700,000 Cars in One Month
Cash for Clunkers will, on Monday at 8 PM, have silica liquid injected in its engine and stopped. Or rather, the program will offer rebates for no more new deals after that time.
The U.S. government will shut down its cash-for-clunkers program at 8 p.m. Monday, in a bid to avoid car dealers and shoppers from claiming more than the $3 billion set aside for the program.
The decision means that the program originally expected to generate 250,000 vehicle sales over three months will have likely triggered more than 700,000 in less than one month. While it accomplished its goal of destroying gas guzzlers and spurring the U.S. auto industry to boost production, it’s larger effects on the economy and environment will be debated for years to come.
I’ve been measuring the effects of the program more anecdotally. We know that GM brought back workers in Orion Township, MI, and Lordstown, OH, to make more Malibus and Cobalts for the program–and most other manufacturers had already brought back workers. We know the program cleaned out inventory that had been stuck at the dealers. And I saw a bunch of brand new (!) small cars on the way home from Pittsburgh–particularly a bunch of Saturn Auras (which, with the Malibu, is the biggest car that qualifies across the board for the full benefit). Oh, and I saw a pretty cool Saturn Aura ad last night, too–I think the C4C program allowed manufacturers to free up some money for advertising that has gotten people in dealers.
Who knows whether all this excitement will tail off after Monday. Who knows whether seeing the interest in efficient, smaller cars, will shift the emphasis on these cars going forward? But for now, it has given one of our key industries–and small businesses all over the country–a quick shot in the arm.
$3B for C4C that actually put people to work and got a segment of the economy going again.
And then, what was it again – $700B for the banking industry for bonuses, buying weaker banks, polishing up the balance sheet, and maybe some actual loans being made.
And which is the better deal for the Nation?
No kidding. Hell, take $10 billion of what we tossed at the banks and give it to the wind industry — that would help keep the steel mills milling.
yup
toss that money at anything that produced real product and good living wage jobs and the economy issues would have been solved
all this economy needs are a few gainful help wanted signs and bing, people spend again
giving money to the gamblers that caused this problem who call themselves “banks” was an incredibly bad call
I have been thinking a bit the last few days about what other areas and industries we might provide with the same kind of ’shot in the arm’ (outch).
There are probably some cities (or parts of metro areas) which still aren’t recovering well (at any level) which could use some extra push. But, the C4C program shows it can work well if focused on an industry.
Where should we focus ’shot in the arm’ stimulus to get the most bang for the buck?
You asked where else the govt might do a C4C-like program?
What about a payment to help people move out of substandard housing, and the substandard houses are then destroyed?
What about a payment for people to buy electric lawn mowers, and the old gas lawnmowers are destroyed?
What about a payment to help people with old air conditioners buy new ones with better ratings, and the old ac is destroyed?
The government has used incentives for years with businesses and individuals, but not so many examples where the old item is destroyed, rather than becoming a hand-me-down. How many places would it be a help, to actually destroy the old item? That’s where it gets interesting…
The big layoffs come next. All CFC did was bring sales forward so instead of buying in the fall people bought now. It also forced people to take on debt earlier than they wanted to. So in Sept, when sales are 40% of last year, all the auto workers will be looking at layoffs, shutdowns for Xmas. Wohoo!
I was hoping someone would do an analysis for what the c4k actually cost since it cost far less then the give back
those cars were auctioned for parts after their engine destroyed, that mitigates some of the payment, then workers put back to work or not layed off would save unemployment and that mitigates some of the payment, and other factors I do not know how to consider
but the payment per car is mitigated though I know there is going to be administration fees involved that re-mitigates so I would like to know the actual cost per car of this program
other factors that matigate the cost of those payments;
less polution, less health costs associated, less gasoline bought lowering the price of gas caused by demand.
Extra demand for cars due to c4k could mean lower future demand. Like you say a shot in the arm. It has some additional benefits by lowering demand for oil, lower external cost of emissions as well.
Even if c4k only pulled some auto revenue forward into 2009 that would otherwise have happened in 2010, it would still have done its job. Remember, this is EcStim and the big goal was to adjust the shape and timing of the present recession. And at least at the moment it’s looking as though we have have in fact dodged the bullet of a much, much worse recession/depression. So good.
Sure, I agree it is a shot in the arm of economic vitamin B-12.
not so sure longer term, but stimulus is short term by it’s nature.
The problem with pulling demand into the present is that it means, generally, is that you borrowed it from the future.
Unless demand has been suppressed by economic conditions. Americans’ spending habits changed dramatically in response to fuel prices last year; when spending should have rebounded after legislation changed commodity trading and fuel prices plummeted, the financial industry’s crisis gave a mortal body check to consumption.
Just from personal experience, my household has put off buying at least one vehicle over the last 12 months because of economic conditions. Cash for Clunkers was a serious consideration, but we’re going to stand pat for a while longer, even though we now have another driver in the house. We’re on the bubble about the economy for the next six months. How much deferred demand is there, exemplified by our household’s experience?
Yes, it has that con. There would have to be a sufficient countervailing pro to justify it. For example: helping avert a Great Depression. See supra in re Krugman et al.
We had some crybaby car dealers on our local news yesterday complaining that they would pull out of the program unless they were paid by the Feds. Ray La Hood responded that they should not worry and they would be. While I agree they should be paid in a timely way this is, after all, a voluntary program that they derived a positive benefit from. What this really sounds like is political sour grapes by dealers that are mostly GOP. There is nothing that will appease these jerks anyway.
Car dealers run on cash flow. Right now, they’ve got a lot going out the door and nothing coming in. Don’t get me wrong: I like CFC. But unless dealers see their money soon, this is going to really bite the administration in the tail.
For example: When progressives are screaming for a public option in the health care debate, the right will say “Look at how the government handled Cash For Clunkers. You want that to happen with your health care?”
This we don’t need.
“Crybaby car dealers”?????????
Threatening to pull out if they weren’t paid????????
And they’re probably nothing but a selfish bunch of greedy Republicans anyway?????
Wow!
Wow wow wow!
Guess YOU never had to meet a payroll. Or come up with a quarterly tax payment. Or do anything other than bitch.
I’m just happy that ANYTHING is working to help people. Such a small amount of money with such large returns.
The dealers around KC, while happy for getting new cars off their lots, are becoming restless at the amount of time it is taking to get their CFC money. They have bills to pay, and nothing to pay it with — so the multiplier effect has yet to have any effect.
One local story from the KC Star:
Gotta get that paperwork processed!
Yeah, it isn’t like the car dealers can go to their bank and get a factored loan against their C4C money — banks still aren’t lending. Why is that, anyway?
Why does capitalism need this government shot in the arm?
Cash for clunkers tells me capitalism is dead.
Without wishing to dispute your larger point, there is a special reason at this time. Consider the context of depression avoidance. See Krugman’s “The Return of Depression Economics” et al.
Look,
I paid off $13,000 of debt yesterday.
I’ll drive my 1994 Accord until it dies, some years from now.
I have a pretty good income, knock on wood.
But my game plan is to eliminate debt.
That all sounds good and smart. What does it have to do with whether c4k is a good idea or not?
Did you really take time to think through what you wrote?
Because it wasn’t a boost for capitalism.
Pure capitalism doesn’t exist in the U.S., hasn’t for a long time. If we’d practiced pure capitalism — and especially with the automakers — you’d be seeing lines of people into the street at soup kitchens and riots for food.
Businesses don’t want to risk capital before they feel the economy is coming back. So, as with the stimulus, the gov’t is pushing the money through the system like an adrenaline shot. It’s not a permanent way of life, just a little push.
If capitalism has problems it’s because of so many people who see more benefits in monopoly, lobbying for favors, corruption and fraud.
So far it’s kept my brother-in-laws wrecking yard from going under. Until cash for clunkers his business was down 75%. Now his low income customers have access to high quality used auto parts at low prices. He can salvage parts, other than the engines, for 180 days before the cars have to be sent to the crusher.
The U.S. is a huge monster.
It will not be what it was in 1960, in 1970, in 1980, in 1990, in 2000.
It is DEAD.
Circle around the corpse. Get your fill.
Or head for the FUCKING exit.
I got rid of my SUV (13 mpg, 10 years, & 200,000 miles) and have a small car (28 mpg).
Good program. Hate car dealers. Why can’t I get done in 15 minutes?
And as for the upsells, I don’t like them. A deal is a deal, don’t try to change it after the fact.
SOP for salespeople.
When I was looking at cars in 2002, one dealership – a big one – kept trying to get me to upscale. Not only did I not do it, I went elsewhere to buy (ended up getting a different, somewhat pricier, model, but still less than what the salesman was trying to get me to buy). Won’t go back to that dealer, because I can’t trust them: they’re the equivalent of the realtor who, when you tell them ‘no pool’, only shows you houses with pools.
Yeah, ditto that. I remember looking for a new truck with my spouse, driving an hour to a mega dealership and telling the young buck salesman that we needed his best price, bottom line, and would only make one more trip to pick up a truck. He didn’t take us seriously and gave us a number which smelled of BS. My spouse traveled later in the week to a smaller town an hour away and we got the best price within 5 minutes of walking in the door. He called the young buck, told him what price he’d gotten at the competing dealership and that we wouldn’t be back. My spouse takes pride in being a first-class asshole at times, toyed with the young buck for a few minutes letting the guy beg and plead for a chance to re-quote. “Nope, I told you give me your best price after investing more than two hours of my time,” he told him and then hung up on him.
The small town dealer always had great service, too, some of the best we’ve had. Wonder whatever happened to that young buck?
Rayne,
As I understand, you support the system in place.
If I’m wrong, screw me.
If I’m right, I ask you, what future do you expect?
A future dictated by Obama?
Beats the heck out of what Palin might have in mind – mind?
Well, first off, with your current attitude, I expect it really doesn’t matter what I say to you.
And Obama isn’t dictating my or anybody else’s future; the future is highly fluid and dependent on a infinite number of variables. If you believe that any one individual is dictating the future, perhaps it’s your belief system which needs adjustment.
I also never said anything about supporting “the system in place.” I did point out, though, that we are not a pure capitalist society; we haven’t been since at least the FDR administration. We, the people, have chosen at various times to use our aggregated power as a non-corporate entity to provide different services to ourselves which we cannot provide either as individuals or as corporations. Sometimes we choose to take more or less of this kind of action, some of it successful and some of it not, much of it needing adjustment as intentions meet with reality (no battle plan ever survives first contact with the enemy, after all).
Is Cash for Clunkers perfect? Hell no. Is it an improvement over having 700,000 cars spewing 2X more emissions into the air? Yes. Is it an improvement over losing institutional knowledge while increasing unemployment and destabilizing economic conditions? Yes. Is it the best plan a jacked-up Congress and a center-leaning Democratic president, suffering from eight-plus years of battered wife syndrome and the intense pressure of economic conditions could develop on short notice with wishy-washy public support? Well, the answer is somewhere between your hostile stance and mine.
OT — Ugly troll-y day around here & the mommaship.
Please let this die so I don’t have to worry about the government telling me what to drive.
Why do some people have issues with the basic concept of automotive freedom?
Hm, ‘automotive freedom’… that was Jefferson’s, wasn’t it? Or was it Madison’s? I know I should know this…
Why do you look down on anybody who likes to have fun driving? Is it a foreign concept to you? Do you look at the Woodward Dream Cruise and think of how much gas is used?
Not everyone wants to be shuttled in a dull appliancemobile. If you think that everyone will be happy if the government forces them to drive electric-powered, beige-colored green machines, you’re dead wrong. Tell these guys that they can’t have fun while owning, maintaining, modifying and driving their prized possessions. Go on. I dare ya.
I don’t look down on anybody, sir (here I assume you’re male). You asserted something called ‘the basic concept of automotive freedom’ as though it’s some sort of specific constitutional right, and just I made a pale funny about that, that’s all.
So let me make the point more clearly: I don’t know what the hell you’re talking about. What’s your basis for this right you’re asserting, other than the fact that you enjoy doing it? Also, in what objectionable sense is the government now telling you, and/or is the government likely in the future to tell you, what to drive?
Those CAFE standards that Obama announced a couple of months ago seem designed to kill by a thousand cuts anything V8 or even V6 powered by governmental fiat. And a cash-for-clunkers program with no age limits would result in the wholesale destruction of our automotive heritage. California is trying to expand their car scrappage program to include pre-1976 cars.
These concerns are very real.
Also, what’s wrong with going out for a pleasure drive? Just taking in the scenery, enjoying the view?
How is that even possible? There’s a late 80’s Chevy Full Size Wagon sitting in front of Simi Valley Honda, a car from the Clunker program, is that something you want?
As for automotive history, look Americans have feasted too long on cheap gas and look where it got us, we’re at least a decade behind most other places. Brazil has most of there cars powered on Sugar based E85, while we scramble to get even a 1/3 of that capacity. You don’t have people complaining about the Sugar crop in Brazil, its made with waste product.
Open up a Hemmings Motor News, there plenty of “Classics” being horse traded dayum day, there is plenty of Automotive History to get around, I’ve been to the Pebble Beach Show and Monterrey Historics and guess what, there’s plenty of automotive history left.
Nobody is stopping you from buying a pleasure car and enjoying it and those types of cars will continue to be made.
By the way the CAFE standards are the average economy for your fleet of cars/trucks that you sell. You think the Corvette is going away? Its not a volume car, neither is the Mustang GT, 60% of Mustang sales going back to the first Fox Body redesign is V6 or small engines. The new SHO puts down over 385hp from a twin turbo V6 and still manages mileage a typical N/A V6 or V8 would get for the same output. Many Mustang fans would love to see Ford put that motor down into car and sell that. Many Americans are open to change or something different, not everybody has or needs a V8 and like a Audi PR guy once said, “Americans buy horsepower, drive torque”. Sounds like a Turbo-Diesel to me, you can get plenty of wheel spinning torque from a TDi engine and don’t have to rev the crap out of it to do so.
See I’ve already shunned V8’s, I don’t need them to be fast or have fun.
Have you ever considered that automotive innovation has been deliberately suppressed by forces which are purely political and in no way related to interest in automotive performance?
Think about other technology and how much its changed over the course of the last 20 years. Computers, just as one example. Why have cars not kept up with that same pace of innovation?
Instead of pissing and moaning about the threat to old-school performance locked into petroleum-slavery, perhaps we would be better off looking towards real innovation and superior performance, the kind we’ve been kept from for too long.
Like this bad boy — why aren’t there many more of these kinds of vehicles which are street-ready?
Perhaps because demand has been suppressed by oligopolies which can only be stopped by government intervention?
[edit: and yeah, when are you going to change your moniker to something contemporary, like ferrarimanf430? or is that the problem, you feel a threat to your identity?]
I couldn’t agree more Rayne technology will save the hobby, there unfortunately too many people that like it the way it was before (Rat Rods) and too many people intimidated by fuel injection, that was before the “kids” started turbocharging small displacement engines and beating the tar out of “V8’s” they were wondering how they (we) did it.
These are the same people wishing Detroit will make an affordable RWD V8 powered car, ha. Fat chance, those days are gone. I’m glad too, RWD and V8 are too expensive for the average enthusiasts.
Cars will get lighter and safety will still be the same. There some serious social problems in this country to make people believe SUV’s are the safest thing they can buy. We don’t teach accident avoidance in driver’s education for one thing.
Ive said enough..
I know a few people who have hacked their engine computers for more power/torque. Not that hard, if computers don’t make you piss yourself. Electromechanical valve actuation is definitely on the horizon, and then things get really interesting. Street legal 200 mph on two liters, anyone?
Oh I love automotive technology!
I mean I could build yet another 500cid big block chevy, but that’s been done two thousand times already, what’s different about it?
Dude, take off the tinfoil hat. Nobody’s suppressing anything. Stop believing that Who Killed The Electric Car is the be-all-end-all of this debate. And leave my username out of this. I’m not asking you to change yours.
First, it’s Dudette to you. MADAME Dudette.
Secondly, I’m not wearing tinfoil. I think Who Killed the Electric Car is poorly informed, ignoring the total cost of the EV-1 including risk management factors.
Thirdly, I’m not the one who’s got an identity based on my preferred ride and an existential crisis to match. Your handle says it all, and your attitude merely punctuates it. Maybe when you stop seeing autos as a source of personal virility and masculine identity you’ll be more rational about the industry and government interventions.
The quote around our house when we see a Hummer or exaggerated muscle car is: “Aw come on, nobody’s dick is that small!”
You know, I don’t mind muscle cars because they are like dinosaurs. It’s unusual to see them and they’ve become so rarefied because of their special needs that their owners keep them to themselves. Eventually they will walk the earth no more and inhabit only the pristine museum-like garages of collectors.
But Hummers are different; they were purchased as a big Fuck You either because of their size, their expense or the write-offs they once earned. They deserve a Fuck You right back.
But they’re both Compensators. Or at least the Sweetie and I snigger to think so. (Sexually content beings that we are.)
Heh. I lived with a compensator. Had two big block Pontiacs and a massive Olds. He’s now an ex.
Been living happily for 24 years this month with the guy who had a rusted-out, fugly, frog-green Fiat 126. This guy didn’t put it all into the cars, if you know what I mean.
Thanks for replying.
For starters, I thought CAFE only applied to fleet purchases, this only affects some car models and not all cars? That said, if we have a national goal of reducing petrol consumption significantly, and if modern engines are more efficient than they used to be, is there some reason why we need V8 or V6 configurations specifically? Or is it that you’re opposed to reducing petrol consumption?
I don’t understand how this threatens anything since people who own those cars and actually love them are going to keep them, not sell them just because of the trade-in incentive. There’s nothing to actually force anybody to give up their cars, is there?
Frankly I’m not sure you’ve supported them convincingly yet.
Bit of a non-sequitur there? What does that have to do with government car design mandates?
the rest of your post has been addressed by other comentators, I want to respond to the following;
this is quite a leap on your part, right now the 2010 corvette, (one of the best performing sportscars dollar for dollar in the world), brand new will get 19 miles to the gallon, drive that 5000 miles and you’ll be up to about 24 mpg, go 18000 miles and you’ll be getting about 26
and that engine is using obsolete technology for it’s power, when they go to direct variable valve injection it will enjoy both more horsepower AND better mpg
this WILL happen due to cafe standards, and it will happen sooner then later
then consider a smaller displacement v8, with direct injection, variable valve timing AND a turbo charger and bing, fuel/ cylendar management you’ll have 4 cylendar economy with race track horsepower
take some of those old muscle cars…I personally preferred the 442 but of course there was the goat, the malibu, the firebird, the camaro, the mopars and the ford’s
some had huge v8, some had smaller block higher compression, some had hemi heads, 6 pack carbs, crazy cams that only ran good full out, and all for power
most had less then 200 horsepower at the wheels, probably about 100 lbs of torque at the wheels, when given factory specs for sales they used at the crank, pre-echaust best case scneario out put and very few approached real life 300 horsepower with that amount of torque at idle
right now, because of cafe standards, I have one of the best engines ever made, a tiny 2.0 litre 4 banger in my little sportscar
this car, while advertise for 29 mpg actually, in real life and after break in of engine, enjoys 46 mpg on a dynamic road, hills, valleys and over 300 mile trips
those old engines would probably get 50,000 miles before overhaul, mine will enjoy 300,000
I am under 5 seconds 0-60 and the car keeps pulling as fast as you want to go, those old “super cars” were over 7 seconds and stopped pulling right around 70 mph
I get about 240 horsepower AT THE WHEELS stock, with the gm sanctioned tune and some exhause mods I am around 34o lbs of torque, AT THE WHEELS
technology WILL find the market and you will be glad it’s there.
you give me any super car from my youth and my 4 banger will smoke it in every single catagory.
now, you can get v10, v12 configuration with the same technology of course, you can have 1200 hp and torque at the wheels if you want too, but you won’t be able to have enough stick to use your horsepower and you’ll need to put new feet on at the track to enjoy any of that technology.
there is no reason on the planet v8 configuration will suffer with efficiency standards increased, it will actually enjoy far superior technology and research
as a liberal, I happen to agree with you, the government has no business telling me or you what to drive
they do have a business however making certain you and me pay our own bills, that means if you or me pour cancer into the air then you or I should pay the bills of those who got cancer, it also means everything should be done that might prevent you or I from giving someone cancer
and the list of other expenses is legion, the cost of not being energy independant, the cost there means wars and lives, death, destruction…the list goes on and on
are YOU willing to pay the costs of your pleasure?
somehow, I doubt you even have the means much less the will
but I agree somewhat, I have no problem paying the comenserate tax that my pleasure might cost, but the problem is, most people with your point of view don’t beleive in those expense recoup strategy and there is the problem
For you, no car. Now get out of my soup kitchen!
The democrats held a gun on your family and made you participate in cash for clunkers? They must have overlooked my house…thank god!
Because you’re a fucking idiot, I feel I should point out that I’m being sarcastic.
Wow, liberals sure are respectful of opposing views… [/sarcasm]
Ya kinda funny isn’t it…then again I apparently am a Nazi….or so I have been told in recent days.
Uh, did I voilate Godwin’s Law at all here?
Not respectful? It’s called discussion. You choose not to back up your assertions when challenged. That’s disrespectful.
Dude, you don’t have to mock me and put me down because I have a differing opinion.
Differing opinion is fine. You just went a little crazy there for a minute and I called you on it, as happens here literally every day. Commenting at ew is not for the thin-skinned. just engage in the discussion and listen to peoples’ reactions to your position and you’ll be fine.
“Wow, liberals sure are respectful of opposing views…”
I’m a libertarian, but don’t let that stop my point from flying over your empty head.
I refer to my statement @23.
No one was forced to get a beige appliancemobile under C4C. Your strawman is showing.
There were lots of almost-cool cars available. Not everyone wants a 4-4-2.
You may be saying that now, but what about down the road? What happens if DiFi and the Greenpeace apologists running Congress declare war on muscle cars because they don’t get ten billion miles to the gallon?
Beat it, troll. And take your unreliable overpriced POS car with you.
That won’t happen, many members of Greenpeace have Muscle Cars themselves.
Cars are not the major cause of our problems DIRTY LARGE CORPORATIONS ARE.
You could so cut energy usage in your own home, install solar panals, etc, etc. Its about reducing your foot print, not changing your lifestyle, grow up already.
I’ll keep saying it, nobody is trying to take your 1968 Mustang or Camaro away from you. All the “Muscle Cars” produced after 1974 and before the mid 90’s is JUNK anyway, why would you want it???
Ford showed a Supercharged Mustang that put down over 500hp on E85 back in 1996, how come you haven’t moved forward????
Stop complaining, nobody I know is trying to build a carburetor powered car anyway, they are building resto mods.
Alcohol rocks as a muscle car propellant, because it has significantly higher resistance to knock (i.e. octane rating) than gasoline does. Therefore, you can kick up the compression ratio and the boost for more power out of fewer cubes.
Also, ‘love the machine; hate the factory’ is a fairly common sentiment among environmentalist types.
Expand on that comment, I’m not sure you mean.
Yeah! I mean, what happens if massive secret gerbil armies swarm Washington and infect the government with their filthy muslim nazi communist ways? Oy.
Someone’s a little intolerant of someone who disagrees with them…
No, that’s not it. it. I was being derisive because what you wrote @54 was not based on any discernible reality, it was frankly some sort of crazy fever-dream. So I gave you a crazy back. Now, it seems strange of you to reply to that and accuse me of intolerance when @53 I have a substantive reply asking you questions about your views, and you failed to reply to that one.
See, nobody has the right not to be ridiculed for saying ridiculous things. That’s not the same as intolerance for unpopular views. If you want respect, give respect. That usually works in almost all situations, and it definitely works here.
What if what if what if…
What if aliens come down from space and take all the screaming Republicans from town halls to their alien worlds where they force mate screamers with space monkeys?
What if…
What if Obama succeeds? Whatcha gonna scream about then?
Ya this program was another failure. 8 out of 10 cars were non-American…meaning Honda’s, Toyota’s, Nissan’s and the Korean cars were at the top of the sales list. What makes this even funnier is the companies got rid of their old stockpiles from 2008/2009. Target as I recall was to get the new high mileage cars out on the road. Pathetic!
failure in the eyes of those who opposed it, a huge success for everyone else though
the target cars were those that met the fuel efficiency standard, those HAD to be the cars that were sold under the program
very funny day here today, I agree something’s pathetic it’s the ignorance of some of those posting today…things like “the target wasn’t met” when of course the target had to be met
pathetic is a real good term right there, thanks for using it
here are the “stimulous programs” that have failed though;
“the reagan redistribution of middle class assets” stimulous that raised taxes more then any peacetime president before him and gave the middle class even more burden”
that one pretty close to destroyed our economy
then of course it was “the tax stimulous” of bush, which gave even more of our assets to the wealthiest people on the planet, that “progran” brought the depression that’s on us today
but keep on it, eventually you might learn enough to stop voting against your self and children
I douby it though
have a go0od night all
It’s always like this when it comes to American automakers. Sometimes more rabid than others.
Cars are viewed by many Americans as an extension of their persons and their culture; it’s personal, like politics. Amazing how threatening the car makes some people respond more liberally and others more conservatively, often in directions diammetrically opposed to their espoused ideology.
It’s this intimacy and primacy which makes any attempt to do both emissions reduction and focused economic stimulus at the same time extremely challenging.
That was a very thoughtful comment, thank you for it.
Thanks. Living in the shadow of the Big Three, I’ve learned a lot about the human psyche through autos and the industry. Amazing how much cars have inveigled themselves into our souls as Americans.
Ended up waiting for a bloody cab in PIT (for NN09) after dinner one night with Scarecrow; he was ready to jump on the next bus, tried hailing several cabs but all of them were busy. I know I was chomping on the bit, unwilling to walk the 20-plus blocks to my hotel. If I was in my own town, I’d have simply hopped in the car and been home in ten minutes. It’s this kind of thing which we see as limitations on our inherent right to freedom as Americans, for some twisted reason.
So you are touting this as a success? The major target of this was to give a boost to American automakers. Obama originally had this program targeted only at American car makers until he found out the harsh reality or import wars from other countries (another piece of colossal ignorance from our esteemed president). You are right, increasing fuel standards was one of the targets, so the president gets a 50% on this test. Last I checked that was a ‘F’ in most colleges.
BTW, do a fact check on how many trucks were purchased in the program. This may reduce the 50% to a 45%.
it’s clearly a success kurt, not quite the success I would have liked, like you I would have preferred an “american union produced car only” strategy but that would have gotten too much heat from your side of the aile and never have passed
but clearly a success for doing what it was supposed to do and if you consider how much more a success then they depraved “give middle class asserts to the wealthiest people on the planet in the form of tax giveaway” it was a boon not seen since prgressive programs created the middle class we once enjoyed
This has worked, stop complaining. Drive your Honda into the ground I’ll see you at my job where you barely know what model Honda your driving.
C4C isn’t perfect and look 700,000 cars when they expected 250,000? Of course there going to be slow in getting the money to dealers. Yes they are business people and more than 2/3rds of the business community is a card carrying member of the GOP.
I hope it gets restated soon because we have two early 90’s GM products that aren’t worth $4500 the Feds would give for it combined for one of them.
My own car get 22mpg city/34 mpg hwy, lol makes close to 400hp and runs 11’s in the 1/4 and its American made, guess what it is? lol
Based on recent observations, it’s not completely clear to me that that hasn’t in fact already happened.
A boost right now could make it easier to build a more stable foundation later. The country has holes in it- simple as that- but stop-gap measures like Cash for Clunkers can give us the breathing room we need to fill them.
I must say, I salute Cash for Clunkers- it’s a perfect example of what can go right when the government really sets its mind to something.
I think if they’d had more time, Congress might have developed something more sustainable than C4C. I’ve wondered for years whether a consortium based on donations from the automakers and enviro groups could have developed a C4C-like system which removed the worst of vehicles from the market while encouraging demand for newer, more fuel efficient vehicles. There would have to be an understanding that part of the replacements would be light rail and other solutions like cooperatively owned car fleets shared by users — but it would allow the automakers to slowly ratchet down production rather than hit the wall and be forced to do so abruptly, while slowly ramping up production of newer innovative products in response to consumer demand.
I would think people might complain that Detroit was taking older cars off the street just to force people to buy newer ones. So maybe this sort of program only works if it comes from outside the industry. On the other hand, the USG owns so much of the industry now that I suppose there’s much less of a difference there than there used to be…
There was a story about Cash for Clunkers on CNN today, a “Success or Failure?” thing, and it looks like CNN’s coming down on the side of failure. They had an auto industry guy bitching (both people paraphrased) “We’ve been waiting to get paid for two or three weeks!”–then the anchor asking “If they don’t pay you, won’t you get stuck with the losses?” I think this is all meant to bolster the “government can’t do anything right” argument against health reform, myself.