Cash for Clunkers...

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: 01rangerxl
Originally Posted By: Bobert
Here's a Volvo.
57.gif


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=waj2KrKYTZo

That's a nice [censored] car. [censored].

And it looks like they killed two nice Explorers too. This is wrong!


The Excursion is next.
 
This entire program is another example of the Federal Government getting involved where it shouldn't be. Tax payers should not be subsidizing car purchases. It it wasteful and WRONG!
 
Originally Posted By: Cardinal49
This entire program is another example of the Federal Government getting involved where it shouldn't be. Tax payers should not be subsidizing car purchases. It it wasteful and WRONG!


+1...........They should leave well enough alone, this will be something else they F-up! What a waste, and another environmental nightmare. The pollution in huffing those engines is unreal. Now that I know the fate of one of my vehicles being traded in for that program, if I was going to participate I'd destroy the engine myself.

I'm wondering if they'll be stocking less parts for older cars, since the parts makers won't want to be making things they can't sell. Yet another way to ruin the replacement parts industry, and force older cars off the road. The whole program is stupid!

If this program is extended for more than a billion dollars worth of klunker money, I wouldn't be surprised if parts for cars with an average book value of less than $4500 dries up. Lets force people with old reliable cars who can't afford to replace them take loans they can't afford because parts aren't available to them. It can happen!
 
To everyone saying this is a waste, it's not really for removing pollluting and gas guzzlers. Its so people will buy cars and help get the economy moving again. Germany did the same thing and it worked very well over there.
 
Originally Posted By: rudolphna
To everyone saying this is a waste, it's not really for removing pollluting and gas guzzlers. Its so people will buy cars and help get the economy moving again. Germany did the same thing and it worked very well over there.


How much pollution was caused when that motor burnt up? How much pollution is caused simply by scrapping a vehicle? How many people really could have used that Jeep instead of what they are driving now? Sure, some of the vehicle gets recycled, but not all of it. Ruining a running, driving vehicle is wasteful, period.

And the rest of us are paying for this too.
 
Originally Posted By: Kestas
It looks like the public burned through all the money in the program in four days!


Very successful program indeed.
 
What is their definition of a "clunker"? do they go by mpg, age, or what?

Not asking for me -- I'm only 2-3 payments away from owning the Buick, and I still love it and want to drive it for a while. Just curious.
 
Originally Posted By: Benzadmiral
What is their definition of a "clunker"? do they go by mpg, age, or what?

Not asking for me -- I'm only 2-3 payments away from owning the Buick, and I still love it and want to drive it for a while. Just curious.

By MPG, if I recall correctly. Anything that gets 18 or less MPG.
 
Originally Posted By: rudolphna
To everyone saying this is a waste, it's not really for removing pollluting and gas guzzlers. Its so people will buy cars and help get the economy moving again. Germany did the same thing and it worked very well over there.

Any program can be successful if it's supported on the backs of the taxpayers. This program is nothing more than forced spending to purchase goods that are otherwise not needed.

Where will it stop? This same idea can be applied to appliance manufacturers, electronic manufacturers, and really anything that can be bought.

I have an idea. How about letting me keep my tax money and let ME decide how to stimulate the economy with the money I earned, and not give it away so someone can buy a car for $4500 less.
 
Cash for Clunkers = The Parable of the Broken Window.

Green Baptists Preach Salvation by Breaking Car Windows

Who could possibly claim that buying up drivable used cars at prices far in excess of their market value, for the express purpose of destroying them, will be beneficial for the economy or the planet? You guessed it: a combination of economy-saving politicians and earth-saving green activists are peddling the wonders of a new government program popularly known as "Cash for Clunkers."

Now, if "Cash for Clunkers" immediately brings to mind the broken-window fallacy, good on ya: you have a solid grasp of one of the most important lessons of economics. How could it possibly help overall material prosperity to overpay for used cars and then pay even more for people to destroy them, all the while also paying bureaucrats to ensure it is all done properly? The answer, of course, is it won't.

Complete article here - http://blog.mises.org/archives/010330.asp

Based on -

Have you ever witnessed the anger of the good shopkeeper, James Goodfellow, when his careless son happened to break a pane of glass? If you have been present at such a scene, you will most assuredly bear witness to the fact, that every one of the spectators, were there even thirty of them, by common consent apparently, offered the unfortunate owner this invariable consolation—"It is an ill wind that blows nobody good. Everybody must live, and what would become of the glaziers if panes of glass were never broken?"

Now, this form of condolence contains an entire theory, which it will be well to show up in this simple case, seeing that it is precisely the same as that which, unhappily, regulates the greater part of our economical institutions.

Suppose it cost six francs to repair the damage, and you say that the accident brings six francs to the glazier's trade—that it encourages that trade to the amount of six francs—I grant it; I have not a word to say against it; you reason justly. The glazier comes, performs his task, receives his six francs, rubs his hands, and, in his heart, blesses the careless child. All this is that which is seen.

But if, on the other hand, you come to the conclusion, as is too often the case, that it is a good thing to break windows, that it causes money to circulate, and that the encouragement of industry in general will be the result of it, you will oblige me to call out, "Stop there! Your theory is confined to that which is seen; it takes no account of that which is not seen."

It is not seen that as our shopkeeper has spent six francs upon one thing, he cannot spend them upon another. It is not seen that if he had not had a window to replace, he would, perhaps, have replaced his old shoes, or added another book to his library. In short, he would have employed his six francs in some way, which this accident has prevented.

Defined here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window
 
Last edited:
I hope it stops here. If they keep throwing more money at this, dealers and car buyers will become "addicted" to the concept, much like domestic car makers are addicted to rebates. Sure, dealers just had an awesome week, but now they won't sell a thing until we see what our government will do next.
 
Since "they" (we) own 2/3 of the US auto industry I expect to see more of this not less. It's a time honored method of moving the turkeys out the door - Just lower the price until someone takes them.
 
Originally Posted By: dorkiedoode
Originally Posted By: Benzadmiral
What is their definition of a "clunker"? do they go by mpg, age, or what?

Not asking for me -- I'm only 2-3 payments away from owning the Buick, and I still love it and want to drive it for a while. Just curious.

By MPG, if I recall correctly. Anything that gets 18 or less MPG.

It must be epa rated at 18 mpg or less (the mpg the vehicle actually gets is irrelevant) AND it must be less than 25 years old.
 
Originally Posted By: Kestas
It looks like the public burned through all the money in the program in four days!


Wow!

The way I figured it, if I understand the funding, there was $1 billion allocated. I figured this was good for about 250K claims if the average was $4k. So that's a ball park if all the money goes to for the cash part.

If any of it is used in admin costs, then less.

But the program was good for 200-250K cars give or take.

That's about a weeks worth of buying.
 
Originally Posted By: demarpaint
I'm wondering if they'll be stocking less parts for older cars, since the parts makers won't want to be making things they can't sell. Yet another way to ruin the replacement parts industry, and force older cars off the road. The whole program is stupid!


you would be amazed at how many parts are going obsolete. the "10 year rule" is not applicable anymore, parts only have to be supplied through the factory warranty period and then availability is based on demand. i had a customer come in and order a couple sets of headlight assemblies for his 2 Ford GT's. on this car the headlight bulb is only service in the headlamp assembly. he ordered them last october, about $1900 for each housing. i just got confirmation that i might get one or two housings in November. luckily the owner was just buying spares for his track Ford GT, but its still kinda lame. dont even start me on catalytic converters, in CA we have to use OEM direct fit on all years. most anything older than 2000 model year is obsolete from ford, and anything else is on eternal backorder. ive had to buy out cats from other dealers with my own personal credit card to get customers cars back on the road.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

JD!
One year ownership review - 2021 BMW 530e PHEV
Replies
5
Views
976
JD!
A
Day in the life of a mechanic...
2 3
Replies
43
Views
4K
Jim Rogers
C
old school 700-15s to newer metric
Replies
4
Views
192
chorty
D
Continental pure contact, 1 yr in.
Replies
19
Views
709
D1dad
N
Tire shop totally screwed up moving tires over to new wheels
2
Replies
23
Views
2K
Natesi
Back
Top Bottom