Cash for Clunkers cost $24,000 PER vehicle sold ?

[DC at the Ridge]

Originally Posted by allydriver

It's based on sales during the same time period from previous years.
Of course not 100% accurate, but hardly a wild guess like your insinuating.
Cash for Clunkers created a bubble that larglely took away from future sales.

I never said nor insinuated it was a wild guess. I'm not advocating the Cash for Clunkers program. I'm saying that Edmonds' analysis is flawed, and so conclusions based on the analysis are not accurate. It's perfectly fair to point out that his analysis is flawed. It's flawed for the reasons I described above. It's flawed because he was comparing apples to oranges when comparing past sales performance to current performance when key economic figures and industry performance figures were markedly different from past years. No one had pointed out that to accept Edmonds' conclusion on the costs of the program, you had to accept his analysis. But you do, which is why it's important to look at that analysis.

[sanrene]

UnionLeader.com - New Hampshire news, business and sports - Cash for whom? Clunkers program a lemon - Sunday, Nov. 1, 2009

As predicted, "cash for clunkers" was a colossal economic failure.

Back when it was proposed, many economists and auto industry anaylsts predicted that the program would primarily shift auto purchases from the fall and winter to the summer. Edmunds.com, perhaps the most respected of auto analysts, sounded that warning earlier this year. Last week, Edmunds concluded that this is exactly what happened.

I don't think the analysis done by Edmunds is flawed at all.

Of course, the attack by the WH on Edmunds is very telling.

[plannine]

Originally Posted by pghquest

Cash for Clunkers cost taxpayers $24,000 per vehicle, analysis shows

Edmunds based its conclusion on an analysis that showed only 125,000 of the 690,000 vehicles sold could be directly attributed to the Clunkers program. It said the rest of the sales would have happened anyway.

Edmunds noted that the $24,000 nearly matches the average transaction price in August, which was $26,915 minus an average cash rebate of $1,667.

This was up yesterdday, but I will repeat my comments....(not caring to read the other posts.....)

Edmunds "assumed" that X number of cars would have sold anyway based on the number of cars that were not included that were sold. Of course the economic conditions of any other time, are not the same, but they just used the "normal" numbers.

Without asking every person who bought a car, if they would have bought a car without the incentive, Edmunds estimates are just that.

So they are ignoring the sales of over 500,000 vehicles to start with, then, many people who went in looking because of the incentive, bought a non-qualifiy vehicle.....so that sale was also influenced by the incentive, but that fact in the Edmunds assumption, was not considered.

So Edmunds numbers are flawed. (Im sure some will point it out in more detail, while some, will as long as it makes obama look bad, will agree fully, with a flawed report)

[plannine]

Originally Posted by allydriver

It's based on sales during the same time period from previous years.
Of course not 100% accurate, but hardly a wild guess like your insinuating.
Cash for Clunkers created a bubble that larglely took away from future sales.

But that is true of any "Sales". Look at how selling "Christmas sales in October" has hurt December sales in retail. They have to have even bigger sales later.
The auto industry did not see a spike casued by their end-of-model-year sales in June and July this year.

[WillysB]

The White House Stupidly Goes To War With Car Web Site Edmunds.com

Quote of the year...

If Obama’s skin was any thinner, he’d have a reservoir tip on the top of his head.