Cash for clunkers... the bottom line.

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.

[Sea Demon]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

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/...J5BHNsawNmb3Jk

[SteamWake]

Originally Posted by Schroeder

Obviously it wasn't a total failure, at least for Ford:http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091102/...J5BHNsawNmb3Jk

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

[VipertheSniper]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

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]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

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. 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.....

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