Gatorsports.com 
Forums Gatorsports Forums Politics Cash for Clunkers Results Finally In: Taxpayers Paid $24,000 per Vehicle Sold, Reports Edmunds.com
Forums Gatorsports Forums Politics Cash for Clunkers Results Finally In: Taxpayers Paid $24,000 per Vehicle Sold, Reports Edmunds.com|
Go
|
New
|
Find
|
Notify
|
Tools
|
Reply
|
|
All-American Gator |
Link SANTA MONICA, Calif. — October 28, 2009 — Edmunds.com, the premier resource for online automotive information, has determined that Cash for Clunkers cost taxpayers $24,000 per vehicle sold.
Nearly 690,000 vehicles were sold during the Cash for Clunkers program, officially known as CARS, but Edmunds.com analysts calculated that only 125,000 of the sales were incremental. The rest of the sales would have happened anyway, regardless of the existence of the program. Ironically, the average transaction price for a new vehicle in August 2009 was only $26,915 minus an average cash rebate of $1,667. "This analysis is valuable for two reasons," explained Edmunds.com CEO Jeremy Anwyl. "First, it can form the basis for a complete assessment of the program's impact and costs. Second—and more important—it can help us to understand the true state of auto sales and the economy. For example, October sales are up, but without Cash for Clunkers, sales would have been even better. This suggests that the industry's recovery is gaining momentum." "Our research indicates that without the Cash for Clunkers program, many customers would not have traded in an old vehicle when making a new purchase," Edmunds.com Senior Analyst David Tompkins, PhD told AutoObserver.com. "That may give some credence to the environmental claims, but unfortunately the economic claims have been rendered quite weak." To conduct the analysis, the Edmunds.com team of PhDs and statisticians examined the sales trend for luxury vehicles and others not included in Cash for Clunkers, and applied the historic relationship of those vehicles to total SAAR to make informed estimates. These estimates were independently verified through careful examination of sales patterns reflected by transaction data. Once the numbers were determined, Edmunds.com's analysts divided three billion dollars by 125,000 vehicles to arrive at the average $24,000 per vehicle. Coincidentally, a parallel analysis of the first-time homebuyer credit was reported yesterday by MIT Sloan Professor Simon Johnson and Yale law student James Kwak, who both blog about economics at The BaseLine Scenario. You really think the economy grew? or did the Government cook the books. |
||
|
|
Heisman Gator |
They are all chefs.
We are just stupid enough to eat their crap. Darn, that was painful. |
|||
|
|
All-American Gator |
The costs and the environmental impact were just side issues. The purpose was to further kickstart our country's stalled economic engine.
|
|||
|
Heisman Gator |
The cost is not a side issue. The question is, "Did the benefit justify the cost?"
The jury's still out on that, as far as I'm concerned. Same with the housing incentives. --------------------------------------------------- “A tenacious hold on trivial fact is the secret of my genius” - Agathon the Seer |
|||
|
|
Head Ball Coach |
There were no side benefits. We as tax payers LOST! Hell it would have been cheaper just to give each household who paid taxes in 08 a new car and let them pay the sales tax. We would have been a heck of a lot further ahead.
|
|||
|
Head Ball Coach |
I agree, and I am sure both sides will argue their points on the issue. I will say that really this information is not surprising, in that only a certain percent are going to be incremental, so the net cost per incremental vehicle is of course higher than the incentive cost per vehicle. I can't attest to whether their number on incremental sold vehicles is valid or not. The $24K seems high, if the average incentive was a few thousand. By all accounts the impression I got was a big chunk, maybe even a majority of car sales were driven by these incentives. Look at the other thread that said the Cash for clunkers had an appreciable impact on GDP growth. So based upon that, I am not sure how they come up with maybe 1 in 8 to 1 in 10 of the sales were incremental. IF it in fact did help buoy the economy, that by itself may be of value, in that the better the economic numbers look, maybe the less likely companies are likely to can more people, and the cycle continues. If we were to see a sustained, albeit modest recovery, one can argue that they were worth it. I am however still uncomfortable with the precedent this sets of fiscal irresponsibility as well as the long term federal debt impact.
|
|||
|
|
Heisman Gator |
Glad to see you coming around Lboy
 We've had cash for clunkers, cash for appliances, pets, golf carts, etc. etc.As the report says, most people would have purchased new cars anyway- albeit over many months. The economic impact, along with the environmental impact, seems slight compared with the cost. |
|||
|
|
Heisman Gator |
Dude, you're forgetting: $500 million cash for homes for the dead, illegal immigrants, and children! |
|||
|
|
Head Ball Coach |
In terms of "slight" economic benefits - I guess I don't know that to be the case...on the one hand, on the other thread, you are saying the significant GDP growth is mainly because of these giveaways. Now on here you are saying the economic impact is "slight" - you are kind of playing both sides of the fence here.
|
|||
|
|
Heisman Gator |
Not really. The growth would have been less pronounced without these programs, I dont think there's any doubt on that. Instead of spreading the wealth out over a number of months it was concentrated. SO now the numbers for the fourth quarter are probably going to be significantly less- we'll get a more acurate number for growth. Was the temporary bump in 3rd quarter GDP worth all the money that was given away? IMO, no. |
|||
|
|
Heisman Gator |
I will say it again. The stimulus money should have been spent to improve productivity, not promote consumption for consumption's sake. That is nothing but continuing bad behavior.
I did agree with the extention of unemployment benefits, but that will have to come to an end. Obama has about another 14-16 months before the opportunity will be lost IMO. Darn, that was painful. |
|||
|
|
Head Ball Coach |
I heard today that roughly half of the 3.4% growth was due to cash for clunkers. 1.7% additional growth is fairly significant. If this is true, lets go through the math: Total annual GDP $14 trillion Total quarterly GDP - over $3 trillion 1.7 % of 3 trillion = approx $50 billion. Total Govt cost of Cash for clunkers: $3 billion. So $3 billion of govt spending lead to $50 billion of economic activity. That is very effective stimulus. Your point is that this is just accelerating future economic activity. That is probably true, to a degree. If you are at the depths of a downturn, accelerating activity is a good thing. Also, I would argue that to a degree you may be jump starting the economy - preventing the economic death spiral caused by "Ive fallen and I can't get up". If the economic picture looks better, companies are less likely to fire people, which means people have more to spend, etc etc.
|
|||
|
Heisman Gator |
Wow scooby, you really, really like your "more fun with phony stats" posts. What is sad is that people in this country unwilling to read beyond the propaganda are going to run around and starting quoting that $24k number like it came down from the mountain etched into a tablet. You guys crack me up. |
|||
|
Freshman Gator |
Nice figuring, but the $3 billion to $50 billion doesn't add up. If the cash for each klunker was $4,000, then the average sales price for each vehicle would have to be over $66,000 to generate $50 billion in sales. Check your math. |
|||
|
|
All-American Gator |
|
|||
|
|
Head Ball Coach |
Can you critics of the 24K number provide another number that can be supported. You folks are quick to point fingers but provide nothing in the way of substance. I am starting to think that is what Liberals do.
|
|||
|
|
Heisman Gator |
Ummmm, how about the real number. 695,000 cars by $4000 per vehicle. Is it really that much to ask that people stick to the facts and stop putting your favorite political spin on everything? |
|||
|
|
Head Ball Coach |
NC if you believe that it only cost the taxpayer 4K for each vehicle, then you must not understand business transactions. 4K is only the base amout. You must add all the affiliated clerical and financial cost into the equation to get the total number.
That figure I do not know but I do know it is more than the original 4K amount, a lot more. |
|||
|
Heisman Gator |
What do you mean 'starting to think"? I've got a feeling you've been thinking that and a lot worse about libs for quite some time Neil. At least if what you post here is any indication. But since you're only calling us commies about once a month now maybe you're evolving a little. So how's the wife?Still bedridden? |
|||
|
|
Freshman Gator |
Here's a quick sketch of the numbers from a green-oriented autoblog. If they are going to present a bias, it would probably be favorable to the program: "First, 690,114 vouchers were submitted asking for $2.877 billion (just under the program's $3 billion limit). There was also $100 million used for administration costs (as Autoblog calculates, about $144 for every claim processed) and there is $23 million or so left over. Flash analysis by the White House Council of Economic Advisers says the program boosted economic growth in the 3Q by 4/10ths of a percent and created or saved 42,000 jobs that still remain, at least for the near future." White House says .4%, not the 1.7% quoted earlier in this thread. That 42,000 jobs is pure fiction is you ask me. Source blog: Link |
|||
|
|
Head Ball Coach |
Hey Op, the wife is doing much better thank you for asking. About my evolution status; I think you know that I stand for a certian set of principles that are definetly conservative. I think you know also that I think more of my country than just my little patch. I believe you know that I respect our prsident and hope and wish that he suceeds if righting our sinking ship. I am more for America than I am for a particular political party affiliation.
I do know that some very far reaching dems such as moveon.org, Act Up, Nambla, Coyote and the rest of those type people are stricly in it for one reason and that is their lifestyle and complete sorid take on life. These people politically are of the Democractic party and sure as heck do not espouse democracy but rather a goverment of the restricted power of the few elite. That my find is the underbelly of the Liberal political mindset and is a very dangerous animal with a very skewed view of the order of things. I have changed a lot of what I think, believe and adhere to. I am trusting it is for my betterment and my country's welfare in general. |
|||
|
|
Heisman Gator |
LBoy- we'll see. You may be right about it having prevented us from going over a cliff. But, if your numbers are accurate, 1.7% growth is not so bad- without the clunkers program.
We'll see what they say when the growth rate goes down in the fourth quarter. Bet you any money that there will be chants from the left for more "stimulus." Although from a personal/greed perspective, i'm glad they are going to extend the first time homebuyer deduction. Selling my house in Orlando now. Anyone need a home? |
|||
|
|
Head Ball Coach |
I had heard the 1.7% from some conservative AM pundit on the radio - he was saying that as evidence that the Q3 growth was not real, that half of it was articially juiced from Cash for Clunkers. So it seems when arguing GDP growth for partisan purposes, Cash for clunkers was a major source of growth, but however when arguing stimulus different numbers are thrown out. I found this via google search
Link If this is true, that kind of validates the 1.7%. As to the different lower numbers, and your other numbers Wyo, I suspect the 1.7% takes into account the multiplicative effect of the activity throughout the economy. Spent money gets spent again, and again, etc. One can validly argue its a seeminly arbitrary and awkward program, but by all accounts, it was an extraordinarily effective short term stimulus - for a fairly meager cost of $3 billion.
|
|||
|
|
Freshman Gator |
Regardless of where the numbers fall, I'm opposed in principle. The principle here is the government is choosing winners and losers in business. The govt chooses to drop $3 billion on the car business...not that they don't need it, but plenty of businesses need and could use that stimulus. And that $3 billion comes out of the pockets, "collectively", of every other worker and business owner in America. How is it right that the govt can decide that we all have to contribute to stimulate one type or class of business? That's not equal protection of the laws. Where is my "small, family-owned community magazine advertising sales" bailout? I could sure use it right now.
For the $800 billion cost of the stimulus, you could drop $8,000 on every household in America. They could then spend it as they choose for cars, appliances, or magazine ads!! Talk about stimulus! Aren't you pro choice? Think about that...the cost of the stimulus package is $8,000 per household! How is taking that much money from taxpayers and turning it into govt money going to stimulate anything? Or just get the government to reduce its budget like all of us have to do when things are tight. Government is the only sector of our economy that's growing right now. If we got to keep a little more, we could all stimulate the economy a little more. |
|||
|
|
Head Ball Coach |
If you are opposed on principle, that is fine, I just don't like it when bogus numbers are thrown around that exaggerate a point. As to just giving everybody a massive one time tax break, that would certainly act as a stimulus, but tax breaks often just end up going to places like Walmart as additional spending, and a substantial chunk going overseas. If we are going to throw money at a problem, I would prefer the money have some sort of tangible benefit, vs a one time boost to consumer spending on whatever, including SUV's, big screen TV's etc.
|
|||
|
|
Freshman Gator |
Sorry, but I strive to be accurate in numbers and facts used in my posts. I never pretended to accept that $24,000 number as representative of anything.
Where in this thread (or any other) have I used any bogus numbers? Please let me know. I'll be happy to issue a correction So, based on your response to tax credits or other stimulus, you still believe it is better for the government to choose how to spend our money than for us to choose how to spend our money. That is the inherent message in your statement. I'm curious...to what tangible benefits would you direct the spending? |
|||
|
|
True Gator |
Try this - A lot of imported Toyotas were piled up on the west coast and they were one of the top cars sold in the cash for dopes program. How does this help american manufacturing? It did not. I am opposed to bailing out dopes no matter if they are on main street or wall street!! I bet many of these dopes would have bought new cars as gas costs are going to be large in the near future.
|
|||
|
|
Heisman Gator |
Try this -- every car build has suppliers. Even Japanese cars built in Japan use them. Taking a look at your Toyota example, Freescale Semiconductor (the worlds larges embedded controller manufacturer and former Motorola Semiconductor) sells to every auto manufacturer in the world, including Toyota. Those controllers are built in the US, in MOS12 in Chandler, AZ. Delphi, once considered GM's auto parts company, sells sub assemblies to every car maker, including Toyota for the Corolla. Transport companies all make money moving cars piled up on the west coast to all points east in the US. Car dealerships in the US make money, some of which then in turn gets redistributed back into the local communities. And those are just the examples I know about and only discussing Toyota cars. All of which, is economic activity in the US. I am not trying to convince you to agree with this program. I am not even endorsing this program necessarily. What I am trying to point out is that everyone takes such a narrow view of things. Just because US car companies (who build cars in Mexico and Canada btw) did not directly get the lion's share of sales, don't act like this program did not stimulate economic activity in the US. It is obvious that it did. |
|||
|
| Powered by Social Strata |
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
|
|
Gatorsports.com Forums Gatorsports Forums Politics Cash for Clunkers Results Finally In: Taxpayers Paid $24,000 per Vehicle Sold, Reports Edmunds.com
Forums Gatorsports Forums Politics Cash for Clunkers Results Finally In: Taxpayers Paid $24,000 per Vehicle Sold, Reports Edmunds.com