Quote :

"I understand that we'd be independent from foreign influence, but we would still be dependent on a limited resource."

How do you figure? Oil is a tradeable commodity. Even if America imported only 0.1% of our oil we would still experience every price spike. Hell, even if America was self sufficient in oil, a price spike would still drive up the price here as oil producers would raise the price to compensate them for not exporting whatever they produce. You would need to both make us self sufficient, ban exports, and then crack down on smugglers. The costs of such policies far outweigh the minor impact of occasional price spikes.

8/7/2009 2:05:52 PM

^
So you're suggesting that we'll never be energy independent if we rely on drilling for oil on our own turf?

or that being independent of foreign influence is of such little significance, that it's not worth our worries?

or am I just missing the mark here?

8/7/2009 2:36:31 PM

Quote :

" NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- What are people trading their clunkers in for? It depends on who you ask. 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. For example, the Ford Escape is available in six different versions including two- and four-wheel drive and hybrid versions. The government counts each version as a different vehicle using guidelines from the Environmental Protection Agency. Only the front wheel drive, non-hybrid version made the government's top ten list. The Ford Escape crossover SUV, instead of being the seventh-most popular vehicle under the program, as the government ranked it, was actually the best seller, according to Edmunds.com. The government pegged the Ford Focus as the top seller. Trucks tend to be available in more variations than cars. That's because truck buyers have a wider variety of needs than car buyers, General Motors spokesman Brian Goebel said. "There's just so many different uses for the truck, both retail and commercial, than with car purchasers," he said. Sales of truck models would tend to be heavily diluted using the government's method because practically each version counts as a different vehicle. The difference in tallying methods would not affect the overall totals of trucks, as opposed to cars purchased under the program, only the sales rankings of individual 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. In the Cash for Clunkers program, trucks are actually subject to lower fuel economy requirements than cars, so it surprised many analysts that trucks weren't more popular. Edmunds.com's "Top Ten Clunker Buys" list is based on transaction data collected directly from dealers. NHTSA, the agency responsible for running Cash for Clunkers, was not immediately able to respond to a request for official Clunker sales tallies of several vehicles, including all their variations. When presented with Edmund's analysis, the agency didn't dispute that the way in which it counted the vehicles would tend to reduce the totals of vehicles with many variations. To top of page"

http://money.cnn.com/2009/08/07/autos/cash_for_clunkers_sales/index.htm

8/8/2009 2:28:11 PM

8/10/2009 11:44:11 AM

Quote :

"So you're suggesting that we'll never be energy independent if we rely on drilling for oil on our own turf? or that being independent of foreign influence is of such little significance, that it's not worth our worries? or am I just missing the mark here?"

I'm arguing that in a free country, being energy independent is irrelevant and pursuit there-of is all costs and no benefits.

8/10/2009 12:12:23 PM

Wouldn't the oil-producing countries also need to be free in order for your feelings to be justified?

8/10/2009 12:14:12 PM

No. Why do you think they would need to be?

8/10/2009 12:21:59 PM

The benefit of being energy independent is to protect us from potential disruptions in external energy supply. As it is now, if OPEC decides they want to fuck with us and raise prices, we're pretty screwed. Right now its in their interest to keep oil prices steady because our economy is in the shitter, but once things turn arround they're up the prices for sure. Currently they are dependent on us as their major source of demand, but once China gets into full swing they're going to need way way more than we do. At that point OPEC will be able to dictate prices as they wish without fear of losing us as a customer. We need to start planning for that now.

We need to fix parts of our power grid. We have the means to supply a good deal of power from wind and nuclear and maybe solar. Certainly hydro in some places. If our demand for foreign energy decreases, then we can dictate prices to them. In the best senario China never explodes and we get super cheap oil in addition to what we have at home. Plus we can feel free to refuse to trade with people base on their political system. Worse case China explodes and eats as much oil as they can. In which case we're ok since we supply all our own power.

8/10/2009 1:16:27 PM

And as I said, energy independence will not "protect us from potential disruptions in external energy supply." Great Britain is a net oil exporter. The only energy it imports is natural gas. And yet, when oil prices doubled, the price of gasoline in London went up too. The reason is obvious: Britain is a free country, and those that want to buy gasoline in London must compete with those in New York to do so.

8/10/2009 1:39:17 PM

I find it hilarious that the top 10 cars considered the 'clunkers' are ALL American.

8/10/2009 1:49:03 PM

That's like finding it hilarious that it's hot as hell in August.

8/10/2009 2:38:06 PM

Which, by the way, it is.

8/10/2009 2:39:23 PM

LOLZ!

8/10/2009 2:52:06 PM

Well I for one am just glad that we spent 700 mil (or whatever it was) to make sure those same companies can continue to create clunkers.

8/10/2009 3:28:57 PM

mytwocents is a wealth of valuable observations today.

8/10/2009 3:43:46 PM

I do my best.

8/10/2009 3:44:44 PM

Quote :

"I find it hilarious that the top 10 cars considered the 'clunkers' are ALL American."

Quote :

"Well I for one am just glad that we spent 700 mil (or whatever it was) to make sure those same companies can continue to create clunkers."

Can you please explain the thought process that connects the first statement to the second? The only thing I can come up with is beyond stupid, even for TWW.

8/10/2009 3:53:30 PM

These companies build clunkers..... so why in the fuck do they deserve bailing out in the first place? let them shits die.

8/10/2009 4:00:14 PM

some real top-notch logic ITT

8/10/2009 4:02:42 PM

^^^ I thought it was supposed to be sarcastic

[Edited on August 10, 2009 at 4:03 PM. Reason : .]

8/10/2009 4:03:12 PM

Wait, the spöokyjon missing sarcasm?!!1 WTF, you fell off, man.

8/10/2009 4:10:26 PM

8/10/2009 4:11:30 PM

I don't think he missed the attempt at sarcasm, folks.

8/10/2009 4:16:53 PM

?

[Edited on August 10, 2009 at 4:20 PM. Reason : A question mark--you understand punctuation, yes? ]

8/10/2009 4:19:35 PM

why is it so "beyond stupid" then?

8/10/2009 4:27:57 PM

Because I said it, therefore it must be.

I can't imagine why there aren't more healthy debates/discussions in this world when people clearly are focusing on the issue.


Oh....spooky...note of warning..... SARCASM ITP

8/10/2009 4:45:02 PM

The comments you are making are extremely superficial and mildly snarky.

We've already debated at length what to do with the failing auto industry in the US.

It's a sticky situation. We can't cheapen production since lots of salaries are dictated by unions. There are tons of other industries that rely on auto manufacturers for their business. The lack of innovation in the US automobile industry is concerning...these guys have been going down for a long time, and for some reason, they didn't get their act together (possibly because government meddling kept their asses afloat just barely or possibly because they foolishly believed the American consumer would be ever-loyal?).

The point is that for now we've decided to support the auto industry. We are subsidizing it only because the jobs of millions of Americans rely on it, and now is not a good time for even more millions of people to be out of work.

But once this recession mess is over (ten, twenty years from now?), I say sink or swim...let their asses fail. Hopefully, they'll have made amazing strides in innovation and efficiency by then, and the American automobile will once again rule the world. I'm not counting on it though.

8/10/2009 4:56:03 PM

Quote :

"I find it hilarious that the top 10 cars considered the 'clunkers' are ALL American."

Quote :

"Well I for one am just glad that we spent 700 mil (or whatever it was) to make sure those same companies can continue to create clunkers."

The program isn't only for American cars. The new cars being purchased are more fuel-efficient. I ask you again, what is the logical link between your two statements? When somebody trades in an Explorer for a Yaris, what is hilarious about the fact that the Explorer was an American car? How does the program's stimulus to the sales of more fuel-efficient vehicles encourage companies to "continue to create clunkers"?

8/10/2009 4:58:14 PM

WOW you're right, that was BEYOND STUPID

8/10/2009 5:09:00 PM

what pisses me off about this program is that they just junk these cars.

FUCK you worthless regular people, here GM here is another few billion, who's counting really. a billion here a billion there. whatever. oh and FUCK you regular people, next time we're just taking money and burning it in a big ass pile to stimulate the economy and prevent the money from buying carbon or insulting the ozone layer or .. whatever.
and fuck you regular people

I CRUSH CRUSH CRUSH CRUSH CRUSH YOUR CARS HAHAHAHAH

8/10/2009 7:01:34 PM

so, what do we do when people stop having stuff to trade in and all of a sudden the car companies hit the doldrums of sales again because every one already bought a car? How the fuck is our gov't so fucking short-sighted>

8/10/2009 7:08:46 PM

^I suspect that they're hoping the car industry will have gotten its shit together by then.

But it wouldn't surprise me if they continue to subsidize the industry with bail-outs until we can afford for millions of people to lose their jobs. Right now is not a good time.

8/10/2009 7:36:47 PM

you make me wet.

8/10/2009 7:38:13 PM

Quote :

"so, what do we do when people stop having stuff to trade in and all of a sudden the car companies hit the doldrums of sales again because every one already bought a car? How the fuck is our gov't so fucking short-sighted>"

I addressed this on the first or second page. The automakers aren't so stupid as to ramp up production. This short term boost is going to help them clear existing inventory, nothing more. Picture a steadily downtrending line or a flat line with a small hump in it up and perhaps a small hump down afterwards then returning to normal. It isn't like this boost is going to cause the prevailing trend to cliff dive after it's over.

8/10/2009 7:54:33 PM

so, after every one has new cars... who will buy new cars?

8/10/2009 7:57:35 PM

this program won't come close to getting everyone new cars.

8/10/2009 8:01:07 PM

o, you don;t think this will have ANY affect on the demand for new cars? good work, man. you are pure brilliance in action

8/10/2009 8:03:40 PM

YOU GOT ME THERE!!!!

8/10/2009 8:04:22 PM

You're saying that the failing of this program is that it will sell so many cars that the people who bought cars won't need to buy cars anymore? Wow.

8/10/2009 8:06:20 PM

no, not at all. I'm saying that it will cause a drop in the demand for new cars down the road, leading the car companies to be in more trouble than they initially were in

8/10/2009 8:09:04 PM

talked to a few folks from the GAO today off the record. they liked the cash for clunkers program.

8/10/2009 8:10:32 PM

So you're saying that a dealership selling 2000 cars in Q3 and 1000 cars in Q4 is in worse shape than a comparable dealership selling 1500 cars in both?

8/10/2009 8:11:27 PM

if they go back to continually selling 1500, then no. But, if they continue selling 1000, then they are fucked if they need to sell 1200 to break even. durrr

8/10/2009 8:13:40 PM

V I had a brain fart, here it is reposted

3 billion @ 4k per trade in is 750k cars. Sales this year are expected to be 11 million, down from 17-20 million it was in the past few years. This doesn't account for the number of people that were going to buy cars anyway and I think it's a reasonable assumption that people driving around with cars worth less than 4000 are going to be more inclined to buying a new one versus someone that has bought in the past year-5 anyway.

So, even at depressed levels we are talking about 7% of total consumption (again, ignoring those who would have purchased anyway) or about 4% under recent years consumption.

A blip.

[Edited on August 10, 2009 at 8:20 PM. Reason : ,]

8/10/2009 8:15:53 PM

^^perhaps so. but this program could potentially get some auto makers through a rough patch while also incentivizing the production of more fuel-efficient cars. i don't see how this is doing anything to actively hurt new car dealerships. now used car dealerships are a whole different ball game.

^the gov't doesn't pay for the whole car. but the point still stands
since fail boat edited out his comment:

$3 billion / $3K = 1 million cars (guessing at the average rebate, though there are probably other costs that go into the $3 billion, so it will likely be a pretty big over-estimate)
but still significantly less than the 11 million cars that we sell annually and less than the difference between our normal average of 17-20 million and our current sales. (using fail boat's numbers here. not sure if they're accurate)

[Edited on August 10, 2009 at 8:20 PM. Reason : .]

[Edited on August 10, 2009 at 8:21 PM. Reason : .]

8/10/2009 8:15:55 PM

more fuel efficient cars? Like trucks and SUVs? wow...

Quote :

"3 billion at 20k per car is 150k cars."

Did you really say that out loud?

but yes, it'll get them through a rough patch, only to lead them to... an even bigger rough patch. Hot damn!

8/10/2009 8:18:10 PM

Quote :

"more fuel efficient cars? Like trucks and SUVs? wow..."

Top Ten Cash for Clunkers Purchases

1. Ford Focus
2. Toyota Corolla
3. Honda Civic
4. Toyota Prius
5. Ford Escape
6. Toyota Camry
7. Dodge Caliber
8. Hyundai Elantra
9. Honda Fit
10. Chevy Cobalt

8/10/2009 8:20:41 PM

^^yes. they are more fuel efficient than the cars they replaced. that's whole point.

[Edited on August 10, 2009 at 8:21 PM. Reason : .]

8/10/2009 8:20:47 PM

I thought the rebates were going to be between 3500-4500?

Well look at this link, note, I didn't read it all so I have no idea which side it supports, I search for "average clunker rebate" and found it

http://www.examiner.com/x-19326-LA-City-Buzz-Examiner~y2009m8d9-Cash-for-Clunkers-What-it-is-and-why-it-doesnt-work

Quote :

"Cost at $1 Billion Cap According to Edmonds.com, 200,000 cars worth $4500 or less are generally retired every three months without this program in place. The Cash for Clunkers program would at best fund 250,000 cars in the same time frame at a $1 billion cap. The government only added incremental sales to the economy. Eventually those sales would have happened at some point, so we just moved our future sales into a smaller window, giving the illusion of a short term economic stimulation. The result is that the government spent $1 billion to gain 50,000 incremental sales from the program. The cost to tax payers per car comes out to $20,000 ($1,000,000,000 / 50,000). Let's do the math with the total Cash For Clunkers cost of $3 billion Assuming the government average rebate is $4000: $3,000,000,000/$4000 = 750,000 available Cash for Clunker cars. Take away the 200,000 cars that would be retired regardless of the program. The potential incremental sales jump to 550,000. The cost to tax payers decreases to $5454 per car. That looks a little better. Are we going to sell the extra 500,000 new cars between now and Sept. 1st? I don't know, it would be great if we did. The program still fails at creating a long term benefit to the economy. Once all eligible clunkers are traded in for new cars, more money needs to be pumped in again, and no jobs are saved or created. At the end of the day, we are just transferring one taxpayer's money to another."

[Edited on August 10, 2009 at 8:24 PM. Reason : .]

8/10/2009 8:21:49 PM

^^^ did you fail to read about the shady government numbers? come on

^^ and they are still gas guzzlers. How can you cheer on replacing a 15mpg car w/ a 20mpg car. it still sucks, and it's hardly a net benefit

8/10/2009 8:22:03 PM