Ask the Car People.SM


Cash for Clunkers - Good or Bad Idea?

4291 messages,  Last post on Jan 05, 2013 at 9:30 AM

You are in the Automotive News & Views-Archives Forum.

What is this discussion about? Legislation, Truck, Sedan, Wagon, SUV

Messages Page 429 of 430

#4278 of 4291 Re: Back from the dead... [ateixeira] by andre1969

Oct 13, 2011 (10:13 am)

Replying to: ateixeira (Oct 13, 2011 10:09 am)
Who wants a C4C v2.0?
 
Considering how badly my '85 Silverado has deteriorated in the past couple years, I'd be tempted!

#4279 of 4291 Re: C4C ruined things for new driver. [fushigi] by hpmctorque

Oct 13, 2011 (12:59 pm)

Replying to: fushigi (Oct 13, 2011 6:57 am)
~40,000 used car sales per year seems right, so we're in agree ment on the numbers.
 
I understand your arguments, which represents the pro-C4C point of view, but I'm of the persuasion that individuals are better judges of when useful assets should be retired than the federal government. Individuals can take the factors that you mentioned, and, more often than not, make a more informed decision on what's best for them. Pollution and safety rules and inspections address those particular issues.
 
I agree with you that there are subsidies that are more harmful than C4C. In terms of one-time versus repeated budget expenses, however, most European countries have had numerous C4C programs. Once the taboo is broken, it's relatively easy for politicians to enact subsequent ones.

#4280 of 4291 Re: C4C ruined things for new driver. [hpmctorque] by berri

Oct 13, 2011 (5:07 pm)

Replying to: hpmctorque (Oct 13, 2011 12:59 pm)
I still think C4C was primarily a give to the auto dealerships. It increased their sales volume and their margins. Of course, that all came at the expense of the poor car buying public. Car prices are distorted right now because of remaining issues from the Tsunami. It is always about supply and demand. C4C interferred with the natural workings of that basic economic premise.
 
I'll go you one further and suggest that the gov should also stop using the tax code as an economic preference tool.

#4281 of 4291 Re: C4C ruined things for new driver. [berri] by explorerx4

Oct 13, 2011 (6:44 pm)

Replying to: berri (Oct 13, 2011 5:07 pm)
Just after 9-11, car sales dropped down to nothing, then GM started their 'Get America Rolling' campaign.
It sparked car sales. C4C did the same thing.
You are not recognizing the psychological aspect of auto sales.
C4C was an informal bailout for auto dealerships. but it worked.

#4282 of 4291 Re: C4C ruined things for new driver. [explorerx4] by berri

Oct 13, 2011 (6:53 pm)

Replying to: explorerx4 (Oct 13, 2011 6:44 pm)
C4C was an informal bailout for auto dealerships. but it worked.
 
Sure did - dealers got to gouge a bigger profit margin off the consumer thanks to Uncle's intervention. It drove up sales price and dealer profit while it lightened the consumer's wallet bigger than it should have. Another screw over the middle class accomplishment under the guise of economics.

#4283 of 4291 Re: C4C ruined things for new driver. [berri] by fezo

Oct 13, 2011 (7:04 pm)

Replying to: berri (Oct 13, 2011 6:53 pm)
You said it, berri

#4284 of 4291 Re: C4C ruined things for new driver. [berri] by hpmctorque

Oct 14, 2011 (5:34 pm)

Replying to: berri (Oct 13, 2011 5:07 pm)
"I'll go you one further..."
 
I agree.

#4285 of 4291 Re: C4C ruined things for new driver. [explorerx4] by hpmctorque

Oct 14, 2011 (5:48 pm)

Replying to: explorerx4 (Oct 13, 2011 6:44 pm)
The important difference between Get America Rolling and 4C4 is that the former was a private initiative, rather than the government favoring one industry over others, using deficit financing.

#4286 of 4291 Re: C4C ruined things for new driver. [berri] by fushigi

Oct 14, 2011 (8:05 pm)

Replying to: berri (Oct 13, 2011 6:53 pm)
That's a two-way street. Blame the dealers for the gouging but also blame the consumers for simply taking C4C dollars alone instead of adding them on top of a negotiated good deal.

#4287 of 4291 Re: C4C ruined things for new driver. [fushigi] by berri

Oct 15, 2011 (1:59 pm)

Replying to: fushigi (Oct 14, 2011 8:05 pm)
I don't totally disagree with you. However, this was not a level playing field. The gov offered C4C for a very limited time window in effect putting a lock on supply. The demand side constituted many strapped buyers trying to get something for their old clunk and improve their transportation situation. In effect, the consumer was only a second derivative here. C4C was structured to primarily help the dealers - improved sales and margins, reduced inventory. The buyer's leverage was handcuffed by the manner the program was implemented. I believe dealers are a decent source of congressional political donations, so I guess we shouldn't be surprised at how the program was passed and implemented. Of course, the gov track record over the past few decades in housing is pretty sad, so we probably shouldn't have expected smarts in vehicles either.

Messages Page 429 of 430

To POST a message, please Sign In.

Advertisement

Browse by Category

Browse by Vehicle
   View All Vehicles

Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
View All Topics

Edmunds Community

Advertisement