Cash for Clunkers -- Just Say No

Aug 26, 2009 12:05

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... )

money, politics - hypocrisy

Leave a comment

plymouth August 26 2009, 19:25:10 UTC
So he's being punished for buying an efficient car to begin with.

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

jbsegal August 26 2009, 20:24:07 UTC
Yeah, this. The point was to combine promised ecological gains with benefits to the auto industry (and thus its employees who get to, y'know, stay employed), not just to sell any new car to anyone who wanted one.
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)

some_other_dave August 26 2009, 21:11:20 UTC
Adding to the agreement chorus, here, but...

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

deguspice August 26 2009, 22:34:56 UTC
From the URL below:

"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

plymouth August 26 2009, 22:52:16 UTC
You seem to have forgotten the URL but regardless my comment was about the minimum, not the average (though in most cases if you raise the minimum, the average will go up). The minimum allowable MPG increase to get a rebate was 4mpg. Actually for SUVs it was only *2* mpg!

Reply


Leave a comment

Up