both of you are wrong... my post regarding break even points talk about what it really is... follow the posts....
the big quotation marks and bold isn't my statement... try again....
My Friend the Car Dealer Says...
- Thread starter CaRNiFReeK
- Start date
the big quotation marks and bold isn't my statement... try again....
and cracker jax is attempting to sound intelligent.... which obviously is not working
T.Bills and Bonds ALWAYS pay back the interest that is STATED on them. if a T. Bill earns 3% interest, it will earn 3% interest no matter what credit ratings say.
what changes is the REQUIRED RATE OF RETURN (RR) of investors. which in turn changes the SELLING PRICE of securities. if the stated rate of return on a bond or t. bill is greater than the required rate of investors, then that particular security will sell at a higher price.
For example: a $100 dollar note pays 3% interest. so it will pay 3 dollars interest no matter what.
If Investors Require that note to return 2% then the note sells at a PREMIUM for more than 100, %101, so investors receive 2% or 2 dollars back. If investors require the note to return 5% interest, the note then sells at discount, for less than $100, for 98 dollars. 2 + 3 (stated interest) = 5
that difference in price would make-up for the RR of the investor throughout the lifetime of the security. The discount/premium has to be amortized over time, to reflect difference in selling price and actual price (premium/discount) and the interest received/paid.
*these are rough calculations for the mere demonstration of how the mechanics work. This example would not be a long-term note, because I did not compound the interest more than once.
what the credit ratings say is that if a particular security is risky or not, and to what degree. that risk affects RR, the higher the risk, the higher the RR, the lower the risk, lower RR....
try again.....
T.Bills and Bonds ALWAYS pay back the interest that is STATED on them. if a T. Bill earns 3% interest, it will earn 3% interest no matter what credit ratings say.
what changes is the REQUIRED RATE OF RETURN (RR) of investors. which in turn changes the SELLING PRICE of securities. if the stated rate of return on a bond or t. bill is greater than the required rate of investors, then that particular security will sell at a higher price.
For example: a $100 dollar note pays 3% interest. so it will pay 3 dollars interest no matter what.
If Investors Require that note to return 2% then the note sells at a PREMIUM for more than 100, %101, so investors receive 2% or 2 dollars back. If investors require the note to return 5% interest, the note then sells at discount, for less than $100, for 98 dollars. 2 + 3 (stated interest) = 5
that difference in price would make-up for the RR of the investor throughout the lifetime of the security. The discount/premium has to be amortized over time, to reflect difference in selling price and actual price (premium/discount) and the interest received/paid.
*these are rough calculations for the mere demonstration of how the mechanics work. This example would not be a long-term note, because I did not compound the interest more than once.
what the credit ratings say is that if a particular security is risky or not, and to what degree. that risk affects RR, the higher the risk, the higher the RR, the lower the risk, lower RR....
try again.....
CrackerJax
New Member
Except how to put information into the correct context. You haven't shown a thing so far that is truly relevant to the auto bailout.
Focus.
Focus.
this is irrelevant??
i just proved, using real Time Value of Money principles, that the 3 billion dollar investment in "clunkers" has created a 4.5 billion dollar cash flow. and that was only in 6 years. the annual gas savings, established by the starter of this thread is an ANNUITY, which will continue long after that sixth year, so the 4.5 billion dollars is incomplete, because there is an infinite amount of years beyond that time that cash flow will exist.
for the sake of argument I even compounded the 3 billion dollar investment MONTLY (so it's interest earns interest more frequently), at a GREATER interest rate than the annual gas savings (which I compounded YEARLY), and it was still 3.5 billion vs. 4.5 billion created by the CARS program...
relevant enough??
CrackerJax
New Member
How bout we hear what a serious economist has to say instead of that drivel? Why use hypotheticals when we have real data.
Irwin Stelzer: Seven lessons of Cash-for-Clunkers' failure
By: Irwin M. Stelzer
Examiner Columnist
August 28, 2009
It's over, finished, done. And quiet returns to the auto showrooms of America. Cash-for-Clunkers has outlived its funding. But left us with a host of useful lessons.
First, government forecasters are really bad at their job. The program was originally funded with $1 billion of taxpayer money to cover rebates of $3,500-$4,500 on cars traded in for more fuel-efficient models, and the money was expected to last for about six months. It lasted for one week.
The $2 billion added to keep the program alive lasted less than a month. No surprise, then, that the government just discovered that its forecast of the deficit in the coming decade is light by a mere $2 trillion, or almost 30 percent.
Second, the government's talents, whatever they might be, do not include efficient administration of its programs. The 135 pages of rules setting out what dealers had to do to recapture the refund money they laid out, were constantly changed, the web site they were to use to apply to get their money back frequently crashed, and some had to drop out of the program because they had run out of cash.
The Department of Transportation assigned 2,000 workers to process dealer paperwork, but they seemed unable to get the money to dealers who, having laid it out in response to promises of prompt repayment, desperately needed the cash. So if you think the President's plan to "reform" health care will make it easier to cope with the paperwork surrounding hospital and doctor's bills, think again.
Third, Cash-for-Clunkers proved that if you give people $4,500 to buy a durable good, they will be more likely to buy it while the refund is available than later. But it does not show that the increase in spending meets one of White House economist Larry Summers' tests - sustainability.
The buyers of the almost 700,000 cars - 41 percent from Japanese makers and 39 percent from the (once) Big Three - for which dealers have filed $2.88 billion in refund requests included many who merely accelerated their purchase. Estimates are that 60 percent of buyers would have bought cars this year without this incentive. So dealers are expecting a very quiet few months.
And from the stimulus effect of the program must be deducted the appliances, clothes and other stuff that consumers will not buy in the future, now that they have the burden of lease or loan payments for their new vehicles.
Fourth, if you want to reduce dependence of foreign oil, don't look to Cash-for-Clunkers for help. On the best of assumptions about the fuel saved by replacing inefficient Clunkers with cars that get perhaps 10 mpg more than the Clunkers they replace, the reduction in gasoline consumption will cut our oil consumption by 0.2 percent per year, or less than a single day's gasoline use.
Unless, of course, the new car is more frequently driven because lower fuel consumption lowers the cost of driving, and increases the pleasure of taking to the road, in which case the saving will be less, or none.
Christopher Knittel, associate professor of economics at the University of California, estimates that the cost of reducing emissions was somewhere between $237 per ton and $365 per ton. Since the market price for carbon has fluctuated between around $20 and $40 per ton, "the program is an expensive way to reduce greenhouse gases." But cost is not something this Congress and the administration systematically factor into their policy ruminations.
Fifth, but fuel saving was only one goal of the program. The main stated goal was to cut carbon dioxide emissions and thereby postpone the day when the globe will be so warm that the ice cap melts, islands are inundated and we face a gory future. That, the program did, although only inconsequentially, given the pell-mell construction of coal plants in China and India. But at a horrendously uneconomic cost.
Sixth, unionization matters. Cash-for-Clunkers added $3 trillion to the billions of taxpayer money expended to save General Motors and Chrysler, i.e., members of the United Auto Workers. What a like sum might have done for furniture makers, or the hotel industry, or small businesses, was never even considered.
Seventh, programs such as Cash-for-Clunkers have no regard for lower-income consumers. By mandating the destruction of trade-ins, Congress removed 700,000 cars from the used-car market, inevitably driving up prices of the cars that lower-income consumers tend to buy.
And by ordering that a trade-in's engine be destroyed by replacing its engine oil with a sodium silicate solution (which turns out to be in short supply!), Congress sharply reduced the salvageable used parts that are bought mostly by poorer consumers to keep their cars running.
There's more, but you get the idea. It takes a politician to declare Cash-for-Clunkers a success.
Examiner Columnist Irwin M. Stelzer is a senior fellow and director of the Hudson Institute's Center for Economic Studies
Irwin Stelzer: Seven lessons of Cash-for-Clunkers' failure
By: Irwin M. Stelzer
Examiner Columnist
August 28, 2009
It's over, finished, done. And quiet returns to the auto showrooms of America. Cash-for-Clunkers has outlived its funding. But left us with a host of useful lessons.
First, government forecasters are really bad at their job. The program was originally funded with $1 billion of taxpayer money to cover rebates of $3,500-$4,500 on cars traded in for more fuel-efficient models, and the money was expected to last for about six months. It lasted for one week.
The $2 billion added to keep the program alive lasted less than a month. No surprise, then, that the government just discovered that its forecast of the deficit in the coming decade is light by a mere $2 trillion, or almost 30 percent.
Second, the government's talents, whatever they might be, do not include efficient administration of its programs. The 135 pages of rules setting out what dealers had to do to recapture the refund money they laid out, were constantly changed, the web site they were to use to apply to get their money back frequently crashed, and some had to drop out of the program because they had run out of cash.
The Department of Transportation assigned 2,000 workers to process dealer paperwork, but they seemed unable to get the money to dealers who, having laid it out in response to promises of prompt repayment, desperately needed the cash. So if you think the President's plan to "reform" health care will make it easier to cope with the paperwork surrounding hospital and doctor's bills, think again.
Third, Cash-for-Clunkers proved that if you give people $4,500 to buy a durable good, they will be more likely to buy it while the refund is available than later. But it does not show that the increase in spending meets one of White House economist Larry Summers' tests - sustainability.
The buyers of the almost 700,000 cars - 41 percent from Japanese makers and 39 percent from the (once) Big Three - for which dealers have filed $2.88 billion in refund requests included many who merely accelerated their purchase. Estimates are that 60 percent of buyers would have bought cars this year without this incentive. So dealers are expecting a very quiet few months.
And from the stimulus effect of the program must be deducted the appliances, clothes and other stuff that consumers will not buy in the future, now that they have the burden of lease or loan payments for their new vehicles.
Fourth, if you want to reduce dependence of foreign oil, don't look to Cash-for-Clunkers for help. On the best of assumptions about the fuel saved by replacing inefficient Clunkers with cars that get perhaps 10 mpg more than the Clunkers they replace, the reduction in gasoline consumption will cut our oil consumption by 0.2 percent per year, or less than a single day's gasoline use.
Unless, of course, the new car is more frequently driven because lower fuel consumption lowers the cost of driving, and increases the pleasure of taking to the road, in which case the saving will be less, or none.
Christopher Knittel, associate professor of economics at the University of California, estimates that the cost of reducing emissions was somewhere between $237 per ton and $365 per ton. Since the market price for carbon has fluctuated between around $20 and $40 per ton, "the program is an expensive way to reduce greenhouse gases." But cost is not something this Congress and the administration systematically factor into their policy ruminations.
Fifth, but fuel saving was only one goal of the program. The main stated goal was to cut carbon dioxide emissions and thereby postpone the day when the globe will be so warm that the ice cap melts, islands are inundated and we face a gory future. That, the program did, although only inconsequentially, given the pell-mell construction of coal plants in China and India. But at a horrendously uneconomic cost.
Sixth, unionization matters. Cash-for-Clunkers added $3 trillion to the billions of taxpayer money expended to save General Motors and Chrysler, i.e., members of the United Auto Workers. What a like sum might have done for furniture makers, or the hotel industry, or small businesses, was never even considered.
Seventh, programs such as Cash-for-Clunkers have no regard for lower-income consumers. By mandating the destruction of trade-ins, Congress removed 700,000 cars from the used-car market, inevitably driving up prices of the cars that lower-income consumers tend to buy.
And by ordering that a trade-in's engine be destroyed by replacing its engine oil with a sodium silicate solution (which turns out to be in short supply!), Congress sharply reduced the salvageable used parts that are bought mostly by poorer consumers to keep their cars running.
There's more, but you get the idea. It takes a politician to declare Cash-for-Clunkers a success.
Examiner Columnist Irwin M. Stelzer is a senior fellow and director of the Hudson Institute's Center for Economic Studies
doobnVA
Well-Known Member
Hmm, isn't that what I just said? =)
CrackerJax, NoDrama - I think you both owe me an apology and yourselves a hard look in the mirror.
doobnVA
Well-Known Member
as you can see, this article is so full of misinformation it is retarded...
"First, government forecasters are really bad at their job. The program was originally funded with $1 billion of taxpayer money to cover rebates of $3,500-$4,500 on cars traded in for more fuel-efficient models, and the money was expected to last for about six months. It lasted for one week." - forecasting demand during such a slump is really hard. trust me, no model exists. this statement just correlates what I am trying to say, the program was a HUGE success.
"The $2 billion added to keep the program alive lasted less than a month. No surprise, then, that the government just discovered that its forecast of the deficit in the coming decade is light by a mere $2 trillion, or almost 30 percent." - this has nothing to do with cash for clunkers, this has more to do with the fact that there are plenty of other, useless, government programs out there that need auditing.....but the article puts it in here just to show you what a big, bad dog obama is... pleeeeaaase.
"Third, Cash-for-Clunkers proved that if you give people $4,500 to buy a durable good, they will be more likely to buy it while the refund is available than later. But it does not show that the increase in spending meets one of White House economist Larry Summers' tests - sustainability." - this makes a real good point, but does not delve into what actually is sustainability, or why exactly it failed, it meerly states something supposedly said by some "expert" and expects you to swallow it as a "fact". bad journalism. not buying it.
"The buyers of the almost 700,000 cars - 41 percent from Japanese makers and 39 percent from the (once) Big Three - for which dealers have filed $2.88 billion in refund requests included many who merely accelerated their purchase. Estimates are that 60 percent of buyers would have bought cars this year without this incentive. So dealers are expecting a very quiet few months."
ESTIMATES ARE THAT 60%, who's estimates? how does the publisher of this article know these estimates are accurate? how does he not know that actual "estimates" are that 10-20% of buyers were gonna buy the cars?? he doesn't, why?? because it is an estimate, and a matter of speculation, even more so that he doesn't even offer a source of that "estimate".
And from the stimulus effect of the program must be deducted the appliances, clothes and other stuff that consumers will not buy in the future, now that they have the burden of lease or loan payments for their new vehicles.
the article does not even try to delve into maintenance savings from the fact that they are driving a new car, not some old ass beat up clunker. it also doesn't factor in the fact that these new cars have actual salvage value. it just says that people are going to have an additional payment, yeah but they won't be spending as much in fuel and break downs, AND they will be driving a brand-spanking new car, which they will be able to sell for more than 800 bux.
Fourth, if you want to reduce dependence of foreign oil, don't look to Cash-for-Clunkers for help. On the best of assumptions about the fuel saved by replacing inefficient Clunkers with cars that get perhaps 10 mpg more than the Clunkers they replace, the reduction in gasoline consumption will cut our oil consumption by 0.2 percent per year, or less than a single day's gasoline use.
Unless, of course, the new car is more frequently driven because lower fuel consumption lowers the cost of driving, and increases the pleasure of taking to the road, in which case the saving will be less, or none.
Christopher Knittel, associate professor of economics at the University of California, estimates that the cost of reducing emissions was somewhere between $237 per ton and $365 per ton. Since the market price for carbon has fluctuated between around $20 and $40 per ton, "the program is an expensive way to reduce greenhouse gases." But cost is not something this Congress and the administration systematically factor into their policy ruminations.
the family driving the new car will sure feel the savings of 20-30 dollars a week right? the dependence on foreign oil will only be lowered through systematic upgrading of the transportation infrastructure in this country, and the implementation of new alternative sources of electricity....that is something that is so obvious it's pathetic... the program wants to put money in peoples hands by saving them money on gas, a savings that will continue for as long as they drive the car, and giving them some sort of cash for their clunker, which would other wise be almost worthless....
Fifth, but fuel saving was only one goal of the program. The main stated goal was to cut carbon dioxide emissions and thereby postpone the day when the globe will be so warm that the ice cap melts, islands are inundated and we face a gory future. That, the program did, although only inconsequentially, given the pell-mell construction of coal plants in China and India. But at a horrendously uneconomic cost.
The money had to come from somewhere, remember BUSH spent all the cash available in fighting an unnwinnable war. those countries are economies in development, one day they too will shift from coal burning to more efficient methods to produce electricity. it's only a matter of time, or do you expect that change to happen tomorrow?? it's not, give it time. this "economist" should've recognized this...
Cash-for-Clunkers added $3 trillion to the billions of taxpayer money expended to save General Motors and Chrysler, i.e., members of the United Auto Workers.
the total budget spent was 3 BILLION, how that 3 trillion was attained is a matter of who said what....
Congress removed 700,000 cars from the used-car market, inevitably driving up prices of the cars that lower-income consumers tend to buy.
And by ordering that a trade-in's engine be destroyed by replacing its engine oil with a sodium silicate solution (which turns out to be in short supply!), Congress sharply reduced the salvageable used parts that are bought mostly by poorer consumers to keep their cars running.
There's more, but you get the idea. It takes a politician to declare Cash-for-Clunkers a success.
here's another attempt at shoving crap down your throat. the used car market for low income families is mainly small, compact, FUEL EFFICIENT cars. not all those clunkers. high gas prices have made the american consumer very weary about fuel efficiency. this is exactly why cryshler and GM are failing, they pumped huge sums of money into 8V vehicles that americans stopped buying. the fact that this guy cannot recognize that market trend would make him a horrible business man. he might be a good writer, not too bright with business though...
there is actually a very big market for NEW, cheap replacement parts coming from korea and china. i know this because I worked with this industry before. it is a matter of FACT. You can buy a new mechanical part for your engine, a "generic" that would cost you about the same as a used piece. which would you buy? the new one or the used one?? the fact is that there is very little market for used mechanical engine components. it exists, but if it were bigger this "economist" would be able to be a little more specific.
it only takes logic to see the bullshit the red machine is spreading... OPEN YOUR MIND
"First, government forecasters are really bad at their job. The program was originally funded with $1 billion of taxpayer money to cover rebates of $3,500-$4,500 on cars traded in for more fuel-efficient models, and the money was expected to last for about six months. It lasted for one week." - forecasting demand during such a slump is really hard. trust me, no model exists. this statement just correlates what I am trying to say, the program was a HUGE success.
"The $2 billion added to keep the program alive lasted less than a month. No surprise, then, that the government just discovered that its forecast of the deficit in the coming decade is light by a mere $2 trillion, or almost 30 percent." - this has nothing to do with cash for clunkers, this has more to do with the fact that there are plenty of other, useless, government programs out there that need auditing.....but the article puts it in here just to show you what a big, bad dog obama is... pleeeeaaase.
"Third, Cash-for-Clunkers proved that if you give people $4,500 to buy a durable good, they will be more likely to buy it while the refund is available than later. But it does not show that the increase in spending meets one of White House economist Larry Summers' tests - sustainability." - this makes a real good point, but does not delve into what actually is sustainability, or why exactly it failed, it meerly states something supposedly said by some "expert" and expects you to swallow it as a "fact". bad journalism. not buying it.
"The buyers of the almost 700,000 cars - 41 percent from Japanese makers and 39 percent from the (once) Big Three - for which dealers have filed $2.88 billion in refund requests included many who merely accelerated their purchase. Estimates are that 60 percent of buyers would have bought cars this year without this incentive. So dealers are expecting a very quiet few months."
ESTIMATES ARE THAT 60%, who's estimates? how does the publisher of this article know these estimates are accurate? how does he not know that actual "estimates" are that 10-20% of buyers were gonna buy the cars?? he doesn't, why?? because it is an estimate, and a matter of speculation, even more so that he doesn't even offer a source of that "estimate".
And from the stimulus effect of the program must be deducted the appliances, clothes and other stuff that consumers will not buy in the future, now that they have the burden of lease or loan payments for their new vehicles.
the article does not even try to delve into maintenance savings from the fact that they are driving a new car, not some old ass beat up clunker. it also doesn't factor in the fact that these new cars have actual salvage value. it just says that people are going to have an additional payment, yeah but they won't be spending as much in fuel and break downs, AND they will be driving a brand-spanking new car, which they will be able to sell for more than 800 bux.
Fourth, if you want to reduce dependence of foreign oil, don't look to Cash-for-Clunkers for help. On the best of assumptions about the fuel saved by replacing inefficient Clunkers with cars that get perhaps 10 mpg more than the Clunkers they replace, the reduction in gasoline consumption will cut our oil consumption by 0.2 percent per year, or less than a single day's gasoline use.
Unless, of course, the new car is more frequently driven because lower fuel consumption lowers the cost of driving, and increases the pleasure of taking to the road, in which case the saving will be less, or none.
Christopher Knittel, associate professor of economics at the University of California, estimates that the cost of reducing emissions was somewhere between $237 per ton and $365 per ton. Since the market price for carbon has fluctuated between around $20 and $40 per ton, "the program is an expensive way to reduce greenhouse gases." But cost is not something this Congress and the administration systematically factor into their policy ruminations.
the family driving the new car will sure feel the savings of 20-30 dollars a week right? the dependence on foreign oil will only be lowered through systematic upgrading of the transportation infrastructure in this country, and the implementation of new alternative sources of electricity....that is something that is so obvious it's pathetic... the program wants to put money in peoples hands by saving them money on gas, a savings that will continue for as long as they drive the car, and giving them some sort of cash for their clunker, which would other wise be almost worthless....
Fifth, but fuel saving was only one goal of the program. The main stated goal was to cut carbon dioxide emissions and thereby postpone the day when the globe will be so warm that the ice cap melts, islands are inundated and we face a gory future. That, the program did, although only inconsequentially, given the pell-mell construction of coal plants in China and India. But at a horrendously uneconomic cost.
The money had to come from somewhere, remember BUSH spent all the cash available in fighting an unnwinnable war. those countries are economies in development, one day they too will shift from coal burning to more efficient methods to produce electricity. it's only a matter of time, or do you expect that change to happen tomorrow?? it's not, give it time. this "economist" should've recognized this...
Cash-for-Clunkers added $3 trillion to the billions of taxpayer money expended to save General Motors and Chrysler, i.e., members of the United Auto Workers.
the total budget spent was 3 BILLION, how that 3 trillion was attained is a matter of who said what....
Congress removed 700,000 cars from the used-car market, inevitably driving up prices of the cars that lower-income consumers tend to buy.
And by ordering that a trade-in's engine be destroyed by replacing its engine oil with a sodium silicate solution (which turns out to be in short supply!), Congress sharply reduced the salvageable used parts that are bought mostly by poorer consumers to keep their cars running.
There's more, but you get the idea. It takes a politician to declare Cash-for-Clunkers a success.
here's another attempt at shoving crap down your throat. the used car market for low income families is mainly small, compact, FUEL EFFICIENT cars. not all those clunkers. high gas prices have made the american consumer very weary about fuel efficiency. this is exactly why cryshler and GM are failing, they pumped huge sums of money into 8V vehicles that americans stopped buying. the fact that this guy cannot recognize that market trend would make him a horrible business man. he might be a good writer, not too bright with business though...
there is actually a very big market for NEW, cheap replacement parts coming from korea and china. i know this because I worked with this industry before. it is a matter of FACT. You can buy a new mechanical part for your engine, a "generic" that would cost you about the same as a used piece. which would you buy? the new one or the used one?? the fact is that there is very little market for used mechanical engine components. it exists, but if it were bigger this "economist" would be able to be a little more specific.
it only takes logic to see the bullshit the red machine is spreading... OPEN YOUR MIND
CrackerJax
New Member
Ur a newb in the woods.
You said it was a success. It failed in every way.
You said it was a success. It failed in every way.
CrackerJax
New Member
An informed mind is much better. Open minds are for hypothesis. there's no hypothesis here.
Keysnian economics don't work ... no open mind needed there.
Keysnian economics don't work ... no open mind needed there.
PeachOibleBoiblePeach#1
Well-Known Member
It's a win win for the scrap industry, all these cars being turned in are not all clunkers there are a LOT of newer suv's etc, being traded in. The scrap yards are now opening new buisnesses and hiring more people, Pick and saves. Just my experience. Everything that is a cash for clunkers has to go to the scrap yards, and they are in turn salvaging all the parts except the motors, by the way I was non-Union.
Now when I have to get that $500 dollar lense for my gas guzzling SUV I'll pay a fration of the price it's a win for me.
Now when I have to get that $500 dollar lense for my gas guzzling SUV I'll pay a fration of the price it's a win for me.
ViRedd
New Member
^^^ I thought the cars were just crushed and weren't alowed to be used for parts.
Here's another thought: The 700,000 vehicles that were turned into scrap, flooded the scrap market. The Scrap market is subject to supply and demand just like any other business. So, with too much supply, how much profit have the scrap dealers lost?
Here's another thought: The 700,000 vehicles that were turned into scrap, flooded the scrap market. The Scrap market is subject to supply and demand just like any other business. So, with too much supply, how much profit have the scrap dealers lost?
PeachOibleBoiblePeach#1
Well-Known Member
They lost a ton, and laid a lot of people off until this program started, I mean they are starting new, by reselling the parts insted of shredding them for the steel. Hell 2 years ago the metal prices were over inflated like the housing markets, now in the US they are not worth crap,,,By the way the steel is going to china and India, They pay better. I really am not for or against,,just saying I can get cheaper parts for my gas guzzler now.
i'll admit that, there will be some fluctuations with scrap metal prices, probably having them decline, then slowly rise to current levels since the market will get flooded with a steep rise in supply, then an eventual decline in supply as all the metal that flooded into the market from the clunkers slowly gets sold...
but to tell you the truth, i don't see scrap metal sales distributors almost every other block. i see car dealerships, particularly american car dealerships. those businesses needed a push to save them from bankruptcy. what would your city/town look like if every single GM and Cryshler dealersip closed? it would be a very bleak scenario, at least in the states...
some might think of it as a "bailout", i see it as an investment. unlike the bailouts, there are real cash flows and benefits that can be generated and calculated with this program.
a bailout is what happened with AIG, that received the money and just paid off it's execs, who helped manage it into insolvency. that policy i won't defend because there is nothing to defend.
but to tell you the truth, i don't see scrap metal sales distributors almost every other block. i see car dealerships, particularly american car dealerships. those businesses needed a push to save them from bankruptcy. what would your city/town look like if every single GM and Cryshler dealersip closed? it would be a very bleak scenario, at least in the states...
some might think of it as a "bailout", i see it as an investment. unlike the bailouts, there are real cash flows and benefits that can be generated and calculated with this program.
a bailout is what happened with AIG, that received the money and just paid off it's execs, who helped manage it into insolvency. that policy i won't defend because there is nothing to defend.
PeachOibleBoiblePeach#1
Well-Known Member
They do not need to be crushed, the dealers are required to scrap them, with the motor siezed, the silacon gel,,,but everything else can be salvaged by the scrap yards.
ViRedd
New Member
OK, thanks for clearing that up.
A friend of mine manages a Toyota dealership. He's telling me that sales boomed during the Clunker program ... but sales have fallen flatter than a pancake since. So .. where's the overall gain for the dealerships? I mean, if a dealer has one foot in a bucket of boiling water, and another foot in a bucket of ice water ... does he feel comfortable overall?
PeachOibleBoiblePeach#1
Well-Known Member
In my opion,,To be honest there are just to many cars period,,Ya know them figures from way back An average american has XXX amount of cars per houshold? They even exceded the amount of drivers per house hold. There was and is too many and to much of one thing, Now everything is going back to normal usage, There has to be a solution to all problems but they are all very complex, because one issue effects so many varibles. I'm openminded and would love to see a solution to the problems we face today,,even though I may be slanted one way or the other. Peace.
PeachOibleBoiblePeach#1
Well-Known Member
Well, There are to many dealerships owned by the same few company's they need to come up with a new buissness or close shop,,They have the power not us.