Don't turn this political at all, please.
Just an FYI, MSNBC is reporting this program ends monday.
I know Ducatiz was planning on using this program and maybe a few others too.
It ends at 8:00 EST Monday
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32490342/ns/business-autos/ (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32490342/ns/business-autos/)
that kind of sucks how short the notice is. Guess dealers will have a VERY VERY Busy weekend!
we can't
all of the 2010 models we want are sold (pre sold) ~AND~ our volvo gets 1 mpg too much to qualify.
i am kind of relieved, i didn't want it to get destroyed. it's such a sweet car.
Quote from: ducatiz on August 20, 2009, 12:49:56 PM
we can't
all of the 2010 models we want are sold (pre sold) ~AND~ our volvo gets 1 mpg too much to qualify.
i am kind of relieved, i didn't want it to get destroyed. it's such a sweet car.
wow... i'm eerily in the same exact boat you are (sans the 2010 models, i haven't looked at that yet)
1995 volvo gets 1mpg too much (even though in real life it gets considerably less), and i'd rather not see it get destroyed.
Quote from: MrFry - Cycles on August 20, 2009, 01:04:12 PM
wow... i'm eerily in the same exact boat you are (sans the 2010 models, i haven't looked at that yet)
1995 volvo gets 1mpg too much (even though in real life it gets considerably less), and i'd rather not see it get destroyed.
yeah, i think they looked at the average combined mileage for sedans and dropped by one MPG..
what model is yours?
Whew... two Volvos saved!
Quote from: Rev. Millertime on August 20, 2009, 01:11:21 PM
Whew... two Volvos saved!
no biggie, they won't take them at junkyards because they will break the crushers.. [laugh]
More relevant:
http://autos.yahoo.com/articles/autos_content_landing_pages/1036/top-cash-for-clunkers-trade-ins-and-new-cars/ (http://autos.yahoo.com/articles/autos_content_landing_pages/1036/top-cash-for-clunkers-trade-ins-and-new-cars/)
I guess there won't be much of an Ebay market for antique Explorers come 10-15 years from now .. (snicker)
QuoteThe Top Ten Cash for Clunkers Trade-Ins:
1. 1998 Ford Explorer
2. 1997 Ford Explorer
3. 1996 Ford Explorer
4. 1999 Ford Explorer
5. Jeep Grand Cherokee
6. Jeep Cherokee
7. 1995 Ford Explorer
8. 1994 Ford Explorer
9. 1997 Ford Windstar
10. 1999 Dodge Caravan
It's a shame that the program has run dry so fast. I'm not taking part in it as my vehicle is nearly paid off so no car payment is better than a "new" payment double of the old one for a "new" car.
I saw that too about the Explorer; lol, it was way popular and way uneconomical!!
Good Riddance...
man..... I should become a repo man. 6 months from now.... business is gonna be boooooom'n
Quote from: bobspapa on August 20, 2009, 01:55:32 PM
man..... I should become a repo man. 6 months from now.... business is gonna be boooooom'n
my local crazy whack job KKK mechanic was a tow truck driver for 30 years; of course he did repo on the side for extra income (I guess you get a percentage of the banks value or something. He said most cars would yield 200-800$)
He has some make the beast with two backsed up stories, it is pretty funny.
Quote from: cyrus buelton on August 20, 2009, 02:15:46 PM
my local crazy whack job KKK mechanic was a ........
Don't beat around the bush, what do you really think ?? [laugh] [clap]
My younger brother is a repo guy and makes crazy money doing it. Of course, his last trip down to east STL, he came back and quickly got his CCP and a vest.
pardon me if the cash for clunkers scam plan didnt make me all warm and IZ_....
i will keep the rest of my opinion to myself, unless anyone wants an earful by PM
Quote from: bobspapa on August 20, 2009, 01:55:32 PM
man..... I should become a repo man. 6 months from now.... business is gonna be boooooom'n
[thumbsup]
Quote from: bobspapa on August 20, 2009, 01:55:32 PM
man..... I should become a repo man. 6 months from now.... business is gonna be boooooom'n
I disagree.
A lot of the clunkers coming in are from customers with very good credit and lot's of money down. You know, the customers who keep their cars forever. (Yes, I realize I may be contradicting myself from the leasing thread).
They are also smart enough to grab some free gubmint cash while the gettin' is good.
Quote from: Randimus Maximus on August 20, 2009, 07:05:25 PM
I disagree.
A lot of the clunkers coming in are from customers with very good credit and lot's of money down. You know, the customers who keep their cars forever. (Yes, I realize I may be contradicting myself from the leasing thread).
They are also smart enough to grab some free gubmint cash while the gettin' is good.
I hope you are right.
Quote from: ZLTFUL on August 20, 2009, 04:45:06 PM
My younger brother is a repo guy and makes crazy money doing it. Of course, his last trip down to east STL, he came back and quickly got his CCP and a vest.
Yeah, I remember a repo man getting shot and killed in someone's driveway near Houston a few yrs back. There were no charges because in TX, it's legal to fire if you have "no reasonable hope" of recovering property, and the homeowner didn't know it was a repo man.
Quote from: swampduc on August 21, 2009, 06:21:31 AM
Yeah, I remember a repo man getting shot and killed in someone's driveway near Houston a few yrs back. There were no charges because in TX, it's legal to fire if you have "no reasonable hope" of recovering property, and the homeowner didn't know it was a repo man.
I have a friend who is a repo man in texas.
He wears a vest.
Quote from: NAKID on August 20, 2009, 01:36:22 PM
Good Riddance...
+1, all it did was prove everyone likes a free lunch.
Quote from: bobspapa on August 20, 2009, 01:55:32 PM
man..... I should become a repo man. 6 months from now.... business is gonna be boooooom'n
[laugh] [laugh] [laugh]
Quote from: The Architect on August 21, 2009, 06:46:21 AM
+1, all it did was prove everyone likes a free lunch.
[laugh] [laugh] [laugh]
free lunch?
wait till Flo brings the bill ;)
Treading lightly in this thread.
One of the local big car dealers has sold a bunch of cars with the clunkers program. They have yet to receive a dime back from the program. Supposedly $1.4 million is owed to them. I am glad to see it go.
Quote from: bobspapa on August 21, 2009, 06:59:51 AM
free lunch?
wait till Flo brings the bill ;)
Okay, treading real lightly here. And if this is overboard I will be happy to delete it. No need to ruin a thread. [bacon]
I would have no issue if the cash for clunkers was similar to the home buying incentive. That is that the buyer would get a tax break rather than a check. That way Flo isn't going to knock at my door looking to get paid for my neighbors new car.
I know, I know it's all the same money but it just feels different and just. Your car, your rebate.
By the way both programs did the job they were intended to.
^^Yes but it temporarily killed the used car market.
Quote from: Ducaholic on August 21, 2009, 08:05:03 AM
^^Yes but it temporarily killed the used car market.
i never thought i would hear someone lamenting the cause of used car dealers! [laugh]
Quote from: The Architect on August 21, 2009, 07:56:53 AM
Okay, treading real lightly here. And if this is overboard I will be happy to delete it. No need to ruin a thread. [bacon]
I would have no issue if the cash for clunkers was similar to the home buying incentive. That is that the buyer would get a tax break rather than a check. That way Flo isn't going to knock at my door looking to get paid for my neighbors new car.
I know, I know it's all the same money but it just feels different and just. Your car, your rebate.
By the way both programs did the job they were intended to.
We are all gonna pay a piece of the bill when it comes due..... same way we are all pay'n for the folks who bought more house than they could afford then bailed on it.
Dealers will be screwed on payments missing from the CFC czar. They will then bail on payments to the manufacturer. The mfg will then lay off people to cut losses. The American mfg's will then ask for more bail out cash. The dealers left holding cars not destroyed because of missing cfc payments, will then start to be fined for not following through on the destruction process. Fining dealers will take precedent to paying them what they are owed. If a dealer did not cross all the t's and dot all the i's.... they will be left holding the bag. Small time used car lots who purchase the used car backstock from the big dealers will have limited pic for cars, driving up the cost of used cars, or just killing their business outright. There will now be limited access for used car parts, driving up the cost on anything still available. The banks that made the loans, will be screwed on any bad loans made, and they will then ask for more bail out cash.
In the end....... a large chunk of people will now be driving more fuel efficient cars, more miles than before. Conserving no extra fuel. People consume based on whats in the wallet. If my wallet says I can go 500 miles in my current ride..... I'll go 500 miles. If I have a car that will now allow me to further on the same amount of cash.... I'll go further. NO FUEL SAVINGS.
This cfc program is nothing more than a trial balloon in steering the economy. Offered up as a green free lunch program.
Quote from: bobspapa on August 21, 2009, 08:22:21 AM
This cfc program is nothing more that a trial balloon in steering the economy. Offered up as a green free lunch program.
[thumbsup] ayup
word brother BP!
Quote from: ducatiz on August 21, 2009, 08:18:18 AM
i never thought i would hear someone lamenting the cause of used car dealers! [laugh]
.
We have a used car department at our dealership as do most other dealerships and we can't give away some of those cars that are in the same market as a clunkers new car.
Quote from: Ducaholic on August 21, 2009, 08:28:14 AM
.
We have a used car department at our dealership as do most other dealerships and we can't give away some of those cars that are in the same market as a clunkers new car.
price them low enough and you'll move them
one of the local dealerships had a funky deal like that during the clunker program. they were selling cars for 2-3k under blue book. i think they figured it worked out since the 4500 made up for a good bit of profit.
My very sweet Chinese lady neighbor barely speaks any English. She had a pos Nissan sedan that I was constantly fixing for her. I don't do side work but she is my wifes friend so I didn't have a say in it. Anyways, last week she tries to trade this thing in on cfc. It is the definition of pos but it didn't qualify. So they end up buying a used 07 rental camry with 30K on it. This thing has no options at all but is a pretty red car. They gave her $2k on the trade in which is cool because it wasn't worth 500 but they ass raped her without any lube on the camry for $30k. The cars nada is around 18. She still thinks she got a great deal. Several things anger me about the whole thing, her getting screwed on the camry and the old car not qualifying for cfc because at one point it got better than however much mpg.
Quote from: bobspapa on August 21, 2009, 08:22:21 AM
In the end....... a large chunk of people will now be driving more fuel efficient cars, more miles than before. Conserving no extra fuel. People consume based on whats in the wallet. If my wallet says I can go 500 miles in my current ride..... I'll go 500 miles. If I have a car that will now allow me to further on the same amount of cash.... I'll go further. NO FUEL SAVINGS.
i determine my destination by how long i want to sit in a car, not by how much money is in my wallet.
the "mr wallet says i can spend another three ass-numbing hours driving to wherever i end up" argument doesn't work in my book.
Quote from: ducatiz on August 21, 2009, 08:38:20 AM
price them low enough and you'll move them
one of the local dealerships had a funky deal like that during the clunker program. they were selling cars for 2-3k under blue book. i think they figured it worked out since the 4500 made up for a good bit of profit.
Doesn't work for us since our new cars don't qualify for the program. Any way we could compete is to offer way less for a used car trade in than another dealer so we could make a profit reselling it.
I drive where ever I want to drive. Money doesn't play a factor in getting there...
Quote from: Ducaholic on August 21, 2009, 08:52:04 AM
Doesn't work for us since our new cars don't qualify for the program. Any way we could compete is to offer way less for a used car trade in than another dealer so we could make a profit reselling it.
gotcha
well, shit happens. that's about all i can say without getting the thread locked.
Quote from: ducatiz on August 21, 2009, 09:02:07 AM
gotcha
well, shit happens. that's about all i can say without getting the thread locked.
I hear ya. Fun discussion though. [thumbsup]
+11ty billion to good riddance. There has been tons of academic research on these types of programs. They suck.
Buying back clunkers to reduce emissions flat out doesn't work. CA and other states have tried them and there has been tons of research that says emissions remain neutral or go up. The logic goes like this; cars that are bought back are typically not daily drivers. Cars that are replaced become the daily driver because they are newer/more comfortable/whatever. Happens every time.......Not to mention carbon footprint. Makes more sense in many cases to repair and keep driving gas guzzlers than buy a new vehicle, from an overall carbon footprint standpoint. Not to mention these cars are being crushed and not entering the used part market. I could go on......
Buying back clunkers to stimulate demand robs the future to boost current demand. Everyone is talking about what a success this program has been. Sure it has sold a ton of cars, but current prognostication suggests that once the program is over, auto demand will once again drop precipitously, likely to a level lower than would have existed if this subsidy wasn't around. Many feel the reduction in demand will persist for a long time. Automakers are already ramping up manufacturing capacity that will lag long enough and produce too many cars for a market that will recoil after this thing sunsets on Monday. How is that a good thing for an industry that is already in a bind?
Perhaps I am a pessimist. I will tell you one thing, nothing good ever comes of subsidies, at least not in the opinion of this economist.......
Quote from: angler on August 21, 2009, 09:56:31 AM
+11ty billion to good riddance. There has been tons of academic research on these types of programs. They suck.
Buying back clunkers to reduce emissions flat out doesn't work. CA and other states have tried them and there has been tons of research that says emissions remain neutral or go up. The logic goes like this; cars that are bought back are typically not daily drivers. Cars that are replaced become the daily driver because they are newer/more comfortable/whatever. Happens every time.......Not to mention carbon footprint. Makes more sense in many cases to repair and keep driving gas guzzlers than buy a new vehicle, from an overall carbon footprint standpoint. Not to mention these cars are being crushed and not entering the used part market. I could go on......
Buying back clunkers to stimulate demand robs the future to boost current demand. Everyone is talking about what a success this program has been. Sure it has sold a ton of cars, but current prognostication suggests that once the program is over, auto demand will once again drop precipitously, likely to a level lower than would have existed if this subsidy wasn't around. Many feel the reduction in demand will persist for a long time. Automakers are already ramping up manufacturing capacity that will lag long enough and produce too many cars for a market that will recoil after this thing sunsets on Monday. How is that a good thing for an industry that is already in a bind?
Perhaps I am a pessimist. I will tell you one thing, nothing good ever comes of subsidies, at least not in the opinion of this economist.......
Spot on. [thumbsup] The goal was to give the auto makers a temporary boost. It worked. But now they're going to pay the price and so are we.
I didn't think the program was really intended for reducing emissions. Was it? I hope not. Do they have any idea of what it takes to manufacture a vehicle?
Quote from: The Architect on August 21, 2009, 10:23:01 AM
Spot on. [thumbsup] The goal was to give the auto makers a temporary boost. It worked. But now they're going to pay the price and so are we.
I didn't think the program was really intended for reducing emissions. Was it? I hope not. Do they have any idea of what it takes to manufacture a vehicle?
I think they claimed it would reduce emissions further down the road. One of the problems I see is that people that really drive clunkers, the cars that are gross polluters, are the people that can't afford a new car even with the cfc incentives. The people who took advantage were probably in the market already and would have purchased a new or newer vehicle anyway.
reduced emissions was mostly for the press IMO......
maybe the dealers think that the destruction of all those used cars will cause more folks to come in and spend too much money (which they cant afford) on a new car instead.
Honestly, I'm just happy it got a lot of SUVs off the road. Fewer SUVs and more cars means I'm now marginally less invisible on the bike. Marginally being the key word, of course.
Quote from: angler on August 21, 2009, 09:56:31 AM
+11ty billion to good riddance. There has been tons of academic research on these types of programs. They suck.
Buying back clunkers to reduce emissions flat out doesn't work. CA and other states have tried them and there has been tons of research that says emissions remain neutral or go up. The logic goes like this; cars that are bought back are typically not daily drivers. Cars that are replaced become the daily driver because they are newer/more comfortable/whatever. Happens every time.......Not to mention carbon footprint. Makes more sense in many cases to repair and keep driving gas guzzlers than buy a new vehicle, from an overall carbon footprint standpoint. Not to mention these cars are being crushed and not entering the used part market. I could go on......
Buying back clunkers to stimulate demand robs the future to boost current demand. Everyone is talking about what a success this program has been. Sure it has sold a ton of cars, but current prognostication suggests that once the program is over, auto demand will once again drop precipitously, likely to a level lower than would have existed if this subsidy wasn't around. Many feel the reduction in demand will persist for a long time. Automakers are already ramping up manufacturing capacity that will lag long enough and produce too many cars for a market that will recoil after this thing sunsets on Monday. How is that a good thing for an industry that is already in a bind?
Perhaps I am a pessimist. I will tell you one thing, nothing good ever comes of subsidies, at least not in the opinion of this economist.......
Well said [thumbsup]
Quote from: Ducaholic on August 21, 2009, 10:36:35 AM
the cars that are gross polluters, are the people that can't afford a new car even with the cfc incentives. The people who took advantage were probably in the market already and would have purchased a new or newer vehicle anyway.
even worse.
people who drive these "clunkers" that were traided in probably cannot afford a new vehicle or they would have bought one before the program..
I can't wait to see how much higher repo numbers start comming in.
Quote from: acalles on August 21, 2009, 01:30:54 PM
even worse.
people who drive these "clunkers" that were traided in probably cannot afford a new vehicle or they would have bought one before the program..
I can't wait to see how much higher repo numbers start comming in.
Yup. My mom in law was trying to get in on it. I would have ended up making the payments if she did.
Quote from: derby on August 21, 2009, 08:48:54 AM
i determine my destination by how long i want to sit in a car, not by how much money is in my wallet.
the "mr wallet says i can spend another three ass-numbing hours driving to wherever i end up" argument doesn't work in my book.
yer rich...so you dont count
[laugh]
The thing with programs like this is that they are a shot in the arm for an industry. What the program has helped dealers do is clear out excess inventory they couldn't afford to hang on anymore and to get automakers a slight boost to get them over the worst hump they've ever experienced.
The dubious ecological benefits are just mentioned to keep the tree-huggers from getting up in arms about a program that encourages more cars and more driving.
One other, pretty insignificant perk I've personally seen from the program:
My neighborhood looks nicer with some of the rusty, ugly POS that used to always be parked on the street gone and replaced by shiny new cars.
The program isn't intended to save the world. It's not supposed to have any direct long-term implications. It's the equivalent of borrowing money from your parents to pay for a credit card so you get out of the hole you dug yourself into and won't get financially screwed worse down the line.
Quote from: erik822 on August 22, 2009, 08:23:47 AM
The thing with programs like this is that they are a shot in the arm for an industry. What the program has helped dealers do is clear out excess inventory they couldn't afford to hang on anymore and to get automakers a slight boost to get them over the worst hump they've ever experienced.
The dubious ecological benefits are just mentioned to keep the tree-huggers from getting up in arms about a program that encourages more cars and more driving.
One other, pretty insignificant perk I've personally seen from the program:
My neighborhood looks nicer with some of the rusty, ugly POS that used to always be parked on the street gone and replaced by shiny new cars.
The program isn't intended to save the world. It's not supposed to have any direct long-term implications. It's the equivalent of borrowing money from your parents to pay for a credit card so you get out of the hole you dug yourself into and won't get financially screwed worse down the line.
That is all fine and good, if you believe in not letting a market correction run its course. IMHO by bailing out industries we are encouraging the same sort of bad business behavior that got us in to this mess in the first place. Our past level of consumption was unsustainable. We could not continue to fund consumption by borrowing from the future based mostly on overinflated value of our real estate.
So what should we have done to encourage sustainable consumption? Not spend $3 billion dollars to try and get back to the same unsustainable level of consumption. How does it make any sense to go further into debt to correct a problem that going further into debt got us into in the first place.
Everybody loves a bail out, except the economy. The evidence is pretty clear that the New Deal (and other recovery programs) after the depression prolonged the recovery period. While it may have lessened the pain, it drug the pain out longer.
Market corrections happen because markets need to correct. Corrections are supposed to teach us what to avoid in the future. By continually applying band-aids to the symptoms, we never let the disease run its course.
Quote from: angler on August 22, 2009, 10:22:30 AM
Market corrections happen because markets need to correct. Corrections are supposed to teach us what to avoid in the future. By continually applying band-aids to the symptoms, we never let the disease run its course.
I would compare free markets to forests and market corrections to natural forest fires.
They are necessary. Modern forest fire-fighting has finally acknowledged this in the last few decades. One cannot let that much brush build up and not let it burn naturally, else it will build up SO much that the final fire will be so big as to destroy the forest completely.
Quote from: ducatiz on August 22, 2009, 10:29:33 AM
I would compare free markets to forests and market corrections to natural forest fires.
They are necessary. Modern forest fire-fighting has finally acknowledged this in the last few decades. One cannot let that much brush build up and not let it burn naturally, else it will build up SO much that the final fire will be so big as to destroy the forest completely.
An apt analogy......
sooo.... I should burn down all those foreclosed homes?
Quote from: bobspapa on August 22, 2009, 12:16:25 PM
sooo.... I should burn down all those foreclosed homes?
no, the foreclosed homes are the fire...
Quote from: ducatiz on August 22, 2009, 10:29:33 AM
I would compare free markets to forests and market corrections to natural forest fires.
They are necessary. Modern forest fire-fighting has finally acknowledged this in the last few decades. One cannot let that much brush build up and not let it burn naturally, else it will build up SO much that the final fire will be so big as to destroy the forest completely.
That's a pretty solid analogy, izaak.
When the hold bailout was going down, the famous economist from Harvard (or Yale, can't remember) was the first "expert" to speak out against.
I am thinking that guy knows more than most..........