$24,000 per vehicle? The Taxpayers Have Been Robbed for minimal gain...

Damocles

Damocles

Accedo!
Staff member
http://www.edmunds.com/help/about/press/159446/article.html

Cash for Clunkers Results Finally In: Taxpayers Paid $24,000 per Vehicle Sold, Reports Edmunds.com

SANTA MONICA, Calif. — October 28, 2009 — Edmunds.com, the premier resource for online automotive information, has determined that Cash for Clunkers cost taxpayers $24,000 per vehicle sold.

Nearly 690,000 vehicles were sold during the Cash for Clunkers program, officially known as CARS, but Edmunds.com analysts calculated that only 125,000 of the sales were incremental. The rest of the sales would have happened anyway, regardless of the existence of the program.

Ironically, the average transaction price for a new vehicle in August 2009 was only $26,915 minus an average cash rebate of $1,667.

"This analysis is valuable for two reasons," explained Edmunds.com CEO Jeremy Anwyl. "First, it can form the basis for a complete assessment of the program's impact and costs. Second—and more important—it can help us to understand the true state of auto sales and the economy. For example, October sales are up, but without Cash for Clunkers, sales would have been even better. This suggests that the industry's recovery is gaining momentum."

The chart below sets forth actual SAAR (Seasonally Adjusted Annual Rate) compared to Edmunds.com's forecasted rate if the program had never been implemented.

More at link...
 
Actually, it was 4000 per vehicle sold.

Sorry, conservatives fail at math. They should've been taken out in elementary school to avoid plaguing us with their retardation today.
 
Watermark said:
Actually, it was 4000 per vehicle sold.

Sorry, conservatives fail at math. They should've been taken out in elementary school to avoid plaguing us with their retardation today.
Click to expand...
You fail at smart. The "credit" was $4000 per vehicle, the cost to all of us to give that credit was $24,000... Read the fricking article, Econ 101 "genius"...
 
Damocles said:
You fail at smart. The "credit" was $4000 per vehicle, the cost to all of us to give that credit was $24,000... Read the fricking article, Econ 101 "genius"...
Click to expand...

damo... that wasn't there point. There point was that most of the sales would have happened anyway. For each "new" car sold that wouldn't have been sold anyway, the cost was 24k. The credit that everyone got was 4k.

This does not represent a net societal loss, but most of that does represent irrational wealth redistribution.
 
Watermark said:
damo... that wasn't there point. There point was that most of the sales would have happened anyway. For each "new" car sold that wouldn't have been sold anyway, the cost was 24k. The credit that everyone got was 4k.

This does not represent a net societal loss, but most of that does represent irrational wealth redistribution.
Click to expand...
Jeebus, read again. You suck at math. They simply take out the sales that would have happened regardless using statistical analysis, then take those that sold that would otherwise not have and divide. The Sales only increased by the remainder, and they explain how they get there.

What it represents is what we got for our money. A net gain in sales of 125,000 vehicles. Fantastic. We may as well have just picked them randomly and just bought their cars.
 
Damocles said:
Jeebus, read again. You suck at math. They simply take out the sales that would have happened regardless using statistical analysis, then take those that sold that would otherwise not have and divide. The Sales only increased by the remainder, and they explain how they get there.
Click to expand...
damo... that wasn't there point. There point was that most of the sales would have happened anyway. For each "new" car sold that wouldn't have been sold anyway, the cost was 24k. The credit that everyone got was 4k.
Click to expand...

BTW, damo, you are talking about the quotient, not the remainder. Tard.
 
For anyone who says I suck at math... come back when you do vector calculus. Then I know I'll be talking to someone who's almost on my level. Talking about basic arithmetic with damo is below me.
 
Watermark said:
For anyone who says I suck at math... come back when you do vector calculus. Then I know I'll be talking to someone who's almost on my level. Talking about basic arithmetic with damo is below me.
Click to expand...

Thats pretty obvious after I read the article.








(do I make your list now?)
 
Sales volume started at around 600k for this year and went up to 1.2m.

Also, many of those who bought new cars bought more fuel efficient cars than they would have otherwise, and extrapolating from the thread Winterborn posted a while back we nearly make back the cost through savings in gas spending alone over the next few years. That besides the obviously good environmental effects.
 
Watermark said:
BTW, damo, you are talking about the quotient, not the remainder. Tard.
Click to expand...
No, they divide by the remainder (those cars that are left after figuring out statistically what people would have bought regardless of the "stimulus" program).

"Tard"...

You are crippled into distorted reality through your political bias.
 
Watermark said:
For anyone who says I suck at math... come back when you do vector calculus. Then I know I'll be talking to someone who's almost on my level. Talking about basic arithmetic with damo is below me.
Click to expand...
You are only an egg, I was a math major. Their statistical analysis is valid, that they may have bought a different type of car than they were going to is irrelevant to whether or not the person was stimulated into buying through the program. They figured out how much the program brought to the market by taking all the sales, subtracting the statistical analysis of what would have been purchased taking the remainder and dividing to find out how much each "stimulus" purchase cost us to achieve. We find out that they were exorbitantly expensive for a very low return.

They show their work, and it is as valid as any poll out there as any capable mathematician would know.
 
Watermark said:
For anyone who says I suck at math... come back when you do vector calculus. Then I know I'll be talking to someone who's almost on my level. Talking about basic arithmetic with damo is below me.
Click to expand...

I graduated cum laude from engineering school. Damo's right: you suck at math.
 
I remember arguing with liberals about simple math when I was a member of the Conservative Party of NY. (They may win a Congressional seat, by the way). We demonstrated that NY had one of the highest per capita tax rates anywhere, by adding up the tax receipts for the State, all the Cities, Towns, Villages, Counties, Districts, Authorities, etc., then divided that up by the total population. Mario Cuomo came out and said 'you can't look at it that way'.

Liberals don't understand supply and demand, either.
 
Let's put it this way, Watermark.

Let's say that the Feds decided to start seeding clouds and wanted to figure out the effectiveness of their seeding program. (I know it is a stretch that a government in the US would want to actually have an accurate measure of the effectiveness of a government program, but let's pretend that smart people elect them so they feel they have to actually do things the right way).

Your way to figure it would be to add up all the rain then say that it was all an effect of the seeding program.

The right way to figure it would be to figure average rainfall, with consideration for drought and other factors, take that out of the equation and find out how much more rain you have than you would have without the seeding program.

This particular analysis does it the right way, rather than the Watermark way, and it takes out from the equation, after considering for the state of the economy, what would have sold without any stimulus so that they can have an accurate measure of the effectiveness of the "stimulus"...

I know you want to avoid talking about the subject at hand and attempt to distract from the actual information provided, but in reality it was very costly for minimal result.
 
Damocles said:
Let's put it this way, Watermark.

Let's say that the Feds decided to start seeding clouds and wanted to figure out the effectiveness of their seeding program. (I know it is a stretch that a government in the US would want to actually have an accurate measure of the effectiveness of a government program, but let's pretend that smart people elect them so they feel they have to actually do things the right way).

Your way to figure it would be to add up all the rain then say that it was all an effect of the seeding program.

The right way to figure it would be to figure average rainfall, with consideration for drought and other factors, take that out of the equation and find out how much more rain you have than you would have without the seeding program.

This particular analysis does it the right way, rather than the Watermark way, and it takes out from the equation, after considering for the state of the economy, what would have sold without any stimulus so that they can have an accurate measure of the effectiveness of the "stimulus"...

I know you want to avoid talking about the subject at hand and attempt to distract from the actual information provided, but in reality it was very costly for minimal result.
Click to expand...

^ watermark pwned
 
Damocles said:
Let's put it this way, Watermark.

Let's say that the Feds decided to start seeding clouds and wanted to figure out the effectiveness of their seeding program. (I know it is a stretch that a government in the US would want to actually have an accurate measure of the effectiveness of a government program, but let's pretend that smart people elect them so they feel they have to actually do things the right way).

Your way to figure it would be to add up all the rain then say that it was all an effect of the seeding program.

The right way to figure it would be to figure average rainfall, with consideration for drought and other factors, take that out of the equation and find out how much more rain you have than you would have without the seeding program.

This particular analysis does it the right way, rather than the Watermark way, and it takes out from the equation, after considering for the state of the economy, what would have sold without any stimulus so that they can have an accurate measure of the effectiveness of the "stimulus"...

I know you want to avoid talking about the subject at hand and attempt to distract from the actual information provided, but in reality it was very costly for minimal result.
Click to expand...

My method is to add up the total economic benefit and compare it to the total economic cost. Yours is to make whatever the government does look bad.

My method wins.
 
Watermark said:
My method is to add up the total economic benefit and compare it to the total economic cost. Yours is to make whatever the government does look bad.

My method wins.
Click to expand...
Your method is to say that the crops grew so it must have had a powerful effect, no matter how much smart people point out they would have grown regardless and that there really wasn't enough extra rain to effect the production of the farms.

You seem to want to rule out cause and just say that any "effect" is "worth it"...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top