I've seen many of these pictures before. Makes me think more and more that no bailout is going to help any of the car manufacturers. They're going to have to trim labor, administration, execs, management, dealerships, everything.
I mean, short of the government actually buying up the product, how can you bail out a retailer?
Then again, I suppose that is what the talk was about for buying up the "toxic debt" as well.
. Subaru posts 2008 sales increase in US
. Subaru said Monday (5 Jan 2009) its U.S. sales crept higher in 2008 on strong demand for Forester and Impreza models, making it the only automaker to post a year-over-year sales increase.....
.
Charles,
I think you've stumbled onto an idea. The government buys excess agriculture products to increase price (i think this is true). Why not buy up the excess autos. They could then hire a national taxi force of millions. Now that would be a stimulus package.
. Subaru posts 2008 sales increase in US
. Subaru said Monday its U.S. sales crept higher in 2008 on strong demand for Forester and Impreza models, making it the only automaker to post a year-over-year sales increase.....
.
Charles,
I think you've stumbled onto an idea. The government buys excess agriculture products to increase price (i think this is true). Why not buy up the excess autos. They could then hire a national taxi force of millions. Now that would be a stimulus package.
Related, sorta, but tangential:
In 2004, the last wave of increasing automotive emissions standards (EPA Phase II), there was some discussion about the value of clamping down on emissions of new cars. While driving in LA, a 2003 model year Civic's exhaust output wasn't measurably dirtier than the air it was taking in (less oxygen, more CO2, which at the time wasn't quite as hot button, but also fewer particulates and less NOx). In short, taking one 1970s clunker off the road at a cost of $12k had more positive effect on air quality than improving 1000 2004 cars (vs 2003) at a cost of $100/vehicle.
A good eco-enviro stimulus could be done by offering a new (efficient) vehicle for any pre-OBD (circa 1987) or pre-OBD II (1994) car. The only problem is that the vehicles that are sitting in these lots are likely the least in demand and least efficient vehicles available. That whole moral hazard thing....
Comments
I mean, short of the government actually buying up the product, how can you bail out a retailer?
Then again, I suppose that is what the talk was about for buying up the "toxic debt" as well.
Subaru posts 2008 sales increase in US
.
Subaru said Monday (5 Jan 2009) its U.S. sales crept higher in 2008 on strong demand for Forester and Impreza models, making it the only automaker to post a year-over-year sales increase.....
.
I think you've stumbled onto an idea. The government buys excess agriculture products to increase price (i think this is true). Why not buy up the excess autos. They could then hire a national taxi force of millions. Now that would be a stimulus package.
Related, sorta, but tangential:
In 2004, the last wave of increasing automotive emissions standards (EPA Phase II), there was some discussion about the value of clamping down on emissions of new cars. While driving in LA, a 2003 model year Civic's exhaust output wasn't measurably dirtier than the air it was taking in (less oxygen, more CO2, which at the time wasn't quite as hot button, but also fewer particulates and less NOx). In short, taking one 1970s clunker off the road at a cost of $12k had more positive effect on air quality than improving 1000 2004 cars (vs 2003) at a cost of $100/vehicle.
A good eco-enviro stimulus could be done by offering a new (efficient) vehicle for any pre-OBD (circa 1987) or pre-OBD II (1994) car. The only problem is that the vehicles that are sitting in these lots are likely the least in demand and least efficient vehicles available. That whole moral hazard thing....