OK, forget the list that I put out on Tuesday (Lunatic Economics, indeed) - it turns out, as usual, the government is being deceptive, and the American people are smarter than their representatives, the media, and Bill Maher ("Just because a country elects a smart president doesn't make it a smart country") ever will be.
Seems as if the vehicles most purchased via the "frenzy" of the "Cash-for-Clunkers" program are not the Ford Focus, Toyota Corolla, Honda Civic, or the Toyota Prius. Seems as if the government doesn't know how to account for "trim levels", especially popular on pickups and SUVs.
For example, my Honda Pilot comes in six trim levels. If six people bough six Pilots, each in a different trim, the government would count it as one sale for each type of Pilot, and might even subdivide it further by 2WD and 4WD, thus skewering the sales totals and making them seem less popular, say, then a Focus or Civic. CNN Money reports:
The government's results showed small cars as the top choice for shoppers looking for Cash for Clunker deals. But an independent analysis by Edmunds.com disputed those results, and showed that two full-size trucks and a small crossover SUV were actually among the top-ten buys.
The discrepancy is a result of the methods used. Edmunds.com uses traditional sales measurements, tallying sales by make and model. The government uses a more arcane measurement method that subdivides models according to engine and transmission types, counting them as separate models.
...Sales of GM's Silverado truck, under the government's counting method, were divided among five different versions. So were the Ford F-150s. If the different versions of these trucks were considered the same vehicle, as auto sales are normally reported, sales of these trucks would look much heftier
So if you take all of the trim levels into account, here is the list of best selling vehicles under the now $3 billion "Cash for Clunkers" program:
1 - Ford Escape
2 - Ford Focus
3 - Jeep Patriot
4 -Dodge Caliber
5 - Ford F-150
6 -Honda Civic
7 -Chevrolet Silverado
8 -Chevrolet Cobalt
9 -Toyota Corolla
10- Ford Fusion
So four of the top seven vehicles under this program are either SUVs or pickup trucks! Oh, too funny...
Props to Ford, for being able to squeeze a whole line of products - from economy to 4WD trucks - into the top ten. And all without a taxpayer bailout.
Well, the "clunkers" program is a bailout - it reduces the price of new vehicles by $4,500 by using taxpayer dollars to cover the difference and rebate the automakers.
At least Ford isn't double-dipping. And we get to see yet another great liberal experiment blow up like a junior high-school chemistry experiment. Instead of the roads being flooded with shiny little hybrids, we get more kick-ass pickups and a few extra Jeeps and Escapes to boot, driven by smirking citizens who just know they took Nancy Pelosi and Henry Waxman for a ride....
Great job, Democrats. You've put the nation an extra $3 billion in the whole, and had your brilliant idea of a hybrid generation run over by Americans who were just a little bit smarter than you - as usual.
But I am sure that government will do a much better job with nationalized health care...
UPDATE: Oddly, CNN Money has posted - only twelve hours after the link above - another "top 10" list for the "Cash-for Clunkers" program, this one echoing earlier versions that do not account for various trim/drivetrain levels. Guess CNN has decidedto use the government's list, even though they know, and have written, that it is factually incorrect.
And they wonder why we don't believe a word they say...
UPDATE II: And a week later, the media finally gets on board...
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query cash for clunkers. Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query cash for clunkers. Sort by date Show all posts
Saturday, August 08, 2009
Thursday, October 01, 2009
Was Cash For Clunkers a Success? Ask a Saturn Dealer...
An entire 37 days after "Cash for Clunkers" ends, Saturn shuts down:
General Motors is closing its Saturn business, ending the once-ballyhooed effort to build "a different kind of car company," as the implosion of auto sales that started last year continues to ravage the industry.
The decision Wednesday to abandon Saturn came after negotiations broke down to sell the brand to Penske Automotive.
The setback follows a massive bailout effort in which the government sought to rescue the industry with aid for GM, Chrysler, suppliers and financing companies, as well as the "Cash for Clunkers" incentive program.
I owned (well, leased) two Saturns - inexpensive, fuel-efficient cars that never failed to start up (even during three frigid Chicago winters), and never needed to be brought in for repairs.
Exactly the type of car the president keeps telling us is all America needs, right? So much so that he invested over $50 billion in taxpayer dollars into GM, Saturn's parent company, and another $3 billion into this summer's "cash for clunkers" program.
So how'd that work out? Ask the 350 Saturn dealerships that will close shortly, and the 13,000 employees that are about to be added to the unemployment line. Remember that, when whatever unemployment figure that is released tomorrow is touted as an "improvement".
Unfortunately, if any of these unemployed workers should need a car, and wishes to buy a cheap used automobile, well, he's sh*t out of luck there too. Blame "Cash for Clunkers" again:
....since the start of this year, a combination of tight supplies of both new and used vehicles and higher demand from a frugal public have pushed average used-car prices to the highest levels in years, industry watchers say.
Not to brag, but I predicted this negative effect on poorer and younger drivers back in the beginning of August.
And for those Democrats who touted this deranged government handout as a benefit to the environment, well - here's some more spittle in Nancy Pelosi's eye:
What kinds of used vehicles are selling? All kinds, but particularly "gas guzzlers," says Katharine Kenny , vice president of investor relations for CarMax ...
What really bugs the hell out of me is this - couldn't Saturn have gone bankrupt all by itself, even without us investing billions of dollars into it? What an incredible waste of cash, and of the human capital expended to manufacture it.
But that's what happens in a government-run economy. Favorites get paid, good projects die on the vine, and politicians keep seizing and spending other's people money with no conception of the labor it takes to create it.
Lunatic economics. That's what you get when the inmates are running the asylum...
General Motors is closing its Saturn business, ending the once-ballyhooed effort to build "a different kind of car company," as the implosion of auto sales that started last year continues to ravage the industry.
The decision Wednesday to abandon Saturn came after negotiations broke down to sell the brand to Penske Automotive.
The setback follows a massive bailout effort in which the government sought to rescue the industry with aid for GM, Chrysler, suppliers and financing companies, as well as the "Cash for Clunkers" incentive program.
I owned (well, leased) two Saturns - inexpensive, fuel-efficient cars that never failed to start up (even during three frigid Chicago winters), and never needed to be brought in for repairs.
Exactly the type of car the president keeps telling us is all America needs, right? So much so that he invested over $50 billion in taxpayer dollars into GM, Saturn's parent company, and another $3 billion into this summer's "cash for clunkers" program.
So how'd that work out? Ask the 350 Saturn dealerships that will close shortly, and the 13,000 employees that are about to be added to the unemployment line. Remember that, when whatever unemployment figure that is released tomorrow is touted as an "improvement".
Unfortunately, if any of these unemployed workers should need a car, and wishes to buy a cheap used automobile, well, he's sh*t out of luck there too. Blame "Cash for Clunkers" again:
....since the start of this year, a combination of tight supplies of both new and used vehicles and higher demand from a frugal public have pushed average used-car prices to the highest levels in years, industry watchers say.
Not to brag, but I predicted this negative effect on poorer and younger drivers back in the beginning of August.
And for those Democrats who touted this deranged government handout as a benefit to the environment, well - here's some more spittle in Nancy Pelosi's eye:
What kinds of used vehicles are selling? All kinds, but particularly "gas guzzlers," says Katharine Kenny , vice president of investor relations for CarMax ...
What really bugs the hell out of me is this - couldn't Saturn have gone bankrupt all by itself, even without us investing billions of dollars into it? What an incredible waste of cash, and of the human capital expended to manufacture it.
But that's what happens in a government-run economy. Favorites get paid, good projects die on the vine, and politicians keep seizing and spending other's people money with no conception of the labor it takes to create it.
Lunatic economics. That's what you get when the inmates are running the asylum...
Tuesday, August 04, 2009
"Cash for Clunkers": Lunatic Economics
Another day, another Obama administration cover-up. This time, they don't want to talk about where the first $1 billion in their much-ballyhooed "cash for clunkers" program went. This, as they ask for $2 billion more:
The Obama administration is refusing to release government records on its "cash-for-clunkers" rebate program that would substantiate — or undercut — White House claims of the program's success, even as the president presses the Senate for a quick vote for $2 billion to boost car sales.
Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood said Sunday the government would release electronic records about the program, and President Barack Obama has pledged greater transparency for his administration. But the Transportation Department, which has collected details about 157,000 rebate requests, won't release sales data that dealers provided showing how much U.S. car manufacturers are benefiting from the $1 billion initially pumped into the program.
What are Lahood and Obama trying to hide? Maybe this little chart, that gives an idea of what vehicles were purchased under the program, in volume ordered . Good news: Lots of fuel-sippers. Bad news? Well, where do we begin?
1 - Ford Focus
2 -Toyota Corolla
3 - Honda Civic
4 -Toyota Prius
5 -Toyota Camry
6 - Ford Escape
7 - Hyundai Elantra
8 -Dodge Caliber
9 - Honda Fit
10 - Chevy Cobalt
For openers, six of the top ten are foreign cars. So much for government ownership of the auto companies. Even when they create another taxpayer-funded program to help American automotive move some product, they still wind up helping foreign car makers more. Maybe because - in many cases - they're the better vehicle?
Additionally, no one is looking at the toll this program takes on poorer and younger drivers. "Clunkers", whose main liability is fuel consumption as opposed to inability to operate, are being taken off the road, depriving the poor of lower-cost used vehicles, and making older vehicles harder and more expensive to maintain as parts literally disappear off the marketplace (these "clunkers" are being liquidated, literally). Does every new immigrant and post-college student have the credit to buy a new $20,000- (at least) car? Do they have the financial wherewithall to even make the payments ? How will they get around, unless the government now spends even more money on "public" transportation, assuming these folks have access to it?
Ah, spending. We printed up the first $1 billion for this program, now Baracky wants $2 billion more. Where will it come from? Is it to be printed up as well and simply added to the deficit, a deficit so large that no one wants to buy our IOU's anymore? And if that's what he wants - more taxpayer welfare for Government Motors - shouldn't we demand that the government open the books and be held accountable?
This is madness..."lunatic economics", indeed.
The Obama administration is refusing to release government records on its "cash-for-clunkers" rebate program that would substantiate — or undercut — White House claims of the program's success, even as the president presses the Senate for a quick vote for $2 billion to boost car sales.
Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood said Sunday the government would release electronic records about the program, and President Barack Obama has pledged greater transparency for his administration. But the Transportation Department, which has collected details about 157,000 rebate requests, won't release sales data that dealers provided showing how much U.S. car manufacturers are benefiting from the $1 billion initially pumped into the program.
What are Lahood and Obama trying to hide? Maybe this little chart, that gives an idea of what vehicles were purchased under the program, in volume ordered . Good news: Lots of fuel-sippers. Bad news? Well, where do we begin?
1 - Ford Focus
2 -Toyota Corolla
3 - Honda Civic
4 -Toyota Prius
5 -Toyota Camry
6 - Ford Escape
7 - Hyundai Elantra
8 -Dodge Caliber
9 - Honda Fit
10 - Chevy Cobalt
For openers, six of the top ten are foreign cars. So much for government ownership of the auto companies. Even when they create another taxpayer-funded program to help American automotive move some product, they still wind up helping foreign car makers more. Maybe because - in many cases - they're the better vehicle?
Additionally, no one is looking at the toll this program takes on poorer and younger drivers. "Clunkers", whose main liability is fuel consumption as opposed to inability to operate, are being taken off the road, depriving the poor of lower-cost used vehicles, and making older vehicles harder and more expensive to maintain as parts literally disappear off the marketplace (these "clunkers" are being liquidated, literally). Does every new immigrant and post-college student have the credit to buy a new $20,000- (at least) car? Do they have the financial wherewithall to even make the payments ? How will they get around, unless the government now spends even more money on "public" transportation, assuming these folks have access to it?
Ah, spending. We printed up the first $1 billion for this program, now Baracky wants $2 billion more. Where will it come from? Is it to be printed up as well and simply added to the deficit, a deficit so large that no one wants to buy our IOU's anymore? And if that's what he wants - more taxpayer welfare for Government Motors - shouldn't we demand that the government open the books and be held accountable?
This is madness..."lunatic economics", indeed.
Friday, June 10, 2011
"Cash For Clunkers" Comes Back To Haunt The Poor (And Middle Class)
Written in August 2009:
....no one is looking at the toll this program takes on poorer and younger drivers. "Clunkers", whose main liability is fuel consumption as opposed to inability to operate, are being taken off the road, depriving the poor of lower-cost used vehicles, and making older vehicles harder and more expensive to maintain as parts literally disappear off the marketplace (these "clunkers" are being liquidated, literally). Does every new immigrant and post-college student have the credit to buy a new $20,000- (at least) car? Do they have the financial wherewithall to even make the payments ? How will they get around, unless the government now spends even more money on "public" transportation, assuming these folks have access to it?
Alas, the prophecy has come to pass - MSNBC, yesterday:
Prices soar on the used car lot
When Debra Neel went to check out used Jeeps recently in Indianapolis, she left with a bad case of sticker shock.
"We were looking around $4,000 or $5,000 for a good used car for a teenager," but "you can't find them anymore," Neel said. That was readily confirmed by Bob Falcone, president of Falcone Volkswagen, Subaru & Saab in downtown Indianapolis.
Falcone said that a couple of years ago, Neel might have been able to get the 12-year-old Jeep she was considering at her $4,000 to $5,000 price point. The 2000 model on the lot, after all, has almost 90,000 miles on it and gets only 16 miles to the gallon.
Its price tag today: $13,900.
"It's unbelievable," Falcone acknowledged. He said the used car market is the strongest it has ever been in his 34 years in business.
....Dealers and automotive analysts say it's the same across the country. A variety of factors, including the nation's weak economic recovery, high gasoline prices and the March 11 earthquake and tsunami in Japan, have converged in recent weeks to send demand for used vehicles skyrocketing and supply plummeting, said Jeremy Anwyl, chief executive of Edmunds.com, which tracks new and used car prices.
Well, those are certainly good reasons. But remember, when Obama instituted Cash for Clunkers, he deemed that every "gas guzzler" turned in be destroyed, regardless of usablility (has any nation every intentionally destroyed that much capital?). Imagine if there were an extra 750,000 cars on the market right now. Regardless of earthquakes, floods, and whatever other excuses MSNBC is making, that much extra inventory on the lot would certainly have a very real downward effect on prices.
Instead, we have folks who want to buy cars that cannot afford to, because the Obama administration wantonly engaged in massive destruction of usable, resellable, American capital. How's that affecting the economy?
Economic illiteracy, or ideologically-driven centrally planned economics with the intent of reshaping society? Either way, Barack Obama and the Democrats would up hurting the very people they piously claim to care about the most.
And if I was able to figure this out two years ago, there is no excuse for the "smart economists" of the Obama administration for missing it. Unless, of course, it was by design - a society without freedom of movement can be much better controlled, after all....
Related: More fantastic results of the Cash for Clunkers initiative:
A study published after the program by researchers at the University of Delaware concluded that for each vehicle trade, the program had a net cost of approximately $2,000, with total costs outweighing all benefits by $1.4 billion. Another study by researchers at the University of Michigan found that the program improved the average fuel economy of all vehicles purchased by 0.6 mpg in July 2009 and by 0.7 mpg in August 2009...
....no one is looking at the toll this program takes on poorer and younger drivers. "Clunkers", whose main liability is fuel consumption as opposed to inability to operate, are being taken off the road, depriving the poor of lower-cost used vehicles, and making older vehicles harder and more expensive to maintain as parts literally disappear off the marketplace (these "clunkers" are being liquidated, literally). Does every new immigrant and post-college student have the credit to buy a new $20,000- (at least) car? Do they have the financial wherewithall to even make the payments ? How will they get around, unless the government now spends even more money on "public" transportation, assuming these folks have access to it?
Alas, the prophecy has come to pass - MSNBC, yesterday:
Prices soar on the used car lot
When Debra Neel went to check out used Jeeps recently in Indianapolis, she left with a bad case of sticker shock.
"We were looking around $4,000 or $5,000 for a good used car for a teenager," but "you can't find them anymore," Neel said. That was readily confirmed by Bob Falcone, president of Falcone Volkswagen, Subaru & Saab in downtown Indianapolis.
Falcone said that a couple of years ago, Neel might have been able to get the 12-year-old Jeep she was considering at her $4,000 to $5,000 price point. The 2000 model on the lot, after all, has almost 90,000 miles on it and gets only 16 miles to the gallon.
Its price tag today: $13,900.
"It's unbelievable," Falcone acknowledged. He said the used car market is the strongest it has ever been in his 34 years in business.
....Dealers and automotive analysts say it's the same across the country. A variety of factors, including the nation's weak economic recovery, high gasoline prices and the March 11 earthquake and tsunami in Japan, have converged in recent weeks to send demand for used vehicles skyrocketing and supply plummeting, said Jeremy Anwyl, chief executive of Edmunds.com, which tracks new and used car prices.
Well, those are certainly good reasons. But remember, when Obama instituted Cash for Clunkers, he deemed that every "gas guzzler" turned in be destroyed, regardless of usablility (has any nation every intentionally destroyed that much capital?). Imagine if there were an extra 750,000 cars on the market right now. Regardless of earthquakes, floods, and whatever other excuses MSNBC is making, that much extra inventory on the lot would certainly have a very real downward effect on prices.
Instead, we have folks who want to buy cars that cannot afford to, because the Obama administration wantonly engaged in massive destruction of usable, resellable, American capital. How's that affecting the economy?
...what Barack Obama has done to the ecoomy. Literally.
Economic illiteracy, or ideologically-driven centrally planned economics with the intent of reshaping society? Either way, Barack Obama and the Democrats would up hurting the very people they piously claim to care about the most.
And if I was able to figure this out two years ago, there is no excuse for the "smart economists" of the Obama administration for missing it. Unless, of course, it was by design - a society without freedom of movement can be much better controlled, after all....
Related: More fantastic results of the Cash for Clunkers initiative:
A study published after the program by researchers at the University of Delaware concluded that for each vehicle trade, the program had a net cost of approximately $2,000, with total costs outweighing all benefits by $1.4 billion. Another study by researchers at the University of Michigan found that the program improved the average fuel economy of all vehicles purchased by 0.6 mpg in July 2009 and by 0.7 mpg in August 2009...
Thursday, July 30, 2009
If ObamaCare works as well as "Cash For Clunkers"...
...then I'm gonna quite my job and go to mortuary school, because the corpses will pile up like cordwood.
[Note: Post updated at bottom and bumped @10:20 PM -edit.]
You think the government can run health care? They can't even figure out the used car business:
....dealers reported problems with the government's online system to get the transactions approved by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), which is running the program.
Scott Lambert, vice president of the Minnesota Auto Dealers Association, said he was "astounded" to learn at a meeting Tuesday representing about 150 Minnesota dealers that not one has had a deal approved.
"We had dealers representing 1,500 to 2,000 transactions," he said. "We asked how many had a deal approved yet, and not one hand went up."
Lambert said the government has created a program that's "so big and cumbersome that it can't find a way to accept anything. We're sending in good, reliable deals."
It's nerve-racking for the dealers, he said, because they have given the customer $4,500 and now the dealers need to be reimbursed.
So what happens when doctors aren't getting reimbursed, and decide to take cash-only? Or when you need emergency surgery, but are told it will take 4-6 weeks to get government approval?
But don't worry. I am sure the trillion-dollar health care industry, once managed by Barack Obama and pals, will be nowhere near as "big and cumbersome" as the one needed to run a mere $1 billion dollar used-car company....
Update: Well, gee, that was fast - a mere 12 hours later, and this finely-honed government-managed program has gone to sh*t:
The government plans to suspend its popular "cash for clunkers" program amid concerns it could quickly use up the $1 billion in rebates for new car purchases, congressional officials said Thursday.
A White House official said later that officials were assessing the situation facing the popular program but auto dealers and consumers should have confidence that transactions under the program that already have taken place would be honored
Gee, I feel safer already....
And talk about mismanagement:
A survey of 2,000 dealers by the National Automobile Dealers Association found about 25,000 deals had not yet been approved by NHTSA, or nearly 13 trades per store. It raised concerns that with about 23,000 dealers taking part in the program, auto dealers may already have surpassed the 250,000 vehicle sales funded by the $1 billion program.
"There's a significant backlog of 'cash for clunkers' deals that make us question how much funding is still available in the program," said Bailey Wood, a spokesman for the dealers association.
"Backlogs", and "questions of funding", huh? Bet we'll never hear those words applies to government-run heath care...right?
[Note: Post updated at bottom and bumped @10:20 PM -edit.]
You think the government can run health care? They can't even figure out the used car business:
....dealers reported problems with the government's online system to get the transactions approved by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), which is running the program.
Scott Lambert, vice president of the Minnesota Auto Dealers Association, said he was "astounded" to learn at a meeting Tuesday representing about 150 Minnesota dealers that not one has had a deal approved.
"We had dealers representing 1,500 to 2,000 transactions," he said. "We asked how many had a deal approved yet, and not one hand went up."
Lambert said the government has created a program that's "so big and cumbersome that it can't find a way to accept anything. We're sending in good, reliable deals."
It's nerve-racking for the dealers, he said, because they have given the customer $4,500 and now the dealers need to be reimbursed.
So what happens when doctors aren't getting reimbursed, and decide to take cash-only? Or when you need emergency surgery, but are told it will take 4-6 weeks to get government approval?
But don't worry. I am sure the trillion-dollar health care industry, once managed by Barack Obama and pals, will be nowhere near as "big and cumbersome" as the one needed to run a mere $1 billion dollar used-car company....
Update: Well, gee, that was fast - a mere 12 hours later, and this finely-honed government-managed program has gone to sh*t:
The government plans to suspend its popular "cash for clunkers" program amid concerns it could quickly use up the $1 billion in rebates for new car purchases, congressional officials said Thursday.
A White House official said later that officials were assessing the situation facing the popular program but auto dealers and consumers should have confidence that transactions under the program that already have taken place would be honored
Gee, I feel safer already....
And talk about mismanagement:
A survey of 2,000 dealers by the National Automobile Dealers Association found about 25,000 deals had not yet been approved by NHTSA, or nearly 13 trades per store. It raised concerns that with about 23,000 dealers taking part in the program, auto dealers may already have surpassed the 250,000 vehicle sales funded by the $1 billion program.
"There's a significant backlog of 'cash for clunkers' deals that make us question how much funding is still available in the program," said Bailey Wood, a spokesman for the dealers association.
"Backlogs", and "questions of funding", huh? Bet we'll never hear those words applies to government-run heath care...right?
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
Cash for Clunkers: The Scam Exposed !
Best ye learn this lesson well, my fellow subjects...what Obama giveth, Obama taketh away. And if you think you've gotten a great deal on your "clunker", well....you remember what mama told you about something being too good to be true?
'cause it's all about the taxes. The taxes. The taxes. To explain:
When you buy a new car you pay tax on the difference between the new car's purchase price and the trade-in you present to the dealer. This is an intentional distortion in the law that is intended to favor dealers over private-party used car sales; if you sell your used car privately the new buyer pays sales tax but you do not get the offset on the purchase of your replacement vehicle - the only way to get that is to trade the car.
Dealers use this, of course, in negotiations, effectively pocketing the sales tax - and why not? It's a real difference to you!
But the "cash for clunkers" is not a trade-in... [it's] a $4,500 check from the government...
And while Tony Soprano may set you up to earn a nice paycheck, well - you know what he expects from you at the end of the month: a nice, fat envelope, delivered with good cheer, full of kickback cash:
So you get nailed at least once and possibly twice. Specifically, you pay sales tax on the full vehicle price (effectively paying sales tax on the $4,500!) and what's worse those states that tax income (that would be most of them!) might wind up counting this as income for state income tax purposes too, effectively taxing you twice.
Oh, and the shakedown ain't over yet! Why, it's even caught on in the nation's heartland....Dispatch: South Dakota:
[Minnehaha County Treasurer Pam] Nelson adds that if you did recently purchase a vehicle, ensure your dealer gets you the paperwork in time because if they don't you could pay extra interest and penalties.
Scam-a-palozza! The taxpayer foot the bill for each $4500 clunker check, which is used to destroy cars that still have life/parts, which the dealers use to increase their profits from the buyer, who then has to pay tax once, maybe twice, and fork over penalty fees if he isn't snappy about it. And to reiterate the delicious irony of it all...his taxes paid for the $4500 rebate check in the first place!
Welcome to Obamaland!
Doug Ross has a few more thoughts:
Let's count the unintended consequences of the National Socialist Democrats' idiotic clunkers program:
- So many SUVs were purchased by consumers that even the mainstream media was forced to report that the Obama administration fudged the sales data
- Speaking of which, the program drove huge increases in sales of Japanese-made vehicles
- Best of all, consumers who used the program are going to get slammed with taxes they never anticipated!
Isn't a faceless, unaccountable, centralized government grand?
'cause it's all about the taxes. The taxes. The taxes. To explain:
When you buy a new car you pay tax on the difference between the new car's purchase price and the trade-in you present to the dealer. This is an intentional distortion in the law that is intended to favor dealers over private-party used car sales; if you sell your used car privately the new buyer pays sales tax but you do not get the offset on the purchase of your replacement vehicle - the only way to get that is to trade the car.
Dealers use this, of course, in negotiations, effectively pocketing the sales tax - and why not? It's a real difference to you!
But the "cash for clunkers" is not a trade-in... [it's] a $4,500 check from the government...
And while Tony Soprano may set you up to earn a nice paycheck, well - you know what he expects from you at the end of the month: a nice, fat envelope, delivered with good cheer, full of kickback cash:
So you get nailed at least once and possibly twice. Specifically, you pay sales tax on the full vehicle price (effectively paying sales tax on the $4,500!) and what's worse those states that tax income (that would be most of them!) might wind up counting this as income for state income tax purposes too, effectively taxing you twice.
Oh, and the shakedown ain't over yet! Why, it's even caught on in the nation's heartland....Dispatch: South Dakota:
[Minnehaha County Treasurer Pam] Nelson adds that if you did recently purchase a vehicle, ensure your dealer gets you the paperwork in time because if they don't you could pay extra interest and penalties.
Scam-a-palozza! The taxpayer foot the bill for each $4500 clunker check, which is used to destroy cars that still have life/parts, which the dealers use to increase their profits from the buyer, who then has to pay tax once, maybe twice, and fork over penalty fees if he isn't snappy about it. And to reiterate the delicious irony of it all...his taxes paid for the $4500 rebate check in the first place!
Welcome to Obamaland!
Doug Ross has a few more thoughts:
Let's count the unintended consequences of the National Socialist Democrats' idiotic clunkers program:
- So many SUVs were purchased by consumers that even the mainstream media was forced to report that the Obama administration fudged the sales data
- Speaking of which, the program drove huge increases in sales of Japanese-made vehicles
- Best of all, consumers who used the program are going to get slammed with taxes they never anticipated!
Isn't a faceless, unaccountable, centralized government grand?
Tuesday, November 29, 2011
"Black Friday Boom": The Media Pops Smoke...
...and lays down cover for the Democratic regime in Washington. Claims that "retailers can breathe a sigh of relief", due to a 6.6% increase in sales from Black Friday 2010, are nothing more than yet another attempt to lull us into a false sense of economic well-being, while we await the expression of surprise three months down the road when the actual sales figures for the holiday season turned out to be much more tepid than usual.
When the broader picture is examined, and trend lines are studies, things look a lot worse close up than they actually appear:
The headline number looks good. Retail sales in October were a record $397.7 billion, up from September, and up 7.2 percent from October 2010. But some of the biggest and most rapidly growing components of retailing include segments that we don't really think of as shopping. The biggest retail sector is cars and car parts, which account for about 18 percent of the total; they're up 10.1 percent so far this year. Food and beverage stores — i.e. groceries—constitute about 13.2 percent of sales, and they're up 5.6 percent through the first ten months. Gasoline stations alone account for 11.7 percent of total sales, and their sales are up 19 percent so far in 2011, thanks to higher gas prices.
For those looking for a safe place to park their money, how about investing in publicly-held car parts companies? With new car prices continuing to rise due to new environmental regulations, and a used car shortage (thanks, "cash for clunkers"!), folks have no choice to keep what they have running. Like in Cuba.
But if you add cars to food and gasoline, you'll see that America's spending is up - on the necessities of life. Not on new iPods, Kindles, and other expensive holiday paraphernalia. Which is, alas, no surprise to retailers:
But when you back those large segments out, you're left with the traditional bricks-and-mortar retailers, the crowd for whom the five-week period at the end of the year means everything.... these guys aren't having a great year. Their sales growth lags that of the entire retail sector. Clothing and sporting goods are doing okay, with sales gains of 5.9 percent and 6.1 percent, respectively, through the first ten months of the year. But so far in 2011, sales for the furniture and home furnishing sector are up just 1.2 percent, electronics and appliances stores are up .2 percent, and general merchandise is up just 3.5 percent. Within general merchandise stores, the department store category is actually down .8 percent. Keep in mind that all these numbers don't account for inflation.
If you factor out clothing - a necessity for most of us - and factor in inflation, retail is getting killed this year. None of which is mentioned in any of the "Black Friday" success stories being put out by the media. Furthermore, is the 6.6% increase in Black Friday sales an indicator of future increases for the holiday shopping season? Or are huge sales backed by saturation ad campaigns just moving demand up, resulting in much smaller increases (if any) from now till Yule?
A miserable 2011 Christmas for the economy is coming. You heard it here first. But don't worry, the media won't hear it at all, and neither will the resident, as he will most likely be enjoying yet another Christmas in Hawaii this year, while his subjects huddle for warmth...
When the broader picture is examined, and trend lines are studies, things look a lot worse close up than they actually appear:
The headline number looks good. Retail sales in October were a record $397.7 billion, up from September, and up 7.2 percent from October 2010. But some of the biggest and most rapidly growing components of retailing include segments that we don't really think of as shopping. The biggest retail sector is cars and car parts, which account for about 18 percent of the total; they're up 10.1 percent so far this year. Food and beverage stores — i.e. groceries—constitute about 13.2 percent of sales, and they're up 5.6 percent through the first ten months. Gasoline stations alone account for 11.7 percent of total sales, and their sales are up 19 percent so far in 2011, thanks to higher gas prices.
For those looking for a safe place to park their money, how about investing in publicly-held car parts companies? With new car prices continuing to rise due to new environmental regulations, and a used car shortage (thanks, "cash for clunkers"!), folks have no choice to keep what they have running. Like in Cuba.
But if you add cars to food and gasoline, you'll see that America's spending is up - on the necessities of life. Not on new iPods, Kindles, and other expensive holiday paraphernalia. Which is, alas, no surprise to retailers:
If you factor out clothing - a necessity for most of us - and factor in inflation, retail is getting killed this year. None of which is mentioned in any of the "Black Friday" success stories being put out by the media. Furthermore, is the 6.6% increase in Black Friday sales an indicator of future increases for the holiday shopping season? Or are huge sales backed by saturation ad campaigns just moving demand up, resulting in much smaller increases (if any) from now till Yule?
A miserable 2011 Christmas for the economy is coming. You heard it here first. But don't worry, the media won't hear it at all, and neither will the resident, as he will most likely be enjoying yet another Christmas in Hawaii this year, while his subjects huddle for warmth...
Saturday, January 31, 2009
"Destroying Detroit to Save Detroit"
With the left hand, the government pours billions upon billions of dollars of "aid" into Detroit's automakers, while with the right hand they create legislation that will bankrupt them like some kind of super-evil legislative smart-bomb. Rich Lowery calls it a "Love-Hate Affair":
A few months ago, GM and Chrysler got a federal lifeline in the form of $17.4 billion in loans, on grounds that their health is essential to the economy.
Now comes news that the Obama administration is acting quickly to approve a waiver for California to impose costly new restrictions on carbon-dioxide emissions from cars.
To combat global warming, California wants to mandate a 30 percent reduction in tailpipe emissions by 2016 and a fuel-efficiency standard of 49 miles per gallon by 2020. As many as 13 states will follow California's lead, creating a regulatory patchwork with automakers forced in practice to meet the higher standard.
Even California admits that the new strictures will add $1,000 to the cost of vehicles by 2016. (The carmakers estimate $3,000.) So, GM and Chrysler will struggle to shed labor and legacy costs - just to see new regulatory costs imposed on them by the very political authorities that are putting taxpayer dollars at risk to save them.
It's the rise of self-defeating industrial policy.....
Gateway Pundit finds this idiocy raised to the nth power in the Democratic-controlled Congress:
Democrats want to include a new car crushing plan in the "stimulus" bill where the government would buy new cars and trucks that obtain less than 18 mpg and crush them.
The so-called “Accelerated Retirement of Inefficient Vehicles Act” is "Cash for Clunkers" with a twist. Instead of focusing exclusively on old cars as is typical with scrappage programs, this bill will target any vehicle with lower fuel-economy ratings. Participants will receive a cash voucher to purchase a more fuel-efficient new car or used car (model year 2004 or later) or receive credit for the purchase of public transportation tickets. Under the legislation, “fuel efficient” means at least 25% better mileage than the CAFE standard. It will be illegal to resell the scrapped vehicles. Bill sponsors want to destroy 4 million pickups and SUVs over the next four years.
Vehicles targeted for the scrap pile will likely include Chevy Blazers, Silverados, S-10s and Tahoes; Dodge Dakotas and Rams; Ford Explorers and F-Series; Jeep Cherokees and Wranglers; and any other SUV or truck that obtains less than 18 mpg.
So much for the will of the American consumer, so much for choice, so much for the free market, so much for the used car business, so much for a morsel of common sense in American economic policy.
Incidentally - the Democrats will have to pry my Jeep out of my cold dead hands:
A few months ago, GM and Chrysler got a federal lifeline in the form of $17.4 billion in loans, on grounds that their health is essential to the economy.
Now comes news that the Obama administration is acting quickly to approve a waiver for California to impose costly new restrictions on carbon-dioxide emissions from cars.
To combat global warming, California wants to mandate a 30 percent reduction in tailpipe emissions by 2016 and a fuel-efficiency standard of 49 miles per gallon by 2020. As many as 13 states will follow California's lead, creating a regulatory patchwork with automakers forced in practice to meet the higher standard.
Even California admits that the new strictures will add $1,000 to the cost of vehicles by 2016. (The carmakers estimate $3,000.) So, GM and Chrysler will struggle to shed labor and legacy costs - just to see new regulatory costs imposed on them by the very political authorities that are putting taxpayer dollars at risk to save them.
It's the rise of self-defeating industrial policy.....
Gateway Pundit finds this idiocy raised to the nth power in the Democratic-controlled Congress:
Democrats want to include a new car crushing plan in the "stimulus" bill where the government would buy new cars and trucks that obtain less than 18 mpg and crush them.
The so-called “Accelerated Retirement of Inefficient Vehicles Act” is "Cash for Clunkers" with a twist. Instead of focusing exclusively on old cars as is typical with scrappage programs, this bill will target any vehicle with lower fuel-economy ratings. Participants will receive a cash voucher to purchase a more fuel-efficient new car or used car (model year 2004 or later) or receive credit for the purchase of public transportation tickets. Under the legislation, “fuel efficient” means at least 25% better mileage than the CAFE standard. It will be illegal to resell the scrapped vehicles. Bill sponsors want to destroy 4 million pickups and SUVs over the next four years.
Vehicles targeted for the scrap pile will likely include Chevy Blazers, Silverados, S-10s and Tahoes; Dodge Dakotas and Rams; Ford Explorers and F-Series; Jeep Cherokees and Wranglers; and any other SUV or truck that obtains less than 18 mpg.
So much for the will of the American consumer, so much for choice, so much for the free market, so much for the used car business, so much for a morsel of common sense in American economic policy.
Incidentally - the Democrats will have to pry my Jeep out of my cold dead hands:
Yeah, that's right, lefties. Make my f*ckin' day....Ah, I betcha just the sight of this little 17/19 MPG beast would make a liberal soil themselves and run screaming home for their wet nurse...
And could somebody please wake me when Baracky finally gets a clue?
Thursday, August 13, 2009
Barack Obama vs.The Economy: A Race To The Bottom!
Yeah, sure....the economy has "bottomed out", the recession is "just about over", etc., etc., etc....
Yeah...you're all full of sh*t:
Retail sales disappointed in July and the number of newly laid-off workers filing claims for unemployment benefits rose unexpectedly last week. The latest government reports reinforced concerns about how quickly consumers will be able to contribute to a broad economic recovery.
"There is really no positive spin to put on these numbers," Jennifer Lee, an economist with BMO Capital Markets, wrote in a research note. "The U.S. consumer remains very weak. The jobs situation, while slowly improving, is still dismal."
The Commerce Department said Thursday that retail sales fell 0.1 percent last month. Economists had expected a gain of 0.7 percent.
While autos, helped by the start of the Cash for Clunkers program, showed a 2.4 percent jump — the biggest in six months — there was widespread weakness elsewhere. Gasoline stations, department stores, electronics outlets and furniture stores all reported declines.
More:
The Labor Department said initial claims increased to a seasonally adjusted 558,000, from 554,000 the previous week. Analysts expected new claims to drop to 545,000, according to Thomson Reuters.
Seems to me things are even worse than we believe, or are being told. Look at comparable numbers from recent recessions:
Looking at the recessions of the post-war period, average monthly job losses ranged between 150,000 and 260,000. Average monthly losses in this recession are still at 350,000. For the first four months of the year, the average was at 648,000. . .
For the labor market to stabilize, job losses need to slow to 100,000 to 150,000 per month, and jobless claims need to fall to around 400,000.
We're a long, long way away from those numbers. And claims are still rising....
Well, Barack Obama thinks this is a swell time to pass legislation that will cause electricity bills to skyrocket, and to reform the heath care system of the United States in such a way that no one knows what the hell will happen, except that it is way more likely things will get worse for the average American rather than better. So this bit of news is no surprise either:
The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Thursday shows that 29% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Thirty-seven percent (37%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -8 ...
Overall, 47% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the President's performance. That’s the lowest level of total approval yet recorded. The President’s ratings first fell below 50% just a few weeks ago on July 25. Fifty-two percent (52%) now disapprove.
Even in Deep Blue Jersey, Obama is spinning towards mediocrity:
President Obama has a 56%-39% job approval rating in New Jersey, down from 61%-33% last month, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released today.
"For President Barack Obama, the bloom is fading in the Garden State as his approval rating wilts," said Maurice Carroll, director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute. "The President still is on the positive side when we ask about his overall job approval and his grades for handling the economy. But the trend - and that's what you always look at - is heading down."
Among independents voters, Obama has an upside-down 45%-48% approval rating.
Remember - no matter what the media tries to sell you - for both the President and the economy, the bottom is nowhere yet in sight.
Yeah...you're all full of sh*t:
Retail sales disappointed in July and the number of newly laid-off workers filing claims for unemployment benefits rose unexpectedly last week. The latest government reports reinforced concerns about how quickly consumers will be able to contribute to a broad economic recovery.
"There is really no positive spin to put on these numbers," Jennifer Lee, an economist with BMO Capital Markets, wrote in a research note. "The U.S. consumer remains very weak. The jobs situation, while slowly improving, is still dismal."
The Commerce Department said Thursday that retail sales fell 0.1 percent last month. Economists had expected a gain of 0.7 percent.
While autos, helped by the start of the Cash for Clunkers program, showed a 2.4 percent jump — the biggest in six months — there was widespread weakness elsewhere. Gasoline stations, department stores, electronics outlets and furniture stores all reported declines.
More:
The Labor Department said initial claims increased to a seasonally adjusted 558,000, from 554,000 the previous week. Analysts expected new claims to drop to 545,000, according to Thomson Reuters.
Seems to me things are even worse than we believe, or are being told. Look at comparable numbers from recent recessions:
Looking at the recessions of the post-war period, average monthly job losses ranged between 150,000 and 260,000. Average monthly losses in this recession are still at 350,000. For the first four months of the year, the average was at 648,000. . .
For the labor market to stabilize, job losses need to slow to 100,000 to 150,000 per month, and jobless claims need to fall to around 400,000.
We're a long, long way away from those numbers. And claims are still rising....
Well, Barack Obama thinks this is a swell time to pass legislation that will cause electricity bills to skyrocket, and to reform the heath care system of the United States in such a way that no one knows what the hell will happen, except that it is way more likely things will get worse for the average American rather than better. So this bit of news is no surprise either:
The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Thursday shows that 29% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Thirty-seven percent (37%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -8 ...
Overall, 47% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the President's performance. That’s the lowest level of total approval yet recorded. The President’s ratings first fell below 50% just a few weeks ago on July 25. Fifty-two percent (52%) now disapprove.
Even in Deep Blue Jersey, Obama is spinning towards mediocrity:
President Obama has a 56%-39% job approval rating in New Jersey, down from 61%-33% last month, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released today.
"For President Barack Obama, the bloom is fading in the Garden State as his approval rating wilts," said Maurice Carroll, director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute. "The President still is on the positive side when we ask about his overall job approval and his grades for handling the economy. But the trend - and that's what you always look at - is heading down."
Among independents voters, Obama has an upside-down 45%-48% approval rating.
Remember - no matter what the media tries to sell you - for both the President and the economy, the bottom is nowhere yet in sight.
Thursday, July 29, 2010
Get Ready To Pay For Your Neighbor's Chevy Volt!
Ah, "Government Motors" in action. Or should I say, socialism in action, in all of its facets. The unveiling of the Chevy Volt, and it's price tag, is a textbooks study in why socialism is an economic clusterf*ck.
First, the price:
The president has bludgeoned state-owned GM to put out a plug-in hybrid vehicle that is, according to the Post, more than twice as expensive as a comparable gasoline-driven car...
Sticker price: $41,000. [Average American's] Per capita income: $39,138.
It is consumer demand and competition that brings down the price of goods and makes them affordable to everybody. When government dictates demand, you get a high-Volt sticker shock....
Who's gonna pay that? Why, you will, of course, whether you own one or not:
To entice motorists to buy these untested contraptions, the government will give each one a $7,500 subsidy, and another grand if they install their own charger at home (apartment owners of course, are out of luck, and get to subsidize homeowners with this one). President Obama wants a million electric cars on the road by 2015, and since vast cost-saving advances are unlikely to occur so quickly, it’s safe to assume the subsidy would remain, sucking only $8.5 billion dollars out of taxpayers coffers to subsidize people willing to buy a more expensive car than they actually need.
Yes, your tax dollars will pay for your neighbor's car. It's called "spreading the wealth". And since - like cash for clunkers - there will be many unwilling to resist a handout, we'll likely need more money that has been set aside. Not to mention the cost of charging them:
IBM’s vice president for energy and utilities, Allan Schurr, estimates that 80 percent of vehicles aren’t parked in the garage of the person who owns them, which means there are going to have to be a lot of public charging stations built at taxpayer expense.
Do you want to know why consumers will never buy the Volt unless either bribed to do so by your dollars or forced to do so by government compulsion? Check it out:
Lets do some math:
Chevy Volt: $41,000 (True Cost)
Honda Civic: $20,000 (Average build)
Difference: $21,000
Gas: $2.45/gal (in Oklahoma City)
The difference in price would buy 8,571.43 gallons of gas.
The Civic gets an average of 29 miles to the gallon. That’s 248,581.47 miles on the price difference.
Assuming the average driver drives 12,000 miles a year, AND you only drive the Volt on the 40 mile range of it’s battery, using no gas, you’d have to own the Volt for 20.7 years to justify the price difference in gas savings.
How long’s that warranty again?
I did a similar comparison a while back, comparing hybrid vehicles with their gasoline-only equivalent:
Ford Escape (standard) 22 MPG City/28 MPG Highway MSRP $20,435-
Ford Escape (hybrid) 34 MPG City/31 MPG Highway MSRP $29,645-
Lets go with a baseline figure of 12,000 miles a year (1K/month, like a standard lease) to figure out the "savings". And we'll will take the higher spread of City miles (12 MPG better w/hybrid) to do the math.
12000 miles at 22 MPG = 545 gallons consumed/year
12000 miles at 31 MPG = 353 gallons consumed/
Hybrid advantage - 192 gallons less/year
Great! So how much do we save? Gas in New Jersey is now $1.81 for 87 octane, let's use $2- as a figure here. How much money to we save a year using a hybrid?
192 x 2 = $384 saved
And the time it would take to recoup the extra $9,000 you spent to get a hybrid?
$384/$9,000 = 23 years
Let's assume the price of gas goes up to $3-/gallon, a 50% increase from today:
192 x 3 =$576 saved
$576/$9,000 = 15-16 years
...speaking of ideological product, there is one way you can make the initial cost of hybrids more appealing - by taxing the sh*t out of gasoline:
192 x $6 = $1,152- saved/yr
$1,152/$9000 = 7.5 years.
Another added bonus: Should gasoline usage actually decline due to extensive hybrid/electric car use, and tax revenue from per-gallon pump sales decline, you can bet your gas on getting socked with a per-mile tax...
So stand back and watch as your neighbor gets out of his previously defaulted house - mortgage covered by taxpayers - and into his brand-new Chevy Volt - paid for in part by you.
So, Hope and Changers - how's that socialism working out for you?
First, the price:
The president has bludgeoned state-owned GM to put out a plug-in hybrid vehicle that is, according to the Post, more than twice as expensive as a comparable gasoline-driven car...
Sticker price: $41,000. [Average American's] Per capita income: $39,138.
It is consumer demand and competition that brings down the price of goods and makes them affordable to everybody. When government dictates demand, you get a high-Volt sticker shock....
Who's gonna pay that? Why, you will, of course, whether you own one or not:
To entice motorists to buy these untested contraptions, the government will give each one a $7,500 subsidy, and another grand if they install their own charger at home (apartment owners of course, are out of luck, and get to subsidize homeowners with this one). President Obama wants a million electric cars on the road by 2015, and since vast cost-saving advances are unlikely to occur so quickly, it’s safe to assume the subsidy would remain, sucking only $8.5 billion dollars out of taxpayers coffers to subsidize people willing to buy a more expensive car than they actually need.
Yes, your tax dollars will pay for your neighbor's car. It's called "spreading the wealth". And since - like cash for clunkers - there will be many unwilling to resist a handout, we'll likely need more money that has been set aside. Not to mention the cost of charging them:
IBM’s vice president for energy and utilities, Allan Schurr, estimates that 80 percent of vehicles aren’t parked in the garage of the person who owns them, which means there are going to have to be a lot of public charging stations built at taxpayer expense.
Do you want to know why consumers will never buy the Volt unless either bribed to do so by your dollars or forced to do so by government compulsion? Check it out:
Lets do some math:
Chevy Volt: $41,000 (True Cost)
Honda Civic: $20,000 (Average build)
Difference: $21,000
Gas: $2.45/gal (in Oklahoma City)
The difference in price would buy 8,571.43 gallons of gas.
The Civic gets an average of 29 miles to the gallon. That’s 248,581.47 miles on the price difference.
Assuming the average driver drives 12,000 miles a year, AND you only drive the Volt on the 40 mile range of it’s battery, using no gas, you’d have to own the Volt for 20.7 years to justify the price difference in gas savings.
How long’s that warranty again?
I did a similar comparison a while back, comparing hybrid vehicles with their gasoline-only equivalent:
Ford Escape (standard) 22 MPG City/28 MPG Highway MSRP $20,435-
Ford Escape (hybrid) 34 MPG City/31 MPG Highway MSRP $29,645-
Lets go with a baseline figure of 12,000 miles a year (1K/month, like a standard lease) to figure out the "savings". And we'll will take the higher spread of City miles (12 MPG better w/hybrid) to do the math.
12000 miles at 22 MPG = 545 gallons consumed/year
12000 miles at 31 MPG = 353 gallons consumed/
Hybrid advantage - 192 gallons less/year
Great! So how much do we save? Gas in New Jersey is now $1.81 for 87 octane, let's use $2- as a figure here. How much money to we save a year using a hybrid?
192 x 2 = $384 saved
And the time it would take to recoup the extra $9,000 you spent to get a hybrid?
$384/$9,000 = 23 years
Let's assume the price of gas goes up to $3-/gallon, a 50% increase from today:
192 x 3 =$576 saved
$576/$9,000 = 15-16 years
...speaking of ideological product, there is one way you can make the initial cost of hybrids more appealing - by taxing the sh*t out of gasoline:
192 x $6 = $1,152- saved/yr
$1,152/$9000 = 7.5 years.
Another added bonus: Should gasoline usage actually decline due to extensive hybrid/electric car use, and tax revenue from per-gallon pump sales decline, you can bet your gas on getting socked with a per-mile tax...
So stand back and watch as your neighbor gets out of his previously defaulted house - mortgage covered by taxpayers - and into his brand-new Chevy Volt - paid for in part by you.
So, Hope and Changers - how's that socialism working out for you?
Monday, January 25, 2010
LaHood Laughingstock of Detroit Auto Show
Obama's Transportation Secretary Ray Lahood forgot the golden rule ('tis better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt) while making a stop at the Detroit Auto Show last week.
Yes, Nancy Pelosi was there as well, shilling for the auto companies she purchased with your money. But it was LaHood's ignorance about the products and prospects of these companies that leads one to believe that maybe - just maybe - being owned and operated by DC politicians is not the panacea we were lead to believe...
The bonfire of the inanities:
The transportation secretary based his remarks, he said, on a visit he made to Detroit last fall when he spent “half a day” at each of the domestic automakers’ headquarters.
So he is an expert in automotives based on spending, you know, a few hours in each division's corporate headquarters. Normally it takes years of top-to-bottom work to have a good understanding of an industry's capabilities and liabilities; thank god we have men as bright as LaHood who can save the nation years of its time....
The smiles broadened when he referred to “new products” from Chrysler. Even people outside the auto industry know that Chrysler’s quiver is empty.
That was just too much for one reporter, who challenged the cabinet member:
In your opening remarks you mentioned new products by Chrysler, could you expand upon that?
LaHood’s reply:
Well, you know what? I’ll let Chrysler do that and I think as you all get around this massive showroom you’ll see what I mean, but they’re on the cutting edge of developing the kind of products that I think people in this country and also in other countries are really gonna feel very favorable towards.
But:
Walk around Chrysler’s display on the show floor upstairs in Cobo Hall, and you will see exactly zero new products.
There was a Lancia rebadged as a Chrysler concept (dubbed “Guido” by the auto blogosphere), and a couple of cute little Fiat 500s to show that Chrysler was now under Fiat’s wing, but nothing at the Chrysler stand could be described as “new.” Chrysler did display a number of new trim and feature packages on its now aging stable of cars.
Maybe the die-cut decals are what LaHood meant by “cutting edge.”
More cluelessness from Lahood and Pelosi on "green vehicles":
In his remarks, Secretary LaHood referred to “the kind of green car that Americans are looking for.” Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Hoyer also stressed how government financial aid is helping the domestic automakers move to hybrids and electric vehicles, vehicles Pelosi and Hoyer claimed that consumers want.
The problem is that while hybrid sales in the U.S. indeed went up in 2009 as the overall market was flat or declining, they still represent less than 3% of light vehicles leased and sold in the U.S. Between LaHood’s praise for Chryslers “new” products and Pelosi’s fantasy that 3% of the market represents what consumers want, it appears that the people running our government know nothing about a major industry that employs, ultimately, one in twelve Americans.
Yup, exactly as I feared. Hybrids are great for the city driver; the suburban driver - which is most of them - needs something a bit meatier. That's why the biggest winner of the misguided "cash-for-clunkers" campaign was the Ford F150, and it's why SUVs are making a comeback in a big way. Yet the Obama administration insists on building cars that they want us to drive, and not what we want to drive.
It's part of the Obama administration's war on the suburbs, of course - the administration is filled with "smart planners" who want to yank your SUV and force you to move back into the city, where you will be pushed onto public transportation and your children into public schools, like it or not.
That's bad enough, but fortunately not too likely. What is likely is a second crash of the car companies due to management that believes that every single right-thinking American should want what they want, which is your ass planted in a tiny hybrid. When hybrid sales peak at 5%, and consumers turn to foreign automakers for SUVs, what then?
Laws restricting SUV usage; with special permits allowed as permitted by DC bureaucrats? Another huge taxpayer bailout? Or the collapse and free-market restructuring of the American automotive industry, which perhaps should have been allowed to occur a good $100 billion dollars ago...
Regardless, with Pelosi and Lahood sharing the wheel, you just know this car is heading right off the freakin' cliff....
Yes, Nancy Pelosi was there as well, shilling for the auto companies she purchased with your money. But it was LaHood's ignorance about the products and prospects of these companies that leads one to believe that maybe - just maybe - being owned and operated by DC politicians is not the panacea we were lead to believe...
The bonfire of the inanities:
The transportation secretary based his remarks, he said, on a visit he made to Detroit last fall when he spent “half a day” at each of the domestic automakers’ headquarters.
So he is an expert in automotives based on spending, you know, a few hours in each division's corporate headquarters. Normally it takes years of top-to-bottom work to have a good understanding of an industry's capabilities and liabilities; thank god we have men as bright as LaHood who can save the nation years of its time....
The smiles broadened when he referred to “new products” from Chrysler. Even people outside the auto industry know that Chrysler’s quiver is empty.
That was just too much for one reporter, who challenged the cabinet member:
In your opening remarks you mentioned new products by Chrysler, could you expand upon that?
LaHood’s reply:
Well, you know what? I’ll let Chrysler do that and I think as you all get around this massive showroom you’ll see what I mean, but they’re on the cutting edge of developing the kind of products that I think people in this country and also in other countries are really gonna feel very favorable towards.
But:
Walk around Chrysler’s display on the show floor upstairs in Cobo Hall, and you will see exactly zero new products.
There was a Lancia rebadged as a Chrysler concept (dubbed “Guido” by the auto blogosphere), and a couple of cute little Fiat 500s to show that Chrysler was now under Fiat’s wing, but nothing at the Chrysler stand could be described as “new.” Chrysler did display a number of new trim and feature packages on its now aging stable of cars.
Maybe the die-cut decals are what LaHood meant by “cutting edge.”
More cluelessness from Lahood and Pelosi on "green vehicles":
In his remarks, Secretary LaHood referred to “the kind of green car that Americans are looking for.” Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Hoyer also stressed how government financial aid is helping the domestic automakers move to hybrids and electric vehicles, vehicles Pelosi and Hoyer claimed that consumers want.
The problem is that while hybrid sales in the U.S. indeed went up in 2009 as the overall market was flat or declining, they still represent less than 3% of light vehicles leased and sold in the U.S. Between LaHood’s praise for Chryslers “new” products and Pelosi’s fantasy that 3% of the market represents what consumers want, it appears that the people running our government know nothing about a major industry that employs, ultimately, one in twelve Americans.
Yup, exactly as I feared. Hybrids are great for the city driver; the suburban driver - which is most of them - needs something a bit meatier. That's why the biggest winner of the misguided "cash-for-clunkers" campaign was the Ford F150, and it's why SUVs are making a comeback in a big way. Yet the Obama administration insists on building cars that they want us to drive, and not what we want to drive.
It's part of the Obama administration's war on the suburbs, of course - the administration is filled with "smart planners" who want to yank your SUV and force you to move back into the city, where you will be pushed onto public transportation and your children into public schools, like it or not.
That's bad enough, but fortunately not too likely. What is likely is a second crash of the car companies due to management that believes that every single right-thinking American should want what they want, which is your ass planted in a tiny hybrid. When hybrid sales peak at 5%, and consumers turn to foreign automakers for SUVs, what then?
Laws restricting SUV usage; with special permits allowed as permitted by DC bureaucrats? Another huge taxpayer bailout? Or the collapse and free-market restructuring of the American automotive industry, which perhaps should have been allowed to occur a good $100 billion dollars ago...
Regardless, with Pelosi and Lahood sharing the wheel, you just know this car is heading right off the freakin' cliff....
Monday, August 29, 2011
Meet Alan Krueger: Another Obama Appointee, Another Economic Illiterate...
President Obama spoke (sigh) today on the nation's economic morass and gave his typically intellectually meager thoughts on pulling us out:
That challenge, the president said, encompasses the need to create a climate in which “more businesses can post job listings,” “folks can find work to relieve the financial challenge they’re feeling” and “families can regain a sense of economic security in their lives.”
“That’s our urgent mission and that’s what I’m fighting for every single day,” he said. “That’s why today I’m very pleased to nominate Alan Krueger to chair the Council of Economic Advisors.”
Stunning incoherent? Oh, you betcha. But somehow this is even worse than it sounds. Mr. Krueger is a big fan of the VAT:
In the long run, a 5 percent consumption tax would raise approximately $500 billion a year, and fill a considerable hole in the budget outlook. In addition, a consumption tax would encourage more saving in the long run. Many economists consider a consumption tax an efficient way of raising tax revenue, especially in a global economy....
The main downside of this proposal is that taxes reduce economic activity. But the government must make critical trade-offs, and a consumption tax could be the most efficient means to raise revenue to finance essential government functions.
Another downside is that a consumption tax is a greater burden for the poor, who spend a relatively high share of their income. But this can be compensated by exempting essential items, like rent and nutritious, or by providing a rebate to low-income households.
Got it? The functions of the government are "essential", but those of your family are not. And as for the poor, who pay no taxes anyway, well - heaven forfend they kick in anything at all, so we'll just have to give them even more of your money to help assuage our guilt.
Krueger also beleives increases in the minimum wage don't depress employment. Others - even New York Times op-ed liberals - would disagree. So do other, equally credentialed, economists. Krueger was also one of the great minds behind "Cash for Clunkers", an economic fail that has hit the poor and middle class the hardest of all.
So expect Obama's new "economic plan" (or is it a speech?) to contain more of the same old sh*t that contributed to the epic fail that is the 2011 American economy. And as far as Alan Krueger's smarts, well, don't tell me he's a bigwig at Princeton. That only serves to remind me of a certain episode of the Simpsons: Brother From Another Series, in which Sideshow Bob confronts his brother with an accusation of professional jealousy:
Cecil opines that one gets more respect as a civil servant than as a homicidal maniac. "Or a clown's sidekick." Bob believes this confirms his theory: Cecil still resents the fact that Krusty chose Bob, not him, as his sidekick years before.
Bob: You wanted to be Krusty's sidekick since you were five! What about the buffoon lessons, the four years at clown college?
Cecil: I'll thank you not to refer to Princeton that way....
That challenge, the president said, encompasses the need to create a climate in which “more businesses can post job listings,” “folks can find work to relieve the financial challenge they’re feeling” and “families can regain a sense of economic security in their lives.”
“That’s our urgent mission and that’s what I’m fighting for every single day,” he said. “That’s why today I’m very pleased to nominate Alan Krueger to chair the Council of Economic Advisors.”
Stunning incoherent? Oh, you betcha. But somehow this is even worse than it sounds. Mr. Krueger is a big fan of the VAT:
In the long run, a 5 percent consumption tax would raise approximately $500 billion a year, and fill a considerable hole in the budget outlook. In addition, a consumption tax would encourage more saving in the long run. Many economists consider a consumption tax an efficient way of raising tax revenue, especially in a global economy....
The main downside of this proposal is that taxes reduce economic activity. But the government must make critical trade-offs, and a consumption tax could be the most efficient means to raise revenue to finance essential government functions.
Another downside is that a consumption tax is a greater burden for the poor, who spend a relatively high share of their income. But this can be compensated by exempting essential items, like rent and nutritious, or by providing a rebate to low-income households.
Got it? The functions of the government are "essential", but those of your family are not. And as for the poor, who pay no taxes anyway, well - heaven forfend they kick in anything at all, so we'll just have to give them even more of your money to help assuage our guilt.
Krueger also beleives increases in the minimum wage don't depress employment. Others - even New York Times op-ed liberals - would disagree. So do other, equally credentialed, economists. Krueger was also one of the great minds behind "Cash for Clunkers", an economic fail that has hit the poor and middle class the hardest of all.
So expect Obama's new "economic plan" (or is it a speech?) to contain more of the same old sh*t that contributed to the epic fail that is the 2011 American economy. And as far as Alan Krueger's smarts, well, don't tell me he's a bigwig at Princeton. That only serves to remind me of a certain episode of the Simpsons: Brother From Another Series, in which Sideshow Bob confronts his brother with an accusation of professional jealousy:
Bob: You wanted to be Krusty's sidekick since you were five! What about the buffoon lessons, the four years at clown college?
Cecil: I'll thank you not to refer to Princeton that way....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)