|
Post by DAS (formerly BushAdmirer) on Mar 1, 2010 22:47:48 GMT
Think of it this way:
A clunker that travels 12,000 miles a year at 15 mpg uses 800 gallons of gas a year.
A vehicle that travels 12,000 miles a year at 25 mpg uses 480 gallons a year.
So, the average US Government funded Federal Cash for Clunkers transaction will reduce US gas consumption by 320 gallons per year.
The Cash for Clunkers program subsidized the purchase of 700,000 vehicles.
So that's 224 million gallons saved per year.
That equates to about 5 million barrels of oil.
5 million barrels is about 5 hours worth of U.S. consumption.
More importantly, 5 million barrels of oil at $70 per barrel costs about $350 million dollars.
So, the government paid $3 billion for Cash for Clunkers subsidies to save $350 million.
Hence, we spent $8.57 for every dollar saved.
Relax. The same people are going to fix health care.
|
|
|
Post by fretslider on Mar 1, 2010 22:50:55 GMT
Think of it this way: A clunker that travels 12,000 miles a year at 15 mpg uses 800 gallons of gas a year. A vehicle that travels 12,000 miles a year at 25 mpg uses 480 gallons a year. So, the average US Government funded Federal Cash for Clunkers transaction will reduce US gas consumption by 320 gallons per year. The Cash for Clunkers program subsidized the purchase of 700,000 vehicles. So that's 224 million gallons saved per year. That equates to about 5 million barrels of oil. 5 million barrels is about 5 hours worth of U.S. consumption. More importantly, 5 million barrels of oil at $70 per barrel costs about $350 million dollars. So, the government paid $3 billion for Cash for Clunkers subsidies to save $350 million. Hence, we spent $8.57 for every dollar saved. Relax. The same people are going to fix health care. You guys quibble so. In the UK a litre costs £1.10 - you can do the maths
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Mar 2, 2010 14:14:44 GMT
Think of it this way: A clunker that travels 12,000 miles a year at 15 mpg uses 800 gallons of gas a year. A vehicle that travels 12,000 miles a year at 25 mpg uses 480 gallons a year. So, the average US Government funded Federal Cash for Clunkers transaction will reduce US gas consumption by 320 gallons per year. The Cash for Clunkers program subsidized the purchase of 700,000 vehicles. So that's 224 million gallons saved per year. That equates to about 5 million barrels of oil. 5 million barrels is about 5 hours worth of U.S. consumption. More importantly, 5 million barrels of oil at $70 per barrel costs about $350 million dollars. So, the government paid $3 billion for Cash for Clunkers subsidies to save $350 million. Hence, we spent $8.57 for every dollar saved. Relax. The same people are going to fix health care. You guys quibble so. In the UK a litre costs £1.10 - you can do the maths that equates to about eight dollars a gallon. off the subject, i just read your signature. can we now refer to you as the V man?
|
|
|
Post by fretslider on Mar 2, 2010 14:42:46 GMT
You guys quibble so. In the UK a litre costs £1.10 - you can do the maths that equates to about eight dollars a gallon. off the subject, i just read your signature. can we now refer to you as the V man? My friends call me fret, but 'the V man' is preferable to being called a nutjob
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Mar 2, 2010 22:00:54 GMT
that equates to about eight dollars a gallon. off the subject, i just read your signature. can we now refer to you as the V man? My friends call me fret, but 'the V man' is preferable to being called a nutjob we shall have to try to keep that in mind
|
|
|
Post by clemiethedog on Mar 3, 2010 14:49:21 GMT
"So, the government paid $3 billion for Cash for Clunkers subsidies to save $350 million.
Hence, we spent $8.57 for every dollar saved. "
If the average lifespan of an auto was only one year, you may have something. It's not, of course, and that figure changes substantially each subsequent year. Moreover, the cash for clunkers was about increasing car sales. Unlike Iraq, summer 2003, it was "mission accomplished". Like or hate the program, numbers fudging is numbers fudging.
|
|
|
Post by Ben Lomond on Mar 3, 2010 15:10:04 GMT
jolly good show, my man. you get to be right, for once I am used to being right, it is just that I don't need to pepper my posts with FACT, REALITY and INDISPUTABLE to make the point. But the recession is now officially over, R.V. At least, the man who caused it single handedly says so, and Brown is never wrong, is he? Saviour of the world and all that crap. So now that we are out of recession, we can expect the March budget from Darling to spell out his plans for tackling the massive deficit in our finances, and convince the money markets that he has the will (and more importantly, the power, ) to make some serious cuts to public spending. He hasn't, of course. Brown is still the organ grinder, and Darling the monkey. And with an election in the offing, the idiots will continue to borrow and spend like there is no tomorrow. Are you aware, RV, that the money markets are already penalising the UK for this lack of action by the labour government. Already we are having to pay a full percentage point more on UK bonds than does Germany, for instance. When one has maxed out all one credit cards, it is foolish in the extreme to take out yet another card. And one final thought, RV. You might THINK that you are used to being right, but believe me, you are not always. Not by a long shot!
|
|
|
Post by randomvioce on Mar 3, 2010 17:05:11 GMT
At least, the man who caused it single handedly says so, and Brown is never wrong, is he? ! You see Ned, this statement explains why you cannot be taken seriously on this, or any other subject. You are simply ill equipped to understand even the simplest issues of the subject, far less the more complicated parts of the debate, as your rather glib statement implies. The rescission was a World-Wide event caused, not by the PM or the Government, but a deregulated banking sector who have been over extending credit. This credit has been used to buy products that big business have sold. When the credit stopped, so did the World Wide economy! Whatever Gordon Brown does and does not control, I hardly think that he Controls every major economy in the planet, Ned. The more knowledgable people understand this, Ned.
|
|
|
Post by fretslider on Mar 3, 2010 18:10:56 GMT
At least, the man who caused it single handedly says so, and Brown is never wrong, is he? ! The rescission was a World-Wide event caused, not by the PM or the Government, but a deregulated banking sector who have been over extending credit. The 'recession' rippled around a bit, but quite a lot of countries were unaffected by it. Therefore it's disingenuous to call it a global recession. Whilst the US got the first sneeze from the sub-prime market, the recession here was made all the more worse by Brown's tripartite regulation system that failed comprehensively to regulate anything at all. The massive amounts of money printed/borrowed were not invested in anything tangible. It was thrown at the ailing banks and used to offset the huge gulf between rising expenditure and falling revenue. We are up to our grand-childrens' eyes in debt with nothing to show for it. Well done, Gordon.
|
|
|
Post by randomvioce on Mar 3, 2010 18:32:26 GMT
The 'recession' rippled around a bit, but quite a lot of countries were unaffected by it. Therefore it's disingenuous to call it a global recession. Few Countries have escaped the recession, Fretty. None of the other EU states North America managed to miss it. I said it was 'World Wide', it was. Whilst the US got the first sneeze from the sub-prime market, the recession here was made all the more worse by Brown's tripartite regulation Worse? How was it made worse? [ The massive amounts of money printed/borrowed were not invested in anything tangible. It was thrown at the ailing banks and used to offset the huge gulf between rising expenditure and falling revenue. A stable banking sector and economy is 'not tangible'. You think your grandchildren would have a better life if by the time they get to twenty our entire economy and the infrasturcture of the Country had crashed to the ground? What was the real, viable alternitive to the the stimilus'? Do nothing and wake up in a REAL Third World Country?
|
|
|
Post by fretslider on Mar 3, 2010 18:48:23 GMT
The 'recession' rippled around a bit, but quite a lot of countries were unaffected by it. Therefore it's disingenuous to call it a global recession. Few Countries have escaped the recession, Fretty. None of the other EU states North America managed to miss it. I said it was 'World Wide', it was. Worse? How was it made worse? [ The massive amounts of money printed/borrowed were not invested in anything tangible. It was thrown at the ailing banks and used to offset the huge gulf between rising expenditure and falling revenue. A stable banking sector and economy is 'not tangible'. You think your grandchildren would have a better life if by the time they get to twenty our entire economy and the infrasturcture of the Country had crashed to the ground? What was the real, viable alternitive to the the stimilus'? Do nothing and wake up in a REAL Third World Country? Jeez Random, obtuse as ever. Lets take Australia as an example.There was positive growth against the economic downturn. Last time I heard, Australia was classed as a continent, and that is just one example. It was partial Random Voxbox, rather like your take on AGW. If, as you claim, you don't know about Brown's tripartite system, then how the hell can you lecture Ben Lomond? Go read up old boy. To get you started....to smooth feathers in Whitehall, Brown set up the Financial Services Authority, a Treasury satellite, to oversee lending institutions. For decades, oversight of the banking system had been split between the Bank (providing brains and inside knowledge) and the Treasury (political authority and cash). But since 1997, the FSA has been involved......... My grandchildren will be paying off this debt. The money should have been INVESTED, some Keynesian you are.
|
|
|
Post by randomvioce on Mar 3, 2010 19:25:47 GMT
Lets take Australia as an example.There was positive growth against the economic downturn. Last time I heard, Australia was classed as a continent, and that is just one example. Yes, it did avoid recession, with a fairly large stimulus. Their deficit is likely to be the biggest on record as well. If, as you claim, you don't know about Brown's tripartite system... No, Fretty, that is not the point. You claim that Brown's tripartite system made the rescission worse. My grandchildren will be paying off this debt. The money should have been INVESTED, some Keynesian you are. Well the Government has brought forward many projects tocreate a bit of demand.
|
|
|
Post by fretslider on Mar 3, 2010 19:58:11 GMT
Lets take Australia as an example.There was positive growth against the economic downturn. Last time I heard, Australia was classed as a continent, and that is just one example. Yes, it did avoid recession, with a fairly large stimulus. Their deficit is likely to be the biggest on record as well. No, Fretty, that is not the point. You claim that Brown's tripartite system made the rescission worse. My grandchildren will be paying off this debt. The money should have been INVESTED, some Keynesian you are. Well the Government has brought forward many projects tocreate a bit of demand. Its a recession, voxbox, a recession. Is there a government on the planet that has no debt? Its a question of scale. Australia had growth, there is a difference. How did Brown's system make it worse? Example... The FSA systematically failed in its duty as a regulator to ensure Northern Rock would not pose such a systemic risk - Parliament's Treasury Committee. The failure contributed significantly to the difficulties, and risks to the public purse, that have followed. The FSA said in a statement that it had already acknowledged that there were clearly failings in the supervision of Northern Rock. Then there was RBS and HBOS and the fumbled deal with Lloyds.... Hector Sants, the chief executive of the Financial Services Authority (FSA), admitted that the agency could have done more to prevent the collapse of Northern Rock and to avoid other financial disasters. Now had the original system of regulation been in place it would have been mitigated, Brown gets it wrong time after time. Your party needs a new leader and a new ethos.
|
|
|
Post by randomvioce on Mar 3, 2010 22:04:56 GMT
Your party needs a new leader and a new ethos. That's because they have been following your Party's ethos, though Fretty. The FSA's remit appears to be one of 'light touch', 'non interference in free markets' Thatcherism. Northern Rock used to be a building society and as such, used to be limited to a narrow market. Once it converted to a bank, it and many other ex building societies started looking at these high risk models and 'investing' in them. Those shareholder driven investments have resulted in vastly over extended banks. Gordon Brown did not deregulate the banking industry, nor did he convert building societys in banks, nor did he shift us from a manufacturing Country into a service industry and a debt driven one either. To blame him for the collaspe of the economy is simply idiotic. I agree that we need a new ethos, BTW.
|
|
|
Post by fretslider on Mar 3, 2010 22:10:15 GMT
Your party needs a new leader and a new ethos. That's because they have been following your Party's ethos, though Fretty. The FSA's remit appears to be one of 'light touch', 'non interference in free markets' Thatcherism. Northern Rock used to be a building society and as such, used to be limited to a narrow market. Once it converted to a bank, it and many other ex building societies started looking at these high risk models and 'investing' in them. Those shareholder driven investments have resulted in vastly over extended banks. Gordon Brown did not deregulate the banking industry, nor did he convert building societys in banks, nor did he shift us from a manufacturing Country into a service industry and a debt driven one either. To blame him for the collaspe of the economy is simply idiotic. I agree that we need a new ethos, BTW. Oh dear voxbox, have you got such a limited IQ that you have forgotten where I stand vis a vis the system? In short, yes you have. GB set up the system, get over it.
|
|
|
Post by randomvioce on Mar 3, 2010 22:58:53 GMT
GB set up the system, get over it. Brown de-mutualised the building societies? Brown de-regulated the banking industry? Brown forced banks to buy up sub prime American debt? Brown smashed the manufacturing sector of the economy? Brown invented credit? Another humiliation for you Fretty, as your disappearing credibility takes another hammer blow on as you find YET ANOTHER SUBJECT you are blissfully ignorant on. Neddy must be feeding you lines in secret.
|
|
|
Post by Ben Lomond on Mar 4, 2010 16:06:26 GMT
At least, the man who caused it single handedly says so, and Brown is never wrong, is he? ! You see Ned, this statement explains why you cannot be taken seriously on this, or any other subject. You are simply ill equipped to understand even the simplest issues of the subject, far less the more complicated parts of the debate, as your rather glib statement implies. The rescission was a World-Wide event caused, not by the PM or the Government, but a deregulated banking sector who have been over extending credit. This credit has been used to buy products that big business have sold. When the credit stopped, so did the World Wide economy! Whatever Gordon Brown does and does not control, I hardly think that he Controls every major economy in the planet, Ned. The more knowledgable people understand this, Ned. Answer the question, you moron! And the more knowledgeable people can at least spell the word!
|
|
|
Post by fretslider on Mar 4, 2010 16:21:51 GMT
GB set up the system, get over it. Brown de-mutualised the building societies? Brown de-regulated the banking industry? Brown forced banks to buy up sub prime American debt? Brown smashed the manufacturing sector of the economy? Brown invented credit? Another humiliation for you Fretty, as your disappearing credibility takes another hammer blow on as you find YET ANOTHER SUBJECT you are blissfully ignorant on. Neddy must be feeding you lines in secret. voxbox You can't get around the fact that Brown's broken regulation system didn't work, Sants acknowledges that - even if you don't. Bad luck old bean.
|
|
|
Post by randomvioce on Mar 4, 2010 18:17:50 GMT
[ You can't get around the fact that Brown's broken regulation system didn't work, Sants acknowledges that - even if you don't. Ah, but Fretty, is there any evidence that it was designed to stop a fundamental breakdown like the credit crunch we have seen? Could any viable system of regulation have stopped banks from acting the way they did? You see, I read many people who reacted to this with a perfect view of hindsight. There is less evidence that these people were advocating such radical measures before the crash happened. No-one demanded that banks submit to the level of scrutiny necessary to prevent such a catastrophe, nor was anyone but the most committed socialist was demanding the type of regulation to stop banks acting in such an irresponsible fashion. Anyone who did make such retrospective demands would have been laughed out of Parliament by the same people who squealed like a stuck after the event. Fretty, we both know that, if Denis Skinner or Tony Benn had demanded that banks be prevented from acting the way they did, both Parties’ front bench would have been in uproar at the thought. Every Rightwing newspaper in the Country would have shrieked at the news. For the Tories to claim this was ‘Brown’s’ fault is pretty disgusting and pretty dishonest to boot. I have a pretty low opinion of the Tory Party and their habit of using such things as political footballs, but to use a liberalisation of the market that they implemented in the first place and claim that it was a failure of the present administration confirms my views. If people want to blame deregulation of the banking industry, the demoralisation of building societies or even the practice of borrowing against house price rises, then I agree. To blame it on a political system that looks the other way as long as the system chunders on then, I agree. To say ‘Brown should have foresaw this and rectified it, despite the fact that everyone loosely connected with politics would have screamed socialist at him’ is pretty lame.
|
|
|
Post by fretslider on Mar 4, 2010 18:45:08 GMT
[ You can't get around the fact that Brown's broken regulation system didn't work, Sants acknowledges that - even if you don't. Ah, but Fretty, is there any evidence that it was designed to stop a fundamental breakdown like the credit crunch we have seen? Could any viable system of regulation have stopped banks from acting the way they did? You see, I read many people who reacted to this with a perfect view of hindsight. There is less evidence that these people were advocating such radical measures before the crash happened. No-one demanded that banks submit to the level of scrutiny necessary to prevent such a catastrophe, nor was anyone but the most committed socialist was demanding the type of regulation to stop banks acting in such an irresponsible fashion. Anyone who did make such retrospective demands would have been laughed out of Parliament by the same people who squealed like a stuck after the event. Fretty, we both know that, if Denis Skinner or Tony Benn had demanded that banks be prevented from acting the way they did, both Parties’ front bench would have been in uproar at the thought. Every Rightwing newspaper in the Country would have shrieked at the news. For the Tories to claim this was ‘Brown’s’ fault is pretty disgusting and pretty dishonest to boot. I have a pretty low opinion of the Tory Party and their habit of using such things as political footballs, but to use a liberalisation of the market that they implemented in the first place and claim that it was a failure of the present administration confirms my views. If people want to blame deregulation of the banking industry, the demoralisation of building societies or even the practice of borrowing against house price rises, then I agree. To blame it on a political system that looks the other way as long as the system chunders on then, I agree. To say ‘Brown should have foresaw this and rectified it, despite the fact that everyone loosely connected with politics would have screamed socialist at him’ is pretty lame. Voxbox Do you work for the spinmeisters? A regulator is there to, er, regulate. Perhaps brown should have put you in charge of the Farcical Standards Agency
|
|