Page 5 of 8 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 74

Thread: Trucks win in Cash for Clunkers game

  1. #41
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:59 PM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,362
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Trucks win in Cash for Clunkers game

    Quote Originally Posted by RightinNYC View Post
    But how many years of use will it take for the fuel saved to outweigh the energy/pollution involved in making the new car and junking the old?

    At the end of the day, this is several billion dollars being spent for the sole benefit of the auto manufacturers and retailers.
    Do you have any figures on how much fuel it takes to make a car? Without that it is hard to say, and does not take into consideration all the other factors.

    This is a program to help auto manufacturers, though a relatively benign one, and seems to be working. It might put me back to work even.

  2. #42
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:59 PM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,362
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Trucks win in Cash for Clunkers game

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    If you trade in your 15MPG Suburban for an 18MPG Tahoe, you're still driving an 18 MPG Tahoe, driving up fuel demand over the smaller, more efficent cars that the left had championed -- but, apparently, that's OK because even though the mileage still stinks, its "better".
    Until you can understand how going from 15 miles per gallon to 18 miles per gallon means you use less fuel, you will never understand how your premise is flawed. Using less gas does not make for more demand for gas, no matter how hard you try and spin it.

  3. #43
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 02:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    Re: Trucks win in Cash for Clunkers game

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    I still dispute the bolded part. A 5 % to 10 % increase in feul millage is not insignificant. It's not as much as some, but certainly has a potential positive impact.
    Alow me to repeat myself:
    THAT is a flawed premise, as "better" gas mileage can still be "piss-poor" gas mileage, and STILL drive up demand.

    That the demand post-CARS might not be as high as demand pre-CARS doesnt in any way preclude post-CARS demand from diving up prices.

  4. #44
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 02:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    Re: Trucks win in Cash for Clunkers game

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    Until you can understand how going from 15 miles per gallon to 18 miles per gallon means you use less fuel, you will never understand how your premise is flawed. Using less gas does not make for more demand for gas, no matter how hard you try and spin it.
    Alow me to repeat myself AGAIN:

    THAT is a flawed premise, as "better" gas mileage can still be "piss-poor" gas mileage, and STILL drive up demand.

    That the demand post-CARS might not be as high as demand pre-CARS doesnt in any way preclude post-CARS demand from diving up prices.

  5. #45
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:59 PM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,362
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Trucks win in Cash for Clunkers game

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    Alow me to repeat myself AGAIN:

    THAT is a flawed premise, as "better" gas mileage can still be "piss-poor" gas mileage, and STILL drive up demand.

    That the demand post-CARS might not be as high as demand pre-CARS doesnt in any way preclude post-CARS demand from diving up prices.
    If all the vehicles bought under Cash for Clunkers get better millage than the ones traded in, then demand goes down based on the effect of Cash for Clunkers.

  6. #46
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 02:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    Re: Trucks win in Cash for Clunkers game

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    If all the vehicles bought under Cash for Clunkers get better millage than the ones traded in, then demand goes down based on the effect of Cash for Clunkers.
    Only in comparison to pre-CARS levels. Maybe. You -assume- that those that get the slightly-better mileage will not simply drive slightly more.

    And, in any event, this does not change the fact that "better" gas mileage can still be "piss-poor" gas mileage, and STILL drive up demand as a 18MPG Tahoe -still- gets worse mileage than ALL of the cars under CARS. CARS allowed for these SUVs to be purchased, and so is to blame for the difference in mileage between those SUVs and the more fuel efficient cars that could have otherwise been specified.

  7. #47
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    48,013

    Re: Trucks win in Cash for Clunkers game

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    As explained before, that's not a comparable question.
    Yes, it is.

    Clunkers for cash is selling SUVs and trucks, as noted in the story. The piss-por mileage of SUVs and trucks was the war cry for the left over the last several years, as the price of gas climbed, peaking last year, and th eleft blamed these vehicles for every bit of it.
    True, that was part of the cry from the left. That said, you stated

    "So, when gas prices go up again, are the liberals going to blame The Obama for all the new trucks and SUVs on the road, driving up demand? "

    No, they're not, because "all those new trucks and SUV's on the road" aren't going to be driving up the demand, not in the way that you're implying. Your implying through your words that "all those new trucks and SUV's" from cash for clunkers are going to drive up demand as compared to if Cash for Clunkers didn't happen, which isn't the case because "all those SUVS and Trucks" have BETTER gas mileage than the ones prior to Cash for Clunkers.


    If you trade in your 15MPG Suburban for an 18MPG Tahoe, you're still driving an 18 MPG Tahoe, driving up fuel demand over the smaller, more efficent cars that the left had championed -- but, apparently, that's OK because even though the mileage still stinks, its "better".
    Whether or not its okay, if demand goes up for gas again you can't blame Cash for Clunkers for doing it by putting more "18 MPG Tahoe's on the road" because if they DIDN'T do Cash for Clunkers it would instead be 15 MPG Suburbans on the road and demand would arguably be HIGHER up so instead they could, theoritically, actually THANK Obama for demand not going up AS MUCH because better gas mileage SUV's and trucks are on the road.

    Aha!
    THAT is a flawed premise, as "better" gas mileage can still be "piss-poor" gas mileage, and STILL drive up demand.
    Yes, but it won't drive up demand AS MUCH as the lower gas mileage cars they got rid of, thus you can't blame Cash for Clunkers for INCREASING demand which would be needed if your premise is to be true.

    That the demand post-CARS might not be as high as demand pre-CARS doesnt in any way preclude post-CARS demand from diving up prices.
    No, it doens't, but it does mean one can't BLAME CARS and Obama on the increased in demand POST-CARS (at least in this instance) because the pre-CARS demand would've been even higher because it would've been more lower mileage vehicles on the road.

    But, they ARE going to drive it up compared to if the buyers had bought the more fuel efficient cars previously championed by the left, rather than SUVs. CARS allowed for these SUVs to be purchased, and so is to blame for the difference in mileage between those SUVs and the more fuel efficient cars that could have otherwise been specified.
    So you're attempt is saying that because they helped by getting low mileage cars/trucks/suv's off the road...but allowed it to be used for SUVs/Trucks that get better gas mileage than those previous ones but not better than small cars...they should be blamed for the rise in demand?

    That's just asinine.

    There's many potential ways to blame Obama if the price of gas rises again. Blaming a program that takes low mileage cars off the road and puts higher mileage ones on is not one of those ways.

    Under CARS, you can get a SUV or truck with as low as 15MPG.
    To have it that way you'd have to be trading in a car/truck/suv that got as low as 13 MPG for $3,500 or 10 MPG for $4,500, which still ultimately putting a higher gas mileage vehicle on the road then previously would've been, which is a net positive for demand.

    Not to mention you're also using ANOTHER flawed assumption; that all those people trading in their SUV's/Trucks for ones in the Cash for Clunkers program would've still done it if they would've been forced to get a compact car isntead of another SUV/Truck.

    The administratiuon chose to allow that possibility, and so is respobsible for every 15MPG SUV/truck bought under the program, and the demand that these vehicles created over the smaller, more fuel efficent cars the left has been talking about.
    Yes, they're responsable for the 2 to 5 mile per gallon demand that they've managed to save.

  8. #48
    Girthless
    RightinNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Last Seen
    01-23-11 @ 11:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    25,894

    Re: Trucks win in Cash for Clunkers game

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    Do you have any figures on how much fuel it takes to make a car? Without that it is hard to say, and does not take into consideration all the other factors.
    I don't know the exact numbers, as I imagine they're almost impossible to calculate, but it's almost certainly a much larger amount than would be saved. Think about this: The average person drives approx 12k miles per year. A car that would have gotten 18mpg would thus use 666 gallons of gas per year. A new car getting 22mpg would use 545 gallons of gas per year. That's 121 gallons saved/year.

    When you think about the massive amount of energy that goes into extracting and creating the metal, pounding it into shape, building the car, doing the interior, painting the thing, shipping the car to the dealership, etc. it's certainly far more than that.

    Professor Michael Gerrard said what is good for the economy could also have benefited the environment. But he noted the law fell well short of that goal.

    “It was sold as good for the auto industry, good for the environment and good for energy security,” Gerrard said. “It was sold as a three-fer. It’s more of a one-fer.”

    ...

    In turn, Gerrard noted that will result in small reductions in energy consumption and greenhouse gases if at all, especially when the energy costs of building the new cars are factored in.

    Any energy savings, Gerrard said, could take several years to realize after taking into account what he calls “carbon dioxide payback time,” the time it takes the fuel savings from a new car to exceed the energy cost used to make a new vehicle.

    “The program appears to have been a spectacular success in increasing auto sales, which is a remarkable and worthwhile achievement,” Gerrard said, “but as approved by Congress it’s not a cost-effective way to reduce fuel use or greenhouse gas emissions.”
    This is a program to help auto manufacturers, though a relatively benign one, and seems to be working. It might put me back to work even.
    But that's not what it was sold to the public as.
    People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

  9. #49
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 02:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    Re: Trucks win in Cash for Clunkers game

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    Yes, it is.
    No. The question you cite is a logical trap.
    Try answering "no" to each and see what you get.

    No, they're not, because "all those new trucks and SUV's on the road" aren't going to be driving up the demand, not in the way that you're implying
    Sure they do. They just dont do it as much as the vehicles they replace.
    Demand goes up, just not as much.

    Your implying through your words that "all those new trucks and SUV's" from cash for clunkers are going to drive up demand as compared to if Cash for Clunkers didn't happen, which isn't the case because "all those SUVS and Trucks" have BETTER gas mileage than the ones prior to Cash for Clunkers.
    That's your inference.
    Fact is, if the pre-CARS SUVs drove up demand, then so do post-CARS SUVs - just not as much.

    Remember - "drive up demand" necessitates a baseline for comparison.
    Whatever that demand was last year, if we have 90% of that demand this year, its still up from that baseline.

    Now, it may be down from last year, but it is still "up" from that baseline, and it is "up" from what it would be had the CARS program required that the new vehicle get, say 22 MPG or more.

    No, it doens't, but it does mean one can't BLAME CARS and Obama on the increased in demand POST-CARS (at least in this instance) because the pre-CARS demand would've been even higher because it would've been more lower mileage vehicles on the road.
    BUT you CAN blame him, as he allowed the SUVs to be bought under the CARS program to begin with. Had he chosen to specify that ALL vehicles get at least 22 (or whatever) MPG, then these new SUVs would not have been purchased, with better mileage cars bought in their stead.

  10. #50
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    48,013

    Re: Trucks win in Cash for Clunkers game

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    BUT you CAN blame him, as he allowed the SUVs to be bought under the CARS program to begin with. Had he chosen to specify that ALL vehicles get at least 22 (or whatever) MPG, then these new SUVs would not have been purchased, with better mileage cars bought in their stead.
    But this is a logical fallacy based on your assumption that all those people that are trading in SUV's/Cars/Trucks with low enough gas mileage to qualify would've done so still if they could've only purchased a small compact car instead of SUV's or trucks.

Page 5 of 8 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •