Yes put it in the landfill, another device will cook your chicken nuggets the same way but you'll think it's better
@feld Kind of like buying a new (electric) car that will transport you the same way?
@tk you could make the same argument about cash for clunkers programs which encourage people to buy new cars. Those programs helped a *ton* to get badly polluting cars off the roads
Nah. There was no requirement that the "clunker" actually be old, or low mpg, or have emissions problems. And it was only a few thousand dollars rebate of a rebate off a *brand new* car. Who is most likely to have disposable income to buy a new car because taxpayers are chipping in a few grand? Anyone who could afford to buy brand new cars anyway, to a nearest approximation.
We took their well maintain, clean, current cars of the rich and upper middle class, and poured epoxy into the engines so rich people could "trade up" to new cars. Meanwhile wiping out a decade worth of stock of clean quality cars that was going to hit the used market, dramatically increasing the price of the entire used car market, forcing the poor and working class who actually drive high polluting vehicles to keep the worst polluters on the road for years longer than they would have otherwise.
Once again, the poor subsidizing the rich. Thanks, Obama.
We took their well maintain, clean, current cars of the rich and upper middle class, and poured epoxy into the engines so rich people could "trade up" to new cars. Meanwhile wiping out a decade worth of stock of clean quality cars that was going to hit the used market, dramatically increasing the price of the entire used car market, forcing the poor and working class who actually drive high polluting vehicles to keep the worst polluters on the road for years longer than they would have otherwise.
Once again, the poor subsidizing the rich. Thanks, Obama.
Friend, the rich don't pass zoning laws. You're thinking of the government. It's a shame the government forces everyone to drive by designing land use to target the car (and providing especially crappy transit options)....
I'm not suggesting *any* scam activity. I'm merely describing how the program actually functioned.
Following the money may lead you to think differently.
Almost like it'd be better if the government didn't have vast power for the rich and corpos to lobby over 🤔
You know, I've been thinking about that Cash for clunkers program a lot lately. I have a sneaking suspicion it might be the primary reason why used cars are so unbelievably expensive. I mean, I was looking at some used cars, and for vehicle with almost 400,000 km on it they were asking the same as what you would expect to have paid for a new car not that long ago.
So it's one of those things where the people who make the decisions to have these programs aren't the ones who pay the consequences of having these programs. I can't even imagine what it would be like to be a young person trying to get there first vehicle. Mine was 500 bucks, which admittedly was a very good deal for the time, but I'm just imagining going five figures in debt to buy something that could be scrap any day...
So it's one of those things where the people who make the decisions to have these programs aren't the ones who pay the consequences of having these programs. I can't even imagine what it would be like to be a young person trying to get there first vehicle. Mine was 500 bucks, which admittedly was a very good deal for the time, but I'm just imagining going five figures in debt to buy something that could be scrap any day...
- replies
- 2
- announces
- 0
- likes
- 1
@nicholas @tk stop making shit up. Yes the cars had to be effectively destroyed once they were traded in, but rich people weren't trading in their "clean, current" cars. The requirement was the car gets 18mpg or less or it can't be traded in. It's very clear in the terms of the program.
https://afdc.energy.gov/laws/421
https://afdc.energy.gov/laws/421
Up-market pick-up trucks and SUVs were the most common vehicles purchased under the cash for clunkers program. The program subsidized over half a billion dollars in car sales that got **worse** millage than the cars that were trafed in *and destroyed* for a paltry few thousand dollars in taxpayer subsidies.
Quit making shit up, [checks notes] **AP and USA today**
🙄
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/ondeadline/post/2009/11/ap-cash-for-clunkers--cash-for-big-new-pickups/1
Quit making shit up, [checks notes] **AP and USA today**
🙄
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/ondeadline/post/2009/11/ap-cash-for-clunkers--cash-for-big-new-pickups/1
@nicholas @tk You should try addressing my point instead of going in a different direction and then saying "see i'm not making shit up"
Higher MPG cars were *not* destroyed. You should just admit it.
Sure, a ton of SUVs and trucks were purchased because they were popular. But while their mpg ratings were still shitty, I guarantee you they had fewer emissions out the tailpipe.
Higher MPG cars were *not* destroyed. You should just admit it.
Sure, a ton of SUVs and trucks were purchased because they were popular. But while their mpg ratings were still shitty, I guarantee you they had fewer emissions out the tailpipe.
Quite the Motte and Bailey BS.
I never said "high" mpg cars were, I said real "clunkers" weren't. I said the program mostly benefitted the wealthy. I said "nah" to "it took TONS of high-polution vehicles off the roads".
I admit I forgot there was an 18mpg cutoff, but that doesn't change any of the claims I *did* make... Backed up by contemporary, mainstream reporting.
Just admit you swallowed the Obama administration propaganda and never bothered to look into the actual effect of the program.
I never said "high" mpg cars were, I said real "clunkers" weren't. I said the program mostly benefitted the wealthy. I said "nah" to "it took TONS of high-polution vehicles off the roads".
I admit I forgot there was an 18mpg cutoff, but that doesn't change any of the claims I *did* make... Backed up by contemporary, mainstream reporting.
Just admit you swallowed the Obama administration propaganda and never bothered to look into the actual effect of the program.
@nicholas @tk read your own fucking posts dude, this is so tiring
> We took their well maintain, clean, current cars of the rich and upper middle class, and poured epoxy into the engines so rich people could "trade up" to new cars. Meanwhile wiping out a decade worth of stock of clean quality cars
👆RIGHT HERE 👆
"clean, current cars" implies higher MPG
and no, I didn't swallow Obama propaganda and I did not like the program either. But facts are facts.
You're not welcome in this thread anymore if you're not going to engage in good-faith discussions. Be gone.
> We took their well maintain, clean, current cars of the rich and upper middle class, and poured epoxy into the engines so rich people could "trade up" to new cars. Meanwhile wiping out a decade worth of stock of clean quality cars
👆RIGHT HERE 👆
"clean, current cars" implies higher MPG
and no, I didn't swallow Obama propaganda and I did not like the program either. But facts are facts.
You're not welcome in this thread anymore if you're not going to engage in good-faith discussions. Be gone.
"Well maintained, clean, current" means poised to enter the used market in good condition with one owner, the kind of cars the working class would love to upgrade their actual clunkers for. It doesn't imply anything about the mpg.
I admitted what I got wrong (not bad for off the dome on a decade and a half old policy) and brought receipts for what I didn't. That doesn't sound like bad faith to anyone not trying to weasel out of a losing argument.
Now how about *you* drop some stats on all these "TONS" of junkers it took off the roads, and how many working class folks were taking advantage of the program?
I admitted what I got wrong (not bad for off the dome on a decade and a half old policy) and brought receipts for what I didn't. That doesn't sound like bad faith to anyone not trying to weasel out of a losing argument.
Now how about *you* drop some stats on all these "TONS" of junkers it took off the roads, and how many working class folks were taking advantage of the program?
It was a factor, for sure. And it distorted the new car market as well. When a dealer knows how much money the government is giving out to buy new cars, do you honesty think they don’t raise their prices accordingly? Of course they do.
The chip shortage post COVID was another more recent factor. When the chip makers retooled to build stuff for servers, laptops, etc. away from car chips due to demand during COVID (i.e. people working from home rather than driving), that drastically delayed the production of new cars which put pressure on the used car market because people needed cars. Some of that is still being felt today since there was such a pause in new car sales that it will take time for that inventory to enter the used car market.
The chip shortage post COVID was another more recent factor. When the chip makers retooled to build stuff for servers, laptops, etc. away from car chips due to demand during COVID (i.e. people working from home rather than driving), that drastically delayed the production of new cars which put pressure on the used car market because people needed cars. Some of that is still being felt today since there was such a pause in new car sales that it will take time for that inventory to enter the used car market.
@midway @tk @sj_zero > And it distorted the new car market as well.
Honestly it saved the market. The entire program was part of the auto bailout. Giving the car companies billions wasn't enough to save them; they needed customers able to *buy* the new cars too, and people were broke from the recession. So this was the "invisible hand of the market *cough*" helping to sell new cars under the guise of a "save the environment" mission statement.
Ford was the only traditional American automaker that didn't need the bailout. If we let the others fail, then what do we have? A domestic car market of Ford and... all imports? Interesting to think of what it would have looked like if we let the market play out and bad decisions have real consequences for these companies... a girl can dream, right?
Honestly it saved the market. The entire program was part of the auto bailout. Giving the car companies billions wasn't enough to save them; they needed customers able to *buy* the new cars too, and people were broke from the recession. So this was the "invisible hand of the market *cough*" helping to sell new cars under the guise of a "save the environment" mission statement.
Ford was the only traditional American automaker that didn't need the bailout. If we let the others fail, then what do we have? A domestic car market of Ford and... all imports? Interesting to think of what it would have looked like if we let the market play out and bad decisions have real consequences for these companies... a girl can dream, right?
It didn’t save the car market, it may have saved some car companies but the market was just fine. They basically laundered tax dollars to the car companies who raised their prices accordingly thus the car buyer got screwed by paying more for a car than they would otherwise by taking away cheaper choices. They might as well have just cut them a bigger check and take out the middleman.
I‘m of the belief that cars do not have nationalities. Is a Toyota built in Alabama or a BMW built in South Carolina more foreign than a Ford or GM built in Mexico? Parts are sourced globally for all cars these days so that’s pretty much a wash. All of these cars are sold and serviced domestically. It’s literally a matter of corporate HQ. And the big foreign car company have US subsidiaries which act similar to ”American“ companies and I’m sure the likes of Ford and GM do the same in other countries. The whole idea doesn’t make sense to me other than an excuse to justify putting them on the dole.
I‘m of the belief that cars do not have nationalities. Is a Toyota built in Alabama or a BMW built in South Carolina more foreign than a Ford or GM built in Mexico? Parts are sourced globally for all cars these days so that’s pretty much a wash. All of these cars are sold and serviced domestically. It’s literally a matter of corporate HQ. And the big foreign car company have US subsidiaries which act similar to ”American“ companies and I’m sure the likes of Ford and GM do the same in other countries. The whole idea doesn’t make sense to me other than an excuse to justify putting them on the dole.
@midway @tk @sj_zero
> Is a Toyota built in Alabama or a BMW built in South Carolina more foreign than a Ford or GM built in Mexico?
idk but how long do you think before they have hearings in Congress about the "personal data" being exfiltrated from our cars to foreign countries? Where's the alarming testimony and healines? Will they force the sale of Toyota's American operations to a domestic company? LOL
> Is a Toyota built in Alabama or a BMW built in South Carolina more foreign than a Ford or GM built in Mexico?
idk but how long do you think before they have hearings in Congress about the "personal data" being exfiltrated from our cars to foreign countries? Where's the alarming testimony and healines? Will they force the sale of Toyota's American operations to a domestic company? LOL
Yes, unfortunately I think we can all agree that there is a massive amount of State corruption in the US right now, which is one of the reasons why the empire is so badly in decline.
Another way that all of this helps to hurt everyone is by basically forcing the destruction of the accumulated wealth of the nation. You might think that those cars were wasteful because they burned a lot of fuel, or because they were too old, but they were highly complicated devices that already existed that people have the option to use if they wanted to. The cash for clunkers program took cars that were perfectly serviceable and destroyed them. It has resulted in vehicle prices in North America overall being on a completely different level than for example Europe where such a program didn't exist.
Really, it would be better to let the car companies fail and then maybe they would come back with something people actually wanted to buy. On the other hand, as part of that failure maybe they need to start pointing their finger directly at the government for forcing companies make cars that nobody likes.
Another way that all of this helps to hurt everyone is by basically forcing the destruction of the accumulated wealth of the nation. You might think that those cars were wasteful because they burned a lot of fuel, or because they were too old, but they were highly complicated devices that already existed that people have the option to use if they wanted to. The cash for clunkers program took cars that were perfectly serviceable and destroyed them. It has resulted in vehicle prices in North America overall being on a completely different level than for example Europe where such a program didn't exist.
Really, it would be better to let the car companies fail and then maybe they would come back with something people actually wanted to buy. On the other hand, as part of that failure maybe they need to start pointing their finger directly at the government for forcing companies make cars that nobody likes.
They don’t mind personal data being exfiltrated…they just want to be the ones doing the exfiltration. I’m not that worried about what Japan might find out about me…tbh, I trust them more with my data than the US government. They have less of an incentive to mess with me.
Yes, this is a thinly veiled mocking at the whole TikTok stupidity. While ai have never used the platform, I doubt the Chinese will learn anythung about me they they don’t already have thanks to the crappy security at the OPM which allowed the Chinese to get all my personal data anyway.
Yes, this is a thinly veiled mocking at the whole TikTok stupidity. While ai have never used the platform, I doubt the Chinese will learn anythung about me they they don’t already have thanks to the crappy security at the OPM which allowed the Chinese to get all my personal data anyway.
Ok, so what? How does that justify destroying perfectly good used cars? It doesn’t.
But you ultimately hurt sales by increasing the prices of vehicles. Those destroyed vehicles will never come back on the market.
Who actually benefits from removing used cars from the market? My best guess is the UAW who just so happen to back the political party that pushed this in the first place.
Who actually benefits from removing used cars from the market? My best guess is the UAW who just so happen to back the political party that pushed this in the first place.
@midway @tk @sj_zero UAW refused to make an endorsement in 2007
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-uaw-endorsement-idUSN1962510920071219/
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-uaw-endorsement-idUSN1962510920071219/
But we know where they spend their money…
https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/united-auto-workers/totals?cycle=A&id=d000000070
https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/united-auto-workers/totals?cycle=A&id=d000000070
@nicholas @tk > Now how about *you* drop some stats on all these "TONS" of junkers it took off the roads, and how many working class folks were taking advantage of the program?
Let's start with dispelling the myth that "rich people used it to upgrade their luxury cars and working class people got left out" by looking at the specific details of the program:
> The new vehicle had to have a suggested retail price of less than $45,000.
hmm how many luxury cars could that be? An Audi A3? (I was shopping around then, so to my memory this is ~correct)
image/table 1: more cars than trucks were purchased
image/table 2: LIKELY* statistics on the buyers (*not all post-purchase surveys were completed, so they presumably had to pull information from ID+tax filings to figure it out)
image 3: the car brands that were purchased. Curiously the luxury brands are absent.
> The CARS program was not means-tested, and evidence from the consumer expenditure survey suggests that participants’ income is higher than consumers who purchased a new or used vehicle, but lower than consumers who purchased a new vehicle outside of the CARS program over the same time period.
All the details you could dream of: https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/cash_for_clunkers_evaluation_paper_gayer.pdf
Let's start with dispelling the myth that "rich people used it to upgrade their luxury cars and working class people got left out" by looking at the specific details of the program:
> The new vehicle had to have a suggested retail price of less than $45,000.
hmm how many luxury cars could that be? An Audi A3? (I was shopping around then, so to my memory this is ~correct)
image/table 1: more cars than trucks were purchased
image/table 2: LIKELY* statistics on the buyers (*not all post-purchase surveys were completed, so they presumably had to pull information from ID+tax filings to figure it out)
image 3: the car brands that were purchased. Curiously the luxury brands are absent.
> The CARS program was not means-tested, and evidence from the consumer expenditure survey suggests that participants’ income is higher than consumers who purchased a new or used vehicle, but lower than consumers who purchased a new vehicle outside of the CARS program over the same time period.
All the details you could dream of: https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/cash_for_clunkers_evaluation_paper_gayer.pdf
Hey thanks, this is a great resource!
From the data you have provided, it appears CARS participants were overwhelmingly white homeowners with an average age over 50, and an inflation-adjusted average income of just a scosche over $100,000.
If someone with a $70k income in 2009 had a spouse who also worked and earned just $50k, their combined household earnings would be in the top 25% of all income earning households in the country that year. These are, on average, the solidly-upper-middle-class-if-not-rich.
And while it's true they had a somewhat lower average income (~7%) than the non-CARS participating new car buyers, they also had a notably *higher* average consumption (~12%) than the higher-earning group. This suggests it was not the working class in the CARS participants group bringing down the average income, because they also would bring down the consumption average. Rather the income average is likely being pulled down by the very comfortably retired with little reportable income but enough disposable wealth to splurge on new cars without impacting their very comfortable lifestyles.
Indeed, this interpretation is supported by the text of the study:
>...suggesting that households that purchased new vehicles under the CARS program did not reduce other consumption during the time of the program. This suggests that participants in the CARS program were not liquidity constrained. While the program incentivized purchasing a vehicle slightly earlier than otherwise would have occurred, there was no change in other consumption patterns.
There is also a separate corroborating section where they analyze the stimulus effect and determine that the program didn't generate any car sales itself (e.g., the amount of the subsidy made the difference between buying a new car or not), but did shift a fair bit more than half the program total of car sales that would have taken place anyway a few months earlier into the program period to take advantage of the subsidy (the balance being sales that would have taken place during program period regardless).
In other words: to a nearest statistical approximation, only people rich enough to buy new cars without CARS bought new cars under CARS. Which was exactly my claim on the matter.
This paper really is a gem 👍
From the data you have provided, it appears CARS participants were overwhelmingly white homeowners with an average age over 50, and an inflation-adjusted average income of just a scosche over $100,000.
If someone with a $70k income in 2009 had a spouse who also worked and earned just $50k, their combined household earnings would be in the top 25% of all income earning households in the country that year. These are, on average, the solidly-upper-middle-class-if-not-rich.
And while it's true they had a somewhat lower average income (~7%) than the non-CARS participating new car buyers, they also had a notably *higher* average consumption (~12%) than the higher-earning group. This suggests it was not the working class in the CARS participants group bringing down the average income, because they also would bring down the consumption average. Rather the income average is likely being pulled down by the very comfortably retired with little reportable income but enough disposable wealth to splurge on new cars without impacting their very comfortable lifestyles.
Indeed, this interpretation is supported by the text of the study:
>...suggesting that households that purchased new vehicles under the CARS program did not reduce other consumption during the time of the program. This suggests that participants in the CARS program were not liquidity constrained. While the program incentivized purchasing a vehicle slightly earlier than otherwise would have occurred, there was no change in other consumption patterns.
There is also a separate corroborating section where they analyze the stimulus effect and determine that the program didn't generate any car sales itself (e.g., the amount of the subsidy made the difference between buying a new car or not), but did shift a fair bit more than half the program total of car sales that would have taken place anyway a few months earlier into the program period to take advantage of the subsidy (the balance being sales that would have taken place during program period regardless).
In other words: to a nearest statistical approximation, only people rich enough to buy new cars without CARS bought new cars under CARS. Which was exactly my claim on the matter.
This paper really is a gem 👍