4 ms·

Maybe this is their PR firms gearing up for a cash for clunkers deal.

• mywittyname 7y ago
  Doubtful. C4C was too small to do much of anything, and is probably the most politically expensive piece of legislation in my lifetime. Plus, I think a lot of businesses ended up getting paid very late, or not at all for various reasons (such as not understanding the requirements). Though, it did make for a good scapegoat when used car prices spiked in the years following the recession. The popular narrative is that it was this massive scheme to crush perfectly good cars. When the reality is, the scheme was capped to just 700k cars, most of which were already barely operable. And while 700k sounds like a lot, there was something like a quarter of a billion registered vehicles in the USA at the time. If you plot monthly car sales during that time, and you know what you're looking for, you can kind of see small bump, then subsequent dip of C4C. But what is plainly obvious is the fact that new car sales dropped from 15 million vehicles per year to around 8 the next.
  • Scoundreller 7y ago
    > most of which were already barely operable. It really depends on the vehicle. A lot of older used cars are worth more as parts than as barely operable. Cash for clunkers helped take off the market the older used cars that weren't worth anything as parts either. They would've kept driving (barely), but the scrap value wasn't worth deregistering them.