Recent Comment
Share
All of you who were worried you might not get your check for $4,500 for trading in your inefficient car for a less inefficient car, your worries are over. Though the Cash for Clunkers program burned through it's cash faster than anyone thought it would (I mean, you'd almost think they were giving away free money) the program will survive thanks to emergency infusions now approved by both the House and Senate.
Already 220,000 clunkers have been traded for models that are required to be 10 mpg more efficient. Of course, I'm somewhat discouraged that we didn't wait for next year's crop of exciting green cars to come out before paying people to buy new cars, but the plug-in tax credit will, hopefully, be enough to move some plug-in vehicles off dealer lots next year.
Hits: 8268
Comments (11)
Subscribe to this comment's feed
written by Brett, August 10, 2009
With the number of fuel efficient vehicle options out there, I would like to have seen the minimum "green" mpg be a little higher.
-
- +1
-
-
written by Nexyoo, August 10, 2009
In theory this is a great idea but I think it will take a bit more than 3 billion to really give the car industry a jolt. Considering the amount of productivity lost was a great deal more. It is a great step forward by the administration to help do our part as a country.
-
- -1
-
-
written by Bob Wallace, August 10, 2009
There's an "attitude" side effect that comes from this program that may well exceed the $3 billion number.
A lot of economic activity is based on how people are feeling about the direction of the economy. This program seems to be helping people become more positive and right now we need a lot of positive thinking.
We've dodged the big bullet of the Second Great Depression. Now it's time to get back to work and getting back to work partially involves the secession of "money hoarding" that comes when people are scared of collapse.
(I finally felt positive enough last Saturday to purchase the hardwood flooring for the house I'm building. I just pumped over $4k into the economy. Now I've got to spend a couple hundred more for a nail gun and some for pain relievers.)
A lot of economic activity is based on how people are feeling about the direction of the economy. This program seems to be helping people become more positive and right now we need a lot of positive thinking.
We've dodged the big bullet of the Second Great Depression. Now it's time to get back to work and getting back to work partially involves the secession of "money hoarding" that comes when people are scared of collapse.
(I finally felt positive enough last Saturday to purchase the hardwood flooring for the house I'm building. I just pumped over $4k into the economy. Now I've got to spend a couple hundred more for a nail gun and some for pain relievers.)
-
- +0
-
-
written by Joe, August 11, 2009
Why is everyone cheering, while the negatives well outclass the positives of "cash for clunkers".
Positives:
1. People get rid of inefficient cars, "clunkers"
2. People buy new cars.
3. Clunkers get destroyed
Negatives:
1. People get rid of "clunkers" while American car manufacturs continue to produce cars that fall into the "clunker" efficiency range.
2. Some "Clunkers" were previously donated to charities, now the same people whom would have donated them are going for the quick cash.
3. The "Clunkers" are being destroyed regardless of their condition. A 3 year old SUV may be destroyed with 100,000 more miles available on it along with a 1980 oil burning sedan.
It doesn't seem right to destroy something of useful value while there are some people whom would gladly buy it used. Sure, dumping the oil burners is a good idea, but destroying good condition (and safe) cars doesn't help the environment by adding materials to a landfill.
Positives:
1. People get rid of inefficient cars, "clunkers"
2. People buy new cars.
3. Clunkers get destroyed
Negatives:
1. People get rid of "clunkers" while American car manufacturs continue to produce cars that fall into the "clunker" efficiency range.
2. Some "Clunkers" were previously donated to charities, now the same people whom would have donated them are going for the quick cash.
3. The "Clunkers" are being destroyed regardless of their condition. A 3 year old SUV may be destroyed with 100,000 more miles available on it along with a 1980 oil burning sedan.
It doesn't seem right to destroy something of useful value while there are some people whom would gladly buy it used. Sure, dumping the oil burners is a good idea, but destroying good condition (and safe) cars doesn't help the environment by adding materials to a landfill.
-
- +1
-
-
written by Bob Wallace, August 11, 2009
1) Very little goes to the landfill. Some foam rubber, fabric, cardboard, dirt....
2) Car manufacturers are changing their evil ways and bringing more fuel efficient cars to market. Ford and GM were well down that path before the recession hit. Had the economy not turned sour you would have seen lots of good mileage options in showrooms.
3) I really doubt any of these cars would have been donated to charities, at least not until they were more "worn out".
The stimulus money, paying a bit more than the book value of the car, got people in the mood to buy a new car. You thinking that they would have been equally motivated by "ten cents on the dollar" in tax write offs?
4) Getting that 100k gas burner off the road is more valuable to the environment than getting a 180k gas burner off the road. The "1980" car is going away soon without stimulus help.
2) Car manufacturers are changing their evil ways and bringing more fuel efficient cars to market. Ford and GM were well down that path before the recession hit. Had the economy not turned sour you would have seen lots of good mileage options in showrooms.
3) I really doubt any of these cars would have been donated to charities, at least not until they were more "worn out".
The stimulus money, paying a bit more than the book value of the car, got people in the mood to buy a new car. You thinking that they would have been equally motivated by "ten cents on the dollar" in tax write offs?
4) Getting that 100k gas burner off the road is more valuable to the environment than getting a 180k gas burner off the road. The "1980" car is going away soon without stimulus help.
-
- +0
-
-
written by andrew, August 11, 2009
As for Joe's point:
3. The "Clunkers" are being destroyed regardless of their condition. A 3 year old SUV may be destroyed with 100,000 more miles available on it along with a 1980 oil burning sedan.
My friend was thinking about doing that but changed his mine when he realized the trade in value is going to be much higher than $4,500. The dealer's not going to give you trade in value on something they have to shred right? So it's only for people with cars worth less than $4,500 that this program makes sense. Also, to nitpick, the car has to be made within the last 25 years, so "1980" cars are not qualified.
In terms of this being a "green" idea, my dad told me about a recent washington post article (I can't cite it as I didn't read it) where the author pointed out that people who own "clunkers" are less likely to drive them and that they spent more time parked then driven. People who get new cars will drive them more frequently, go on longer trips (because they're more reliable), and will thus end up using MORE fuel then the inefficient clunkers were using.
3. The "Clunkers" are being destroyed regardless of their condition. A 3 year old SUV may be destroyed with 100,000 more miles available on it along with a 1980 oil burning sedan.
My friend was thinking about doing that but changed his mine when he realized the trade in value is going to be much higher than $4,500. The dealer's not going to give you trade in value on something they have to shred right? So it's only for people with cars worth less than $4,500 that this program makes sense. Also, to nitpick, the car has to be made within the last 25 years, so "1980" cars are not qualified.
In terms of this being a "green" idea, my dad told me about a recent washington post article (I can't cite it as I didn't read it) where the author pointed out that people who own "clunkers" are less likely to drive them and that they spent more time parked then driven. People who get new cars will drive them more frequently, go on longer trips (because they're more reliable), and will thus end up using MORE fuel then the inefficient clunkers were using.
-
- +0
-
-
written by Bob Wallace, August 11, 2009
Andrew -
The "people drive new cars more" - was that based on actual data or on someone's opinion?
Got to be careful about stuff coming out of newspapers, especially if it's on the editorial pages. Even the New York Times has low standards for truthiness when it comes to the editorial page.
The "people drive new cars more" - was that based on actual data or on someone's opinion?
Got to be careful about stuff coming out of newspapers, especially if it's on the editorial pages. Even the New York Times has low standards for truthiness when it comes to the editorial page.
-
- +0
-
-
written by Bob Wallace, August 12, 2009
From today's Wall Street Journal...
After months of uncertainty, economists are finally seeing a break in the clouds. Forecasts were revised upward for every period, with 27 economists saying the recession had ended and 11 seeing a trough this month or next. Gross domestic product in the third quarter is now expected to show 2.4% growth at a seasonally adjusted annual rate amid signs of life in the manufacturing sector, partly spurred by inventory adjustments and strong demand for the "cash for clunkers" car-rebate program.
(Yes, I know the WSJ is a newspaper.... ;o)
-
- +0
-
-
written by Bob Wallace, August 12, 2009
In theory this is a great idea but I think it will take a bit more than 3 billion to really give the car industry a jolt
Here's a really interesting article. At least interesting to me....
Clunkers Program Clears Out Car Lots
Car buyers flocking to trade in their clunkers have stripped dealerships of inventory over the past two weeks, giving automakers a signal they have eagerly awaited: It's time to make more cars.
GM, Toyota, Honda, Chrysler all increasing production. Chrysler has reopened ten plants. Honda has hired more workers.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/11/AR2009081101474.html?wprss=rss_business
Here's a really interesting article. At least interesting to me....
Clunkers Program Clears Out Car Lots
Car buyers flocking to trade in their clunkers have stripped dealerships of inventory over the past two weeks, giving automakers a signal they have eagerly awaited: It's time to make more cars.
GM, Toyota, Honda, Chrysler all increasing production. Chrysler has reopened ten plants. Honda has hired more workers.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/11/AR2009081101474.html?wprss=rss_business
-
- +0
-
-
written by Ray-ray, August 18, 2009
Unfortunatly for me my 1996 Nissan sentra gets 32 miles per gallon and my 1984 Mercedes gets almost that. Unless I buy a car I cant afford I cant take advantage of cash for clonkers. Buy the way the new 2 billion was taken from money set aside for solar projects.
-
- +0
-
-
Write comment
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
Cash for Clunkers is part of the stimulus package, not the climate change package.
We should be celebrating the foresight of the Obama administration to do something good for the environment while trying to help our economy get back on track.
You'd be just as happy if as part of the stimulus package buyers were offered help buying big screen TVs?