I got rid of a car that got 18MPG and bought a car that gets 33MPG...

__________________
speaks louder than words.
Problems on the forum? Contact me here!

You know, in 1985 I had a Honda Civic CRX HF, it got 52 MPG. In 25 years we haven't got any cars that run entirely on gas and get anywhere near that economy? What happened?

__________________
It is far easier to ignorantly control others than it is to wisely control yourself.

Yea it should have been based on the IMPROVEMENT in mileage, not some 18 mpg baseline. Because my POS gets 22 miles per gallon I could not participate in this program. I would have bought a car that gets 40+ mpg. I know some people who turned in their 18 mpg car to get a 23 mpg truck. WTF good is that doing? If you require that the differential between the clunker and the new car to be at least 15 mpg then the math on the oil and all that changes. Even so, oil savings wasn't the point anyway... Whether or not it had a positive net effect on our economy I can't be certain, a ton of factors involved there.

__________________
"Earth laughs in flowers." -Ralph Waldo Emerson

Weird. They ARE allowed to sell the parts, just not the engine or drive train.

wonder why they felt they needed to bang it up and refuse to sell him parts from it?

__________________
A government big enough to give you everything you want, makes Santa Claus pretty much obsolete.

Apparently in other countries they do have vehicles with much better gas mileage than ours. The governments in other countries have much stricter standards than we do.

Why don't we have them? Because we despise the government and won't let them slap new regulations on the auto industry, that's why. But apparently we love to be shortchanged by big business.

Hooray for America!

__________________
A government big enough to give you everything you want, makes Santa Claus pretty much obsolete.

Umm ok, well we had less regulations on the auto industry back in 1985, so your logic doesn't make sense. Maybe it has something to do with gas prices, perhaps car maker lobbying, maybe consumer preference to drive bigger , guzzling, but safer and easier to drive vehicles with more features. And I will just bet that its much harder to get that good gas mileage when the engine has to put up with half its power being hogged up by emission control equipment that is mandated by...you guessed it, government.

Hooray for government!

__________________
It is far easier to ignorantly control others than it is to wisely control yourself.

You seem smart enough,

Answer me this:
if you calculate interest on 3 billion at 10% over 5 years it will cost 100 million plus interest charges,, the break even point will be in about 6 years,,
Break even formula:
X = FC/SP-VC
Where:
X = break even point
FC = fixed costs
SP= Selling Price
VC = Variable Cost
Fill in the above formula, and tell me where the HELL does time frame fit into it… it doesn’t, because break even analysis takes into account the costs of making something, it’s selling price, and the QUANTITIES sold…. The final number is not a date, it’s a QUANTITY…You did not mention any of the actual variables that go into cost-volume-profit analysis…. If you can please specify… I’m very knowledgeable in accounting, management science, and financial markets…. Enlighten me, wise one….

“Let's also analyze something,, if Obama told you during his campaign that he was going to have a clunker program and then he told you again a couple of months before the program that he was going to do it it July,,, would you wait a year or a couple of months to get rid of your third car? or a car that was in the backyard because you couldn't get anything for it?”
That was exactly one of the goals of the program. To have people make money from something that was worth nothing. The purpose of the program was to give people a chance to get something from cars that would normally have “immaterial” trade in value. Why is that wrong?? oh, it's just that you think that getting money in american pockets, so they can spend that money and provide economic activity is wrong....

.” Now those dealers are living "supply and demand economics
', you know "low supply" equals higher prices. So the working man will have higher payments and the dealer will have more repossesions.”

Actually, we are living in a low demand high supply economics. Auto makers are having to cut capacity because cars are not being sold. Low demand = lower prices. Interest rates are at an all time low, how that adds up to higher payments and more repossessions is pure speculation, assuming the “working man” will not be able to make those “higher payments”.

“Plus of course, most of the money according to the government went to Foreign car manufacturers, because Government involvement, stopped production of GM and Chrylser and they weren't making cars for 4 months. Hello! don't make any can't sell any!”

Most of the sales went to foreign car manufacturers because GM and Crysler were unable to identify the needs of American car buyers. They pumped millions and millions of dollars into big cars Americans don’t want anymore. These companies were being mismanaged from befre the government took over. If it wasn’t for the gov’ts help they would probably be bankrupt right now, and even MORE people would be unemployed. The reason for lower capacity was the fact that no one was buying their cars. Why keep making cars that just don’t sell because the “target consumer” is not properly identified??


“Plus they did not pay any vouchers for almost two months, so the dealers "loaned" the government 3 billion dollars for two months that dealers desperately needed to buy more inventory to sell. if we turn our inventory every 30 days that cost over 300 million in potential profit (10% return very,very optimistic).”

This was due to the unprecedented success of the program. The government is not in the car selling business so something called a “learning curve” has to occur in order for things to run smoothly. Desperately needed to buy inventory, these car dealers had cars in their lots for months and months… they had a big problem with overstock, and a little something called inventory on hand. If you did not know companies need to pay tax on inventory on hand. So their desperation is unwarranted. This wasn’t a food kitchen in the middle of a famine. It was just a lil help to a market that was injured and bleeding.

I listened to a former Clinton and both Bush economic advisor in January of 2008 at a conference and he said at that time, Gas prices would peak in the summer pushing us off the cliff into a short recession, there would be a credit tightening and we would recover in early 2010. Now how can he make those statements in front of 250 people a year and a half ahead of time? He said our capitalist economy would fix itself? We have been railroaded!

January 2008, that was before the collapse of some of the biggest banks in the world, before a 40 BILLION dollar ponzi scheme, before the monopolizing of the banking systems…. You listened to the truth at that point in time. A lot of things happened afterwards my friend, and emergency action was necessary.
Get back in school, do research, and stop drinking the republican koolaid….
Adios….

there useing the old car parts to build a spaceship

__________________
http://www.rollitup.org/advanced-mar...l-growing.html
http://www.rollitup.org/marijuana-pi...x.php?u=135841

Just another loophole I found in your argument this morning…


You claim that the “break – even point”, which we all already know you misused, and therefore don’t really understand it’s purpose in business, to be in 6 years.

ACTUALLY, taking into account that the yearly savings by Americans will be 733 million per year, plugging that into an annuity which:

PV = -103,571,000, this number I calculated assuming the 690,114 americans that took to the CARS program received an average of 1500 dollars, I just made this figure up cuz its too early to research this shit, I’m guessing actual average savings are higher.

FV = 0, because this number we are trying to find out, how much cash flow was actually generated by the program in 6 years.

IR = .02%, this is a ridiculously low interest rate, I’m just using it to humor myself and everyone else in here.

PMT = -733,000,000, yearly savings by Americans according to YOU.

N = 6, I’m gonna compound an interest of 0.02% once a year, since it takes 6 years to “break-even” according to you, then the amount of compounding periods is 6.

*Note: 0.02% annual interest will actually cost you money, because inflation occurs at a faster rate, just bear with me….

FV = $4,530,894,933, value in 6 years of the cash Americans got in CARS + yearly savings in gas.


NOW,

If CARS cost us 3 Billion dollars,

Lets compound that MONTLY, for 6 years, at 3% annual interest:

PV= 3,000,000,000

FV = 0

IR = 3%/12 = .25%(monthly interest rate to be compounded, if you dnt understand look it up)

N = 72

PMT = 0.

That comes out to $3,590,845,402


OK, so assuming all of this is CRYSTAL clear now, now that I have shown you every single variable that has gone into my calculations, it is very apparent that CARS will not break even in 6 years, even if 2 VERY different interest rates are used to compound interest at different intervals. (even if the interest rate used to compound the initial investment is higher, and compounded more frequently than the cash poured into the economy + yearly savings in gas).

The program cost American tax payers 3 billion dollars, which in 6 years would be equal to 3.5 billion dollars, But what it will generate in cash flow in American pockets, and therefore the American economy in 6 years is 4.5 billion dollars. Assuming the 3 billion dollars the gov't spent for some reason earns more interest. If interest rates were kept constant betweent the two calculations, the 4.5 billion dollars would be higher....


Tell me how this program is a “failure”????

no rebuttals? no arguing?? am I right??

did the starter of this thread just start throwing big words and amounts around???