The Glade 4.0
https://gladerebooted.net/

Cash for clunkers math
https://gladerebooted.net/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=1257		 Page 1 of 1
Author:  Elmarnieh [ Sat Dec 26, 2009 12:58 pm ]
Post subject:  Cash for clunkers math
The average MPG for vehicles turned in was 15mpg.
The average MPG of vehicles purchased in the program was 25mpg.
The average driver drives 12,000 miles a year.

That is an average savings of 320 gallons per year per car.

That is about 5 million barrels of oil per year.

The steady average cost of a barrel of oil is 70 dollars, thus the yearly savings of the program is 350 million.

The average person owns a car for 6 years so the average ownership of a clunker was 3 - which means they would be on the road for average of 3 more years.

350million *3 = a little over 1 billion dollars in savings.

We spent 3 billion on the program to save 1 billion.
Author:  Micheal [ Sat Dec 26, 2009 1:22 pm ]
Post subject: 
You forget all the profit to the businesses, the loan interest, the warranty income, the higher insurance costs, the more repairs that have to be done by mechanics because so many of the cars are now beyond DIY repairs.

Of course there is also the lower carbon footprints of the newer cars, less polution = green victory.

Looking at it only in terms of tax dollars spent on a pork project, yeah, we're behind in the game, but look at all the side benefits. Sorry if I sound funny, talking with the tongue in my cheek is awkward.
Author:  Xequecal [ Sat Dec 26, 2009 2:21 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Cash for clunkers math
This just in, reducing emissions costs money. Of course it costs money. If you could save money by reducing emissions, everyone would be doing it already.
Author:  Elmarnieh [ Sat Dec 26, 2009 2:43 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Cash for clunkers math
Xequecal wrote:
This just in, reducing emissions costs money. Of course it costs money. If you could save money by reducing emissions, everyone would be doing it already.


I can reduce emissions by killing half the life on the planet.

Define why reducing emissions should be forced on individuals?
Author:  Diamondeye [ Sat Dec 26, 2009 4:57 pm ]
Post subject: 
I think the word you want is "explain", not "define". I also don't really see why you switched gears from explaining the economic cost of reducing emissions in the form of cash for clunkers to "why should it be forced on individuals?"
Author:  Elmarnieh [ Sat Dec 26, 2009 5:16 pm ]
Post subject: 
Likely because I'm at work for 12 hours with 2 hours sleep.
Author:  Micheal [ Sat Dec 26, 2009 6:29 pm ]
Post subject: 
How is a voluntary program forcing the buyers to participate?
Author:  Elmarnieh [ Sat Dec 26, 2009 6:50 pm ]
Post subject: 
The taxpayers are co-buyers Micheal.
Author:  Micheal [ Sat Dec 26, 2009 7:38 pm ]
Post subject: 
There are many things we as taxpayers foot the bill for, that I would rather not have the government spend money on. We do not get a personal line item veto over every financial decision our representatives make. If we did, the wheels of government would grind to a halt and nothing would ever get done.

This is just another one of those stupid programs we have no control over. It happened too fast with too little discussion. It was a gamble to see if people with the worst polluters would choose to buy new cars and stimulate the economy if the government, i.e. all of us, offered to help them out with the purchase price. I didn't particularly support it, I just kind of shook my head and groaned.

It worked, people bought new cars. It failed to stimulate the economy in a meaningful way.

You figured out that the economy was doomed a long time ago Elmo. Nitpicking every decision and gambit along the way is not going to make it fall any faster or slower. Enjoy your 'I told you so' moments.
Author:  Rafael [ Sun Dec 27, 2009 10:39 pm ]
Post subject:  Re:
Micheal wrote:
You forget all the profit to the businesses, the loan interest, the warranty income, the higher insurance costs, the more repairs that have to be done by mechanics because so many of the cars are now beyond DIY repairs.


But by incentivizing car purchases, Americans take on more personal debt, eliminating capital from being used for a more valued purpose.
Author:  Micheal [ Mon Dec 28, 2009 12:14 am ]
Post subject: 
The more valued part of that equation depends on whether your income derives from servicing that personal debt now, doesn't it.
Author:  Rafael [ Wed Dec 30, 2009 11:09 am ]
Post subject: 
No it doesn't. It's not more valued because capital isn't freely flowing there (or not to a degree deemed "desired" by our government) without the incentive. Were it doing so, the incentive wouldn't need to exist.
Page 1 of 1 All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
https://www.phpbb.com/