Recommend
14 
 Thumb up
 Hide
55 Posts
1 , 2 , 3  Next »   | 

BoardGameGeek» Forums » Everything Else » Religion, Sex, and Politics

Subject: It's like I said. rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
United States
Boise
Idaho
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmb
Cash for Clunkers was a stupid, ill-conceived, ignorant program that cost more than it was designed to and did zero to boost the economy or create new jobs.

One point in particular I made back when it was running is that all it did was destroy previously created value (wealth), spend taxpayer dollars to bolster the finances of the more fortunate (those with good credit and jobs), and that it would end up creating higher prices and less sales in the mutli-billion dollar used car segment where those who need help most are forced to shop.

This article from The Idaho Statesmen explores the effects of the recession on several locals, one of them who owns a used car dealership.

The business owner said this:

Quote:
Credit is still tough for many of his customers to get, he said. And the government's Cash for Clunkers program, which was aimed at getting old gas-guzzling cars off the road by giving customers super deals for a new ones, only drove up the cost Myers must pay for used cars. The clunkers had to be destroyed under the federal program, cutting into the supply of cars that Myers buys. A car that once fetched $4,500 now costs $6,500, which is nearly the retail price he would put on the car. "I can't afford to buy a car like that," he said.


Which, by the way, is exactly what I said would happen. One might also note that even the supposedly impregnable Toyota is now on record (from their CEO) as saying that unless things improve they will be destroyed. The new car sales numbers, by the way, have returned to the dismal levels they were at before the program.

There were quite a few liberals here who argued vehemently that CforC would be a boon, not a debacle. I guess you were wrong. I do tip my hat though to the liberals who had a moment of lucidity and realized early on that the whole thing was nothing more than a multi-billion dollar PR stunt to keep Obama's poll numbers high.

What's next? The BBC announcing that the planet's temperature hasn;t risen for 11 years straight? Nah. That's never happen.

**note** as soon as the CforC program began I started hunting craigslist for a used car. I already have a truck and a car but my car was getting edgy. Very edgy. I scooped up a superb deal.. a late 90's Escort wagon with the terrific Mazda 1.8 in it. Low miles and a stick shift. $1800 total is what I paid. I reckon that same car now, 6 weeks later would cost about $3200 or more on a lot. Forget the used car guides. Reality is on the street.

14 
 Thumb up
0.05
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Amazingly, sales are down precipitously now that our descendants are no longer subsidizing us for buying cars we can't afford.

GM: down 47%
Chrysler: down 44%
Ford: down 8.9%
Toyota: down 16%
Honda: down 23%
Nissan: down 11%

Source
10 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
pronoblem baalberith
United States
Pleasantville
Massachusetts
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Is it just me or do my balls itch?
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I bought a 1997 Geo Metro with 70k in 2002 for $700 and drove it for three years and 70k miles. I did exhaust and brakes once (did them myself for ~$300 total) and replaced the tires twice. I was into the car for $150o total and it came to pennies cost per mile with the 43mpg average.

Now look at this: http://rover.ebay.com/rover/1/711-53200-19255-0/1?type=4&cam...

$3500 for a 1998 Geo Metro. That is crazy... I was watching this auction and would have paid $2100 (it is local to me, and I have a few saved searches for cars in my area and this came up). Mosty, I have experienced CHEAP used car prices... this Geo is an exception. I looked at a BMW 540 8-cyl for $2.4k a few months ago and I ended up buying a Mercedes E-class for 1/4 of book value in excellent shape.

As far as my clunkers for cash... there's a local garage that tows away cars and you can designate a charity for donation. I am not sure how they profit, but I have used it four times now. I got rid of the Geo and a Mazda MPV to them. I received a $1500 tax deduction (which I never used) and I picked the National Organization of Women as my charity of choice.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
The sad thing is that it didn't take you inside knowledge of selling cars to predict this -- all but the most slanted people (apparently 95% of liberals) could see that this was a shitty idea.

Sales are down, gas mileage (on average) is barely changed, fossil fuel usage is expected to nearly unaffected by the clunker program, and now there is a shortage of used cars and prices are increased because a bunch of numbskulls were making decisions. It was just one big subsidy to shift wealth to a sector of the economy that couldn't support itself through intelligent business decisions.

You can only play the shell game so long.....
10 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
Boise
Idaho
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmb
dysjunct wrote:
Amazingly, sales are down precipitously now that our descendants are no longer subsidizing us for buying cars we can't afford.

GM: down 47%
Chrysler: down 44%
Ford: down 8.9%
Toyota: down 16%
Honda: down 23%
Nissan: down 11%

Source


The two biggest losers? Why, the automakers that Obama took over in our name. Oh yeah... the transformation is underway.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
MGK
Canada
Toronto
Ontario
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
DWTripp wrote:
What's next? The BBC announcing that the planet's temperature hasn;t risen for 11 years straight? Nah. That's never happen.


Oh, please, let's do argue about global warming. It's been a while since I got a good dose of horse's ass denialism.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
Boise
Idaho
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmb
mightygodking wrote:
DWTripp wrote:
What's next? The BBC announcing that the planet's temperature hasn;t risen for 11 years straight? Nah. That's never happen.


Oh, please, let's do argue about global warming. It's been a while since I got a good dose of horse's ass denialism.


Here... go argue with these people...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8299079.stm
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
MGK
Canada
Toronto
Ontario
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
DWTripp wrote:
Here... go argue with these people...


Why would I argue with them? Their entire article sums up as "despite there having been an temperature spike in 1998 that has not yet been equalled, global warming is still, you know, a thing.

In the interests of (nonexistent) balance, they quote Don Easterbrook and Piers Corbyn, who are both noteworthy denialists. Corbyn is famous for refusing to bet on his anti-warming predictions; Easterbrook is retired and his "research" is neither funded nor peer-reviewed.

So there's that.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
DWTripp wrote:
mightygodking wrote:
DWTripp wrote:
What's next? The BBC announcing that the planet's temperature hasn;t risen for 11 years straight? Nah. That's never happen.


Oh, please, let's do argue about global warming. It's been a while since I got a good dose of horse's ass denialism.


Here... go argue with these people...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8299079.stm


More and more evidence that goes to show what I have been arguing -- faith in climate models are overstated, suffering from both a deeper understanding of statistical modeling and a limited understanding of how the various components of the climate truly interact.

Not to steal your line DW, but "It's like I said."
7 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Snoo Py
United States
Sunnyvale
California
flag msg tools
Avatar
The cost of this program is around $3 billion.
We can guess that among the trillion spent to resuscitate the economy, a few tens of billions will be spent at a loss.
And so what? We spent $4 trillions in the wars in the middle east, and very few complained about it (not you).
So if spending trillions at a loss in the middle east is ok with you, why do you complain about spending billions at home (at a loss or not)?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Joe Cool wrote:
The cost of this program is around $3 billion.
We can guess that among the trillion spent to resuscitate the economy, a few tens of billions will be spent at a loss.
And so what? We spent $4 trillions in the wars in the middle east, and very few complained about it (not you).
So if spending trillions at a loss in the middle east is ok with you, why do you complain about spending billions at home (at a loss or not)?


The problem is not the spending -- no one ever said it was. The problem is the manipulation of the used car market, making what used to be an affordable (or at least more affordable) product for those who couldn't purchase a new car be quite unaffordable.

Only the willfully ignorant or purposefully malicious wouldn't have seen this coming.

Economics 101: Supply and Demand -- third lecture of the semester. Synopsis: Take a bunch of shit off the market, that shit gets more expensive.
10 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mika R.
Finland
Unspecified
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
SpaceGhost wrote:
DWTripp wrote:
mightygodking wrote:
DWTripp wrote:
What's next? The BBC announcing that the planet's temperature hasn;t risen for 11 years straight? Nah. That's never happen.


Oh, please, let's do argue about global warming. It's been a while since I got a good dose of horse's ass denialism.


Here... go argue with these people...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8299079.stm


More and more evidence that goes to show what I have been arguing -- faith in climate models are overstated, suffering from both a deeper understanding of statistical modeling and a limited understanding of how the various components of the climate truly interact.

Not to steal your line DW, but "It's like I said."


Here's another link I found, just for you:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8299426.stm
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Welcome Rolling Stones
Latvia
Bullshit
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb

You might be right, Tripp. I haven't done the math, and I don't intend to do it. My question, is this: what would YOU have done, given the mighty canyon of failure left behind by the previous administration?

What would YOU have done?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
eikka wrote:
SpaceGhost wrote:
DWTripp wrote:
mightygodking wrote:
DWTripp wrote:
What's next? The BBC announcing that the planet's temperature hasn;t risen for 11 years straight? Nah. That's never happen.


Oh, please, let's do argue about global warming. It's been a while since I got a good dose of horse's ass denialism.


Here... go argue with these people...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8299079.stm


More and more evidence that goes to show what I have been arguing -- faith in climate models are overstated, suffering from both a deeper understanding of statistical modeling and a limited understanding of how the various components of the climate truly interact.

Not to steal your line DW, but "It's like I said."


Here's another link I found, just for you:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8299426.stm


The link is nice and fine; however, there is nothing there that shows that we should have more faith in the climate models and how they are used. The ability to properly employ agent based models is woefully lacking in many fields -- not just climate science.

Note: The issue I have isn't whether AGW is true; just whether climate models that policies are based on is worth a damn or not.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
49xjohn wrote:

You might be right, Tripp. I haven't done the math, and I don't intend to do it. My question, is this: what would YOU have done, given the mighty canyon of failure left behind by the previous administration?

What would YOU have done?


1. Let GM and Chrysler implode.

2. Use the clash for clunker money to retrain the displaced employees.

3. This would have shifted a bloated workforce to a new sector where they are needed (perhaps health) and created a production capacity for cars that was more in line with current demand levels, preventing the "writing off" of losses every month by the majors.
7 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Welcome Rolling Stones
Latvia
Bullshit
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb

You would kill off all those jobs, exactly what is going to happen when the health bill passes? All of those people gloriously working for private industry are suddenly going to to be snapped up by the government to do the same job they did for private industry?

OMG!

Get over it man, Single Payer is better than Public Option, and if Public Option does not make it, BLAME REPUBLICANS FOR THE FAIL, because that is exactly where it comes from.

You guys are backwards and ignorant. I said it.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
49xjohn wrote:

You would kill off all those jobs, exactly what is going to happen when the health bill passes? All of those people gloriously working for private industry are suddenly going to to be snapped up by the government to do the same job they did for private industry?

OMG!

Get over it man, Single Payer is better than Public Option, and if Public Option does not make it, BLAME REPUBLICANS FOR THE FAIL, because that is exactly where it comes from.

You guys are backwards and ignorant. I said it.


Topic shift? Perhaps reading comprehension is low because it is late. Let me renumerate:

1. I wouldn't kill those jobs. The industry would because the business plans of those companies were shit.

2. Providing retraining isn't snapping them up for government. It is a way to give them a skill set that is in more demand -- it is still their responsibility to parlay that skill set into a job.

3. I have no idea what you are talking about with single-payer and public option.
12 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chad Ellis
United States
Brookline
Massachusetts
flag msg tools
designer
publisher
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
DWTripp wrote:
dysjunct wrote:
Amazingly, sales are down precipitously now that our descendants are no longer subsidizing us for buying cars we can't afford.

GM: down 47%
Chrysler: down 44%
Ford: down 8.9%
Toyota: down 16%
Honda: down 23%
Nissan: down 11%

Source


The two biggest losers? Why, the automakers that Obama took over in our name. Oh yeah... the transformation is underway.


I agree with you on cash for clunkers, but this last comment seems like classic post hoc ergo propter hoc.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
Boise
Idaho
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmb
49xjohn wrote:

You might be right, Tripp. I haven't done the math, and I don't intend to do it. My question, is this: what would YOU have done, given the mighty canyon of failure left behind by the previous administration?

What would YOU have done?


I'm with Space Ghost... I would never have propped them up. Never. And you know quite well I was a vocal opponent of the original TARP.

The current administrations argument is smoke and mirrors... that things would have been worse if they hadn't done what they did. How can you even have a valid discussion when the people running the current want to frame it in terms of "what if"?

You can't.

Chad ~ you are right about my OP. My last line was intended solely as a petulant shot at Obama and his band of pirates and miscreants. You expected something else?
7 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Scott Russell
United States
Clarkston
Michigan
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
49xjohn wrote:



Get over it man, Single Payer is better than Public Option, and if Public Option does not make it, BLAME REPUBLICANS FOR THE FAIL, because that is exactly where it comes from.


The Democrats control the House, the Senate and the White House. How can you blame the Republicans for anything not getting done?


49xjohn wrote:

You guys are backwards and ignorant. I said it.


Coming from self-professed moron (and proud of it), I am not sure you are qualified to make this judgement.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chad Ellis
United States
Brookline
Massachusetts
flag msg tools
designer
publisher
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
DWTripp wrote:
The current administrations argument is smoke and mirrors... that things would have been worse if they hadn't done what they did. How can you even have a valid discussion when the people running the current want to frame it in terms of "what if"?


You're right, but to some extent that's unavoidable. Consequences are often unclear, whether it's what will happen if we don't invade Iraq/Afghanistan, if we let the banks fail, if we let the auto industry fail, etc.

I agree 100% that it's disingenuous at best for the Obama administration to proclaim X jobs "saved" as though it's a real number rather than a retrodiction, but most economists and market experts agree that a financial contagion was narrowly averted and that while we can't possibly know exactly what our alternative history would have looked like it would have been much worse than what we're facing now.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
MGK
Canada
Toronto
Ontario
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
SpaceGhost wrote:
More and more evidence that goes to show what I have been arguing -- faith in climate models are overstated, suffering from both a deeper understanding of statistical modeling and a limited understanding of how the various components of the climate truly interact.


"More and more evidence?" What? You've got a couple of cranks arguing against generally accepted climate theory. That isn't "evidence."

Neither is the 1998 temperature spike, regardless of how much one might want it to be. Look at it in context. Here's a chart of yearly temperature readings from the UK's Climate Research Unit (CRU).



Now, there are a number of ways you could describe this trend. You could go with the last thirty years - when surface and tropospheric temperatures have been available and thus we've had greater accuracy in global temperature analysis - and say "there's .2 degrees of warming over that period." You could start with 1970, when NASA first started finding global warming indicators, and say "there's .6 degrees of warming over that period." You could go with 1966, when CRU first found indicators, and say "yep, .6 degrees of warming over that period.

Or you could do what you apparently want to do, and pick the last twelve years, because 1998 is an outlier. It's an outlier because El Nino years tend to produce hotter years than average, and 1998 featured the biggest El Nino effect in recorded history. So basically you're cherrypicking data. (Actually, you're cherrypicking data twice over, because only CRU's data finds that 1998 hasn't been equaled. NASA's GISS annual temperature readings show that 2005 surpassed 1998 in temperature.)

But even if you want to have a larf and say "ha ha 1998 was hotter than all years following so clearly we can't trust global warming models," the obvious response is that from 1997 through 2008, every one of those years has been hotter than any other year in human history.

The second obvious response is that the main flaw of global warming models up to the present is not that they have overestimated the speed and effect of global warming, but that they have underestimated it: winter ice, summer ice, sea levels, glacier melt, and every other effect indicator we have for global warming are all progressing faster than the models indicated, not more slowly. What failure for the models there is isn't an argument for inaction; it's an argument that the emergency is greater than we expected or imagined.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
CHAPEL
United States
Round Rock
Texas
flag msg tools
badge
"that's a smith and wesson, and you've had your six"
Avatar
mbmbmb
DWTripp wrote:


**note** as soon as the CforC program began I started hunting craigslist for a used car. I already have a truck and a car but my car was getting edgy. Very edgy. I scooped up a superb deal.. a late 90's Escort wagon with the terrific Mazda 1.8 in it. Low miles and a stick shift. $1800 total is what I paid. I reckon that same car now, 6 weeks later would cost about $3200 or more on a lot. Forget the used car guides. Reality is on the street.



Why do you think the CfC program affected the price of an escort wagon 1.8? I mean there is no way in hell you would get a $4500 trade in from a vehicle that obviously gets great gas mileage. That escort wasn't even on the qualifying list.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dwayne Hendrickson
United States
Oklahoma City
Oklahoma
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
mightygodking wrote:
SpaceGhost wrote:
More and more evidence that goes to show what I have been arguing -- faith in climate models are overstated, suffering from both a deeper understanding of statistical modeling and a limited understanding of how the various components of the climate truly interact.


"More and more evidence?" What? You've got a couple of cranks arguing against generally accepted climate theory. That isn't "evidence."

Neither is the 1998 temperature spike, regardless of how much one might want it to be. Look at it in context. Here's a chart of yearly temperature readings from the UK's Climate Research Unit (CRU).



Now, there are a number of ways you could describe this trend. You could go with the last thirty years - when surface and tropospheric temperatures have been available and thus we've had greater accuracy in global temperature analysis - and say "there's .2 degrees of warming over that period." You could start with 1970, when NASA first started finding global warming indicators, and say "there's .6 degrees of warming over that period." You could go with 1966, when CRU first found indicators, and say "yep, .6 degrees of warming over that period.

Or you could do what you apparently want to do, and pick the last twelve years, because 1998 is an outlier. It's an outlier because El Nino years tend to produce hotter years than average, and 1998 featured the biggest El Nino effect in recorded history. So basically you're cherrypicking data. (Actually, you're cherrypicking data twice over, because only CRU's data finds that 1998 hasn't been equaled. NASA's GISS annual temperature readings show that 2005 surpassed 1998 in temperature.)

But even if you want to have a larf and say "ha ha 1998 was hotter than all years following so clearly we can't trust global warming models," the obvious response is that from 1997 through 2008, every one of those years has been hotter than any other year in human history.

The second obvious response is that the main flaw of global warming models up to the present is not that they have overestimated the speed and effect of global warming, but that they have underestimated it: winter ice, summer ice, sea levels, glacier melt, and every other effect indicator we have for global warming are all progressing faster than the models indicated, not more slowly. What failure for the models there is isn't an argument for inaction; it's an argument that the emergency is greater than we expected or imagined.


You can't make a good decision based on bad data.

Surfacestations.org has physically surveyed 82% of the 1221 weather stations in the us and has found that when they had surveyed 78% of them that 90% of those surveyed were not in compliance with the standards for maintaining the stations and were actually reporting temperatures between 1 and 5 degrees celsius HIGHER that the actual temperature



When you have temperature recording stations in situations like this on in Forest Grove OR that is about 10 feet from a window air conditioner



Once you get all of these stations corrected or up to standards, then we can talk about the data.
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
mightygodking wrote:
SpaceGhost wrote:
More and more evidence that goes to show what I have been arguing -- faith in climate models are overstated, suffering from both a deeper understanding of statistical modeling and a limited understanding of how the various components of the climate truly interact.


General "educated smugness" about why I am crazy.



Well, if you could reread both my posts on this topic, I didn't say fucking peep about the temperature trends.

I said that the climate models are shitty. Being an agent based model adds an entire level of complexity. Although used for years as mathematical models of "wargames" and in epidemiology to precict disease spread, the stastical components and how error operates is just beginning to be understood.

Some will argue that the error is appropriately controlled for using Monte Carlo methods, but that is really just a misunderstanding on what Monte Carlo methods are doing, how they do it, and what they are capable of doing. As a field, statistics is just starting to take these types of models seriously and beginning to incoporate more rigourous statistical theory. In most cases, the understanding -- on a theoretical level -- of the statistical procedures required to do it correctly is lacking (anecdotally, many people think that they "get" statistics because their department taught some courses in grad school).

As such, the climate models themselves cannot be trusted and policy decisions shouldn't be made on their predictions (note that this line of argument is orthogonal to any discussion of actual temperature). An effort to base decisions on these models is almost certainly political -- not scientific.
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
1 , 2 , 3  Next »   | 
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.