Look at this. Defence appears to be the problem at least in my eyes.
Yes I realize I am starting a debate.
Its strange that this post arrives right after its made an issue on conservative talk shows. I guess the sheep have their marching orders.
The truth though is that the organized criticism of this plan is actually just a pawn in the healthcare debate to undermine the credibility of the government.
John Stewart sums it up well:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mo...he-crank-cycle
Last edited by digitalcraft; 08-06-2009 at 04:28 PM.
I dont if I'll make home tonight
But I know I can swim
under the Tahitian moon
Our gov't has credibility?
LTSmash and other fiscal libertarians, what say you about the general trend on government spending to get out of a recession? I in fact, took Econ 101 and my prof and John Maynard Keynes and my textbook seemed to think that increasing spending during a recession, or "increasing G" as my prof's mantra went, was the way to go about things. It would seem that the fiscally right seem to think this is a bad thing wheras Keynes didn't see macroeconomic as right or left just as practical or impractical; in a recession increase government spending to get the multiplier effect to increase GDP and in expansion, decrease G to lead to better growth.
Maybe I'm a retard but this very basic macroeconomic class seemed to make things relatively clear (I doubt they actually are) and really rendered this debate rather moot. A "left wing" or "right wing" response is not needed - partisan politics often create a deadlock and division and polarization. Practical solutions whether they be viewed as communist or libertarian fiscally I think shouldn't be feared but should be emraced. What you see too much of in modern society is throwing words around like fascist, far right, far left or socialist/communist. It achieves nothing and makes the user of those words seem like an imbecile.
Use common sense solutions.
Oh please...
It's economic news. There was an article and a few op-ed's in the Journal, it related to cars so I posted about it in a car forum. It's not political so get off it.
EDIT:
It depends.
I was for TARP funding from the beginning as the money was going to help sustain private entities to weather the recession. AIG, Citi, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, and company were simply too large to fail (contrary to popular belief). Thousands of businesses, small and large, would be ruined because major finance institutions couldn’t supply them with the needed debt/equity. Now, some months out, we can see the effects of the TARP bailout; I believe somewhere of 50%+ is paid back and the bank crisis is starting to mellow down. During times of crisis I support this kind of spending as long as it’s needed, and it was needed in October.
I did not support the economic stimulus package as an entirety and here is why: Much of that money is going to government and state subsidy to prop up unemployment where the real problem is in the business sector. Of a trillion dollars (or whatever figure it’s at now) only $700 million -/+ when to the SBA on a nationwide scale, that is just absurd. If it were my decision to give away a trillion, I’d give the state’s $700 mil and the SBA the rest; the small businesses can have a set date for a structured repayment just as the banks did with TARP. Businesses are folding, laying off people, they can’t pay for advertising, can’t pay creditors, etc, etc, etc. Creating government jobs and projects is not the way to save unemployment. If we (USA and Co.) are to continue our free market structure we need to make sure businesses can survive and sustain. This is where our cap-gains tax comes into play. We need to essentially save business to get back on track to get out of this recession.
Regarding Cash for Clunkers (the main point of this thread), I’m not so eager of this new program. It’s a quick fix, as the Journal put it. Positive for Q3 then a sharp drop in Q4 because the program isn’t really fixing the problem, it’s like putting a band-aid on a gunshot wound. Some analyst from CS said that savings rates will drop sharply a result and an MS analyst thinks this may hurt domestic auto companies through Q4 as they will run through inventories and production in Q3. I personally view this as another pseudo-subprime issue put on the consumer as the average American is too dumb to figure out the do’s and do-not’s of personal debt financing.
So, in answer to your question, I say it depends on where the spending is placed. I know I could have gone more in depth but I'm tired; so take if for what it is.
Last edited by LTSmash; 08-06-2009 at 11:09 PM.
I did not read the previous posts.
the GF's mother and her husband are about to puchase both a new car with the program.
He is looking for a pickup probably, due to his job, a double cab. Trading in a 2003 or so Ford Explorer.
She his trading in a Voyager, don't know the year, pretty "old" though, and she is looking (ehm, I am looking) for something between a Kia Soul, a Toyota Corolla/Honda Civic, or even an Honda Insight/Toyota Prius, mainly.
Doing a fast and easy calculation buying a hybrid doesn't really make sense if you drive a few miles per year as it takes about 100.000/130.000 miles to match the gas costs with the higher sticker price of a hybrid compared to say a Soul, but you have the advantages of a ULEV or whatever they are vehicle.
They probably would have changed the cars next year, so it's not doing something that wasn't planned, just taking advantage of the idea.
Which isn't something new as they have been doing this very two years since more than 10 years over here, pretty regularly I'd say.
At first is pretty useful as it actually removes old (not classic) vehicles with newer and properly working ones. Then it tends to be just a pretest for people to buy a cooler and newer car even if there was no need to change the older one.
It's not a problem of using tax-payers money for something which you could retain as useless, also considering they would spend them elsewhere in a probably even "worst" way, but rather that such an incentive program as this (and others) "teaches" people to buy newer and newer thigs just for the sake of it.
It may be a good way to move capitals and give a new spin to the economy, but it actually can hurt back the same economy when people still pretend to buy and buy stuff when they can afford them, giving the credit market and immediate bump but a larger hole later on.
Regarding CARS-ish programs, here the off you obtain is much smaller and to achieve it you have to trade-in a pretty old and barely non working car, something pre-1995 for sure, and buy something that meets pretty stringent parameters, as less than 130 (or 140 CO2 grams/km), which may sound good as it forces people to buy smaller cars and so on, but there are people which "need" larger cars, and therefore can't apply for such program. I mean, 60.000 km per year in a Fiat Panda isn't the best solution. Actually the market would say something like an S-Klasse would be the ideal solution, but that's another problem.
KFL Racing Enterprises - Kicking your ass since 2008
*cough* http://theitalianjunkyard.blogspot.com/ *cough*
Not that I disagree, but in order for businesses to survive it takes consumers willing to spend and said spending is hurting a bit. Government breaks and incentives help but the funding is akin to franchising a struggling restaurant when the revenues for the restaurant don't warrant the business growing.
Rockefella says:
pat's sister is hawt
David Fiset says:
so is mine
David Fiset says:
do want
Yup and really save the environment by throwing perfectly good working automobiles away? Actually 20% of the energy in oil and emissions that are used/emitted by your car come when it is manufactured so it makes more sense to use your old car as long as humanly possible than to build a new one. So not a very environmentally friendly program.
From an economic standpoint charities that depend on people donating their old cars get screwed because people would rather trade them in to be destroyed then give them (with a tax incentive) to poor people who would not be able to afford a new car even with the $4500. Furthermore by lowering the supply of used cars you drive up the price for people who only buy very old used cars (the poor) and they get screwed again. Finally the people who really benefit from Cash for Clunkers are fleet car users who only need a 1-2 mpg improvement (instead of the 10 for you and I) to get the full $4500 credit. And lastly dealers raise or keep the prices of new cars higher because they are being subsidized. So from an economic standpoint this isn't a particularly good program.
What % is used when destroying the clunker?Actually 20% of the energy in oil and emissions that are used/emitted by your car come when it is manufactured
and how about new cars requiring less energy to be produced?
Or new cars being 90% recyclable?
Or this not being a "green" program but a "give a spin to the economy" program?
It has been done for many years elsewhere, didn't ruin the world as we know it, while this and over there is giving fresh oxygen to companies that were quite in muddy waters. So the company closes the doors and people are fired it's bad, but if something is done so to let the company survive and the workers sticking working, it's bad again. No one is forced to participate.
KFL Racing Enterprises - Kicking your ass since 2008
*cough* http://theitalianjunkyard.blogspot.com/ *cough*
Excellently said!
When I read your comment and then looked at the flag, I saw that it was Canadian. It immediately became apparent to me why you were making more sense than my bretheren and sisters who live with me here in the US.
Alas, welcome to the never ending political and insane beleiefs we have here in the US about things that should be common sense for any normal person.
Welcome to the dumbing down of we americans.
Um it didn't and it wont since the bill is created on the premise that you are taxing productive resources and people in society (to finance the stimulus) and giving it non-productive and poorly competitive parts of economy. The fact that the government thinks that doing the exact thing that got us into this mess (overspending, debt, living beyond our means, etc) and they expect it will fix the economy is the very definition of insanity. The stimulus didn't stimulate anything...it was $700 billion in pork and special interest projects that help the average person very little. The current administration can complain all they want about the mess left over from their predecessor but Bush didn't create Obama's $1+ trillion deficit...he did.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)