Shot in the Dark

Clunked

Joe Doakes from Como Park emails:

There will be no Social Security increase in 2016 because there is no inflation, according to the government.  But I notice that prices in the POS market are not slumping:

2004 Saturn L300. 133,000 miles. $2,750 or best offer.

2004 Ford Ranger. 65,500 miles.$9,500 OBO.

2000 Lexus ES300. 141K miles. $3900 or offer.

1997 GMC Safari. $2500 firm.

Lingering effect of the disastrous Cash for Clunkers program?

Joe doakes

The used car market has been utterly brutal since then.

Posted

in

,

by

Mitch Berg

Tags:

Comments

10 responses to “Clunked”

  1. Dog Gone Avatar
    Dog Gone

    Ah, Joe…Joe — you’re out cherry picking again.

    So you found three Texas guys who did a study. So what? Has it been peer reviewed? Did YOU read the whole study, and assess it from a rigorous academic or scientific criteria? I’m betting NOT. Do you have any clue whatsoever what the larger context is of a preponderance of economists on the topic? NO. You found 3 guys. SO WHAT.

    Instead you try to link unrelated things.

    Why should prices slump in the Used Car market? What is the benefit of having POS on the road? Are they as efficient, are they as safe, do we want MORE bad cars on the road? And how about the fact that not all Used Cars are clunkers — apples and asphalt. Don’t you like the law of supply and demand that is central to capitalism? Do you even really understand the law of supply and demand, and how it should intersect with public policy? Ever do any course work in it, for example? Doesn’t look like it from here. If the value of clunkers is high, that should translate as well into higher trade in values shouldn’t it, for new cars? What about that?

    If there is no increase in Social Security payments, blame the right. They are the ones who keep attacking it, like Kasich who wants to reduce payments. That is not Obama’s fault or the fault of Dems, who would like to both increase it and expand it through reasonable means like raising the amount ceiling on what amount of higher earners should be taxed to match up with changes to the value of the dollar over time.

    The cash for clunkers program was never EVER to make the supply of clunkers high or to make the cost of clunkers low. The cash for clunkers program was to get old inefficient vehicles off the road, and to promote the US auto industry when it was failing. It did that. And the nation has benefited from doing so. We have a healthy auto industry again, employing people who are paying taxes and spending money in their communities from a revived sector of manufacturing — those are not just jobs, they are GOOD jobs. The country is making things again. The dollar is strong, and overall unemployment is down, with the greatest gains in job creation under any president. Our exports are up. No, not everything is rosy but a lot of things have improved. Gas is lower than it has been in a long time too.

    You want to see people at the lower end of the economy driving cars? The answer to that is not cheap clunkers.

    The answer to that is to address wealth inequality, and to stop favoring policies that promote the shift of wealth and income to the already wealthy, but instead to promote more policies that help people at the low end of the economy by safe and efficient newer cars. It is time to get those POS off the road entirely, not to promote people driving nearly 20 year old cars, and while we’re at it to fix the damn POS roads and bridges too. Who obstructs that? THE RIGHT.

    Instead the right promotes the wonderful world of POS cars for everyone and crappy dangerous infrastructure for them to drive on. Not good, for anyone, least of all the drivers.

    But hey, fair or foul, factual or crap, you will grab any pretext, no matter how feeble, to bash Obama. And the way you do it is intellectually dishonest.

    I don’t have any objection to legitimate criticism of any sitting elected office-holder. I’m angry as hell at Obama over the TPP, myself. It is the worst form of corporatism.

    But make the criticism valid and factual criticism, not this POS kind of ignorant fact deficient and dishonest criticism. That is lazy and frankly it is just promoting propaganda to keep the right stupid. Good job on the stupid part.

  2. Dog Gone Avatar
    Dog Gone

    Btw, Joe — while you call it Obama’s plan, you leave out how many conservatives — notably then member of Congress, now extremist right wing Kansas governor Sam Brownback supported cash for clunkers, including drafting a version of the bill himself that was similar to what eventually passed.

    If you’re going to dish out blame, dish it out honestly; there were a lot of conservatives who LOVED LOVED LOVED this legislation, helped write it and voted it in in the first place so it could go to the President to sign. It was one of the most bi-partisan things he has done. So, again – not to mention that part, and to only criticize Obama- you are either ignorant about the program, or intellectually dishonest, or both.

  3. Mitch Berg Avatar
    Mitch Berg

    DG,

    So – I’ve presented a series of stats that lead us to a correlation.

    Can you attack the evidence or conclusion using any relevant, factual evidence?

    Or is ad-hominem all you have?

    I’m guessing ad hominem is all you have.

  4. Hillary'sClotFilledCankles Avatar
    Hillary’sClotFilledCankles

    LMAO! She’s literally sputtering! Joe, you are hereby directed to put an “E” on your conning tower.

  5. Prince of Darkness_666 Avatar
    Prince of Darkness_666

    Last December I paid 7k for a 2007 Hyundai sonata which will be around 9k out of pocket by the time I’m done paying off loans. Had 90000 miles on it. Sounds like I got away with robbery

  6. Prince of Darkness_666 Avatar
    Prince of Darkness_666

    Also never buying american cars again. They are shit

  7. justplainangry Avatar
    justplainangry

    As usual – intended consequences. Just think about it – can’t afford a clunker, have to take the bus! Oh wait, let’s built LRT!

  8. justplainangry Avatar
    justplainangry

    Oh and DogWhereIsPinalCounty, you are so predictably idiotic. (cue WofO music) If you only had a brain…

  9. jimf Avatar
    jimf

    DG- “If there’s no increase in Social Security payments, blame the right. They are the ones who keep attacking it, like Kasich who wants to reduce payments.” So people who attack it are keeping the benefits from rising? Here I thought congress along with the president had the power to raise or not raise benefits. But now I know it’s “attackers”. Anyway, you do realize that during Obama’s first term the Dems had super-majorities in both houses of congress, so they could have passed anything they wanted to. So blame the left. Not only are you a weak debater, but your memory isn’t very good, either

  10. Joe Doakes Avatar
    Joe Doakes

    “Btw, Joe — while you call it Obama’s plan, you leave out how many conservatives — ”

    You know, Dog Gone, it’s one thing to demand I defend things that I did say (the italics are my words, the rest are Mitch’s). I’m generally up to that challenge.

    It’s quite another to demand I defend things I did not say, things that you heard from the voices in your head, such as the line quoted above. I’m afraid I’ll never be up to that challenge, for which I thank God.

    Every. Single. Day.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.