Cash for clunkers... the bottom line.

[SteamWake]

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

Originally Posted by CNN Money

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/auto...ysis/index.htm

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

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.

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.

Now whos wearin the tin foil hat.

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]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

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.

I wouldent be so presumtious as to say I understood the details of the report

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]

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

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Simple lesson for ya August

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

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

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