Cash for clunkers... the bottom line.

[SteamWake]

In another stellar example of a goverment with good intentions fails.



Clunkers: Taxpayers paid $24,000 per car

Auto sales analysts at Edmunds.com say the pricey program resulted in relatively few additional car sales.


http://money.cnn.com/2009/10/28/autos/clunkers_analysis/index.htm

[Tribesman]

That is a very strange way of doing sums.
So how on earth does Edmund.com take their figues of a rebate of $1667 on a $26915 sale and magicly turn it into a $24000 rebate?

Is that a stella example of a crap story?
I don't know which is the funnier claim from their "study", that not many extra cars were sold because of the program or that more cars would have been sold without the program.

[SteamWake]

Yes of course impune the source... oh wait... its CNN :har:

I'm pretty sure Edmunds knows what their doing. There is more to selling cars than just plunking down cash. Dont forget all the freakin administrative costs for the goverment intervention as well.

[Tribesman]

Yes of course impune the source... oh wait... its CNN
No impune the report itself as it makes contradictory claims and its methodology is laughable.

[SteamWake]

Yes of course everyone knows that Edmunds is in the hip pocket of the conservatives and tilt their results then collude with CNN to do a hatchet job on the administration. :doh:

Now whos wearin the tin foil hat.

[Tribesman]

Yes of course everyone knows that Edmunds is in the hip pocket of the conservatives and tilt their results then collude with CNN to do a hatchet job on the administration.
What on earth are you on about?

It's quite simple, read the report from Edmunds.
It's so full of holes its a joke that they even released it.
When you have read the report come back and try and explain how the methodology isn't flawed and how the claims are not contradictory.

Then perhaps try and explain what the hell you are ranting about?

[SteamWake]

It's so full of holes its a joke that they even released it.

I wouldent be so presumtious as to say I understood the details of the report. I am not in that industry.

I just know that this is what Edmund does, keep track of this sort of thing. They have been doing it for decades.

Perhaps you would be so kind as to point out their errounious ways.

[Tribesman]

I wouldent be so presumtious as to say I understood the details of the report
:har::har::har::har:
How about reading it?
I just know that this is what Edmund does, keep track of this sort of thing.
Really?
They have been doing it for decades.

Wow, so leaving aside that the branch that did this study is only 3 years old can you find any comparable economic cycle affecting the auto industry and or a comparable funding program to establish a firm basis(or any basis) from which to extrapolate their projections from?
Once you have found the non existant basis for their flawed methodology and dealt with that then you can go on and explain their contradictory findings too.

[CaptainHaplo]

Steamwake, don't waste your breath. Some people know everything, have no need to back up their statements, and simply can always find a reason where something is "full of holes" because it doesn't agree with their own preconcieved ideas.

Thankfully, once you figured out a stop sign will always be a stop sign no matter how many facts you show it, you can just look both ways and make sure traffic is clear, then just drive on thru and leave it in the dust.

[August]

:DL Personally I'm still waiting for him to demonstrate his expertise of the Honduran constitution.

[Tribesman]

Steamwake, don't waste your breath.
Good advice , read the report first and see for yourself why their figures make no sense.
Perhaps if you had looked at the figures first when I posted.....
"That is a very strange way of doing sums.
So how on earth does Edmund.com take their figues of a rebate of $1667 on a $26915 sale and magicly turn it into a $24000 rebate?".... and thought about the actual report you wouldn't have gone off on your nonsensical rants.



Personally I'm still waiting for him to demonstrate his expertise of the Honduran constitution.
Oh look someone else who goes of on one without even knowing what they are discussing.
Simple lesson for ya August , has any group apart from those who staged the coup claimed it was constitutional?
How many of those who staged the coup have now said that it was unconstitutional?
You really should learn to drop things when you clearly and repeatedly show you havn't the fainteast idea what you are on about.
Then again August maybe you want to demonstrate your ignorance on building codes and property leases again for good measure while you are at it.

[roman2440]

That is a very strange way of doing sums.
So how on earth does Edmund.com take their figues of a rebate of $1667 on a $26915 sale and magicly turn it into a $24000 rebate?

Is that a stella example of a crap story?
I don't know which is the funnier claim from their "study", that not many extra cars were sold because of the program or that more cars would have been sold without the program.

Its very simple and relatively accurate. Its simply X amount of money was spent on the program as a whole divided by Y amount of cars that would not have otherwise been sold as part of the program.

Because of the qualifier in the last statement it eliminates a good portion of the cars that were sold as part of the program. What it is really saying, and the most important thing to take away from this experiment, is that even though they sold 690k cars under the program, it really only resulted in a net gain of 125k cars sold. The other 565k cars would have still been sold either during the timeframe of the promotion or at some point later in the year. The net affect is two-fold - 1) A portion of the cars sold under the program would still have been sold had there been no "CARS" program. + 2) With the program, a number of sales for later in the year (after the end of the program) were pulled into the program, resulting in lower sales levels after the program was over.

The report's end result is an attempt to measure the successfullness of the project as a whole. Basically the goal was to provide an influx of sales that otherwise would not have taken place, and the mathmatical result is that it took 24000k per extra car sold to get an addition 125k extra cars sold.

[August]

Simple lesson for ya August

Nope. you can't demonstrate your claims of Honduran constitutional expertise by asking silly questions.

[Tribesman]

Its very simple and relatively accurate. Its simply X amount of money was spent on the program as a whole divided by Y amount of cars that would not have otherwise been sold as part of the program.

Therein lies the problem.
Leave aside X (which was wrong anyway) and examine Y
How many ways at first glance can you see why Y is wrong?
At second glance how many more ways can you see that Y is wrong?
Explore further the Y and see how many more ways Y is wrong
?
Then take X which was wrong and take Y which was wrong(even from the start point) and Y which was wrong and Y which was wrong again and Y which wasn't right and Y which was a ballsup and Y which ain't right.......then come back with your X/Y equation.


When the sum went wrong at the first step all subsequent steps are meaningless.
It really is a situation where Donald Rumsfelt could have made an accurate statement

[Tribesman]

Nope. you can't demonstrate your claims of Honduran constitutional expertise by asking silly questions.
Actually it is the best possible way to demonstrate.
If you knew the subject you would be quiet.
However.....
If you really thought you knew the subject you would attempt to argue the articles that supported your position.
If you knew what the subject was you might have the faintest idea what the subject was and the implications of the action which just about everyone (including those who did the action) say is unconstitutional.

August. I am sure you could possibly make an arguement of some semblance of merit on the topic....if you had the faintest idea what you was talking about in the first place.
But as you don't you are just a waste of time as far as rational discussion is concerned.

Perhaps though I am wrong , perhaps you can name the articles which the coups lawyers say they broke which they somehow didn't break:har::har::har::har:

[August]

And you as usual you demonstrate absolutely nothing but stale hot air. Frankly it's become quite boring.

[nikimcbee]

Okay, I had to see who the new enemy of obamaland is::hmmm:
http://www.edmunds.com/



Looks dangerous to me, all those numbers and shiney pictures:o. Better sic the FBI on 'em.

[Zachstar]

What on earth? I can tell you from just my part of the world that the program was a success. Cars were flying off lots here. Just because your part of the world you had people still holding onto cars that get Zip MPG. Does not mean we do.

It did its job which was to help the auto industry while giving the people something at the same time. Or would you rather it had been another bailout?


Despite fake "Fical conservative" fantasies. Even W had to see we had to do something about the auto industry. I was against it at the time because they had shown a marked resistance to change. But Ford changed its tune real quick and GM is changing as well.

This program also did its job of jump starting local business. People around here were freer with their funds further helping smaller businesses during the time.

[Zachstar]

Okay, I had to see who the new enemy of obamaland is::hmmm:
http://www.edmunds.com/



Looks dangerous to me, all those numbers and shiney pictures:o. Better sic the FBI on 'em.

The site is ok it's just they let out a bogus and crap report which was of course at once touted by so called conservatives as some kind of another Obama failure (Don't you think they would have learned after that Limbaugh fake Obama college report thing?)

[Tribesman]

And you as usual you demonstrate absolutely nothing but stale hot air.
OK i shall give you a break on the understanding that you have not read the constitution , have no understanding of it at all and do not have the faintest idea of the cycle of events or the ramifications apart from what you learned from a very badly written newspaper article:up:
Well donew August.
So on to this newspaper article..or more accurately the report it is based on .
I take it as a given that you hav't the fainteat idea wat the report says:yep:
I take it as given that you havn't the faintest idea how they got the figures:yep:

So going on the basis that you once again have not the faintest idea what you are talking about lets start it really simple.
Roman has given a basic equation. In simple words tell the world why in that equation "Y" is bollox?
You can go for the simple solution and say that "Y" is bollox or you can go into more detail.
After all even on a quick scan of Edmunds figures 8 major screw ups appear, so I am sur that a man of your calibre could at least spot one major flaw....if of course they bothered to learn anything before they decided to comment on it and tell others they are wrong:rotfl2:

Oh sorr , you failed to heed the earlier advice didn't you.
Is that a case of you simply failing to read or failing to comprehend?:up:

Thanks August, you make things so easy.

[Tribesman]

Sorry Roman, thanks for the input.
Now taking as read that you have done the report how many flaws can you see in figure"Y"

[August]

*nothing of substance*

Please stop wasting our time Tribesman.

[Tribesman]

Please stop wasting our time Tribesman.
Please don't comment when you havn't got the faintest idea what you are talking about August.
It is rather simple, explain how figure "Y" was arrived at....or alternatively as you introduced it take all the articles of the constitution that were broken and list them in numerical order, or simply put up the articles that people who did the coup now say that they broke and explain how they were not broken(though I think you may have to read the document first then try and understand it).....or stop trying to jump in with both feet in ill fitting hob nailed clogs where you shouldn't even dare to tip-toe in ballet pumps.

But honestly, a 5 year old should be able to spot the flaws in the sum Edmunds used. I will refrain from saying you are less intelligent than a five year old when it comes to looking at sums, based on the certainty that you havn't even looked at them.:yeah:

[Sea Demon]

Yes of course impune the source... oh wait... its CNN :har:

I'm pretty sure Edmunds knows what their doing. There is more to selling cars than just plunking down cash. Dont forget all the freakin administrative costs for the goverment intervention as well.

Exactly right Steamwake. In this case there are methods to back the assertions of edmunds. They derive their input from this:

(Total $$ of incentives)/(incremental car sales over those that would have been bought without the incentive)


In other words, people who were going to buy a car without any incentive received an incentive even though they were going to buy a new car anyway. Those dollars did nothing to increase car sales. And did nothing but soak the American taxpayer for a rebate used by car buyers that did nothing to spur any true economic growth. That's what edmunds is getting at.



But the real issue here is that this program proved to be nothing more than government building and shifting an artificial demand in the market. The sales seen in 3rd quarter growth will do nothing to stem losses in the 4th. This program was an absolute waste of time, and makes liberals believe government expanded economic growth where it did nothing like it. It simply used taxpayer money, and shifted sales that will not sustain itself or provide real growth over time.



I wouldn't bother trying to explain this to some types I see here. It's obviously way over their heads, as they simply provide baseless and ambiguous arguments that add up to nothing. In the end, and this is important, it's apparent the government simply gave us a zero sum in economic activity in the private markets here, and cost the taxpayers $3 billion dollars to do it. Again, intrusive government does something that gives us no effect, but costs a bundle. The sooner we get rid of these Democrats in Washington DC...the better.

[Tribesman]

Exactly right Steamwake.
Exactly wrong
In this case there are methods to back the assertions of edmunds.
look at the methods
They derive their input from this:

Look at the second figure they derived.

I wouldn't bother trying to explain this to some types I see here. It's obviously way over their heads
Its clearly way over your head as you cannot see the flaws in the methodology.

[Schroeder]

Obviously it wasn't a total failure, at least for Ford:http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091102/ap_on_bi_ge/us_earns_ford;_ylt=Ar_hLgJ9GhNsdkIvA..LHnys0NUE;_y lu=X3oDMTJqNm91NXFnBGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMDkxMTAyL3VzX2V hcm5zX2ZvcmQEY3BvcwMzBHBvcwM5BHB0A2hvbWVfY29rZQRzZ WMDeW5fdG9wX3N0b3J5BHNsawNmb3Jk

[SteamWake]

Obviously it wasn't a total failure, at least for Ford:http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091102/ap_on_bi_ge/us_earns_ford;_ylt=Ar_hLgJ9GhNsdkIvA..LHnys0NUE;_y lu=X3oDMTJqNm91NXFnBGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMDkxMTAyL3VzX2V hcm5zX2ZvcmQEY3BvcwMzBHBvcwM5BHB0A2hvbWVfY29rZQRzZ WMDeW5fdG9wX3N0b3J5BHNsawNmb3Jk

Ford did not participate in the bail out money therefore had an edge on those that did.

[VipertheSniper]

Its clearly way over your head as you cannot see the flaws in the methodology.

I'm not going to bother to read that report, as I am frankly not interested in the topic, BUT if you could please enlighten us on the flaws in the methodology, it may give you a real base for your arguments. Because what you're doing at the moment, is making baseless claims (well probably not, but as long as you fail to explain what's wrong with the methodology, they are).

[Sea Demon]

Exactly wrong

look at the methods

Look at the second figure they derived.



I'm guessing either they don't teach economic principles in Ireland anymore, or you were absent that day. :O: Simply put if you take $3 Billion dollars, and the effect of what you were "stimulating" was virtually zero (or basically no rate of true return due to an artificial demand created out of thin air and shifted) then you have a loss. You aren't deriving anything other than baseless claims. We gained virtually nothing from $3 Billion dollars taken from the US Treasury other than a sprinkling of auto sales that would have been sold in another quarter of economic activity anyways. And you cannot show otherwise.

The only thing I'm learning from you is that Ireland must be real boring for you, as you seem so desperate and passionate about shilling and supporting our failed Democrats in our government over here. The economic reality and waste above is why these current Democrats need to be separated from the reigns of government. They think they can simply say "success" and trumpet "economic growth" even though the reality is $3 Billion dollars of waste to little effect. And absolutely no real economic growth at all.

You make no sense at all. I gotta laugh. If you follow the current Democrat controlled government's outlook on directed investment in your own private life, you'll soon be a homeless panhandler living under a bridge.

[CaptainHaplo]

Well penniless and under a bridge is right where democrats want you, so they can play savior as big government, so its a match made in heaven for the two....

For the rest of us however, personal responsibility and personal dignity have a place in our lives. Thankfully.

Now, the program did have an impact - in that it sold more cars. However, this is a short term gain that did nothing but, as noted beforehand, created an artificial demand.

Yes, it helped car companies - for the duration. But all those people that MIGHT have bought cars in the next 2 quarters, and instead bought one now, are sales that have only a short term impact, rather than provide longer term stability to the market, and thus its suppliers, the car makers.

After all, if you bought a car within the last 6 months and got a "cash for clunkers" deal, would you be running out to get that other one you were planning on? Highly doubtful.

As for Ford, the reality is they did excellent for 2 major reasons. One, they were financially sound to start with, so this is just a boost for them that they can enjoy and continue to maintain somewhat smart business practices and thus, stay solvent.

Additionally, it was widely known that of all the US car makers, Ford was the only one that DIDN'T need a bailout. Thus, they were seen as the preference by most buyer - because if your going to buy a car or truck, are you going to buy it from a healthy company, or a "we might be bankrupt if we don't get a government bailout" company? Americans simply showed that, bailout or not, we reward companies that are smarter than their competition. And people say the free market doesn't work.....

[Tribesman]

Viper, the reasons are simple.
The projection is attempting to make a known element for the calculation in an economic climate where such projections are wildly innaccurate(look through any industry recently and see how far their projections swing from reality), to add to the problem with the projection there are not enough existing similar patterns to use as a basis to follow.
As a gauge to measure their guess they relate it to another area of the market, but as that area acts differently normally and even more differently under an economic downturn then as a gauge it is pretty useless.
Plus of course a large portion of those transactions completed are of a type that would not be part of a normal pattern and as such would have no precedent to make a forecast from.

The economic reality and waste above is why these current Democrats need to be separated from the reigns of government.
Really? They are no worse than the last bunch of idiots you had in office over there

If you follow the current Democrat controlled government's outlook on directed investment in your own private life, you'll soon be a homeless panhandler living under a bridge.
Thats funny, it was the muppets on silly credit and buying in an artificial boom that are the ones getting screwed.....thats the ones that believed the economic nonsense from the last administration.
As none of my properties have any mortgages on them there is no chance of me losing them.
As I have said before, I will not be buying more property until the market bottoms and more of the muppets who believed the hype have been repossesed.
Its hilarious when some neo-con tries to tell me about investment