GM's Sales Slide 45%; Chrysler's Fall 42%

[Engineer]

Heard on CNBC that the average car price is $2,000 higher today than it was this time last year because the car makers removed most of the incentives. Guess just when the biggest majority of incentives were removed? That's right...when C4C started. I guess when the price goes up by $2,000 or more, sales usually drop.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Chunkee
Well, prices and incentives do not seem to be reflecting it, nor do the attitudes of car dealerships. I have been looking for a full size truck..still way to high with 50% depreciation with 2 years. The dealers around here still act as though you are privileged to walk on their lot. Perhaps they think, no matter what goes on, they will continually get bailed out or assistance?

There's a Price that they simply can't Sell at.

 

[Darwin333]

Originally posted by: sandorski

The depth of this Recession still eludes some people. That's quite obvious.

With that said, you believe its a good idea to encourage lower/middle class people to take on more debt right now is a good idea somehow? Encouraging them to take on 50%+ DTI home loans with virtually $0 down must be genius then. I wonder how well those loans are performing?


Don't forget to do your civic duty today and spend spend spend! At this point, all I can do is laugh at how fucked we really are.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Darwin333

Originally posted by: sandorski

The depth of this Recession still eludes some people. That's quite obvious.

With that said, you believe its a good idea to encourage lower/middle class people to take on more debt right now is a good idea somehow? Encouraging them to take on 50%+ DTI home loans with virtually $0 down must be genius then. I wonder how well those loans are performing?


Don't forget to do your civic duty today and spend spend spend! At this point, all I can do is laugh at how fucked we really are.

Depends on their situation. Not everyone has a mountain of Debt to deal with.

 

[Darwin333]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Darwin333

Originally posted by: sandorski

The depth of this Recession still eludes some people. That's quite obvious.

With that said, you believe its a good idea to encourage lower/middle class people to take on more debt right now is a good idea somehow? Encouraging them to take on 50%+ DTI home loans with virtually $0 down must be genius then. I wonder how well those loans are performing?


Don't forget to do your civic duty today and spend spend spend! At this point, all I can do is laugh at how fucked we really are.

Depends on their situation. Not everyone has a mountain of Debt to deal with.

Would you care to make an educated guess as to the financial situation of people taking advantage of the CARS program and the $8K credit for first time home buyers? Would you say at least 25% probably made a poor financial decision, especially considering the current state of the economy? 50%? more or less? Do you really think a 50%+ DTI home loan is ever a good idea?

Care to take a stab at the current FHA default rate?

I would really appreciate an answer to this question: If you help someone purchase a home that you know they can not afford and they eventually default, as you knew they would, did you really help them? If the answer is no, the question becomes "who" was actually helped.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Darwin333

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Darwin333

Originally posted by: sandorski

The depth of this Recession still eludes some people. That's quite obvious.

With that said, you believe its a good idea to encourage lower/middle class people to take on more debt right now is a good idea somehow? Encouraging them to take on 50%+ DTI home loans with virtually $0 down must be genius then. I wonder how well those loans are performing?


Don't forget to do your civic duty today and spend spend spend! At this point, all I can do is laugh at how fucked we really are.

Depends on their situation. Not everyone has a mountain of Debt to deal with.

Would you care to make an educated guess as to the financial situation of people taking advantage of the CARS program and the $8K credit for first time home buyers? Would you say at least 25% probably made a poor financial decision, especially considering the current state of the economy? 50%? more or less? Do you really think a 50%+ DTI home loan is ever a good idea?

Care to take a stab at the current FHA default rate?

I would really appreciate an answer to this question: If you help someone purchase a home that you know they can not afford and they eventually default, as you knew they would, did you really help them? If the answer is no, the question becomes "who" was actually helped.

I have no idea. Buying a Vehicle is much different than Buying a Home though, especially when Lenders were pushing Loans and Loan Amounts on Buyers with the idea that their Home Asset would gain in Value indefinitely, thus being an Investment. No one(99 44/100% of the population anyway) Buys a Vehicle thinking of it as an Asset that will gain Value.

Then there's the shear difference in Loan Amounts to consider. A new Vehicle is only approx 10% the Value of a new Home. Give or Take(Take is far more likely) a bit. In short, people are far less likely to Default on a Car Loan than Housing Loan, they are no where near equivalent comparisons.

 

[Praxis1452]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Praxis1452
r

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Praxis1452

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: sandorski
Trying to blame this on C4C is really bad analysis. I suggest sticking to your day job.

did you read the article? im going to guess not.

Ya, the article is just as badly analytical.

Unintended consequences. C4C has lots of them. You're a fool to deny them.

BS

It's funny how c4c was a success at 1b then after they added more money too, but they stopped. If it was such a success I fail to see why they couldn't have given it even more money. Oh wait because the unintended consequences would have become obvious.

Negative. There was already Political backlash and the Program was Temporary. If they had continued pumping into it, wouldn't you be here whining about it?

You totally dodged that one, and badly at that.

Political backlash? Lots of people were calling it a success, and they managed to give the program more money pretty easily as it happened quickly. As opposed to say... healthcare reform which is taking ages. LOL Steward link added for lol factor.
Temporary? Yea, but it was supposed to last for quite a while longer than it did. Months, not weeks. The real reason is that past the $2b the consequences would have been clear enough for people to see.

Why would my whining prevent the government from passing a "stimulus" that a lot of people liked or benefited from. One of the most if not the most visible part of the stimulus package that received widespread applause from many was not passed because... I would disagree?

You might as well be glenn beck you delusional cretin.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Praxis1452

Originally posted by: sandorski


Negative. There was already Political backlash and the Program was Temporary. If they had continued pumping into it, wouldn't you be here whining about it?

You totally dodged that one, and badly at that.

Political backlash? Lots of people were calling it a success, and they managed to give the program more money pretty easily as it happened quickly. As opposed to say... healthcare reform which is taking ages. LOL Steward link added for lol factor.
Temporary? Yea, but it was supposed to last for quite a while longer than it did. Months, not weeks. The real reason is that past the $2b the consequences would have been clear enough for people to see.

Why would my whining prevent the government from passing a "stimulus" that a lot of people liked or benefited from. One of the most if not the most visible part of the stimulus package that received widespread applause from many was not passed because... I would disagree?

You might as well be glenn beck you delusional cretin.

I dodged nothing. The original plan was $3b, but was cut to $2b for "Consensus". Then the $1b was added on again when the $2b was going fast. Before the program there was concerted effort to declare Failure and despite its' success some are still harping on the programs "failures", simply by declaring future sales drops and other nonsense.

You're telling me you haven't heard any of that? If there was a Glenn Beck sound alike contest, I suspect I'd be eliminated early and you'd still be in the running.

 

[Praxis1452]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Praxis1452

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Praxis1452
r

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Praxis1452

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: sandorski
Trying to blame this on C4C is really bad analysis. I suggest sticking to your day job.

did you read the article? im going to guess not.

Ya, the article is just as badly analytical.

Unintended consequences. C4C has lots of them. You're a fool to deny them.

BS

It's funny how c4c was a success at 1b then after they added more money too, but they stopped. If it was such a success I fail to see why they couldn't have given it even more money. Oh wait because the unintended consequences would have become obvious.

Negative. There was already Political backlash and the Program was Temporary. If they had continued pumping into it, wouldn't you be here whining about it?

You totally dodged that one, and badly at that.

Political backlash? Lots of people were calling it a success, and they managed to give the program more money pretty easily as it happened quickly. As opposed to say... healthcare reform which is taking ages. LOL Steward link added for lol factor.
Temporary? Yea, but it was supposed to last for quite a while longer than it did. Months, not weeks. The real reason is that past the $2b the consequences would have been clear enough for people to see.

Why would my whining prevent the government from passing a "stimulus" that a lot of people liked or benefited from. One of the most if not the most visible part of the stimulus package that received widespread applause from many was not passed because... I would disagree?

You might as well be glenn beck you delusional cretin.

I dodged nothing. The original plan was $3b, but was cut to $2b for "Consensus". Then the $1b was added on again when the $2b was going fast. Before the program there was concerted effort to declare Failure and despite its' success some are still harping on the programs "failures", simply by declaring future sales drops and other nonsense.

You're telling me you haven't heard any of that? If there was a Glenn Beck sound alike contest, I suspect I'd be eliminated early and you'd still be in the running.

If it works, then you continue to fund the program. And it was a 2b dollars worth of additional funding. so actually it was 3b total.

Simple fact is that Cash for Clunkers had unintended consequences that people do not foresee, as it happens with most government programs. It most certainly did drive people who were eligible to have purchased cars as well as take money away from charities and give them to dealers. Link.

The whole point is, if it was such a success, then WHY CANCEL IT? And, if there was a problem past 3b or the 4b originally planned for it, what were the negative consequences that would have become blatantly obvious. This isn't something that's hard to imagine. If instead of the 3b that was offered, how about 100b. At some point the consequences become quite clear, and it's these consequences that many people ignore when they declare Cash for Clunkers a success beyond the needless destruction of working cars. And of course at 100b these effects would be exaggerated, but I believe them to exist even at lower amounts of funding.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Praxis1452

Originally posted by: sandorski
[

I dodged nothing. The original plan was $3b, but was cut to $2b for "Consensus". Then the $1b was added on again when the $2b was going fast. Before the program there was concerted effort to declare Failure and despite its' success some are still harping on the programs "failures", simply by declaring future sales drops and other nonsense.

You're telling me you haven't heard any of that? If there was a Glenn Beck sound alike contest, I suspect I'd be eliminated early and you'd still be in the running.

If it works, then you continue to fund the program. And it was a 2b dollars worth of additional funding. so actually it was 3b total.

Simple fact is that Cash for Clunkers had unintended consequences that people do not foresee, as it happens with most government programs. It most certainly did drive people who were eligible to have purchased cars as well as take money away from charities and give them to dealers. Link.

The whole point is, if it was such a success, then WHY CANCEL IT? And, if there was a problem past 3b or the 4b originally planned for it, what were the negative consequences that would have become blatantly obvious. This isn't something that's hard to imagine. If instead of the 3b that was offered, how about 100b. At some point the consequences become quite clear, and it's these consequences that many people ignore when they declare Cash for Clunkers a success beyond the needless destruction of working cars. And of course at 100b these effects would be exaggerated, but I believe them to exist even at lower amounts of funding.

It wasn't "Cancelled", it was Completed.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Darwin333

Originally posted by: sandorski

The depth of this Recession still eludes some people. That's quite obvious.

With that said, you believe its a good idea to encourage lower/middle class people to take on more debt right now is a good idea somehow? Encouraging them to take on 50%+ DTI home loans with virtually $0 down must be genius then. I wonder how well those loans are performing?


Don't forget to do your civic duty today and spend spend spend!

At this point, all I can do is laugh at how fucked we really are.

Kudos to those that see the truth :thumbsup:

 

[Praxis1452]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Praxis1452

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Praxis1452

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Praxis1452
r

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Praxis1452

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: sandorski
Trying to blame this on C4C is really bad analysis. I suggest sticking to your day job.

did you read the article? im going to guess not.

Ya, the article is just as badly analytical.

Unintended consequences. C4C has lots of them. You're a fool to deny them.

BS

It's funny how c4c was a success at 1b then after they added more money too, but they stopped. If it was such a success I fail to see why they couldn't have given it even more money. Oh wait because the unintended consequences would have become obvious.

Negative. There was already Political backlash and the Program was Temporary. If they had continued pumping into it, wouldn't you be here whining about it?

You totally dodged that one, and badly at that.

Political backlash? Lots of people were calling it a success, and they managed to give the program more money pretty easily as it happened quickly. As opposed to say... healthcare reform which is taking ages. LOL Steward link added for lol factor.
Temporary? Yea, but it was supposed to last for quite a while longer than it did. Months, not weeks. The real reason is that past the $2b the consequences would have been clear enough for people to see.

Why would my whining prevent the government from passing a "stimulus" that a lot of people liked or benefited from. One of the most if not the most visible part of the stimulus package that received widespread applause from many was not passed because... I would disagree?

You might as well be glenn beck you delusional cretin.

I dodged nothing. The original plan was $3b, but was cut to $2b for "Consensus". Then the $1b was added on again when the $2b was going fast. Before the program there was concerted effort to declare Failure and despite its' success some are still harping on the programs "failures", simply by declaring future sales drops and other nonsense.

You're telling me you haven't heard any of that? If there was a Glenn Beck sound alike contest, I suspect I'd be eliminated early and you'd still be in the running.

If it works, then you continue to fund the program. And it was a 2b dollars worth of additional funding. so actually it was 3b total.

Simple fact is that Cash for Clunkers had unintended consequences that people do not foresee, as it happens with most government programs. It most certainly did drive people who were eligible to have purchased cars as well as take money away from charities and give them to dealers. Link.

The whole point is, if it was such a success, then WHY CANCEL IT? And, if there was a problem past 3b or the 4b originally planned for it, what were the negative consequences that would have become blatantly obvious. This isn't something that's hard to imagine. If instead of the 3b that was offered, how about 100b. At some point the consequences become quite clear, and it's these consequences that many people ignore when they declare Cash for Clunkers a success beyond the needless destruction of working cars. And of course at 100b these effects would be exaggerated, but I believe them to exist even at lower amounts of funding.

It wasn't "Cancelled", it was Completed.

It was not continued despite its success and public support. Just reading about any major news article at the time and you'll read atleast a couple quotes saying how great it is and how much its helping and so forth.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Praxis1452


It was not continued despite its success and public support. Just reading about any major news article at the time and you'll read atleast a couple quotes saying how great it is and how much its helping and so forth.

It wasn't meant to go on forever.

That said, don't be surprised if it gets resurrected at some point for another go, but they'll probably wait awhile first, hoping that the Economy improves before resorting to it again.

 

[Praxis1452]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Praxis1452


It was not continued despite its success and public support. Just reading about any major news article at the time and you'll read atleast a couple quotes saying how great it is and how much its helping and so forth.

It wasn't meant to go on forever.

That said, don't be surprised if it gets resurrected at some point for another go, but they'll probably wait awhile first, hoping that the Economy improves before resorting to it again.

I didn't mention anything about it going on forever. My original statement focused on the fact that C4C, like most stimulus programs have many unintended consequences that are hard to notice at smaller levels of funding, however with ever increasing funding the consequences become obvious, consequences that still exist at lower levels. This was my point.

The point of this was to improve the economy, why would they wait until it improves, then implement this again? Implementing stimulus during periods of growth, what?

Also you speak of C4C as if it's an option of last resort which then demands the question: what are the drawbacks?

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Praxis1452

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Praxis1452


It was not continued despite its success and public support. Just reading about any major news article at the time and you'll read atleast a couple quotes saying how great it is and how much its helping and so forth.

It wasn't meant to go on forever.

That said, don't be surprised if it gets resurrected at some point for another go, but they'll probably wait awhile first, hoping that the Economy improves before resorting to it again.

I didn't mention anything about it going on forever. My original statement focused on the fact that C4C, like most stimulus programs have many unintended consequences that are hard to notice at smaller levels of funding, however with ever increasing funding the consequences become obvious, consequences that still exist at lower levels. This was my point.

The point of this was to improve the economy, why would they wait until it improves, then implement this again? Implementing stimulus during periods of growth, what?

Also you speak of C4C as if it's an option of last resort which then demands the question: what are the drawbacks?

Uhh, it is a Stimulus to try and spur the Economy forward. When Growth resumes, you want to avoid, or can avoid, such things and let the Economy do its' thing. Of course there are risks involved in such programs, but at this time such Programs are worth the risk.

 

[Praxis1452]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Praxis1452

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Praxis1452


It was not continued despite its success and public support. Just reading about any major news article at the time and you'll read atleast a couple quotes saying how great it is and how much its helping and so forth.

It wasn't meant to go on forever.

That said, don't be surprised if it gets resurrected at some point for another go, but they'll probably wait awhile first, hoping that the Economy improves before resorting to it again.

I didn't mention anything about it going on forever. My original statement focused on the fact that C4C, like most stimulus programs have many unintended consequences that are hard to notice at smaller levels of funding, however with ever increasing funding the consequences become obvious, consequences that still exist at lower levels. This was my point.

The point of this was to improve the economy, why would they wait until it improves, then implement this again? Implementing stimulus during periods of growth, what?

Also you speak of C4C as if it's an option of last resort which then demands the question: what are the drawbacks?

Uhh, it is a Stimulus to try and spur the Economy forward. When Growth resumes, you want to avoid, or can avoid, such things and let the Economy do its' thing. Of course there are risks involved in such programs, but at this time such Programs are worth the risk.

I understand what "stimulus" is. No need to explain basic keynsianism to me. Programs worth the risk is such a general statement it's not worth arguing over.

I proved my point.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Praxis1452

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Praxis1452

Originally posted by: sandorski


It wasn't meant to go on forever.

That said, don't be surprised if it gets resurrected at some point for another go, but they'll probably wait awhile first, hoping that the Economy improves before resorting to it again.

I didn't mention anything about it going on forever. My original statement focused on the fact that C4C, like most stimulus programs have many unintended consequences that are hard to notice at smaller levels of funding, however with ever increasing funding the consequences become obvious, consequences that still exist at lower levels. This was my point.

The point of this was to improve the economy, why would they wait until it improves, then implement this again? Implementing stimulus during periods of growth, what?

Also you speak of C4C as if it's an option of last resort which then demands the question: what are the drawbacks?

Uhh, it is a Stimulus to try and spur the Economy forward. When Growth resumes, you want to avoid, or can avoid, such things and let the Economy do its' thing. Of course there are risks involved in such programs, but at this time such Programs are worth the risk.

I understand what "stimulus" is. No need to explain basic keynsianism to me. Programs worth the risk is such a general statement it's not worth arguing over.

I proved my point.

What point was that? That the Program screwed up the Auto Market or that it should be continued?