Cash for clunkers?

I wondering at what point it became the government's business(and my tax
dollars) to help people buy a new car...


"Brent" > wrote in message
...
> On 2009-08-10, dwight > wrote:
>>
>> "Brent" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> On 2009-08-09, dwight > wrote:
>>>
>>>> Second, it contains flat-out false information to make a rather nice
>>>> program
>>>> sound like a disaster.
>>>
>>> It is a disaster. It's theft from one group of people (those who aren't
>>> buying cars the federal government approves of or already own cars the
>>> federal government approves of) to people who are buying new cars that
>>> the federal government approves and are getting rid of cars the federal
>>> government doesn't approve of.
>>>
>>> The government doesn't have money of it's own. It either A) takes it
>>> from people directly by taxation. This means the people who pay the
>>> taxes don't have the money to spend on things. Instead it went to
>>> automobiles. B) It prints money. This steals it from people who have
>>> savings in USD by devaluing the dollars they hold. C) It borrows the
>>> money, which depletes money to make loans for other purposes. It also
>>> has to be paid back, with interest, by the means of A and/or B.
>>>
>>> Meanwhile as older vehicles are destroyed this raises the prices of the
>>> remaining used cars. This hurts the people who cannot afford to buy new
>>> vehicles. Also it's resource wasteful. A lot of resources went into
>>> building those vehicles and now they are being destroyed for the sake of
>>> destroying them.
>>
>> If you don't like paying taxes, just say so.
>
> *sigh* not that crap again.
>
>> If you don't approve of certain
>> government programs, just say so. What bugs me is the dissemination of
>> garbage as fact.
>
> I'm talking basic economics. Although the kind that isn't approved of by
> government because it unmasks what they do. They take from one group and
> pay those that buy influence.
>
>> Taxes are always and have always been about taking money from one group
>> and
>> giving it to another. There is nothing new there.
>
> And you're just fine with that? There is the seen and the unseen. These
> government interventions cause harm and dislocations in the economy.
> This current bust is a direct result of government and central bank
> intervention in the economy, these idiots doing more isn't going to make
> things better.
>
> This program doesn't help overall. It's just the usual smoke and
> mirrors. There is the seen and the unseen. The unseen is what isn't done
> because of government interference. So a bunch of people get new cars.
> Now what about the businesses that suffered because people's money was
> diverted into buying other people new cars? What of the money that
> people would have spent on something else had there not been this
> program to encourage them to buy a new car instead? What of the
> money to loan that was instead drained from savings to buy new
> vehicles as encouraged by this program? What of those businesses that
> now have less business? What of those jobs? What of those who now can't
> get a loan because the available money to loan was depleted?
>
> In the 1930s FDR did something to keep prices up. Crops were burned and
> livestock destroyed. It kept prices up and people starved instead. What
> is happening to used cars? Prices are going up and the poor are just
> going to have to do without. Maybe the government could buy homes and
> burn them down to keep prices up.
>
>> And, finally, no one is forcing anyone to trade in a car. This is not a
>> mandatory program.
>
> The money is still being taken from the productive people to support
> those with influence. Not participating only means being on the paying
> end but not the reciving end.
>

On Mon, 10 Aug 2009 07:04:38 -0400, "dwight" >
wrote:

>
>"Brent" > wrote in message
...
>> On 2009-08-09, dwight > wrote:
>>
>>> Second, it contains flat-out false information to make a rather nice
>>> program
>>> sound like a disaster.
>>
SNIP
>giving it to another. There is nothing new there.
>
>And, finally, no one is forcing anyone to trade in a car. This is not a
>mandatory program.
>
>dwight
>

Then you wouldn't mind paying for something you personally would
totally object to on whatever grounds you might have?

True. Taxes are supposed tio be for the common good. However, they are
supposed to be used wisely, in much the same way a home budget would
be.

As for the figures quoted, those were taken from several different
sourcers (both left and right - but excluding people like Rush
Limbaugh). Ford was number one, but there were at least 4 Toyota
vehickles, of which only 1 was not imported.

You don't think people would buy a car beyond their financial means
under this program? Isn't that the same thing people did with homes?
The government made it easier to buy a home for those in the lower
incomes.... and they DID. We are now paying for that.

Strangely, a Hummer H3 is on the approved list.

On Sun, 9 Aug 2009 10:04:36 -0400, "dwight" > wrote:

>
> wrote in message
.. .
>> On Tue, 04 Aug 2009 18:38:21 -0500, "Dick R." > wrote:
>>
SNIP
>
>Second, it contains flat-out false information to make a rather nice program
>sound like a disaster.
>
>Here are some interesting actual numbers:
>Over half (55%) of cars purchased under this program are foreign brands.
>That means that 45% are American brands, with another healthy percentage
>being foreign brands that are at least assembled in the U.S.A.
>
>The big winners under this program are (here's a shock):
>GM 18.7%
>Toyota 17.9%
>Ford 16%
>Honda 11.6%
>Chrysler 10.6%, etc.
>
>83% of trade-ins have been trucks. That is amazing, in itself. All of the
>top 10 trade-ins have been Detroit models, Ford Exporer sitting firmly at
>No. 1.
>
>This helps the automakers, helps the dealers, helps a lot of Americans get
>into new, more efficient vehicles. And it now uses moneys that were already
>allocated for another purpose to help out the automakers. If you ask me,
>this is a better use for that money.
>
>dwight
>(really wish I had a use for this program, myself, but I still can't see
>either of my Mustangs getting crushed for a lousy $4,500)
>

Programs like this invite fraud and waste. California has had such a
program for quite a while. You can turn in a clunker worth less than
$100, as long as it has seats, and can reach the station under it's
own power. For that, the individual gets $1000.

You're an OK guy, Brent, but I think you are overlooking the reality
of hunman nature... as well as the nature of government programs.

> wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 10 Aug 2009 07:04:38 -0400, "dwight" >
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Brent" > wrote in message
...
>>> On 2009-08-09, dwight > wrote:
>>>
>>>> Second, it contains flat-out false information to make a rather nice
>>>> program
>>>> sound like a disaster.
>>>
> SNIP
>>giving it to another. There is nothing new there.
>>
>>And, finally, no one is forcing anyone to trade in a car. This is not a
>>mandatory program.
>>
>>dwight
>>
>
> Then you wouldn't mind paying for something you personally would
> totally object to on whatever grounds you might have?

I already pay plenty for a lot of things I object to. On the other hand, I
would gladly pay a bit more, if the money were used for something I approve.
In this particular instance, no, I don't mind a bit.

> True. Taxes are supposed tio be for the common good. However, they are
> supposed to be used wisely, in much the same way a home budget would
> be.
>
> As for the figures quoted, those were taken from several different
> sourcers (both left and right - but excluding people like Rush
> Limbaugh). Ford was number one, but there were at least 4 Toyota
> vehickles, of which only 1 was not imported.

My figures came from the NHTSA. Took about 15 seconds of Googlin'.

> You don't think people would buy a car beyond their financial means
> under this program? Isn't that the same thing people did with homes?
> The government made it easier to buy a home for those in the lower
> incomes.... and they DID. We are now paying for that.

Absolutely, I do not dispute that SOME buyers really should not take
advantage of this, but I don't assume that they are the majority. I usually
figure that most folks out there are just as bright as I am, and not
drooling morons who need the guidance of we select few. Of course, if I did
trade in my 16-year-olds today, I'd probably get lumped in with the rest of
the drooling morons, so that's one more reason I'm glad I didn't.

> Strangely, a Hummer H3 is on the approved list.

That's funny. At a combined mpg rating of 15 (and that's probably fudged),
it must just make the cut-off. Can't imagine what didn't...

dwight

"Brent" > wrote in message
...
> On 2009-08-10, dwight > wrote:
>>
>> "Brent" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> On 2009-08-09, dwight > wrote:
>>>
>>>> Second, it contains flat-out false information to make a rather nice
>>>> program
>>>> sound like a disaster.
>>>
>>> It is a disaster. It's theft from one group of people (those who aren't
>>> buying cars the federal government approves of or already own cars the
>>> federal government approves of) to people who are buying new cars that
>>> the federal government approves and are getting rid of cars the federal
>>> government doesn't approve of.
>>>
>>> The government doesn't have money of it's own. It either A) takes it
>>> from people directly by taxation. This means the people who pay the
>>> taxes don't have the money to spend on things. Instead it went to
>>> automobiles. B) It prints money. This steals it from people who have
>>> savings in USD by devaluing the dollars they hold. C) It borrows the
>>> money, which depletes money to make loans for other purposes. It also
>>> has to be paid back, with interest, by the means of A and/or B.
>>>
>>> Meanwhile as older vehicles are destroyed this raises the prices of the
>>> remaining used cars. This hurts the people who cannot afford to buy new
>>> vehicles. Also it's resource wasteful. A lot of resources went into
>>> building those vehicles and now they are being destroyed for the sake of
>>> destroying them.
>>
>> If you don't like paying taxes, just say so.
>
> *sigh* not that crap again.
>
>> If you don't approve of certain
>> government programs, just say so. What bugs me is the dissemination of
>> garbage as fact.
>
> I'm talking basic economics. Although the kind that isn't approved of by
> government because it unmasks what they do. They take from one group and
> pay those that buy influence.
>
>> Taxes are always and have always been about taking money from one group
>> and
>> giving it to another. There is nothing new there.
>
> And you're just fine with that? There is the seen and the unseen. These
> government interventions cause harm and dislocations in the economy.
> This current bust is a direct result of government and central bank
> intervention in the economy, these idiots doing more isn't going to make
> things better.
>
> This program doesn't help overall. It's just the usual smoke and
> mirrors. There is the seen and the unseen. The unseen is what isn't done
> because of government interference. So a bunch of people get new cars.
> Now what about the businesses that suffered because people's money was
> diverted into buying other people new cars? What of the money that
> people would have spent on something else had there not been this
> program to encourage them to buy a new car instead? What of the
> money to loan that was instead drained from savings to buy new
> vehicles as encouraged by this program? What of those businesses that
> now have less business? What of those jobs? What of those who now can't
> get a loan because the available money to loan was depleted?
>
> In the 1930s FDR did something to keep prices up. Crops were burned and
> livestock destroyed. It kept prices up and people starved instead. What
> is happening to used cars? Prices are going up and the poor are just
> going to have to do without. Maybe the government could buy homes and
> burn them down to keep prices up.
>
>> And, finally, no one is forcing anyone to trade in a car. This is not a
>> mandatory program.
>
> The money is still being taken from the productive people to support
> those with influence. Not participating only means being on the paying
> end but not the reciving end.

Let's see...

The government is spending money (like there's no tomorrow) because consumer
spending was in the toilet. Consumer spending normally drives the economy,
but there was no spending.

The automakers (worldwide) were facing serious financial troubles. Inventory
on dealer lots was not moving. Well, it seems that at least THAT problem has
been addressed. Now the automakers will have to scramble to repopulate those
dealer lots - a contrived shortage, perhaps, but a damn good reason to get
productive.

What about all of those other businesses that are suffering because
consumers are not spending? I'm doing MY part, that's for damn sure. Are you
doing yours? In these troubled economic times, I'm spending thousand and
thousands of dollars on products and services I would not normally buy.
That's just the luck of timing, though - I'd have to spend this money in
good times or bad. So I pay my taxes and spend my money on the things that I
want. Other than that, I can't help you.

Like I said, the government annually takes from THIS productive citizen and
does god-knows-what with it. In THIS particular case, in THIS particular
program, I approve.

dwight

"Consumer Bob" on local tv "news" just did a little feature where he
showed several of the traded-in clunkers (that word has been used so
much this month, no longer needs scare-quote marks, don't you think?)
being dismantled, parts chosen and sold to parts-hunters, and the
remainder ground up into large-gravel-sized stuff. He said the only
part of the clunkers that the recycler could not sell is the engine.

So, if you need clunker parts, get thee to a recyclery. Soon.

--
Frank ess

On 2009-08-10, et > wrote:

> Programs like this invite fraud and waste. California has had such a
> program for quite a while. You can turn in a clunker worth less than
> $100, as long as it has seats, and can reach the station under it's
> own power. For that, the individual gets $1000.
>
> You're an OK guy, Brent, but I think you are overlooking the reality
> of hunman nature... as well as the nature of government programs.

I'm not even going to get into the fraud and waste in the program, but
the reality and nature of government is that it does things that would
have a person in prison if he did it priviately. Ask Mr. Maddoff how
his vesrion of social security worked out.

On 2009-08-10, dwight > wrote:

> Let's see...
>
> The government is spending money (like there's no tomorrow) because consumer
> spending was in the toilet. Consumer spending normally drives the economy,
> but there was no spending.

Yes, that's destructive keyensian nonsense that it has practiced since
it created the great depression in the 1930s upon the bust after a
federal reserve induced boom. Ever hear of the depression of 1921? Most
everyone hasn't. Why? it was worse than the crash of 1929, but the
federal government didn't do anything about it. It was sorted out in a
few months.

> The automakers (worldwide) were facing serious financial troubles. Inventory
> on dealer lots was not moving. Well, it seems that at least THAT problem has
> been addressed. Now the automakers will have to scramble to repopulate those
> dealer lots - a contrived shortage, perhaps, but a damn good reason to get
> productive.

No. it has not been addressed. It will get worse. It only briefly
appears better, but there has been no production, no creation, nothing
to back up that additional money. It was created out of thin air. It's
just another bubble. Another distortion in the market brought to us by
the federal reserve and the federal government. This how the great
depression became great.

> What about all of those other businesses that are suffering because
> consumers are not spending? I'm doing MY part, that's for damn sure. Are you
> doing yours?

Oh, yes, here's where I'm a bad person for being a responsible saver.
Another falsehood of the krugman school. Savings is needed to create the
capital that is then loaned to build businesses. The government and
federal reserve short circuit this by creating vast quanitites of new
dollars. This is where inflation comes from, the increase in the money
supply.

> In these troubled economic times, I'm spending thousand and
> thousands of dollars on products and services I would not normally buy.
> That's just the luck of timing, though - I'd have to spend this money in
> good times or bad. So I pay my taxes and spend my money on the things that I
> want. Other than that, I can't help you.

I'm sorry to hear that you believe those things. I am spending
more than I normally do but it is because I am buying things I defered
previously and now will buy while the dollars I hold still have value.
The inflation being created by the government is going to be massive
once the gates open up. Bernake simply doesn't have a way to put the
genie back in the bottle.

> Like I said, the government annually takes from THIS productive citizen and
> does god-knows-what with it. In THIS particular case, in THIS particular
> program, I approve.

I think all I can do is refer you he http://mises.org/

"Brent" > wrote in message
...
> On 2009-08-10, dwight > wrote:

Interesting bit:

brent: So a bunch of people get new cars.
Now what about the businesses that suffered because people's money was
diverted into buying other people new cars? What of the money that
people would have spent on something else had there not been this
program to encourage them to buy a new car instead?

dwight: What about all of those other businesses that are suffering because
consumers are not spending? I'm doing MY part, that's for damn sure. Are you
doing yours?

brent: Oh, yes, here's where I'm a bad person for being a responsible saver.

heh...

)

On 2009-08-11, dwight > wrote:
>
> "Brent" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On 2009-08-10, dwight > wrote:
>
> Interesting bit:
>
> brent: So a bunch of people get new cars.
> Now what about the businesses that suffered because people's money was
> diverted into buying other people new cars? What of the money that
> people would have spent on something else had there not been this
> program to encourage them to buy a new car instead?
>
> dwight: What about all of those other businesses that are suffering because
> consumers are not spending? I'm doing MY part, that's for damn sure. Are you
> doing yours?
>
> brent: Oh, yes, here's where I'm a bad person for being a responsible saver.
>
> heh...
>
>)

I guees you've not read krugman and the other Keynesians. The Keynesians
call it "The Paradox of Thrift". It's nonsense, but it basically says
that people who aren't spending every penny they have and borrowing more
are bad for the economy. This is one of the reasons they like inflation
so much, it's to get people to spend more and more by destroying the
value of savings.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north672.html

I think covers where you were taking this.