PDA

View Full Version : Cash for Clunkers cost $24,000 per car!




sofia
10-28-2009, 07:28 PM
...and they want us to berlieve they will run health care efficiently....

Most of the cars sold would have been sold anyway.

http://money.cnn.com/2009/10/28/autos/clunkers_analysis/index.htm?postversion=2009102816

Dunedain
10-28-2009, 07:51 PM
The government stole 24,000 from Peter to pay Paul 4,000 dollars, basically.

Reason
10-28-2009, 08:16 PM
sigh

Dieseler
10-28-2009, 08:24 PM
Wow, they weren't playing when they fucked us with this one were they?
Just more looting I guess.

1836er
10-28-2009, 08:28 PM
I kind-of like the looks of the new "old" Mustang. Maybe if I go to Detroit and wait long enough in line Obama will buy me one... with some of that Obama-money from his... you know... stash.




... or would I have better luck getting him to buy me one of those new "old" Camaros, since he hasn't... you know... nationalized Ford yet?

Reason
10-28-2009, 08:36 PM
wait...

explain how this makes sense...

The average rebate was $4,000. But the overwhelming majority of sales would have taken place anyway at some time in the last half of 2009, according to Edmunds.com. That means the government ended up spending about $24,000 each for those 125,000 additional vehicle sales.

foofighter20x
10-28-2009, 08:52 PM
wait...

explain how this makes sense...

The average rebate was $4,000. But the overwhelming majority of sales would have taken place anyway at some time in the last half of 2009, according to Edmunds.com. That means the government ended up spending about $24,000 each for those 125,000 additional vehicle sales.

Simple.

Total cars sold for 2009 Q3 and Q4: 690,000 cars.

Edmunds projected that w/o CFC, total sales for the same period would have been 565,000 cars.

Amount federal gov't spent on CFC: $3,000,000,000.

So, essentially, the federal government dumped $3B to get the economy to purchase a net gain of only 125,000 cars.

That means the cost per net auto sale gained ($3B/125,000) is equal to $24,000.

Yes, the $3B was dispersed in $3500 and $4500 increments among all buyers. However, if the rebate was supposed to be an incentive to lure auto purchasers into the market, then the net gain of 125,000 cars should have only cost the federal government about $500M; essentially, those who were going to buy new cars anyway should not have gotten any rebate.

Rekonn
10-28-2009, 11:41 PM
Government incompetence proven time and time again...

Bruno
10-29-2009, 05:07 AM
A good number of the 125,000 would also have bought their cars in 2010, and now wont, so we may see another slump in car sales.

Zippyjuan
10-29-2009, 06:02 PM
The $8,000 housing tax credit is having the same effect- people who were going to buy anyways are buying now instead of perhaps a little later. And in one report I heard the increased demand it has caused has risen the prices of homes by more than the $8000 in many areas- which negates that savings.

FindLiberty
10-29-2009, 06:07 PM
The last two post point out same thing that happened to PC sales after 1999 panic binge getting ready for Y2K.

Brace for impact!

idirtify
10-29-2009, 08:16 PM
The last two post point out same thing that happened to PC sales after 1999 panic binge getting ready for Y2K.

Brace for impact!

I’m waiting for the impact that has vehicle sticker prices fall 66+%, which they would be now if there had not been all the bailouts and stimulus and CFC. I don’t think many people realize this, even when they are complaining about all the handouts. In a free market, when demand (purchasing) goes down, so do prices. New car prices should be ridiculously low right now.

Cdn_for_liberty
10-31-2009, 08:07 AM
The White House continues its assault on the media


The facts in the case of the White House versus Edmunds are essentially indisputable – but they are open for interpretation. The federal government's $3 billion Cash for Clunkers program generated 690,000 sales by providing $3,500 and $4,500 vouchers to car buyers who turned in their eligible car or truck in exchange for a more fuel efficient ride. From here on in, Edmunds and the White House seem to be at considerable odds.

Edmunds recently claimed that its statistical analysis shows that only 125,000 of the nearly 700,000 vehicles purchased under C4C were sales that wouldn't have come in 2009 if it weren't for the much ballyhooed government program. And since the program cost $3 billion to implement, Edmunds came to the conclusion that each incremental sale achieved by C4C cost taxpayers $24,000 per vehicle. As you might imagine, the White House has a problem with that.

The White House starts its quite literally otherworldly retort by noting that that motor vehicle sales increased America's overall economic growth in the third quarter by 1.7%. That's the industry's largest contribution to that metric in over a decade. The WH blog post then states that Edmunds is ignoring the assertion that overall car sales were also positively affected by the Clunkers program above and beyond the 690,000 C4C units sold. To add insult to assault, the White House accuses Edmunds of covering auto sales on Mars.

While the government doesn't have hard facts here, anecdotal evidence certainly shows that August's seasonally adjusted annual rate (SAAR) of 14 million cars and trucks sold means there were considerably more sales generated by C4C than the 125,000 number would suggest. The WH blog also notes that analysts from Global Insight and Moody's suggest that there has been little payback from the Clunkers program.

The White House also states that C4C will have benefits beyond the third quarter, as production has been bumped at Chrysler, General Motors, Ford and Honda in the fourth quarter. That should mean that GDP will get still another big shot in the arm from the auto industry. The White House then goes on to add that C4C generated 70,000 jobs. We're tempted to call shenanigans on that one, especially considering that divvying up $3 billion between 70,000 jobs only comes out to $42,857 per – and that doesn't account for the actual cars themselves.

Edmunds CEO Jeremy Anwyl took time to respond to the suddenly hostile situation, arguing that government subsidy programs are always expensive when looked at on a per-unit basis. Edmunds adds that it is strictly working with the facts to come up with the $24,000 per vehicle number, and that anecdotal evidence like indirect sales isn't based on concrete data.

http://www.autoblog.com/page/2/

Edmunds CEO on Your World with Neil Cavuto
YouTube - Obama White House Stong Arming Edmunds CEO Over C4C Numbers (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=La43O2EsjFA)


is Edmunds the arm of the Ford Motor Company? The company that didn't take government bailout money?