

The Final Numbers on ‘Clunkers’ - sahaj
http://wheels.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/26/the-final-numbers-on-clunkers/?partner=rss&emc=rss

======
steveplace
I'm still against the premise of this program. This was a redistribution of
wealth to failing industry and to people who owned poorer cars. A couple B's
in the larger scheme of things may not seem like a lot, but the underlying
ideology is quite dangerous, and I'm hearing rumours that this may be
expanding to appliances that are not energy efficient.

There's a much simpler way to accomplish the same effect: tax energy. You will
have an economic incentive to get more efficient appliances, cars, etc while
this costs the federal government very little. To combat the regressiveness of
this proposal, the feds could offset this with reducing payroll taxes.

The obvious downside of this is that it doesn't have the "sexiness" of the
rebate (it's a behavioral finance thing) and we wouldn't see the returns
immediately.

~~~
solutionyogi
I am in agreement that this program was misplaced and complete abuse of
taxpayer's money. I take public transportation to work but my taxes have been
used so that someone can buy a brand new car. And why do we think that 3
billion dollars is not a lot just because Government is spending it? E.g. if
Exxon waste 3 billion dollars, do you think shareholders should not complain
becaue Exxon earns billions of dollars in profit? Waste is a waste, no matter
how small.

Also, I disagree with your alternate plan. Why do you think that taxing energy
will helpful? Government will spend (and waste) all the tax money you give to
them and then some. Why not propose a minimal government and minimal taxes and
let the free market workout how resources should be allocated?

~~~
mlinsey
To answer you last question, because we are starting with the premise that the
free market does not properly price certain externalities (for example, the
costs from environmental damage associated with climate change). You may not
agree with this premise, in which case a debate about how to effectively
encourage energy efficiency is a strange place to find yourself.

~~~
jhancock
I agree with this response. But your prior idea of an energy tax, I disagree.
Instead of a tax, you could simply make it illegal to sell vehicles under a
certain efficiency rating. Congress has taken this approach, sort of. The only
thing wrong with it is the bills get watered down with loopholes and the
efficiency numbers are too little too late.

~~~
orangecat
_Instead of a tax, you could simply make it illegal to sell vehicles under a
certain efficiency rating._

That doesn't work as well. It's much better for someone who lives 50 miles
from work to move 45 miles closer than to trade their Hummer for a Prius.

~~~
jhancock
How do we do that? How do you transform Houston or a Atlanta into Portland?

------
wolfish
Cash for Clunkers reminds me of the Broken Window Fallacy

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window>

------
msluyter
Although I'm generally progressive and agree with the environmental goals of
this program, I worry that it's essentially encouraging people to take on new
debt through car loans. Aren't we as a society already highly overleveraged?

------
bprater
Interesting that 8/10 new cars that were purchased where foreign. I wonder
what percentage of that rebate trickles into American pockets and which goes
overseas.

~~~
akd
That's not necessarily true. Brands which sold a lot of different models could
sell a large number of cars without making it to the top 10 models.

~~~
minus1
Here's the breakdown by manufacturer from the DOT press release:

    
    
      New Vehicles Manufacturers
    
      Toyota - 19.4%
      General Motors - 17.6%
      Ford - 14.4%
      Honda - 13.0%
      Nissan - 8.7%
      Hyundai - 7.2%
      Chrysler - 6.6%
      Kia - 4.3%
      Subaru - 2.5%
      Mazda - 2.4%
      Volkswagen - 2.0%
      Suzuki - 0.6%
      Mitsubishi - 0.5%
      MINI - 0.4%
      Smart - 0.2%
      Volvo - 0.1%
      All Other - <0.1%

------
ShabbyDoo
>the Ford Explorer topped the list of most traded-in clunkers

We helped with that. I had a 2002 Explorer with 145K miles that we traded in
for a Honda Odyssey. Since we went from the SUV class to the car class, the
mpg rating difference only had to be five mpg to qualify for the $4500
subsidy.

As a libertarian, I oppose this program, but it certainly was an appealing
proposition considering that I would have likely gotten $3K max if I sold the
Explorer outright. What is sad is that, while there were a bunch of things I
didn't bother to get fixed (air conditioning, etc.), the vehicle was still
quite drivable and probably would have lasted another 100K miles with three or
four thousand in maintenance. A huge percentage of the world's population can
only dream of one day owning a car that we as Americans are sending to the
scrap heap.

------
mlinsey
The statstics I'd really be intersted in (and these would be impossible to
measure precisely, buT well-thought-out estimates woul be helpful.) would be
the total estimated energy usage of new vehicles purchased under the program,
compared to the energy usage of the clunkers traded in, and with that net
result compared to the energy used in manufacturing all those new cars.

------
paul9290
WoW not one of the top 10 sold cars is a GM model - though that's not
surprising. Though you'd think since all their troubles which were noted in
Nov 08 they'd try to get a car out in the market that would be more attractive
then any Honda, Toyota and Ford.

Why did we bail them out? For the 40K Volt that may provide 230mpg?

~~~
sokoloff
If, merely by deciding to do so, GM were capable of putting a car on the
market that would be more attractive than those competitors, wouldn't they
have been doing that before Nov 08 and thus not been in need of the bail out
in the first place?

------
sahaj
here's the DOT press release with more stats:
<http://www.dot.gov/affairs/2009/dot13309.htm>

~~~
sachinag
I wonder how much GM's badge engineering hurt/help them - no individual model
is on the top 10 seller list, but they sold more new vehicles than anyone
aside Toyota: more than Ford or Honda.

~~~
philwelch
That's probably the reason GM is down to Chevy/GMC/Cadillac, comparable to
Ford/Mercury/Lincoln or (more appropriately) Chrysler/Dodge/Jeep. Though even
in this situation probably 1/3 of the brands named could be dropped no
problem.

~~~
graywh
You forgot Buick.

GM also has Saab, Opel, Daewoo, Holden, and Vauxhall, but is selling Saab,
Opel, and Vauxhall.

------
yanowitz
Here's a state-by-state breakdown per capita: <http://bit.ly/rVneF>

~~~
sp332
The original link is not really that long: <http://verifiable.com/charts/3803>

~~~
TheElder
I never feel comfortable clicking those shortened URLs.

------
keltecp11
I'm curious who came up with the title "cash for clunkers" it worked quite
well.

~~~
gdee
Whomever did, it's funny that it would appear to be against it from a cursory
examination, what with using such derisive term, and yet the effect is
probably just the reverse... (negative association) hence maybe even a
supporter. Or proponent. A social hack of sorts.

