- Joined
- Oct 12, 2009
- Messages
- 23,909
- Reaction score
- 11,003
- Location
- New Jersey
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Right
Fox News said:The American taxpayer doled out $24,000 per vehicle sold under the government's "Cash for Clunkers" auto program, according to a study released Wednesday.
The report, conducted by the automotive information firm Edmunds.com in Santa Monica, Calif., found that of the nearly 690,000 vehicles sold under the program only 125,000 of the sales were incremental.
The rest of the sales would have happened anyway, despite the government program, the report said -- raising questions over its effectiveness.
Does the article mention the statistical methodology used in this "study"?
LINK
Whew! Thank god it was only $24,000 of taxpayer money per car sold... what a success huh? And some of those dealerships are still waiting for their rebate checks. Thank goodness the United States will repeat this abortion by offering Cash for Appliances this fall with another $300 Million in taxpayer money.
Good times ... Gooood times....
It's similar for that housing thing where people were offered what like 8K or something for new home buyers. Most of those people were going to buy houses anyway. The incremental increase (i.e. renters turning owners whom wouldn't have) was rather low. All this stuff really does is make a government program which can be abused.
Yes it is ...lol
Does the article mention the statistical methodology used in this "study"?
This isn't a statistical study...lol
Yes it is ...lol
No, it's not. It's a mathematical breakdown of the cost of the program.
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. These estimates were independently verified through careful examination of sales patterns reflected by transaction data. Once the numbers were determined, Edmunds.com's analysts divided three billion dollars by 125,000 vehicles to arrive at the average $24,000 per vehicle.
Cash for Clunkers Results Finally In: Taxpayers Paid $24,000 per Vehicle Sold, Reports Edmunds.com
BS "report".
690,000 vehicles were sold under the program, so:
3 billion divided by 690,000 = $4,347 per car.
The rest is pure conjecture. They have no way of knowing how many people would have bought a vehicle "anyway".
Cars were flying off the lots, and I'll bet everyone here knows someone who bought a car because ofthis deal.
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. These estimates were independently verified through careful examination of sales patterns reflected by transaction data. Once the numbers were determined, Edmunds.com's analysts divided three billion dollars by 125,000 vehicles to arrive at the average $24,000 per vehicle.
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. These estimates were independently verified through careful examination of sales patterns reflected by transaction data. Once the numbers were determined, Edmunds.com's analysts divided three billion dollars by 125,000 vehicles to arrive at the average $24,000 per vehicle.
Cash for Clunkers Results Finally In: Taxpayers Paid $24,000 per Vehicle Sold, Reports Edmunds.com
BS "report".
690,000 vehicles were sold under the program, so:
3 billion divided by 690,000 = $4,347 per car.
The rest is pure conjecture. They have no way of knowing how many people would have bought a vehicle "anyway".
Cars were flying off the lots, and I'll bet everyone here knows someone who bought a car because ofthis deal.
I question the comparison 'to the historical relationship of those vehicles to total SAAR' for two reasons. One, what was happening in the industry bore no relationship to historical data, the industry was in crisis. Two, the environmental qualifications for what vehicles qualified could have (likely did?) effect what cars were purchased.
These are both valid points, and I don't know how significantly they would change the analysis. I'd wager that they might bear on the magnitude of the multiplier, though not by too much. I would say it's safe to conclude that the cost to the taxpayer was significantly more than the $4000/car that was actually given out.
These are both valid points, and I don't know how significantly they would change the analysis. I'd wager that they might bear on the magnitude of the multiplier, though not by too much. I would say it's safe to conclude that the cost to the taxpayer was significantly more than the $4000/car that was actually given out.
We don't know how much, but we do know a news headline of "Taxpayers Paid $24,000 per Vehicle Sold" is disingenuous at best.
690k vehicles were sold under the program, not 125k.
And as anyone in business knows, there are many side benefits to a sales program: new customers, free advertising, future sales, future maintence etc.
This "statistical analysis" was worthless without much more additional data being added in.
I was reading about this earlier. It's made me begin to question if extending the credit is a good idea.
And you still don't seem to understand that the 690k number is irrelevant unless no cars would have been sold without this program.
Those are additional benefits that the car dealers received. How does that have anything to do with the cost to the taxpayer?
The taxpayer benefits by a stonger economy, more jobs, consumer confindence, etc, etc, etc.
Trying to assign a static number today to an investment that may not pay off for a decade is ridiculous.
Trying to assign a static number today to an investment that may not pay off for a decade is ridiculous.
Using this logic, it's impossible to measure the impact of anything on the economy.
Any investment that takes that long to show a return, is a very bad investment.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?