I'm glad Cash for Clunkers is dying -- if you want to give a boost to the car industry, there's got to be a fairer way to do it than by handing $4500 to a semi-random group of people to buy new cars. Why not hand out transferrable vouchers by lottery? That would be fairer
(
Read more... )
Actually, he was rewarded for 10 years by having lower gas costs. "no special bonus" != punishment.
My main complaint about Cash for Clunkers was that they didn't stiffen the requirements after it was obvious it was so successful - make the minimum MPG increase 6 instead of 4 for the additional $2b they authorized.
Reply
I saw reports that the vast majority of traded in vehicles were trucks and I, for one, am totally satisfied by that result.
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
What constitutes an "American" car these days anyway? The Toyotas made at the NUMMI plant in Fremont CA? The GM cars made at that same plant? The Honda Accords made in Marysville OH? The GM cars made in Canada? It's a tricky question, without a really simple and straightforward answer.
If the point of the project is to support the "Big 2.5", then it's not doing so well. If the point is to replace gas-guzzlers with cars that guzzle slightly less gas, then I think it's doing pretty well. And I bet that Ford isn't too unhappy about having two vehicles in the top 10.
GM and the Mopar brands don't seem to have efficient cars that people want. Too bad for them; maybe they should try designing some.
Reply
"The latest data shows an average 15.8 mpg fuel economy on traded-in models and 25 mpg on the new, replacement vehicles - an overall 9.2 mpg increase."
That's an increase of 63% MPG.
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment