This is kind of fun (DougJ be damned). Haven’t had a good argument in a while, and I’m cranky, so here is a response to Erik’s last C4C post:
First, $3 billion isn’t so much in the grand scheme. And it would have been fine, as far as these things go, to run this program without destroying the used cars. Oh sure, getting these cars off the road helps clean up the environment to some degree, but manufacturing new cars has its own environmental cost. And trading them in and then reselling them would have still gotten more people into fuel efficient cars without hitting low-income Americans in the used car market. Eventually these cars are going off the road anyways, but if we give it time there will be more newer, more fuel efficient used cars to replace them with.
The entire point of the program was to GET THESE CARS OFF THE ROAD. Why would we want them traded in and resold- we want them off the road.
Second, why is this program a better stimulative or environmental program than spending $3 billion on solar energy credits? Or any other credit toward green, sustainable energy? Even just more credits toward buying fuel efficient cars? It’s the destruction of the used cars that’s the problem here, not the spending of tax dollars. At least that’s my take.
I’m not sure what this point is getting at. There are a whole range of programs government can and should engage in to help the environment, some are necessarily going to be better than others. That doesn’t mean you shouldn’t engage in something that will overall be a good program because some proposal down the road might be better. And again, the point was to destroy the used cars and GET THEM OFF THE ROAD.
Third, of course the program was a success. If your program is basically handing out money and lots of people take that money and you measure the success of the program by needing to give away even more money, well then how could that not be a success?
The only way you could come to this conclusion is if you completely ignore the point of the program to begin with, which was to get shitty cars off the road and get people into more environmentally sound and fuel efficient vehicles. If you look on pages 17-21 of the .pdf, you learn that only 21% of the American auto fleet is of trucks/suv’s, yet they were over 85% of the vehicles traded in for more efficient vehicles under this program. For once, mission accomplished. That it was very popular and propped up the auto industry and the supply chain at the same time is the icing on the cake.
And last, yes C4C kept the auto industry afloat for a while. But we have a history of keeping that industry afloat and it hasn’t helped them in the long term. Even so, we could have kept them afloat by offering credits rather than destroying cars.
What next – should we save the publishing industry by burning books?
As I mentioned in the comments, when your 1978 copy of Atlas Shrugged is getting 7 miles to the gallon, belching loads of emissions into the air, requires you to put a couple quarts of oil in every time you stop and also leaks coolant everywhere you go, all while operating with substandard brakes on the same roads I drive on, and your newer 2010 model of Atlas does none of those things while also providing much-needed help to the book publishing industry for the trifling amount of 3 billion dollars, I’ll be the first to tell Ray Bradbury to go eat a bag of dicks.
Thunderlizard
I LOVE COLE!
scav
laughter
mr. whipple
I thought the major point was to help save the auto industry.
Shinobi
Would we really call this a “good” argument?
flukebucket
HOORAY!
jinxtigr
This is all a plot to get car companies to throw money at BJ’s Google ads, I tell you :D
steviez314
Besides, we could put the entire publishing industry on a 6 month sabbatical, and when they come back, they could pick everything up as if they hadn’t left.
Try gearing down the auto industry to a 7 million run rate for 6 months and see if you can restart the whole supply chain again like that. I’m sure some creditors would disagree.
Trinity
This is now among one of my all time fav Cole posts!
I need a cigarette.
jl
“when your 1978 copy of Atlas Shrugged is getting 7 miles to the gallon, belching loads of emissions into the air, requires you to put a couple quarts of oil in every time you stop and also leaks coolant everywhere you go, all while operating on the same roads I drive on with substandard brakes”
I don’t see how disguised and snotty references to economic theory helps us onward to bipartisan harmony.
j low
Bravo. (but John, you should really look for a tougher opponent)
morzer
Why is it that ED Kain becomes deranged every time he deals with a topic involving transportation or transport systems? Either he thinks that letting roads revert to gravel is fine and dandy (not true at all) or else he confuses replacing crappy cars with some sort of exercise in chucking money at random passersby. Was he molested by a traffic warden? Harassed by a freeway? Seduced by a mean Toyota Tercel? What is the source of his irrational fear of transportation?
Crashman
Where’s my popcorn goddammit! This is too good to miss!
Adam Lang
Everyone knows that Atlas Shrugged does none of these things. It just kills minds.
mr. whipple
@Trinity:
That last para is an all-time classic.
Bobby Thomson
I was about to say that I’m willing to tell the current Bradbury (and not the 1953 version) to eat a bag of dicks right now, but it occurs to me that he’s too senile to take anything he says anymore seriously enough to care.
WereBear
If we burned all the unsold copies of Liberal Fascism in a carbon capturing plant, we’d keep granny warm all winter!
Citizen_X
Finally, this blog has a motto.
Taylor
Oh boy, cue the BMW web ads….
Jason T.
@Trinity:
I want to take this post out behind the elementary school and get it pregnant. /tracyjordan
Bravo, Mr. Cole.
morzer
@WereBear:
Could we chuck in all the unsold copies of John McCain and keep grandpa warm as well?
soonergrunt
Who wants popcorn? Cause this is fucking AWESOME!
geg6
And people wonder why I love you, John Cole.
Lysana
Good argument? No. Good snark? Hell, yes.
I repeat that I want a conservative who will engage the posters better than Kain is capable of. But at least this post came of his behavior and presence. That’s not so bad.
beltane
Last I checked, books were inert objects. The trees cut down to produce them only had to be cut down once, not every week. The worst thing a book ever did to me was collect dust, which does nothing worse than make my eyes water a bit.
The thing that bugs me the most about EDK’s posts is that he takes the tired old “Government bad/Deregulation good” argument and then makes a clumsy effort to disguise it with a feigned concern for the working poor without providing a shred of hard data.
elm
I, for one, cannot believe you would countenance the notion of burning books.
Out of concern for the environment, I must insist that copies of Atlas Shrugged be composted instead.
Zifnab
@morzer:
He’s pretty rock solid on SUPERTRAINS, so he gets some slack (to date, at least – I’m dreading the “privatize Amtrak!” post I can almost feel coming).
I think there is a fundamental misunderstanding of what the program was for. Kain clearly thinks the C4C program wasn’t run with optimal efficiency, but he’s got some crazy ideas about “destroying value”, as though a ’92 Ford Explorer is the lynch pin of the used car market. And he’s completely missed the point of taking fuel inefficient vehicles off the road.
He’s got room to come around.
chopper
lolz. you win the internet, cole.
beltane
@morzer: Maybe ED Kain is Duncan Black’s alter ego. Atrios is also obsessed with transportation issues, though in a completely different way.
Violet
Excellent. Thank you, John Cole.
Seebach
The New York Police Department has confirmed to TPM that a cab driver in Manhttan was allegedly stabbed by a passenger who asked if the cabbie was Muslim, and says the incident is being treated as a hate crime. The suspect has been charged with attempted murder and other crimes.
It has begun.
arguingwithsignposts
Hey, from what I hear, all these auto workers could get jobs as unlicensed hair care professionals instead of sucking off the government teat.
Comrade Colette Collaboratrice
@elm:
Our waste management company doesn’t want us to put excrement in the compost bins.
WereBear
@morzer: Going Rogue for the kiddies.
Infants, especially, have poor temperature regulation.
morzer
@Zifnab:
Ah, so his transportation fetish is exclusively automobile based. I still think there’s a dominatrix traffic warden somewhere in the mix though. As for the Amtrak post, you’ve now pre-empted my “I warned you” post, which seems a little unfair.
Either way, Cole seems to have decided on a new blogging principle:
If they bring a Galt to the fight, I bring a Grayson.
Schad
If there isn’t an “eat a bag of dicks, Ray Bradbury” tag by this time tomorrow, I’ll be sorely disappointed.
beltane
@arguingwithsignposts: You are overreacting here. Some of those laid off auto workers would also make fine unlicensed dentists and barefoot midwives.
greennotGreen
During the Cash for Clunkers era, there was some shifting around of which cars were eligible for junking. Because I *initially* had a car that was eligible, I started car shopping. The next time I checked the website, that model was no longer included. But I had already started car shopping. I ended up buying a late model used car anyway, and I donated my clunker (or the pitiful proceeds thereof) to the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation. So I didn’t get a credit, but the dealership sold a car, my old car got off the road, the CF Foundation got a donation, and I got an air conditioned ride, baby!
I call that a win.
Gustopher
We got a lot of middle-class used cars off the road — these have moderately bad fuel economy.
We have also made it harder for the lower class to replace their used cars — and most of those are older, crappier cars with even worse fuel economy.
Overall, it could have been done better.
chopper
like instead of putting a paltry 3 billion into the pot to save people money in trading in their old polluting chunks of crap and keeping the auto industry alive, we should have just let the car companies go bust, so they’d end up selling off dealer inventory at fire-sale prices so people would feel compelled to get rid of their clunkers for new cars.
either way, old cars traded in for new ones. in the latter case, however, half of the old chunks of polluting crap end up back on the road spewing filth, the car companies go bust, tons of jobs are lost, and all the people with new cars are wondering if they’ll be able to get their warranties honored because GM etc took a huge dump.
methinks while it isn’t fun to throw 3 billion at the auto industry in that way, it worked a hell of a lot better than expected, and way hell of better than doing nothing.
handy
@Shinobi:
Are you kidding? I’m just here to watch the wreckage.
Elizabelle
Why I read Balloon Juice. Religiously, in a secular way.
with a fillip of
for his tea partyin’ ways; not his writings.
and earlier today, in the President McCain post:
I like being in this alternate universe.
les
@morzer:
Fixt, as the kids say, leading directly to satsq:
He’s libertarian.
flounder
I heard at the time that the number one vehicle traded in under Cash for Clunkers was terrible and inefficient Ford Explorers, not Honda CRV’s.
FWIW, I think the best thing we could do to the economy right now would be to pick out the million or so most inefficient and ancient vacant homes and pay out of work construction workers to tear them down.
morzer
@les:
In fairness, Kain has said some good things in other posts, which is why I find his regression to Randian fucknuttery on automobiles so disappointing.
comrade scott's agenda of rage
ED was clearly hitting the crack pipe on the C4C post. Thank you John for a rightous rant.
I was a benefactor of C4C. We traded in our 1993 Ford Explorer with 200K miles, a manual tranny even, for a 2010 Mazda 3 Touring. The one with the small 4. My gas mileage went from 17mpg (the Explorer was consistent in that regard right until the end) to 31mpg.
We won’t mention that my 99 Celica, which was my commuting car, also was getting 31 mpg. It’s now the family beater replacing the Explorer.
C4C was one of the best conceived economic stimulus packages of the lot.
Punchy
except, uh, well, the cars were already built. that’s a sunk cost, as they sit idle on the lot.
But I suspect Kain already knows this, but thinks his verbal knuckleball will slip by us.
thefncrow
@Seebach: Hold up on that.
The suspect who actually stabbed the guy is a film student who’s been working for Intersection International, a multifaith group which has been strongly supportive of the Burlington Coat Factory Community Center.
He’s apparently recently gone to Afghanistan for a project, where he was embedded with the Marines. Maybe something he saw over there did something to him. But it’s not quite what you would expect from the initial reporting.
Napoleon
I think the big reason is they could do it right away instead of taking 1 year or two to ramp up and get the program in place.
Chad N Freude
Yeah! And who invited EDK to this blog anyway. Oh, wait . . .
morzer
@comrade scott’s agenda of rage:
Comrade Scott, this talk of “manual trannies” and “family beaters” is very disturbing. Think of Franklin Graham’s pearls, I beg you. How much clutching can they take?
N M
Many thanks to the proprietor for some much needed snark this wednesday. Ray Bradbury is involved in a craigslist goat sex trafficking ring – you heard it here first.
Comrade Colette Collaboratrice
@flounder:
This is a great idea, although I’d like to see the standard of inefficiency include locations out in the utterly non-walkable, no-public-transit exurbs and I suggest that a lot of newer, crappily built, moldy-sheetrock tract houses would be better candidates for the wrecking ball.
This was a discount store, now it’s turned into a cornfield …
suzanne
I adore you, Cole. This, even more than adorable pictures of animals, is why I read this blog.
After you go tell Ray Bradbury to eat a bag of dicks, I wanna tell E.D. Kain to stop using the word “anyways”. The word is “anyway”. That sloppiness makes him look like matoko_chan.
Shinobi
@handy: Yeah this seems more like beating Anne Althouse in a math competition than an actual argument.
licensed to kill time
Crankiness really inspires Cole to great summits of snarkdom. Bravo!
les
@morzer:
I dunno. Yeah, he doesn’t want all the poor people to diaf, and thinks maybe they should get healthcare, so he’s a good conservative; but he also thinks gov’t shouldn’t regulate the (magical fairy dust free-market) economy. Which has created the conditions he says he feels bad about. Barbers, education, roads, cars–there’s a consistent lack of logic and preference for fairy tales in all of it.
Seebach
@thefncrow: Yeah. But it doesn’t have to be a teabagger for the actual fucking Slaughter of Muslims to begin. Maybe Rwanda’s first kill was by an inter-tribal relations specialist. Killing in an atmosphere of pure hate can’t be a good thing.
numbskull
@Gustopher:
Data, please?
Seebach
But it doesn’t have to be a teabagger for the actual civil war to begin.Killing in an atmosphere of pure hate can’t be a good thing.
geg6
@arguingwithsignposts:
Win.
At least, for me it was.
Spaghetti Lee
Aw, come on, guys, lay off ol’ Ray. He’s not the first 90-year-old to say something stupid, and he won’t be the last.
geg6
@Gustopher:
Granted it is only anecdotal, based on my own experience in buying a used car at the time and on my friend’s business (owns a used car dealership) not suffering even a little bit during the program and that he still had the same numbers and types of customers, but can you provide some evidence that it made it hard for anyone to buy a used car because the price had become prohibitive? Because people like you and ED keep saying this, but I haven’t seen any evidence to back it up. And neither has my friend the used car dealer.
geg6
@thefncrow:
And this changes the whole are-you-a-Muslim-yes?-stab-stab-stab thing how exactly?
Blog Referee
@geg6:
Inappropriate deployment of facts against the snarker. 15 yard penalty, still first down!
General Stuck
Total freedom is the ultimate prison.
patrick
to defend Mr. Kain a bit, his whole issue with destroying the cars, I kind of agree with….for example, next door to me is an assisted care living home, where there are a number of workers, who I presume make a reasonable living, but no means extravagant, lets say, for arguments sake, ~ $15.hr.
there’s a number of cars there that are clearly decrepit…rusty 80’s impalas with mufflers falling off, 80’s delta 88’s, early 90’s crown vics that belch oil smoke at startup, etc. these people, most likely, even with the help of the CFC trade-in allowance, could not afford a new car.. yes, the CFC targeted lower fuel economy cars, but, by creating a shortage in the used car market, it has driven the price of used cars up (substantially here in MI), making it unaffordable for these workers to upgrade from a high polluting, 20+ year old vehicles at the end of their service life, that more likely than not have their emissions control systems compromized or removed (clogged catalytic converter? cut it off and straight pipe it! seized air pump? disconnect the belt) to newer (albeit not much more fuel efficient) cars that are most likely in much better condition and still produce much lower emissions than their current cars (lower HC’s from not burning oil, lower NOx, etc)
a second point is the use of “liquid glass” in the motors and having the requirement that after so much time the car is crushed, took a large chunk out of the used parts supply in salvage yards for those of use who prefer/need a larger or older vehicle, making it more expensive (and less likely) to keep the vehicles maintainence up…..if I have a chevy suburban, and my air pump seizes, and my choices were a $20 working used pump at a salvage yard, a $120 new or remanufactured pump, or disconnect the belt, which will cause the converter to clog faster, at which time I’ll just cut the converter out and straight pipe it, I’d toss the used pump on. now with those cars scrapped, and I can’t find a used pump at a salvage yard, odds are more people will do the last option before they buy a new part, unless you’re in an area where you have emissions tests (I’m not, and a lot of the flyover areas of the country aren’t either).
so in this case, to me the best option would have been to offer the CFC trade in, have a certain inspection threshhold for the turned in cars, the ones that meet the minimum guideline for emissions compliance, or overall condition, allowed to be resold, and the rest salvaged.
Original Lee
Thank you for holding up the common-sense end of the argument, John!
I love how E.D. Kain is soooo solicitous of the terrible situation the low-income used-car buyers are in, poor babies, who are forced to buy new cars because the used-car market has suddenly become too expensive for them, but basically just barked caveat emptor when the very same buyers were getting screwed six ways from Sunday when the used-car market was flooded with post-Katrina rescues.
IMO, the OP on the subject was basically a whine about awful it was that he couldn’t make a little money under C4C.
Cackalacka
To be fair to ED Kain, and I hate to stick up for a libertarian or anything, but one of the side-effects of GETTING THESE CARS OFF THE ROAD is a significantly smaller pool of used cars, hence a price spike.
I’m more or less pissed at this program for two reasons:
I have a ’96 Honda Accord with 215k on the odo, that didn’t have a working AC, was starting to show its age (the last year I had to replace the radiator/cooling components 2x, a new clutch cylander, and finally a new transmission was needed, sealing the deal with the reaper.)
Reason 1)
But, because I was an intelligent, environmentally considerate person who chose to drive a car that gets 30+ miles to the gallon, I get a bag of dicks if I wanted to cash in on the clunker.
Unlike the rich assholes who went out and bought SUVs the past two decades, who after having a vehicle that helps facilitate the necessity of war and environmental degredation, they get a couple thou from you and me and Uncle Sam to replace their asshole machines for other asshole machines that still get piss-poor mileage compared to my 5-seater.
Sorry Cole, I’m with ED on this. We could have written the Big 3 a 3 Big Checks and ANOTHER big check contingent on enhanced drive trains/hybrid/diesel/electric technology, and the world would have been a better place.
Instead, we give all the SUV-driving asshole Palins of the world a $4500 reward for their past negligence, working class stiffs get a bag of dicks when their 1989 Tercel dies.
And reason 2)
Try finding a practical, affordable used car. They ain’t there. When my Accord finally gave up the ghost, I did what my frugal ass swore up and down would never do, I bought new. Why? Their ain’t shit out there. Sure, there is shit, but you’re going to pay out the ass for it. Might as well start with a clean odometer if you’re going to have to shell out $1500 less for last years model or $2000 less for the year before.
I’m the first one bitching about the lack of inter-city trains or mass transit, but frankly Cash For Clunkers, while helped out Detroit, and made everyone not in my (comfortable and unusual) position of being able to afford a new car that much more screwed, and it rewards every fucktard who bought a piece of shit Earth killer over the past 25 years.
We get a market distortion that fucks primarily less well off folks, retard consumers get rewarded (sorry, there is no other way to summarize anyone who has bought an SUV in the past decade), and bad business choices get rewarded.
scav
@Spaghetti Lee: yeah and he’d be gumming that bag of dicks in all likelihood.
Malron
This is why I come here:
There was A Sound of Thunder.
someguy
Would you just get around to firing this libertard assclown Cole? Think of all the pixels you’d save…
Blog Referee
@someguy:
You want Cole to fire himself? Interesting strategy.
jeffreyw
@Malron: Oh fuck! Did you just step on a butterfly?
Brachiator
@Cackalacka:
The question is, would you have wanted to buy one of the gas guzzling vehicles retired as a cash for clunkers trade in? The program did not dematerialize all used cars nor did it push up the value of all remaining used cars.
RareSanity
Ho Lee Shit…
That rant was awesome.
The ONLY thing that would have made it even more awesome would have been ending it with a “Checkmate, muthafucka!”.
General Stuck
I”ll be reading my copy of Atlas Shrugged while in a few years clinging to the side of an over crowded bus headed to the soup line.
WereBear
My experience has been different.
My car before last was an SUV; because I live in the mountains, with deep snow, near vertical driveways, and guaranteed road crises. People around here need SUVs.
And if C4C drove up the price of old cars, it drove down the price of new ones; my old Subaru had the grace to expire in August, when I got such a deal from our local Ford dealership.
I, too, was upset at the time, when the car I was driving was too responsible to get help with the tradein. And I needed it. But the local Ford dealship basically gave me a down payment. And buying new meant warranty and lower payments.
Win win for the poverty stricken, like myself.
geg6
@patrick:
Based on the people I know who work in assisted care homes (and having been a supervisor for a group home program in my distant past), $15 per hour would be about what they get when they get paid double time.
And if used cars are expensive in MI, tell them to drive a few hours to here in Western PA. I bought my ’03 used car last year at the end of C4C and paid all of $3400 for it. It looks and drives (and passed inspection) like a brand new car. And I get 26 mpg. And there’s no shortage of them.
Just sayin’.
Cackalacka
@geg6:
Again, anectdotal, but here are a couple blog posts written by a used-car auctioneer who feels differently about the pool of available used cars out there:
http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/hammer-time-feeling-used/
http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/hammer-time-indian-summer/
Cermet
Don’t forget, those junk cars were converted into scrap metal and recycled saving a huge amount of carbon from going into the atmosphere – that along with the milage issue and reduction in emmissions makes this avery good deal besides giving a shoot in the arm to the auto companies – how do you spell W I N.
Bobby Thomson
@Original Lee:
That’s
libertarianismRepublicanismconservatism in a nutshell for you. Whine about any government spending that you personally can’t exploit to become rich.Cackalacka
@Brachiator:
“The program did not dematerialize all used cars nor did it push up the value of all remaining used cars.”
True on the first part. Not so true on the second. Unless my eyes were lying to me last month when I was pounding lots. I’ll be the first to cede that my observations were anecdotal, but they do coincide with my assumptions around supply and demand.
@WereBear:
Sure, some folks need the U in the SUV part.
Not here, where 10-ton FWD monstrosities are littering the passing lane, populated by bleach blondes going 5 under. Sure, in the mountain west or Appalachia, 4WD monstrosities are needed. Curiously, most megamachines were sold to enhance the driver/drivers family’s visibility (to see and be seen) and safety, at the expense of those of us who don’t need a fucking portable apartment.
When I see one, empty save for the driver, in my town, elevation 300′, average snowfall 1/2″, I think ‘Palin.’
baldheadeddork
@patrick:
This is a conclusion that looks okay in theory, but it doesn’t hold up in the real world. As I’ve mentioned in my other replies on this, the numbers of cars traded in under C4C are too small compared to the number of those vehicles made.
Have a look at this list of the top ten C4C trade-ins. Six of the top ten were different years of the Ford Explorer from 1994-1999. Explorers were hugely overrepresented in C4C, yet even if they accounted for all of the C4C trade-ins, the 700,000 sent to the crusher would make up less than 20% of all the Explorers built in that six year period.
If you’ve spent any time in a pick-a-part before or after C4C, you know that it’s had zero effect on parts availability for the handful of cars from that year that are still on the road. It’s still a buyer’s market for used Explorer parts. Same for Cherokee/Grand Cherokee, and the other popular C4C trade-ins.
And last, this is a small point, but most engine components are used across multiple models. You can get an air pump for a Surburban off a Silverado or a Tahoe, or the GM versions, as long as they have the same engine.
numbskull
@Cackalacka:
Data, please?
Just saying it over and over and over DOES NOT MAKE IT TRUE.
Let me help you. How many cars were actually traded in? How many cars are in the entire used car market pool? That is the bare, bare minimum for even beginning to make this argument.
Next, what is your approach for factoring out other effects on the market, such as the overall economy being in the dumps?
EEH
@comrade scott’s agenda of rage:
We had a 96 Explorer with a manual transmission and the slave cylinder gave out every so many years and cost an arm and a leg to replace because of where it was located. The last time it gave out, about 6 months before c4c came into being, we had a junkyard come tow it away. Damn thing couldn’t even hold on long enough for it to do us one good deed in its miserable lifetime. What really hurt was that my husband had just filled up the tank to the tune of $60 and all that gas got towed away. It was like it was flipping us one final bird.
Hugin & Munin
Can we have fewer ‘out of my ass’ conjectures and more hard facts please? I think that there is this google thing that is very useful…
patrick
yep, I agree with this. I have a number of friends who were looking at CFC, who had old cars at the end of their useful life (i.e. a 1991 grand prix 2.8L with 200k miles), but were too fuel efficient to qualify, who couldn’t afford a new car (even something like a $14k ford focus) without the CFC credit.
to poster #78, yeah, I have no clue how much a job like that pays, and the few times I’ve talked to a worker, it’s never come up (usually talking about my dog when we go out for a walk, or to help out if they’re having car problems). and at least here in MI, it seems like ALL used car prices have gone up, not just prices on trucks/suv’s (which have gone up a higher percentage than say, a late model malibu)….
stuckinred
@EEH: That’s what ya get for buying a Ford!
Cackalacka
@numbskull:
Total volume of new sales is what? 11 Million? Total number of cars traded in was just shy of 700,000.
How does taking 700k units, some of which had some utility and durability left, not distort the market; particularly for players who cannot afford new steel?
Again, numbskull, I’ve ceded that my observations were anectdotal, I’ve ceded that the links that I posted were anecdotal. That said, perhaps you could do me a solid and find me a lot where the used prices are in-line with what they were 2 years ago, and go back in time and tell me where the hell I could find said lot.
EEH
@stuckinred: I agree! My hubby came from a “Ford family” and I came from a “Chevy family.” Both Fords that he insisted on were lemons. Now even he won’t buy one anymore.
Shinobi
Here is an article from Edmunds with actual not made up reasons for used car price increases.
Here are some of the reasons that are not C4C that are contributing to higher used vehicle prices:
1. People are buying used instead of new to save money because the economy is in the shitter.
2. Fewer people are trading in their cars, turning in their leases etc because the economy is in the shitter, resulting in a lower supply of used cares and higher prices.
3. Used car prices were artificially depressed a year ago, leading to soft comparisons against 2009. (This was likely due both to the economy and difficulty with financing, and possibly people holding off purchasing due to C4C.)
That is not to say that C4C did not contribute a bit to the price fluctuation we are seeing. However it is likely we would still be seeing an increase in used car prices without it simply due to a slowdown in the supply of saleable used cars.
stuckinred
@EEH: Bowties forever!
trollhattan
@numbskull:
Yup. If, for example, all the C4C cars had been sold, say, in the Bay Area it might have impacted the used car pool there, but spread across the nation it didn’t do squat to the used car pool. Nada.
Know how to crank up the price of used cars? I have a guaranteed plan: Crash the economy, suck away most peoples’ savings accounts (their houses); and kick up unemployment to 10%.
New car sales plunge; the usual waves of two, three and four-year lease turn-ins are reduced to ripples; and former leasees and folks with crappy cars all find themselves in the used car marketplace. Demand: up/supply: down.
Cash for clunkers, my arse.
thefncrow
@Cackalacka: You expect used car prices now to be in line with what they were 7 years ago? 7 years ago, we didn’t have a seriously depressed economy on our hands.
Such economic conditions naturally cause used car prices to increase (because people who would otherwise be purchasing new cars and making available used cars are deciding not to buy something new, or deciding to buy used, pushing up demand in the market). If your argument is “Show me where used car prices today match used car prices of 7 years ago or else Cash For Clunkers was a failure”, you don’t understand what the hell you’re talking about.
If you want to try to show that programs like C4C cause used car prices to rise, there should be plenty of data out there for you. The national program ran to completion, and several states run their own version of the program, which means there’s plenty of data to use to try to make that determination.
Cackalacka
@Shinobi:
Curiously, the article you cite does not discount the effects of cash for clunkers.
Lysana
Just realized I ought to be clear about one thing. The only reason I said this isn’t a good argument is one side is clearly failing to get any real evidence mustered. Kain’s brought a Nerf bat to a quarterstaff fight.
Shinobi
@Cackalacka: Well if you read that as saying “it is all because of cash for clunkers” you should be in journalism. (and that is not a complement) It turns out non anecdotal data sometimes has complicated explanations.
The article gives a number of reasons in addition to C4C that are driving up used car prices. It is not realistic to claim that one program is responsible for a 10% increase in used car prices. There obviously was an effect from C4C, but it is not the only thing driving up used car prices.
Cackalacka
@thefncrow:
Awesome, another tool screaming at me for data. Like I haven’t already ceded the anectdotal aspects of my claims, nor have I already posted links and numbers which bolster my case.
google.com my friend. Use it.
Anyway, maybe on everyone elses streets, cash for clunkers didn’t already tighten screws on the workers, maybe all the Expeditions on your street were replaced by Prius and Insights. Not mine.
You want to reward 3 failing business enterprises? You want to reward all the idiots out there who needed 4 tons of steel to commute fashionably?
Great, have at it.
Just don’t pretend it is a wise, equitable, progressive idea, and don’t play stupid when someone points out that taking 3/4 of a million functional automobiles away from future customers doesn’t distort the marketplace.
Church Lady
Why does John Cole hate poor people that can only afford a used car?
Church Lady
Why does John Cole hate poor people that can only afford a used car?
Remember November
@Schad:
There is a “F**k me, Ray Bradbury” youtube out there…
les
Since we’re purely vaporing on how c4c priced used cars out of the reach of folks who need them, I’ll offer one possible effect–cars that got clunkered were, disproportionately, fucking cars that nobody fucking wanted. And fucking cars that nobody fucking wants are the cheapest, because that’s how the magic hand of the market massages the ol’ prostate. So, c4c may have disproportionately removed used cars from the cheapest end of the inventory.
Or, we could look and see that the data being offered suggests no such effect, while the claimants from ED on offer anecdotes.
Cackalacka
@Shinobi:
You implied that the Edmunds article related the increases to the three reasons cited. I’m not a damn lit major, but re-reading your passive aggressive post, it is hard for me to reconsider that.
Forgive me for following up, reading your posted article, and continuing the dialogue in good faith.
Meanwhile, other folks are demanding charts and figures from me, and misquoting me for having the temerity of disagreeing with Cole’s premise, based on recent personal experience.
I’ve got a life to lead people, so I’m going to piss off.
bemused
My husband works at a car dealership. The owner and employees were all sweating while waiting to see if the owner would retain his 3 dealerships. The C4C program was a paperwork headache when it began but it did what it was supposed to from an owner/employee perspective..it brought customers in at a time when everyone was holding back buying cars and delaying repairs. It was a jump start.
If the car makers hadn’t been bailed out, the ripple effect on all supporting parts and other businesses would have been swift and dramatic. We can’t even imagine the number of people that would have been out of work from the dealerships to the supporting businesses.
John is absolutely right on all counts.
thefncrow
@Cackalacka: If you’re going to make a claim that Cash For Clunkers caused the price of used cars to rise, that’s on you to prove.
Anecdotal evidence does not do that. That’s the job of actual data.
If you’d like to withdraw your claim that C4C caused the price of used cars to rise, I’m open to hearing that from you. Otherwise, you need to back up your claim with data. Data which should be readily available, considering the national program and the state versions, like the Aircheck Texas program which has been running since at least 2007.
Your inability to prove your claims is not my problem.
rickstersherpa
Also, I would like to see the actual data on how C4C affected the used car market as oppose to a thought experiment. I suspect the biggest reason used cars have become scarce is that lots of people, like me (I have nice, relatively fuel efficient 1996 Honda Accord), have kept driving on their old cars rather than trade in for a new one. Even with C4C, new car sales in 2009-2010 is approximately 5 million less cars being sold now then in 2005 (it is also interesting to see that the recession in both cars and housing started in 2006 and then became deep enough to put the whole economy in a hole at the end of 2007. http://www.theautochannel.com/news/2007/01/04/032967.html (16 and 1/2 million cars sold in 2006 and almost 17 million in 2005) versus this in 2009 (and I believe we will be just above 11 million in 2010).
2009 sales of light vehicles (cars and light trucks) in the United States came in at the bottom end of the estimates. Americans bought only 10.4m units, the lowest level in 27 years, Reuters reports.
America actually lost some 4 million cars. The United States scrapped 14m autos while buying only slightly over 10m last year. Cars on the road dropped to 246m from a record high of 250m in 2008, says a report to be released on Wednesday by the Earth Policy Institute (EPI), cited by Reuters.
Shinobi
@Cackalacka: It did relate those three reasons, in addition to cash for clunkers, which is what I thought I claimed. I wanted to emphasize that things that were NOT cash for clunkers were contributing. Sorry if my language was unclear. (+4 dayquil)
rickstersherpa
In other words, the few hundred thousands (at most cars) destroyed by C4C was probably overwhelmed by the effect on supply of the huge drop in trade ins of used cars for new cars over the last 4 years. Correlation is not causation.
Cackalacka
@Shinobi:
No worries, my apologies for being a dick (to you, not to the other assholes who are demanding homework. “7 years”? When the hell did I say that, crow?)
For what it is worth, at the time I thought C4C was a great idea.
J.A.F. Rusty Shackleford
What was the name of the Scandinavian author who wrote a book about climate change a few years ago? His major theme was that whatever we did to prevent climate change would cost far too much and therefore we really shouldn’t do anything more than learn to adapt to our warmer, wetter world.
numbskull
@Cackalacka:
I don’t think that the denominator here is new car sales. The denominator is the total pool of used cars that were on offer right after C4C and since. I think the idea is to try to determine how much of an impact taking the particular vehicles, the C4C vehicles let’s call them, off the road actually had and or continues to have on the availability of used cars overall. Remember, a lot of these vehicles would not have been put up for sale; they were “traded in” because of the nature of the program. Not all of the cars taken in the C4C program would have been put on the market by their owners. I don’t see how this can be figured out, but I’m happy to be convinced otherwise.
Second, and a much bigger gorilla in the room, is to come up with some way to control for the effect of a poor economy on used car market dynamics. Now, since the economy has not been as bad as it is since the Great Depression, back when the car market was completely different, I don’t see how there is a way to figure this out, either. But again, I’m happy to be convinced otherwise.
thefncrow
@Cackalacka: To be fair, that’s a mistake on my part. I guess when reading it, I somehow read “2” as “7”.
However, 2 years ago was still before the bottom fell out on the economy, so I still stand by my general argument.
les
Bureau of transportation statistics, 2008: used vehicle sales, 36,530,000; average price, $7,986. Yeah, I’m pretty sure that 700,000 vehicles (1.9%) out of the market at an average around $4,000. just distorted the shit out of used car prices.
Hugin & Munin
Cackalacka: Lazy and foolish is no way to go through life, son.
shecky
C4C was a pretty lame idea because emissions control is better done by implementing stricter standards on all existing cars. Also, the redistributive effects for customers were not based on need nearly enough, and were poorly aimed on the manufacturing end. Basically, we’re supporting too many people who didn’t need the welfare, or shouldn’t be getting the welfare, with the old credit card again.
thefncrow
@numbskull: You probably don’t have to try to figure out the impact of the depression to find if programs like this have an impact on used car prices.
Several states run C4C-esque programs, and did even before the federal C4C program. Texas has Aircheck Texas / Drive A Clean Machine, which is quite similar to C4C, which the state has been running since at least 2007.
You could look at the used car market in states without C4C-esque programs and compare them to the market in states with the programs. So long as you pick states that are similarly impacted by the national economic situation, you could use that to measure the impact of such programs.
WereBear
This discussion does bring up a good point: if we are going to get serious about conservation, there are many among us who need help.
Many people, knowing my conservation passion and Al Gore fangirl bent, expressed puzzlement that I did not get a hybrid. Well, I would have loved to. Who is going to give me the money? That’s twice as much as I paid for my Focus; which does get 31 mpg.
Despite the fact that our climate and geography offers ample reason to get an SUV, I decided a few grand more to get a smaller, more fuel efficient, and brand new car was better than getting a used SUV.
There should be a push for solar panels and other onsite solutions. But there should be help to let everyone in on it; homeowners, renters, and those people who never put siding on their house because they don’t want to pay the tax increase.
les
@shecky:
If C4C were the only program addressing emissions and emission control, you might have a point; although the point would be better stated, “hey, this isn’t enough.” Since that’s nowhere near the case, you might (as John C. has done pretty well) evaluate C4C on its purpose and intent, and whether it met them. Attacking a $3B narrowly targeted program on the grounds that it didn’t do everything needed for everyone who needs it is pretty weak sauce.
asiangrrlMN
More popcorn, please. This is getting good. And, for the record, I like having E.D. around, especially late at night when he can actually engage in the comment section. I think he has some solid ideas and some good arguments, and he some shitty ideas and arguments–like most of us. I also think Cole brought him on board to increase page hits, but whatevs. I’m just munching away and enjoying the family squabble.
cfaller96
I can’t believe I’m going to say this, but: I agree with John here. The whole point of C4C was to get low mileage cars off the road.
I don’t see any way you can “get low mileage cars off the road” without also “destroying” those cars and removing them from the US auto supply. I suppose Kain is arguing that C4C could have been done better if more attention had been paid to maintaining the supply of used cars, but A) precisely how would we do that, and B) given the political environment we’re living in, precisely how would the government implement it?
If we want to take some positive tangible steps towards dealing with GHGs, climate change, etc, then low mileage cars have to get off the road. Period. C4C did that, and did it well.
Tax Analyst
John Cole:
It’s really fun to see a good old-fashioned Cole-powered Engine working up a head of steam and firing on all cylinders.
FYI – The problem with both the 1978 and newer 2010 models of Atlas Shrugged is that they both run on Liberturdian fumes. The fumes from these highly gaseous elements are extremely lightweight and cannot hold together for more than brief, fleeting moments – they tend to just float away before they can generate any tangible combustion or spark, so while the Atlas may indeed shrug, it isn’t really capable of taking you anywhere.
If people remain in either Atlas long enough they may actually come to believe they are moving, but this is just an illusory sensation. This phenomenon is known as being in a “Galtered State”.
gex
@bemused: But we don’t have a single number we can point at repeatedly, such as TEN! PER! CENT! that can really drive the point home. You are explaining the complex web of the economy and how the stated goals of the program worked with respect to what you experienced.
Boo! I want a sound bite. “C4C! Ten percent!” makes for a great chant. I can see that misspelled on signs everywhere libertarians and fiscal conservatives gather to oppose this kind of wealth redistribution.
Like E.D., MattY, shecky, and the various incantations of the person who likes to blockquote his/her other personas, the complexity of the explanation just can’t get through. E.D. actually front page posted back, reasserting his point but going to the levels of book burning ridiculousness, all while admitting he doesn’t read the comments in response to his posts. Doesn’t that explain everything we need to know about fiscal conservatives/libertarians? Unfortunately they are also immune from being aware of this pattern.
I believe someone (Russell? Mencken?) once observed that conservatism is the philosophical pursuit to justify greed. Something like that. I’ve found little to disagree with in that observation.
gex
@rickstersherpa: Anecdotally, I took a used car from availability because someone totaled my car. In fact that was a three car accident, so I think three use cars were removed from the market. Think of the multiplier effects!
I can only conclude that the used car market is largely affected by car crashes. I refuse to point to any data that shows why crashes would be up, because I don’t have to. Prove that I’m wrong, but you need to do so while I categorically reject any argument you present.
When do I get my libertarian membership card?
gex
@shecky: Ah, so government should resume annual inspections of every car to make sure emissions standards are being met?
Tax Analyst
@Cackalacka:
Or perhaps YOU might care to give a “Google Search” a whirl or two. If you would just sacrifice 2 or 3 ill-tempered comments blaming C4C for pushing decent used cars out of your price range you might find the time to do a little quick research of actual data which might perhaps prove (or disprove) your point. This would also have the added benefit of allowing you to retire all those unsubstantiated anecdotal observations you’ve been ceding all over the place. If you planted all those cedes someplace with fertile soil, adequate sunlight and moisture you might come up with a yield that some of the folks here might be willing to buy.
Tim
@gex: I don’t know why this topic is inspiring the vitriol usually reserved for things like abortion.
But I don’t think its incumbent upon people to come up with data about what exact $ impact C4C had on the used car market when musing about whether C4C was good policy. This is something that can’t be determined, there are just too many variables. But it can’t seriously be disputed that C4C’s destruction of used cars had *some* impact on the used car market. It may have been very small. It may have had no measurable impact.
But anyway, questioning whether C4C was good policy does not automatically make someone a glibertarian asshole. Maybe somebody thought C4C sucked and they should have taken the $3B and bought a new Lexus for everyone driving a Chevy Nova or Impala, or they should have built light rail in Wasilla, or given every family in America a 12v golf cart, or something else that actually makes sense and creates desirable incentives. Maybe Erik’s example, solar energy credits. Those programs would not be libertarian in nature. Reasonable progressives/leftists/moderates/whatever should be able to disagree about whether a government program is wise policy. Saying a government program is a waste of money isn’t always the preface to an argument to extend the Bush tax cuts.
What would have been cool is if you could have used C4C to buy a used car, but with a qualifying clunker being really bad. That would allow the better used cars to trickle-down to lower income purchasers like Patrick’s assisted-care facility workers with really bad cars. (Oops, I said “trickle-down.” I guess I let my glibertarian slip). I appreciate that the benefit to Big 3 would have been less, although subsidizing used car purchases would help Big 3 to some extent by stimulating demand for cars (as any subsidy does) and tending to support new auto prices. That’s why unions support minimum wage increases, even though they aren’t making minimum wage, they benefit from the upward pressure on wages in the labor market.
gearfish
Used car costs always rise during economic downturns as fewer people buy new cars causing the limited supply of used cars…For Erik and Kuznicki to not mention that 5 million fewer new cars were sold last year speaks for itself. 690,000 clunkers were turned in….at best C4C is responsible for maybe 10% of the 5.5% increase in used car costs. So for a $5k used car you are talking about $25 bucks.
gex
@Tim: Fine. Please address the questions as to why libertarians are judging C4C on the basis of the effect on the used car market rather than the stated goals of the program? Not a one of you libertarian types addressed that other than to keep reiterating that “it did TOO have an impact on the used car market” or that the impact might be:
Then tell me how you get from no measurable impact to the “Fail” proclamation that started this debate. Time and again we point to how the libertarians fail to engage in the argument at hand. And thus some of us are pointing out how asinine the argument from that side is coming. I’m sorry if that offends.
Commence with your vehement arguments about the used car market being so affected by C4C that the program was a failure, even if those effects are immeasurable.
Also, please tell me how the government subsidizing the purchase of a used car wouldn’t also drive the prices of used cars up?
I give up.
Cackalacka
@gex:
I think my argument, removing nearly 3/4 a million used autos from a pool during a recession, and selectively offering rewards to folks that a) can already afford to buy new cars, and more importantly, b) rewards folks who chose inefficient energy-sucking fashion statements 10 years ago, is not a wise policy.
What next? We’ve got, what, 18 months of extra housing supply? Why don’t we offer folks who are underwater on their McMansions a $100,000 check to ‘downsize’ into a luxury penthouse? Then we can bulldoze the McMansion, and rebuild it with double-paned windows. After all, we’ll save $500 a year on energy.
For what it is worth, I’m certain that Ayn Rand and her followers are sociopaths, and I laughed my ass off on Cole’s last paragraph. I’m willing to challenge my assumptions and change my beliefs (as I had already on this issue.) That said, those of you wanting a PhD dissertation can sit and spin.