Cash for Clunkers Final Numbers

[Acanthus]

Honda:

AGF International Advisors Com... $36.5 M
Brandes Investment Partners, L... $30.8 M
Capital Guardian Trust Company $40.7 M
Dodge & Cox $289.4 M
Fidelity Management & Research $70.5 M
Fisher Investments $288.0 M
Lord, Abbett & Co. LLC $77.3 M
Turner Investment Partners, In... $48.6 M
UMB Investment Advisors $37.1 M
Wellington Management Company,... $119.5 M

Where's the biggest institutional investor?

Dodge & Cox Funds
c/o Boston Financial Data Services
30 Dan Road
Canton, MA 02021-2809

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: Praxis1452
I can't believe people think this type of thing works. I think john stossel the 20/20 news anchor sums it up pretty well.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/johns...cash-for-clunkers.html

and

http://blogs.abcnews.com/johns...-clunkers-is-dead.html



"President Obama declared the program "successful beyond anybody's imagination." Yes, who could have imagined that free money would have been so popular?

Given the program's success, you would expect the administration to push for additional billions in funding, just as they did when the first billion was snatched up. But no.

The federal government, acknowledging that the "Cash for Clunkers" program was running out of money, declared it a success Thursday and killed it off, effective 8 p.m. Monday.

If it was so successful, why kill the program? Is it possible that they have come to understand the economic principles of the broken windows fallacy and appreciate the unintended consequences of giving people free money to destroy still useable cars? Judging from the White House?s response to news that charities were suffering from the Cash for Clunkers program, I?d say the answer is no:

The National Kidney Foundation ? says [it] gets about 19% of its annual revenue from selling donated cars. The charity said it estimates a 10% to 15% decline because of the federal rebates ... White House spokeswoman Jen Psaki says the program ... will have a ?negligible? effect on charities. Psaki says the Car Allowance Rebate System (CARS) was created to provide a ?timely, temporary and targeted? economic stimulus and was not intended to divert vehicles from charities.

Economist Russ Roberts summarized this nonsense well:

What she seems to be saying is that because CARS wasn?t intended to affect charities, the effect has to be negligible. So unintended consequences don?t exist. Beautiful.

Given the White House?s clueless comment, I?d say we have more educating to do. I am glad the government is ending this misguided program, but I would like to hear an explanation for why this giveaway was a success at $1 Billion and at $3 Billion, but somehow won't be the same "success" at anything more than that. The answer is likely that, at some point, the unintended consequences of the program become too obvious for anyone to ignore."

You simply cant make everyone happy.

 

[BassBomb]

Wow I am surprised that the Versa, Fit are on that list since they are relatively new.

I assume the Prius turned in was mostly the original one?

 

[BlahBlahYouToo]

Originally posted by: Craig234
First of all, it has nothing to do with 'what they're worth', other than that setting some ceiling on their possible pay based on the revenue.

Second, that's not accurate, although in some cases non-union shops have come closer to union compensation. There might be exceptions I am not familiar with, but the general rule is that union wages used to pull non-union wages up, and more recently non-union shops have been pulling union wages down.

In many cases wages have both are a fraction of what auto makers used to make, some apparently in the mid-teens per hour.

I'd tend to agree that there have been some excesses for unions in the past, lifetime medical is a bit much - though UHC would fix that - and it puts the US companies at a competitive disadvantage to foreign who don't have any legacy retirees to pay for medical care and pensions.

Thoughtless people on the right seem to cheer the foreign companies for not having those expenses, as if they are against workers getting better benefits.

Even if there have been union excesses, that doesn't mean they aren't the better situation for workers and the nation.

I do also have to agree though that while I defended NUMMI productivity, at other US union plants, the productivity has sometimes suffered compared to foreign makers.

The reason GM agreed to the NUMMI deal was that after they had to close the plant as a GM-only union plant with low productivity, by joining with Toyota, it let them learn how to improve productivity from techniqes Toyota had developed in Japan. GM then spread what they learned to other plants.

well, this reply was unexpected. glad to see that you have some sense.

i am not against people getting better benefits. i am against unions driving up wages and compensation to unreasonable and unsustainable levels, and if the company does not comply, they threaten to go on strike.
what good does that do for both parties? so GM gives in to your demands and look at where they are now. and now look at where you are - without a job.

 

[Ktulu]

http://www.autoblog.com/2009/0...log-with-john-mcelroy/
According to Edmunds the Top 10 list for C4C is wrong. The numbers weren't added as they usually are. Instead they broke them down by their drive trains.

The way Edmunds added up the numbers these should have been the top ten:

1. Ford Focus
2. Ford Escape
3. Honda Civic
4. Ford F-150
5. Toyota Corolla
6. Toyota Camry
7. Honda CR-V
8. Chevrolet Silverado
9. Hyundai Elantra
10. Honda Accord

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Praxis1452
I can't believe people think this type of thing works. I think john stossel the 20/20 news anchor sums it up pretty well.

John Stossel is a right-wing propagandist, mostly. Of course he'll look for an angle to attack Obama. He's lost the right to be listened to for me, too many lies.

Hahaha, anyone who disagrees with Craig is a liar and propagandist.

Craig, you're a liar, and saddest of all is that you believe your own lies.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Praxis1452
I can't believe people think this type of thing works. I think john stossel the 20/20 news anchor sums it up pretty well.

John Stossel is a right-wing propagandist, mostly. Of course he'll look for an angle to attack Obama. He's lost the right to be listened to for me, too many lies.

Hahaha, anyone who disagrees with Craig is a liar and propagandist.

Craig, you're a liar, and saddest of all is that you believe your own lies.

Craig is delusional. Even if he "disagrees" with Democrats on something, it seems that we usually see just a mild rebuke followed by a "BUT...BUT...the Republicans are really to blame because of x, y, and z." Obama should have hired him for his administration's version of Baghdad Bob.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: blanghorst

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Praxis1452
I can't believe people think this type of thing works. I think john stossel the 20/20 news anchor sums it up pretty well.

John Stossel is a right-wing propagandist, mostly. Of course he'll look for an angle to attack Obama. He's lost the right to be listened to for me, too many lies.

Hahaha, anyone who disagrees with Craig is a liar and propagandist.

Craig, you're a liar, and saddest of all is that you believe your own lies.

Craig is delusional. Even if he "disagrees" with Democrats on something, it seems that we usually see just a mild rebuke followed by a "BUT...BUT...the Republicans are really to blame because of x, y, and z." Obama should have hired him for his administration's version of Baghdad Bob.

Yeah, we see that all the time.

"Yes, I'm disappointed in the Democrats. But really it's not their fault because of Bush."

Craig really is a tool.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: blanghorst

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Praxis1452
I can't believe people think this type of thing works. I think john stossel the 20/20 news anchor sums it up pretty well.

John Stossel is a right-wing propagandist, mostly. Of course he'll look for an angle to attack Obama. He's lost the right to be listened to for me, too many lies.

Hahaha, anyone who disagrees with Craig is a liar and propagandist.

Craig, you're a liar, and saddest of all is that you believe your own lies.

Craig is delusional. Even if he "disagrees" with Democrats on something, it seems that we usually see just a mild rebuke followed by a "BUT...BUT...the Republicans are really to blame because of x, y, and z." Obama should have hired him for his administration's version of Baghdad Bob.

Yeah, we see that all the time.

"Yes, I'm disappointed in the Democrats. But really it's not their fault because of Bush."

Craig really is a tool.

lol QFT

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Praxis1452
I can't believe people think this type of thing works. I think john stossel the 20/20 news anchor sums it up pretty well.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/johns...cash-for-clunkers.html

and

http://blogs.abcnews.com/johns...-clunkers-is-dead.html



"President Obama declared the program "successful beyond anybody's imagination." Yes, who could have imagined that free money would have been so popular?

Given the program's success, you would expect the administration to push for additional billions in funding, just as they did when the first billion was snatched up. But no.

The federal government, acknowledging that the "Cash for Clunkers" program was running out of money, declared it a success Thursday and killed it off, effective 8 p.m. Monday.

If it was so successful, why kill the program? Is it possible that they have come to understand the economic principles of the broken windows fallacy and appreciate the unintended consequences of giving people free money to destroy still useable cars? Judging from the White House?s response to news that charities were suffering from the Cash for Clunkers program, I?d say the answer is no:

The National Kidney Foundation ? says [it] gets about 19% of its annual revenue from selling donated cars. The charity said it estimates a 10% to 15% decline because of the federal rebates ... White House spokeswoman Jen Psaki says the program ... will have a ?negligible? effect on charities. Psaki says the Car Allowance Rebate System (CARS) was created to provide a ?timely, temporary and targeted? economic stimulus and was not intended to divert vehicles from charities.

Economist Russ Roberts summarized this nonsense well:

What she seems to be saying is that because CARS wasn?t intended to affect charities, the effect has to be negligible. So unintended consequences don?t exist. Beautiful.

Given the White House?s clueless comment, I?d say we have more educating to do. I am glad the government is ending this misguided program, but I would like to hear an explanation for why this giveaway was a success at $1 Billion and at $3 Billion, but somehow won't be the same "success" at anything more than that. The answer is likely that, at some point, the unintended consequences of the program become too obvious for anyone to ignore."

Stossel likes to whine a lot, but doesn't really think things through well.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Ktulu
http://www.autoblog.com/2009/0...log-with-john-mcelroy/
According to Edmunds the Top 10 list for C4C is wrong. The numbers weren't added as they usually are. Instead they broke them down by their drive trains.

The way Edmunds added up the numbers these should have been the top ten:

1. Ford Focus
2. Ford Escape
3. Honda Civic
4. Ford F-150
5. Toyota Corolla
6. Toyota Camry
7. Honda CR-V
8. Chevrolet Silverado
9. Hyundai Elantra
10. Honda Accord

since the guy provides no link to the edmunds article and because the only edmunds article i can find is from a month ago, i don't know if that list is accurate anymore.

 

[b0mbrman]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

since the guy provides no link to the edmunds article and because the only edmunds article i can find is from a month ago, i don't know if that list is accurate anymore.

It sounds like Edmunds uses their own internal counts. I'd actually prefer raw data.