Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
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.
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.
Big shock. Yet more evidence that the government is inept when it comes to business.
Thus, under the NAR estimates, for every homebuyer who purchases a home as a result of the tax credit, there are another four receiving the credit who would have purchased a home anyway . As economist Ted Gayer at the Brookings Institution has noted, this implies that the current homebuyer credit will cost taxpayers $15 billion in lost revenues, or $43,000 for each additional home sold
I think you people are kind of missing the point of the Stimulus. It was to help jump start the automakers by trying to expand vehicle sales. Which from what that article says, is what happened. You may think it cost too much, but the cash for clunkers program was an extreme bargain compared to the other programs, and it actually worked. What was it like, a couple billion? It has probably saved countless jobs, maybe helped make credit more fluid, and part of that money was paid back to the government in the taxes on the vehicles themselves. I even heard GM is going to reopen one of their plants.
There are plenty of other government programs that warrant complaints, please go on a rant about AIG, but complaining about the Cash for clunkers program IMO is foolish.
I think you people are kind of missing the point of the Stimulus. It was to help jump start the automakers by trying to expand vehicle sales. Which from what that article says, is what happened. You may think it cost too much, but the cash for clunkers program was an extreme bargain compared to the other programs, and it actually worked. What was it like, a couple billion? It has probably saved countless jobs, maybe helped make credit more fluid, and part of that money was paid back to the government in the taxes on the vehicles themselves. I even heard GM is going to reopen one of their plants.
There are plenty of other government programs that warrant complaints, please go on a rant about AIG, but complaining about the Cash for clunkers program IMO is foolish.
Note to self: Never let Redsh manage any of my businesses.
I think you people are kind of missing the point of the Stimulus. It was to help jump start the automakers by trying to expand vehicle sales. Which from what that article says, is what happened. You may think it cost too much, but the cash for clunkers program was an extreme bargain compared to the other programs, and it actually worked. What was it like, a couple billion? It has probably saved countless jobs, maybe helped make credit more fluid, and part of that money was paid back to the government in the taxes on the vehicles themselves. I even heard GM is going to reopen one of their plants.
There are plenty of other government programs that warrant complaints, please go on a rant about AIG, but complaining about the Cash for clunkers program IMO is foolish.
I guess you missed the subsequent crash of auto sales the following month? Red hot sales during C4C, abysmmal sales after it ended. In other words, those people rushed to take advantage of free money, not rushed to buy a car. They would have bought a new car without the incentive.
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.
Does anybody question the assumption of this analysis that 565,000 vehicles would have been sold "anyway"? Yes, obviously some people are still going to trade in older vehicles for new ones, but you cannot assume that 565,000 people that qualified for the "cash for clunkers" program did not find the program an incentive to do it when they did. When I look at cars on-line, I always answer the questionaire that I intend to trade in my vehicle within the next year, but hoping to do so, and actually doing so are two different things. I think this program gave people more incentive to do so, and if that incentive played a role in their decision, even a small role, it's unfair to discount it entirely. I think Edmunds makes a good point about the program, but I also think his analysis is flawed.
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.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
