Comments on: Cash for Clunkers Drives Big Returns: Updated http://www.terrella.com/2009/08/15/cash-for-clunkers-drives-big-returns/ Management consulting and services for publishers and marketers Thu, 27 Aug 2009 00:00:09 -0700 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: dmkalman http://www.terrella.com/2009/08/15/cash-for-clunkers-drives-big-returns/comment-page-1/#comment-3379 dmkalman Thu, 27 Aug 2009 00:00:09 +0000 http://www.terrella.com/?p=928#comment-3379 Today the government reported that it sold 690,114 cars, which means that I projected the result within 1.5 percent. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090826/ap_on_bi_ge/us_cash_for_clunkers Today the government reported that it sold 690,114 cars, which means that I projected the result within 1.5 percent.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090826/ap_on_bi_ge/us_cash_for_clunkers

]]> By: dmkalman http://www.terrella.com/2009/08/15/cash-for-clunkers-drives-big-returns/comment-page-1/#comment-3268 dmkalman Mon, 24 Aug 2009 15:42:57 +0000 http://www.terrella.com/?p=928#comment-3268 Thanks for your comment David. I thought about trying to quantify savings from cleaner air, but decided to leave that for the economists out there. My gut feeling is that there may be unintended consequences, for example, car owners may drive more miles in their new vehicles than they did in their clunkers, obviating any environmental advantage. Also, reducing fuel consumption reduces gas tax revenue. Gas taxes pay for highway infrastructure, and in some cases they're paid into the states' general funds. Reducing fuel consumption may help lower the national debt, but (it seems to me) only if it allows the U.S. to draw down its military presence in oil-producing regions. But then again, look at our Cold War lesson. We won. The communist threat evaporated, but our military expenditures just continued to soar. Thanks for your comment David. I thought about trying to quantify savings from cleaner air, but decided to leave that for the economists out there. My gut feeling is that there may be unintended consequences, for example, car owners may drive more miles in their new vehicles than they did in their clunkers, obviating any environmental advantage. Also, reducing fuel consumption reduces gas tax revenue. Gas taxes pay for highway infrastructure, and in some cases they’re paid into the states’ general funds. Reducing fuel consumption may help lower the national debt, but (it seems to me) only if it allows the U.S. to draw down its military presence in oil-producing regions. But then again, look at our Cold War lesson. We won. The communist threat evaporated, but our military expenditures just continued to soar.

]]> By: David Ashton http://www.terrella.com/2009/08/15/cash-for-clunkers-drives-big-returns/comment-page-1/#comment-3251 David Ashton Mon, 24 Aug 2009 09:05:34 +0000 http://www.terrella.com/?p=928#comment-3251 Hi Dave It seems to me that the figures show a good return on the funds. Would you be bale to include the economic benefits of the program such as the savings created improving air quality due to reduced fuel consumption, oil not burnt by the new motors. Won't the reduced fuel consumption help lower the national debt? Who, by the way, are the "unworthy"?? People on lower incomes are generally burdened by having to buy older vehicles that burn more fuel and oil. The 30% of the US workers who earn the low hourly rate are stuck there because they have no other option. Are they unworthy because they cannot buy a new vehicle unaided? Whatever happened to "all men are created equal"? Didn't the finance industry just receive a multi-billion cash injection - a government handout? The effect of the $3B injection will go on for some years, especially as it creates stability. As a side question, when the government gave those billions to the finance industry, did those banks then continue to pursue those people defaulting on those loans that they shouldn't have written anyway? Now you have banks with cash but cities with many empty homes that are deteriorating as an asset. Why not help those who lost jobs because the mess the finance lot created and pour in funds to either reduce the loans to a manageable amount or give them loans at a low rate? That way you get greater stability by keeping people in their homes, and assets that will appreciate. Hi Dave

It seems to me that the figures show a good return on the funds. Would you be bale to include the economic benefits of the program such as the savings created improving air quality due to reduced fuel consumption, oil not burnt by the new motors. Won’t the reduced fuel consumption help lower the national debt?

Who, by the way, are the “unworthy”?? People on lower incomes are generally burdened by having to buy older vehicles that burn more fuel and oil. The 30% of the US workers who earn the low hourly rate are stuck there because they have no other option. Are they unworthy because they cannot buy a new vehicle unaided?

Whatever happened to “all men are created equal”? Didn’t the finance industry just receive a multi-billion cash injection – a government handout?

The effect of the $3B injection will go on for some years, especially as it creates stability.

As a side question, when the government gave those billions to the finance industry, did those banks then continue to pursue those people defaulting on those loans that they shouldn’t have written anyway? Now you have banks with cash but cities with many empty homes that are deteriorating as an asset. Why not help those who lost jobs because the mess the finance lot created and pour in funds to either reduce the loans to a manageable amount or give them loans at a low rate? That way you get greater stability by keeping people in their homes, and assets that will appreciate.

]]>