Well, I see it's time for the rant of the day, from your number one ass, me.
I have no trouble with this program at all, and the cars that these people are trading in are primarily crap, relatively unsafe, and need a boatload of cash to bring back to proper working order.
@LoganSix: Well, the US has always redistributed income. That's what the progressive income tax, excise taxes, and subsidies for various industries are for. Some of it has a good purpose and some of it is just a result of some political fiasco.
Just out of curiosity, are you out of school yet? Because if you aren't, you may want to take 'History of the US Before 1865'. It really is enlightening how much differently macroeconomics is managed now compared to how the founders intended. Redistribution of income isn't part of the original plan at all.
@FP - Funny how it seems quiet around here, eh?: I think all the current clunker demand is over at Chrysler. I still shake my head and wonder every time I see a new Sebring or Caliber. "You bought that on purpose?"
@P161911 now with M POWER!: Oh, I know. There are Fords, Toyotas, and of course the Chevy Impala that I love to rag on, but at least they're decently constructed. A Caliber or Sevenger... shit, no. It makes me sad. Even the minivans have interiors bested by a Cozy Coupe.
I wonder if they will be able to take back the title of world's 4th largest automaker from Hyundai? I'm betting their corporate vehicle design mix will favor the new kid on the block...
@Flathead Smith: I'd hate to be in demand/production planning right now. There's almost no way to tell how much of the current demand is delayed or advanced (compared to what normally would have been purchased over a longer period of time). I just hope Ford isn't stuck with insane amounts of inventory around the end-of-year sales lull.
Mr. Dude, Ash78:Ronald Reagan: "A communist is someone who reads Marx. An anti-communist is someone who understands Marx."
Here’s part of post I submitted to Jalopnik about a week ago:
Really what this program has accomplished is that it moved up the date of a natural auto purchase and will lead to a fall off in sells in the future, and then in order to spur economic activity, congress will call for an even larger program to stimulate purchases. The other effect is that when the program stops, some people who may be thinking about purchasing a car may wait for the program to start in order to not miss out on the perceived freebee.
The saddest part is that just like most government programs the poor will end up suffering the most. Many of these so called clunkers are perfectly viable autos that will be removed from the market place along with potential used parts. This will drive up the cost of the used car market and maintaining current older cars on the road. This puts out of reach a better used car for those who do not have the means to purchase a new car.
In the end no one wins when the government decides to force the invisible hand that Adam Smith elegantly spoke of.
Possibly the first part of my quote has come true.
@mr_dude: One thing that folks don’t seem to understand is this:
When economies go negative, there is a reason why, and usually that reason is there is some type of activity that is unsustainable over the long term and those in the market have generally figured something is wrong. Until that part of the market is reformed, it is silly for an outside entity to come in and attempt to "spur again and again" as you said. This can lead to a dead horse.
@mr_dude: I like the SimCity theory that I've developed. Most cities do not want dirty industry, so in my games I simply tax the balls off of it. Counter to that, in more attractive areas, I will lower taxes to artificially spur growth - but if I don't provide housing and services for the lower-wage people who are employed by the rich, demand naturally stagnates.
What I'm saying is that altering one factor can actually dig you a deeper hole while granting you short-term gains.
@Scandinavian Flick: You could say that it's a Fusion of ideas, all trying to make their Expedition fruitful. Hopefully they'll be able to Transit this message to their customers.
@Schm wishes he could bring back the funny. .: With all that success, they could build an enormous Battleship board. You'd hear them saying over the megaphone:
- F-150!
- You sunk my escort vessel!
- Send in the F22 Raptors and get ready for my victory fiesta. Thanks G.T.
@Schm wishes he could bring back the funny. .: Yeah, they'd been on the Edge so much they're relishing this chance to Flex their muscles. I just hope they have a proper long Ranger view, or else their sales might go to Ka Ka again.
@Earl_of_Gumout: That works for a lot of car companies, but Ford does lend itself to certain abuses...
Leeeeeena taught me the anal game a while back and we had some fun with that for hours at a late night diner with some friends.
With NHTSA's numbers, I couldn't figure why all the full size pick-up owners were switching to small cars. It all makes sense now. People are trading in Explorers for Escapes and full size pick-ups for....full size pickups.
@tankman: Steps in the right direction, I suppose. Not as dramatic a shift as the first reports made it seem. Still, the cumulative effect should be substantial, and it may have a minor impact of the gas prices that we'll all be paying.
Just saw a quote that said the total impact to the economy will be an $18 billion boost. 6x multiplier effect, which is healthy.
08/13/09
I have no trouble with this program at all, and the cars that these people are trading in are primarily crap, relatively unsafe, and need a boatload of cash to bring back to proper working order.
Don't believe me? Then headread this .
08/13/09
08/13/09
08/13/09
08/13/09
08/13/09
Just out of curiosity, are you out of school yet? Because if you aren't, you may want to take 'History of the US Before 1865'. It really is enlightening how much differently macroeconomics is managed now compared to how the founders intended. Redistribution of income isn't part of the original plan at all.
08/13/09
Man, that headline would have had a much different meaning a decade ago.
08/13/09
I don't know if that's true.
08/13/09
08/13/09
08/13/09
08/13/09
08/13/09
Good! It's good to hear some good news....that makes me feel good.
08/13/09
08/13/09
Sounds like Ford may be out of luck.
08/13/09
Now the ball is in the automakers' court for doing something with their newfound capital and customer base.
08/13/09
08/13/09
08/13/09
@Ash78: CARS isn't affecting their regular business practice for predicting customer demand.
2003 "Should we build more SUVs?" *shake shake shake*
08/13/09
Here’s part of post I submitted to Jalopnik about a week ago:
Really what this program has accomplished is that it moved up the date of a natural auto purchase and will lead to a fall off in sells in the future, and then in order to spur economic activity, congress will call for an even larger program to stimulate purchases. The other effect is that when the program stops, some people who may be thinking about purchasing a car may wait for the program to start in order to not miss out on the perceived freebee.
The saddest part is that just like most government programs the poor will end up suffering the most. Many of these so called clunkers are perfectly viable autos that will be removed from the market place along with potential used parts. This will drive up the cost of the used car market and maintaining current older cars on the road. This puts out of reach a better used car for those who do not have the means to purchase a new car.
In the end no one wins when the government decides to force the invisible hand that Adam Smith elegantly spoke of.
Possibly the first part of my quote has come true.
08/13/09
The economy isn't a horse that needs to be spurred again and again. It's a semi-closed system that enters periods of positive and negative feedback.
08/13/09
When economies go negative, there is a reason why, and usually that reason is there is some type of activity that is unsustainable over the long term and those in the market have generally figured something is wrong. Until that part of the market is reformed, it is silly for an outside entity to come in and attempt to "spur again and again" as you said. This can lead to a dead horse.
08/13/09
08/13/09
What I'm saying is that altering one factor can actually dig you a deeper hole while granting you short-term gains.
08/13/09
08/13/09
08/13/09
08/13/09
08/13/09
Mr. Witty!
08/13/09
08/13/09
08/13/09
- F-150!
- You sunk my escort vessel!
- Send in the F22 Raptors and get ready for my victory fiesta. Thanks G.T.
08/13/09
08/13/09
08/13/09
08/13/09
Ford car names, put the word "anal" in front of it. Think Probe, Expedition, Explorer, etc...
08/13/09
Leeeeeena taught me the anal game a while back and we had some fun with that for hours at a late night diner with some friends.
WOW! That sounds wrong...
08/09/09
08/07/09
08/07/09
Just saw a quote that said the total impact to the economy will be an $18 billion boost. 6x multiplier effect, which is healthy.
08/07/09
08/07/09
08/07/09
08/07/09
I am so confused.