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?

[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

[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.

[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.

[nikimcbee]

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



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

[Zachstar]

Originally Posted by nikimcbee

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



Looks dangerous to me, all those numbers and shiney pictures. 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?)

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
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
I take it as given that you havn't the faintest idea how they got the figures

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

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?

Thanks August, you make things so easy.