Cash for Clunkers cost $24,000 per car

[1.8Tsunami]

Edmunds.com says only 125,000 vehicle sales were a result of the government's program.

Posted by Elizabeth Strott on Thursday, October 29, 2009 10:54 AM
http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com..._blg=1,1341914

The U.S. government is calling its Cash for Clunkers program a big success, with nearly 690,000 vehicles sold in July and August. But a report by automotive Web site Edmunds.com says the program actually cost taxpayers $24,000 per car sold.



Only 125,000, or 18%, of the sales were incremental, according to Edmunds.com -- the remaining 82% of sales would have happened regardless of the program.



The $24,000 is the price for the sales of vehicles that were a direct result of the program, Edmunds.com said.



The clunkers program gave car buyers rebates of up to $4,500 if they traded in less-fuel-efficient vehicles for new vehicles that met certain fuel-economy requirements. The government set aside $3 billion for those rebates.


Edmunds.com looked at the sales trend for luxury vehicles and other models not included in program, and it applied the historic sales volumes of those vehicles and those in the program and estimated what the sales figures would have been without the program. The analysts then divided the $3 billion by their 125,000-vehicle number to get an average of $24,000 per vehicle.



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



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



The government was not pleased with Edmunds.com's analysis.



"It is unfortunate that Edmunds.com has had nothing but negative things to say about a wildly successful program that sold nearly 250,000 cars in its first four days alone," Bill Adams, spokesman for the Department of Transportation, told CNNMoney.com. "There can be no doubt that (the clunkers program) drummed up more business for car dealers at a time when they needed help the most."



The economy grew at a 3.5% pace in the third quarter, thanks to a jump in auto sales as a result of the clunkers program. Auto sales contributed 1.7 percentage points to the GDP, the government said in a report this morning.

[US_Ranger]

^^^^

Da ****? They're saying Cash for Clunkers wsa part of the reason the economy is growing? Do they really think people take them seriously? Wtf is this ****.......

[Mtguy8787]

Originally Posted by 1.8Tsunami

The government was not pleased with Edmunds.com's analysis.



"It is unfortunate that Edmunds.com has had nothing but negative things to say about a wildly successful program that sold nearly 250,000 cars in its first four days alone," Bill Adams, spokesman for the Department of Transportation, told CNNMoney.com. "There can be no doubt that (the clunkers program) drummed up more business for car dealers at a time when they needed help the most."

Lol

Lol

Lol

OMG, I'm laughing so hard at this line for some reason.

[psamty]

LOL cash for clunkers. It seems that all the government wants to do is reward stupidity.

[Super Man]

I wish I would have wanted to buy a new car when it was going on.

[TeeR4v_Gainer]

just another example of how efficient our god ole gov't is... yet another failed program... lol

[JoshSP1985]

Anyone that attributes all new sales to CFC should have been **** through the ****ing head.

For A VAST MAJORITY of the sales it was a subsidy for people that would have bought a new car anyway.

[Spetsnazos]

looking at past trends to judge the current economic situation = epic reasoning.

Edmunds is almost as stupid as the people who got new cars.

[RIKTER]

Originally Posted by 1.8Tsunami

The government was not pleased with Edmunds.com's analysis.
".

in before the white house declares Edmunds not to be a real source of info about cars, etc...

[Tha_Captain]

Leave it to a liberal to destroy something that holds value, pay $24,000 of tax payer?s money to do so, and call it stimulating to the economy

[Spetsnazos]

Originally Posted by tha_captain

leave it to a liberal to destroy something that holds value, pay $24,000 of tax payer?s money to do so, and call it stimulating to the economy

red

[1.8Tsunami]

Originally Posted by Spetsnazos

looking at past trends to judge the current economic situation = epic reasoning.

Edmunds is almost as stupid as the people who got new cars.

You can argue that their estimates are way off BUT you have to admit that it would be foolish to think that no one from the 690,000 sales wouldn't have bought a car w/o C4C.

I think that's the point. You can go to the other end of the spectrum if you want, say they estimated that 500,000 of the 690,000 sales were due to C4C...it would still end up around 6k per car. There are still ineffeciencies just not as bad.

[Stizzel]

Its a good thing we have Obama in office to bring adult supervision to Washington after the last 8 years of Bu$h wasting the government's money and destroying the economy.

[Spetsnazos]

Originally Posted by 1.8Tsunami

You can argue that their estimates are way off BUT you have to admit that it would be foolish to think that no one from the 690,000 sales wouldn't have bought a car w/o C4C.

I think that's the point. You can go to the other end of the spectrum if you want, say they estimated that 500,000 of the 690,000 sales were due to C4C...it would still end up around 6k per car. There are still ineffeciencies just not as bad.

Agreed but when you exaggerate numbers, people should be able to call u out on ur exaggerations.

Saying past trends reflect x amount of sales is pretty bad way o judge the huge worldwide economic crisis we are experiencing

[Nagalfar]

Yet another angry white male (obviously a racist (according the the left), obviously a possible terrorist (according the DHS) here, every single thing these azzholes do screw us yet again for even more money...

Fu*k the Govt. left and right.. they are the same thing..

[illriginalized]

Originally Posted by RIKTER

in before the white house declares Edmunds not to be a real source of info about cars, etc...

In before government claims Edmunds is operated by potential domestic terrorists.

[1.8Tsunami]

Originally Posted by Spetsnazos

Agreed but when you exaggerate numbers, people should be able to call u out on ur exaggerations.

Saying past trends reflect x amount of sales is pretty bad way o judge the huge worldwide economic crisis we are experiencing

Without knowing exactly how they came up with the number, it's hard to argue whether or not it was an exageration.

However, looking at 'trends' can provide valuable information so it shouldn't be completely discredited.

[Stizzel]

Originally Posted by 1.8Tsunami

You can argue that their estimates are way off BUT you have to admit that it would be foolish to think that no one from the 690,000 sales wouldn't have bought a car w/o C4C.

I think that's the point. You can go to the other end of the spectrum if you want, say they estimated that 500,000 of the 690,000 sales were due to C4C...it would still end up around 6k per car. There are still ineffeciencies just not as bad.

I think this is a good time to remember Bastiat's Window.

Originally Posted by Bastiat

Have you ever witnessed the anger of the good shopkeeper, James Goodfellow, when his careless son happened to break a pane of glass? If you have been present at such a scene, you will most assuredly bear witness to the fact, that every one of the spectators, were there even thirty of them, by common consent apparently, offered the unfortunate owner this invariable consolation?"It is an ill wind that blows nobody good. Everybody must live, and what would become of the glaziers if panes of glass were never broken?"

Now, this form of condolence contains an entire theory, which it will be well to show up in this simple case, seeing that it is precisely the same as that which, unhappily, regulates the greater part of our economical institutions.

Suppose it cost six francs to repair the damage, and you say that the accident brings six francs to the glazier's trade?that it encourages that trade to the amount of six francs?I grant it; I have not a word to say against it; you reason justly. The glazier comes, performs his task, receives his six francs, rubs his hands, and, in his heart, blesses the careless child. All this is that which is seen.

But if, on the other hand, you come to the conclusion, as is too often the case, that it is a good thing to break windows, that it causes money to circulate, and that the encouragement of industry in general will be the result of it, you will oblige me to call out, "Stop there! Your theory is confined to that which is seen; it takes no account of that which is not seen."

It is not seen that as our shopkeeper has spent six francs upon one thing, he cannot spend them upon another. It is not seen that if he had not had a window to replace, he would, perhaps, have replaced his old shoes, or added another book to his library. In short, he would have employed his six francs in some way, which this accident has prevented

[nutsy54]

Originally Posted by US_Ranger

Da ****? They're saying Cash for Clunkers wsa part of the reason the economy is growing? Do they really think people take them seriously? Wtf is this ****.......

Of course it was a "success" - It only came in at three times the original budget, while lasting 1/3 as long as originally designed.

Just another example of tremendous efficiency and foresight in Washington.

[nutsy54]

Originally Posted by Spetsnazos

red

Why do you post in this thread, when you clearly have absolutely no way to refute or discredit the actual statements made, or Edmunds' analysis techniques? All we hear from you is that the study just absolutely must be wrong - because you don't want to believe it's true and accurate.

[nutsy54]

Originally Posted by 1.8Tsunami

Without knowing exactly how they came up with the number...

Originally Posted by Spetsnazos

Agreed but when you exaggerate numbers, people should be able to call u out on ur exaggerations.

They have described exactly how they came up with that number...

http://www.edmunds.com/help/about/pr...6/article.html

[swimmer32]

Originally Posted by Spetsnazos

Agreed but when you exaggerate numbers, people should be able to call u out on ur exaggerations.

Saying past trends reflect x amount of sales is pretty bad way o judge the huge worldwide economic crisis we are experiencing

Companies use this same type of analysis every day to complete forecasts.

[1.8Tsunami]

Originally Posted by nutsy54

They have described exactly how they came up with that number...

http://www.edmunds.com/help/about/pr...6/article.html

ah nice, repped...not sure why I never checked the actualy edmunds.com site

[Spetsnazos]

Originally Posted by nutsy54

They have described exactly how they came up with that number...

http://www.edmunds.com/help/about/pr...6/article.html

read your links before you post them.

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

Id like to know how their forecasted rate was calculated and based on what assumptions.

Dont worry, I used to be a math major, I don't think I'll have a problem understanding them. Please let me know when you find the exact calculations instead of giving me links that say nothing.

They did however say this

To conduct the analysis, the Edmunds.com team of PhDs and statisticians examined the sales trend for luxury vehicles and others not included in Cash for Clunkers, and applied the historic relationship of those vehicles to total SAAR to make informed estimates

Sounds like a load of crap to me

Edmunds = not a credible source as I mentioned earlier.

[Spetsnazos]

Originally Posted by 1.8Tsunami

ah nice, repped...not sure why I never checked the actualy edmunds.com site

Please let me know when you find out how they actually got the numbers Because that link doesnt show anything


This nutsy goon cant even read 2 pages worth of BS from Edmunds and expects everyone to read 1900 pages of a legal healthcare bill and to distrust the people that wrote it

[goody1]

Originally Posted by Spetsnazos

Please let me know when you find out how they actually got the numbers Because that link doesnt show anything


This nutsy goon cant even read 2 pages worth of BS from Edmunds and expects everyone to read 1900 pages of a legal healthcare bill and to distrust the people that wrote it

Yet you blindly support it. Funny how that works

[Spetsnazos]

Originally Posted by goody1

Yet you blindly support it. Funny how that works

show me the numbers from this study, until then its full of sh it

[gjohnson5]

Originally Posted by 1.8Tsunami

Edmunds.com says only 125,000 vehicle sales were a result of the government's program.

From your same link:

The analysis is asinine because all it does is create this headline of "$24K per car", when it doesn't tell anyone anything they didn't already know. Did the government think EVERYONE who cashed in a clunker wouldn't otherwise buy a car? That's insane. If one out of 7 buyers who used the program bought a car ONLY because of cash for clunkers, which apparently is what Edmunds is saying, that means the program was a raging success, not a failure. It's a stimulus program, its goal was to get people to go to the dealership who otherwise might not have, and provide a price break to everyone who participates. It obviously succeeded

[Melkor]

Originally Posted by gjohnson5

From your same link:

The analysis is asinine because all it does is create this headline of "$24K per car", when it doesn't tell anyone anything they didn't already know. Did the government think EVERYONE who cashed in a clunker wouldn't otherwise buy a car? That's insane. If one out of 7 buyers who used the program bought a car ONLY because of cash for clunkers, which apparently is what Edmunds is saying, that means the program was a raging success, not a failure. It's a stimulus program, its goal was to get people to go to the dealership who otherwise might not have, and provide a price break to everyone who participates. It obviously succeeded

The point is that the cost far outweighed the benefit of the program. It cost $24,000 per car to implement, which by any measure is incredibly inefficient. Even if you assume Edmunds was off by half, each car sold cost $12,000 which is STILL vastly inefficient.

[nutsy54]

Originally Posted by gjohnson5

It obviously succeeded

It ran TRIPLE over budget, lasted for far less time than originally planned, was a paperwork & bureaucratic nightmare - and will clearly lead to a sales drop for several upcoming months. All for the low, low price of $3,000,000,000 in new debt.

Only Liberals would consider that a "success".