sugar in someone's gas tank, ruining their car, and they go buy a new one, I can claim that putting sugar in gas tanks of older cars helps the economy.
Is that more analogous to the broken glass theory of economics, or the CARS program?
Why the need to buy new arent there equivalently efficient 2007 and 2006 that are on the selling market or did some great technological MPG advance happen in 2008 that I am not aware of.mheslep said:Er probably true in terms of a not saving a drop of energy (coal et al) after counting the new car production. Likely it will save on some gasoline, though not much as much as hoped.
WASHINGTON – "Cash for clunkers" could have the same effect on global warming pollution as shutting down the entire country — every automobile, every factory, every power plant — for an hour per year. That could rise to three hours if the program is extended by Congress and remains as popular as it is now.
Climate experts aren't impressed.
Compared to overall carbon dioxide emissions in the United States, the pollution savings from cash for clunkers do not noticeably move the fuel gauge. Environmental experts say the program — conceived primarily to stimulate the economy and jump-start the auto industry — is not an effective way to attack climate change.
"As a carbon dioxide policy, this is a terribly wasteful thing to do," said Henry Jacoby, a professor of management and co-director of the Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change at MIT. "The amount of carbon you are saving per federal expenditure is very, very small."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090805/ap_on_sc/us_cash_for_clunkers_pollution
The guidelines in the House-passed bill state that large SUVs and trucks, typically considered gas guzzlers in everyday conversation, qualify for the $3,500 credit, and in some cases the $4,500 credit, depending on the trade-ins that come through the door for them. New Category 2 trucks -- like the Hummer H-3, Ford Explorer, Chevy Silverado, and Toyota Tundra -- qualify if they get at least 15 MPG combined, and get at least one mile per gallon more than the car or truck being traded in.
The larger Category 3 trucks have no fuel-efficiency rules at all, since the EPA does not rate them for MPG. The only requirement for their purchase is that a buyer be trading in a pre-2002 Category 3 truck that is as large or larger than the one they're buying. For example, you can bring in your 2001 Chevy Suburban and buy a new Chevy Suburban, and still get the $3,500 credit. The bill has no requirement that the trucks, classified by the Federal Highway Administration as "work trucks," be used for farm or construction work.
cont...
I didnt know this. Oh come on.TheStatutoryApe said:The first link is the same as my msnbc one.
Some criticisms I have heard about on the radio.
The guidelines in the House-passed bill state that large SUVs and trucks, typically considered gas guzzlers in everyday conversation, qualify for the $3,500 credit, and in some cases the $4,500 credit, depending on the trade-ins that come through the door for them. New Category 2 trucks -- like the Hummer H-3, Ford Explorer, Chevy Silverado, and Toyota Tundra -- qualify if they get at least 15 MPG combined, and get at least one mile per gallon more than the car or truck being traded in.
The larger Category 3 trucks have no fuel-efficiency rules at all, since the EPA does not rate them for MPG. The only requirement for their purchase is that a buyer be trading in a pre-2002 Category 3 truck that is as large or larger than the one they're buying. For example, you can bring in your 2001 Chevy Suburban and buy a new Chevy Suburban, and still get the $3,500 credit. The bill has no requirement that the trucks, classified by the Federal Highway Administration as "work trucks," be used for farm or construction work.
cont...
j93 said:I didnt know this. Oh come on.
Even the Category 2 vehicles. Come on.TheStatutoryApe said:According to a CNN article they only assigned 7.5 million towards category three vehicles (no mention on category 2 though). It still seems to punch a hole in the pollution control and oil independence selling points of the bill.
Good point, though the rules of this program say buy new...j93 said:...Why the need to buy new arent there equivalently efficient 2007 and 2006 that are on the selling market or did some great technological MPG advance happen in 2008 that I am not aware of.
Well, if you include all car owners, we're paying for 100% plus. The (reduced) cost of the new car, the cost of the bailout, plus the loss of the additional wealth that would have been created with the money if not taken from taxpayers.russ_watters said:The auto company bailouts were unpopulare because they are anti-capitalist. This is just a clever way around that - it is an extra bailout for the auto makers, but this time, car owners pay 3/4 of the cost directly!
Yeah, according to the historically delusional logic and fraudulent claims of Dems.j93 said:... as historically Dems were all about focusing on the lower income folks and Republicans on the higher income folks...
Regardless of what you may think of the welfare program it is a program aimed solely at the poor that was passed under Democratic leadership as well as the Section 8 program.Al68 said:Yeah, according to the historically delusional logic and fraudulent claims of Dems.
The delusional logic and fraud refer to the claim that opposition to such programs is due to being on the side of the "higher income folks", against the poor.j93 said:Regardless of what you may think of the welfare program it is a program aimed solely at the poor that was passed under Democratic leadership as well as the Section 8 program.Al68 said:Yeah, according to the historically delusional logic and fraudulent claims of Dems.
Obama said:http://whitehouse.blogs.foxnews.com...nate-passage-of-cash-for-clunkers-extension/"
August 6, 2009
...the initial transactions are generating a more than 50% increase in fuel economy; they are generating $700 to $1000 in annual savings for consumers in reduced gas costs alone; and they are getting the oldest, dirtiest and most air polluting trucks and SUVs off the road for good.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32313464/ns/business-autos/"
Through late Tuesday, the most recent data available, more than $775 million of the original $1 billion had been spent, accounting for the sale of nearly 185,000 new vehicles. Administration officials estimate the new money will last into Labor Day and could prompt another 500,000 vehicle sales.
mgb_phys said:And at least this time congress are showing the way, they are trading in their old clunker executive jets for shiny new ones.
No word on mpg or how much rebate they get but it might be of interest to mentors wishing to trade in their PF issue Learjets.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124960404730212955.html
Save that thought. The next time someone proposes a tax cut to let Americans keep more of their own money come back here and dig it up.Ivan Seeking said:Why do so many people on the right think the Iraqi people are more important than Americans? Apparently this is the case. The only spending favored is spending for wars [and one we didn't even need to fight].
Ivan, the forum rules can be found here: https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=113181Ivan Seeking said:Why do so many people on the right think the Iraqi people are more important than Americans? Apparently this is the case.
I doubt anybody has a problem with reducing our dependence on foreign oil or are rate of emissions. I think people have a problem with taking a page from P. Diddy and deciding we could solve our problems without thinking just by throwing a lot of money at it. Scientist seem to agree that this is not the best dollar for dollar way to reduce emissions. It seems this is just a bailout wrapped around an emission saving premise that gives a select group of taxpayers (really another tax break)money back, I rarely condone a tax cut but if you just want to put money back in peoples hand just give them another tax break and if youare worried about emissions then don't give them a tax break and use that money in a better dollar for dollar way of reducing emissions.Ivan Seeking said:What is the value of ending our reliance on foreign oil? How much do we spend on the military to protect our oil interests? The benefits from this cars program is manyfold.
This is not just a bailout because it pays back in reduced oil imports and it helps to improve the US position globally. The less we need foreign oil, the greater our latitude of options.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32290028/ns/us_news-environment/page/2/But some energy experts say the country is overpaying for the pollution reductions, mostly because cash for clunkers is more about stimulating the economy than cutting pollution.
Paying up to $4,500 per clunker means the government is spending more than $160 for every ton of carbon dioxide removed over 10 years, said MIT's Jacoby, co-author of the book "Transportation in a Climate-Constrained World."
That's five to 10 times more than the estimated per-ton cost of carbon dioxide for power plants in the cap-and-trade system passed earlier this year by the House.
Here's actual vehicles-sold count from Edmunds (via CNN):mgb_phys said:According to the website Autobytel.com - who have a search page for 'does my car qualify for a trade in' the most searched for vehicles are:
Ford F-Series
Ford Explorer
Chevrolet C/K/Silverado
Jeep Grand Cherokee
Dodge Ram
Chevrolet Blazer
Jeep Cherokee
Dodge Grand Caravan
Dodge Dakota
Ford Ranger
Of course - this doesn't mean people aren't replacing them with the equivalent new SUV/pickup, but it does suggest that people are getting rid of large vehicles rather than just trading in real 20 year old clunkers.
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/driveon/post/2009/07/68495642/1
Do you have any reference for that claim? I believe the reverse is true given the Edmunds list.bleedblue1234 said:...
2) We are mostly purchasing foreign cars with these incentives.
Foreign makes, not foreign cars.mheslep said:Do you have any reference for that claim? I believe the reverse is true given the Edmunds list.
http://features.csmonitor.com/politics/2009/08/07/cash-for-clunkers-is-popular-but-is-it-truly-a-us-stimulus/"CSM said:CARS vouchers in Week 1 helped consumers buy 184,304 new vehicles, more than half of which were foreign makes, mainly Toyota, Honda, Nissan, and Hyundai, according to the US Department of Transportation.
Of those foreign cars and trucks, more than half are made in the US. Best sellers include the Toyota Corolla, the Ford Focus, the Honda Civic, and Toyota’s Prius and Camry.
As I indicated above, the DOT count (used in your CSM reference) is misleading. Toyota is not in the top five of the clunker replacements. Most of the replacement cars are domestic makes per Edmunds.jimmysnyder said:Foreign makes, not foreign cars.
http://features.csmonitor.com/politics/2009/08/07/cash-for-clunkers-is-popular-but-is-it-truly-a-us-stimulus/"
mheslep said:Do you have any reference for that claim? I believe the reverse is true given the Edmunds list.
You asked for a reference and you got a reference. What is the Edmunds list? Are you referring to the autobytel list? Why do you think the DOT count is misleading? Are their figures incorrect?mheslep said:As I indicated above, the DOT count (used in your CSM reference) is misleading. Toyota is not in the top five of the clunker replacements. Most of the replacement cars are domestic makes per Edmunds.
Yes, though we don't know what bleedblue based his claim upon.jimmysnyder said:You asked for a reference and you got a reference.
As posted above. Edmunds tallied up the sales of clunker replacements, reported here by CNN MoneyWhat is the Edmunds list?
NoAre you referring to the autobytel list?
As posted above, they (DoT) apparently subdivided their count by model variation, so that, e.g., the two full size trucks listed by Edmonds don't even appear on the DOT list. The Money CNN article explains further.Why do you think the DOT count is misleading? Are their figures incorrect?
Agreed.The question is not "Which particular model is the most popular",
Agreedit is "Are more US makes sold, or more foreign makes.".
TrueIt turns out that foreign makes comprise 55% of the market in general
It turns out they do not, not even close per Edmunds. C4C has mostly been domestic, and largely SUVs and trucks.and it should come as no surprise that they would comprise 55% of the C4C program.
mheslep said:It turns out they (foreign makes) do not (comprise 55% of the C4C market), not even close per Edmunds. C4C has mostly been domestic, and largely SUVs and trucks.
This is from the link you posted. I think you read it wrong. I didn't see anything in either of the links you posted that would help answer the question at hand, foreign vs domestic.CNN said:While critics had feared that car shoppers would use the program mostly to buy trucks, in fact 83% of the vehicles traded in have been trucks and SUVs while 60% of vehicles purchased were passenger cars, according to Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood.
No, that quote is from the August 5th article which is based upon the DoT list. Three days later in the August 8th article they challenge all the conclusions of the DoT list, based on the Edmunds list.jimmysnyder said:This is from the link you posted. I think you read it wrong.
We certainly have help, just not proof. We don't know what the sales distribution looks like for, say, #11 through #50. But given there are only two foreign makes in the top 10, the odds favor a majority domestic source for C4C.I didn't see anything in either of the links you posted that would help answer the question at hand, foreign vs domestic.
I have posted a reference for the case that more cars of foreign make were sold under the Cash for Clunkers program than domestic. You have posted no such link to support your case. Please don't drag this out. Wait until you have such a link and then post it. Thanks.mheslep said:No, that quote is from the August 5th article which is based upon the DoT list. Three days later in the August 8th article they challenge all the conclusions of the DoT list, based on the Edmunds list.
We certainly have help, just not proof. We don't know what the sales distribution looks like for, say, #11 through #50. But given there are only two foreign makes in the top 10, the odds favor a majority domestic source for C4C.