What company can "rig up a Hummer to get 100 MPG"? On Mon, Aug 3, 2009 at 1:47 PM, Wade Preston Shearer < [email protected]> wrote:
> On 3 Aug 2009, at 12:05, Ryan Simpkins wrote: > > A bunch of the SAs at work started doing some back of the napkin >> calculations >> around the "Cash for Clunkers" program. As SAs we often deal with very >> similar >> calculations. For example, we often ask: "How much money will we save over >> x >> time if we get rid of old busted technology in favor of the new hotness?" >> Improvements to technology typically come with a cost and benefit. What >> are >> the costs and benefits here? >> > > I think that this program is a load of crap. It's amazing how short-sighted > it is. Sure, it generates sales today, but what about tomorrow? Where is the > money going to come from to pay back all these dealers (our country is > already trillions in debt)? Once the excitement is over, how are the dealers > going to make it through the next several months when people are no longer > buying cars? One of the reasons that the auto industry is hurting so bad > right now is because they started offering zero interest loans which caused > people to rush to buy cars, leaving a void in the present. Cash for clunkers > is going to do the same thing again. If we increase the over all MPG, less > taxes will be coming in from gasoline sales, leaving even less money to pay > of this subsidized joke. And, if we're buying less gas, the price of gas is > going to go up again, hurting the economy even more. This thing doesn't make > one bit of sense, beginning to end. > > If the point of this program is to stimulate the economy, then why the > ludicrous requirement that the cars have to be totaled? Wouldn't we have > more jobs and more sales if the dealers could turn around and resell the > cars? If the cars being turned in really were junk, then there might be some > merit, but it is a joke for the government to be overpaying for cars (by > thousands) and then junking them. > > If the point is to help the environment, it doesn't make sense either. New > cars to replace the "junkers" are only required to get 18 MPG or better. How > is improving gas mileage by a few miles going to make any difference? > Shouldn't the requirement be that the new car get 40 MPG or better? Most > cars that meet the requirements are probably paid off. Why are we > encouraging people that have hopefully paid-off, perfectly good cars to junk > them and then go into debt for a new one? Shouldn't we be encouraging people > to be saving some money? I don't see how saving a couple miles per gallon > outweighs junking millions of vehicles and using resources to build new cars > to replace ones that still have life left in them. > > There's a company in Provo that can rig up a Hummer to get 100 MPG. Why > isn't the government giving money to them instead of GM who hasn't improved > the MPG of their vehicles more than 5 - 10 in the past thirty years? > > /* > PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net > Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug > Don't fear the penguin. > */ > /* PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug Don't fear the penguin. */
