|
|
|
May 05, 2009
Obama Plan To Raise Used Car Prices
The Obama Administration has another plan to screw poor people. He is working with Congress to drive the poorest people out of the used car market. The plan is called Cash For Clunkers. Committee members emerged from the meeting Tuesday claiming a modest victory. They said they agreed to embrace a "cash for clunkers" plan that would provide $3500 or $4500 to people who replace old, low-efficiency cars with new, more fuel-efficient models.Brilliant. What will happen? People in the market for a new car will buy a $1,000 (or cheaper) running used car to sell to the government and the government will give them $3,500 or $4,500 for their junker. This will help clear the used car market of the very lowest price cars and it will help raise the price of all used cars. It effectively puts a floor of $3,500 (or more - depending on the "generosity" of Congress) an the price of a used car. The $500 and $1,000 used cars will be vacuumed from the market. So what is the point of raising used car prices for everyone and especially the poorest of the poor? I think it is rather obvious. The Democrats hate poor people and love inflation. Cross Posted at Power and Control posted by Simon on 05.05.09 at 08:17 PM
Comments
As they say, "The road to hell is paved with good intentions." At least, I'd like to think the Obama administration has good intentions, although the evidence to the contrary is increasing. I live in Iowa, and I know that many of the more rural residents 1) need to drive (sometimes long distances) to get to work, and 2) can't afford to spend $3500 on a used car to do so. Do they really have no idea what this policy will do to people who can only afford a $1000 car (or less)? Are they even aware that these people exist and have the need to drive? John S. · May 6, 2009 11:59 AM John S: I honestly don't think so. I get the impression that most of the people making these decisions have never lived in rural areas and are reasoning about problems as if everyone lived in Chicago or NY City.
Nate · May 6, 2009 01:32 PM That's what I don't get either, I see plenty of cars around Chicago that are worth about $1k, especially more depending on the area of the city. Obama lived here didn't he? It's like he has no conception that poor people would like to drive too. My car is worth under $3k, if this happens when I get a new car I won't trade it in I'll just give it to the government and use the check towards the new car. Then someone that could use it doesn't get it. OR, instead of driving it into the ground which was probably what I would do, I can say "hey I'm gonna get a lot more than it's worth maybe I'll get a new car", buying a new car a few years earlier than I otherwise would adds up to a lot more pollution via the extra manufacturing than is saved by not driving that old car those few years. plutosdad · May 6, 2009 03:11 PM I am not so sure this will hurt the poor most. A poor person with a nearly worthless care will find it will now bring few thousand $. It can go either way. The law of unintended consequences is hard to evade. The one certain outcome is fraud. Ways to scam the program will be found. K · May 6, 2009 05:16 PM John S: They won't need cars in rural Iowa once they build out the public transportation system. They'll just go to their local subway station and hop on the train! Yeah...that's what they'll do...just get..on...the SUBWAY! Bwuh-ha-ha-ha-ha!!! Oh, sometimes I just crack me up! DCE · May 7, 2009 07:57 AM A poor person with a nearly worthless care will find it will now bring few thousand $. And it will be replaced by an auto costing a few hundred leading to a net profit (at taxpayers expense)? How? This only benefits the poor if junker A goes up in price and junkers B, C, and D prices remain the same. If junkers A, B, C, and D all go up in price where is the replacement going to come from? M. Simon · May 7, 2009 03:12 PM DCE: You assume the car will be replaced. Many of the poor are becoming poorer. They won't be buying anything unless matters change. In such circumstances getting $3500 instead of $1000 would seem rather good. I said it could go either way. I think these schemes are worthless as government and economic policy. But that doesn't mean no one ever benefits. K · May 7, 2009 03:29 PM Sorry, previous comment was intended for M.Simon not DCE. K · May 7, 2009 03:31 PM I wish the government would stay the hell out of the free market. This distorts economic reality and is ultimately an anti-car measure. Do they really have no idea what this policy will do to people who can only afford a $1000 car (or less)? Are they even aware that these people exist and have the need to drive? The answer is that they don't want them driving. The left wants us all on bicycles, unable to travel far from the large housing complexes we're supposed to live in. "For the environment!" Eric Scheie · May 7, 2009 04:00 PM My '92 Mazda MX-3 gets mid 30s mpg doing 75 on the freeway. I get high 20s to low 30s running around in town, or if I'm slightly lead-footed. Mine was the best mpg at work until the manager bought himself a Prius. I got my car for 2k, he paid about 20k+. Better yet, I'm looking for a CRX HF, '89-'91, 5 speed manual, in stock form this thing will get up to mid to high 40s mpg. Both cars have the annual "greenhouse" gas emission of 6.60 tons and 4.10 tons respectively. Late 80's import with regular maintenance is still pretty damn green...... Blademonkey · May 13, 2009 01:23 AM |
|
June 2009
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
June 2009
May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 AB 1634 MBAPBSAAGOP Skepticism See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
• It's An Absolute Disgrace
• The Seeds Of Stupidity • Remember D-Day • Newton's Cradle • Taxes Send Jobs Offshore • The law is the law! • A teaching moment? • You Can't Do It At Random • In debt to Islam? For Western thought? • David Carradine Is Dead
Links
Site Credits
|
|
I'm driving around in my 93 Ford Taurus, with blue book value around $1000. Needless to say, I think this plan is brilliant!
Last time I heard, the plan was to crush the older cars. What a waste of resources. The energy it took to make that old car is sunk. Is there really going to be a benefit in scrapping it and building a new one? Seems like the classic "broken winows" fallacy to me.