Well let’s see, there was a stimulation of the ailing auto industry and we got several hundred thousand clunkers off the road. The economy and the environment were helped. Not bad for a government program. You don’t explain Christopher Knittel’s calculations in any detail, but it looks like a rudimentary formula that has little to do with the real world (much like many professors and business reporters). To have any value, Knittel’s formula would have to encompass more than a static one-time calculation. How about the ongoing cost savings to the environment over the life of the new cars? Ok, so you don’t like the Cash for Clunkers program. We get that. But how about a little more reporting and less opinion? You can someone in academia to support any kooky theory, so quoting a professor’s simplistic view of the program does not go very far with me.

Like most of the critics, Nicklaus misses the point - or intentionally obscures it. The goal of the program wasn’t singular, nor was the benefit. Reduced carbon emissions are just a part of the overall picture. You can take the cost of the program and show that it outweighs the benefit of the reduced emissions. Or you can take the cost of the program and show that it outweighs the long-term fuel savings. Or show that it outweighs the economic stimulus of the auto sales. Or the benefit to the auto workers. But you can’t take any of those benefits individually for your comparison - that is a dishonest argument. Also, who wrote the headline for this article? “Too?” How else was it a clunker? Because Lynch’s Hummers weren’t included? Give me a break.

Hmmm. Didn’t the auto industry already get billions in bailouts and taken over by Obama. Yet, it still needed another 2 or 3 billion more to help it limp along. And, now that the program is over sales will revert to their previous pathetic levels.

Kerouac - Hummers were included.
Vince - The American auto industry was not stimulated because everyone bought foreign cars. Also, only about 2% of the money has been paid out! The “ailing auto industry” had to front the money to the consumers and they have received about 2% of that money back from the government.
For those of you keeping score at home: if a dealer sold 100 of these cash-for-clunkers, then they fronted anywhere from $350,000 to $450,000 ($3,500 or $4,500 rebates per vehicle), and they have received anywhere from $7,000 to $9,000 (2% of what was fronted). How do you figure that there was any “stimulation of the ailing auto industry”???

“Ok, so you don’t like the Cash for Clunkers program. We get that. But how about a little more reporting and less opinion?”

Amen. I don’t care for C4C, but one wonders what axe Mr. Niklaus grinds for this topic…

I was against the Cash for Clunkers (CARS) program from the start. Basically, they are saying that these cars would have been scrapped anyway, so they were speeding up the process. Let’s look at this for what it is, a bailout of the auto industry where not everyone benefits from it. What did the people who already drive older great mileage vehicles get? Nothing. What did people who drove gas guzzlers get? Up to $4500. So it’s drive a gas guzzler and get rewarded, or drive a good fuel economy vehicle, get nothing. Don’t make mortgage payments and you get a loan modification for lower payments or a short sale, but make mortgage payments like you agreed to and get nothing. I challenge anyone to show me the logic of this and how it makes common sense. People say the free market economy is not working. How can it when we don’t practice it?

I’d love to see equations which show a more apples to apples comparison. Yes, a gas guzzler will eventually be replaced, but show how long the typical gas guzzler would have lasted and show it’s CO2 emissions during that time and then add in the CO2 and toxic emissions when a new vehicle is created to replace the old one. This would be compared to the CO2 and toxic emissions when a new vehicle is created and the CO2 emissions during the entire time the old vehicle would have lasted. I believe you will find that keeping the old vehicle would be better when you look at CO2 and other toxic emissions like mercury. Don’t just look at CO2!!!

LOL got to love that.

How kool is it too, that it took 135 pages to explain the cash for clunkers trade in deals for a $3billion dollar refund program that still has deals waiting to be paid? I guess the good news is that the gov had to hire 1,000’s of people to distribute and deal with the program. That’s job creation. A government job. Which will be there indefinitely now. Hmmm. I wonder how many jobs will be created from the $3 Trillion dollar healthcare program.

And how many trees will be killed to explain that one.

Vince, If you follow the link you’ll see that Knittel’s math is far from simplistic. Essentially, the clunkers were an average of 13 years old, and had an expected remaining life span of 3.5 years for cars and 7.5 years for light trucks. He calculates the emissions reduction over that period. He also discusses other issues, like the fact that new cars typically are driven more miles than 13-year-old ones, and actually gives the program the benefit of the doubt in some instances.

Kerouac, the word “too” means that the program is a dud both environmentally and economically. I discussed in my recent column (again, follow the link) how the payments essentially moved car sales forward or backward in time, providing little real stimulus.

Again the govmnt failed to ‘get it’.

The reason why I and the majority of Americans have purchased cars manufactured by other than ‘the big 3′ is (1) the cars offered by ‘the big 3′ were not as good as the ones I chose and (2) the cars offered by ‘the big 3′ did not last as long or hold their value as well as the ones I choose.

The ‘big 3′ may have fixed item (1) above but I doubt that they fixed item (2).

2/3 if the C4C money went to automakers for cars not made in the US. Since many felt the urge to spend tax dollars (future tax dollars) to help the auto industry, it would have made more sense to put the money toward R&D. Why isn’t the battery technology coming from the US? If the cars made in the US provided the best overall value, I and others would gladly buy them without some artifical incentive.

I understood what you meant by “too”. That doesn’t mean it was accurate. I don’t think you made the case for either an economic or environmental failure. And yes, one model of Hummer made the cut - the 3.7L H3. I missed that one, maybe because the only noise being made on the Hummer front is from the nutcases in Chesterfield and their gun promo.