Ron 10
Recommended Posts
kallend 2,112
We're talking CAR LOANS here, not corporate credit.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
Ron 10
QuoteWe're talking CAR LOANS here, not corporate credit.
Actually we are talking about a govt program... But you tried to claim that the banks would not do dumb things again.... you failed to prove your point, I proved mine
Accept it.
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334
kallend 2,112
QuoteQuoteWe're talking CAR LOANS here, not corporate credit.
Actually we are talking about a govt program... But you tried to claim that the banks would not do dumb things again.... you failed to prove your point, I proved mine
Accept it.
Nope, because you've not done any such thing. You have not produced ONE SHRED of data as requested to support your position.
Posts 122, 148, 152, 159 have all asked you for evidence. Clearly you have NONE.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
Ron 10
QuoteYou have not produced ONE SHRED of data as requested to support your position
And neither has the Govt, but you made that claim.
You also have ignored the data that has been presented... The norm for you.
You also have ignored answering any questions asked of you.. again, the norm for you.
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334
kallend 2,112
Quote
You also have ignored the data that has been presented... The norm for you.
.
You haven't presented any data to support your claim that "the poor" are being taken advantage of in this program.
Which leads to the philosophical question - is it possible to ignore data which aren't there?
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
QuoteQuote
You also have ignored the data that has been presented... The norm for you.
.
You haven't presented any data to support your claim that "the poor" are being taken advantage of in this program.
Which leads to the philosophical question - is it possible to ignore data which aren't there?
Quotejust because nobody has data doesn't mean it isn't happening. nobody is has data on bounced checks at my shop, but that doesn't mean I don't get them.
kallend 2,112
QuoteQuoteQuote
You also have ignored the data that has been presented... The norm for you.
.
You haven't presented any data to support your claim that "the poor" are being taken advantage of in this program.
Which leads to the philosophical question - is it possible to ignore data which aren't there?Quotejust because nobody has data doesn't mean it isn't happening. nobody is has data on bounced checks at my shop, but that doesn't mean I don't get them.
You know the rules: No video - it never happened.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
Ron 10
QuoteYou haven't presented any data to support your claim that "the poor" are being taken advantage of in this program.
And you have not presented any data to show the rich are... Plus you have ignored any data presented that discredits your opinion... Par for the course for you.
Quotehttp://www.edmunds.com/help/about/press/154606/article.html
"Cash for Clunkers" Provides Windfall for Some, High Prices for All, According to Edmunds.com
Oh and you claimed your data said the most new cars were small with a good MPG????
QuoteWhich leads to the philosophical question - is it possible to ignore data which aren't there?
You only ignore the data you don't like... Data has been provided, you just ignored it.
Quotehttp://money.cnn.com/2009/08/07/autos/cash_for_clunkers_sales/?postversion=2009080704
The government's results showed small cars as the top choice for shoppers looking for Cash for Clunker deals. But an independent analysis by Edmunds.com disputed those results, and showed that two full-size trucks and a small crossover SUV were actually among the top-ten buys
The discrepancy is a result of the methods used. Edmunds.com uses traditional sales measurements, tallying sales by make and model. The government uses a more arcane measurement method that subdivides models according to engine and transmission types, counting them as separate models....
NHTSA, the agency responsible for running Cash for Clunkers, was not immediately able to respond to a request for official Clunker sales tallies of several vehicles, including all their variations. When presented with Edmund's analysis, the agency didn't dispute that the way in which it counted the vehicles would tend to reduce the totals of vehicles with many variations
THAT'S why I didn't just buy into the Govt release like you did. It is a shame your attention to detail only counts when a party you don't like is in charge.
and for those that claim it increased sales:
Quotehttp://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204619004574324350084909302.html
I love a good sales surge as much as anyone. But it’s not that simple. First, it’s not clear that cash for clunkers actually increased sales. Edmunds.com noted recently that over 100,000 buyers put their purchases on hold waiting for the program to launch. Once consumers could start cashing in on July 24, showrooms were flooded and government servers were overwhelmed as the backlog of buyers finalized their purchases.
Secondly, on July 27, Edmunds.com published an analysis showing that in any given month 60,000 to 70,000 “clunker-like” deals happen with no government program in place. The 200,000-plus deals the government was originally prepared to fund through the program’s Nov. 1 end date were about the “natural” clunker trade-in rate
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334
kallend 2,112
1. No information there about the mpg data, which is all I quoted. You HAVE to subdivide like the govt. does in order to calculate that
- simple arithmetic.
2. Nothing in there about victimizing the poor, which is what you have been asked about repeatedly but provide no data AT ALL
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
So do you still insist there is no need for the Feds to release the data, that we can simply believe their summary? Edmunds had to use dealer data, which is likely to be less complete.
Like I said, it would take < 60 seconds for an SQL query to list every transaction and end any doubt.
Like I said, it would take < 60 seconds for an SQL query to list every transaction and end any doubt.
Ron 10
You need to read again... while it may not say "MPG" it does say, "The government's results showed small cars as the top choice for shoppers looking for Cash for Clunker deals. But an independent analysis by Edmunds.com disputed those results, and showed that two full-size trucks and a small crossover SUV were actually among the top-ten buys"
So there is a significant difference in the data. The Govt even admits a big problem with the method they use.
"When presented with Edmund's analysis, the agency didn't dispute that the way in which it counted the vehicles would tend to reduce the totals of vehicles with many variations"
But John, thats ok.... We know you demanded data from a Republican, but blindly follow Obama.
Why the double standard? How can a "scientific" guy be so willing to ignore data?
So there is a significant difference in the data. The Govt even admits a big problem with the method they use.
"When presented with Edmund's analysis, the agency didn't dispute that the way in which it counted the vehicles would tend to reduce the totals of vehicles with many variations"
But John, thats ok.... We know you demanded data from a Republican, but blindly follow Obama.
Why the double standard? How can a "scientific" guy be so willing to ignore data?
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334
kallend 2,112
QuoteYou need to read again... while it may not say "MPG" it does say, "The government's results showed small cars as the top choice for shoppers looking for Cash for Clunker deals. But an independent analysis by Edmunds.com disputed those results, and showed that two full-size trucks and a small crossover SUV were actually among the top-ten buys"
So there is a significant difference in the data. The Govt even admits a big problem with the method they use.
NO, they didn't. YOU need to read again.
Quote
"When presented with Edmund's analysis, the agency didn't dispute that the way in which it counted the vehicles would tend to reduce the totals of vehicles with many variations"
But John, thats ok.... We know you demanded data from a Republican, but blindly follow Obama.
Why the double standard? How can a "scientific" guy be so willing to ignore data?
Kindly explain how to calculate average mpg when you don't break down vehicles into subcategories. Counting a hybrid Escape and a regular Escape as the same (as Edmunds did) is not only misleading, it gives you no idea of the mpg achieved since the two are so different.
BTW did you see that Edmunds reports the market share of hybrids increased from 2% to 3.6% (an 80% increase)?
While you're about it,
Please provide DATA indicating the extent to which POOR PEOPLE are going into debt as a result of THIS PROGRAM.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
kallend 2,112
QuoteSo do you still insist there is no need for the Feds to release the data,
Straw man. I haven't insisted there is no need.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
QuoteQuoteSo do you still insist there is no need for the Feds to release the data,
Straw man. I haven't insisted there is no need.
You don't need it to make conclusions based on their summary. You didn't need it for the extra $2B to be approved either. You continue to challenge counter claims with no actual evidence, so it's quite apparent that this man is made of gold, not straw.
BTW, it's hilariously bad statistics to show hybrids growing 80%.
kallend 2,112
QuoteQuoteQuoteSo do you still insist there is no need for the Feds to release the data,
Straw man. I haven't insisted there is no need.
You don't need it to make conclusions based on their summary.
OK so you were unable to find anywhere that I insisted....
Quote
BTW, it's hilariously bad statistics to show hybrids growing 80%.
Well, you seem to think the Sun shines from Edmunds, and I was very clear in writing that hybrid MARKET SHARE increased by 80% according to Edmunds' data.
Let me help you:
100* (3.6 - 2)/2 = 80%
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
Quote
Quote
BTW, it's hilariously bad statistics to show hybrids growing 80%.
Well, you seem to think the Sun shines from Edmunds, and I was very clear in writing that hybrid MARKET SHARE increased by 80% according to Edmunds' data.
Let me help you:
100* (3.6 - 2)/2 = 80%
I'll repeat, it's amateur hour statistics. Stats is the science of reducing a lot of data into simpler conclusions, but the catch is that if you simplify too far, you end up with stupid or misleading results.
The increased number of hybrid models, including ones that have virtually no green qualities, guarantees that sort of growth.
Ron 10
Quote
NO, they didn't. YOU need to read again.
REALLY?!?!?!?! You still want to claim that?!?!?!?!?
Quote"When presented with Edmund's analysis, the agency didn't dispute that the way in which it counted the vehicles would tend to reduce the totals of vehicles with many variations"
QuoteKindly explain how to calculate average mpg when you don't break down vehicles into subcategories.
Ah, but when you break down into so many subcategories you water down the result.... something you should understand.
QuoteCounting a hybrid Escape and a regular Escape as the same (as Edmunds did) is not only misleading, it gives you no idea of the mpg achieved since the two are so different.
Ah, but the Govt also set apart things like the standard F150 down into the XL, XLT, STX, Lariat, FX4, SVT, King Ranch, Platinum, and HD and treat each one as its own subgroup, you are misleading... and the Govt admitted to grouping them this way.
QuoteBTW did you see that Edmunds reports the market share of hybrids increased from 2% to 3.6% (an 80% increase)?
I am sure you also read how Edmunds reported that the majority of the sales were compressed, not new. Which means people delayed buying till the program was out, and some bought early to take advantage of the govt money..... Like I said, I am sure you read that as well.
Quote
Please provide DATA indicating the extent to which POOR PEOPLE are going into debt as a result of THIS PROGRAM.
Maybe you could explain how they are not... Or maybe you could explain why you support the "O" administration in not releasing the data they have?
Maybe you can explain you blind trust when you demanded data from Bush all the time?
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334
kallend 2,112
QuoteQuote
NO, they didn't. YOU need to read again.
REALLY?!?!?!?! You still want to claim that?!?!?!?!?Quote"When presented with Edmund's analysis, the agency didn't dispute that the way in which it counted the vehicles would tend to reduce the totals of vehicles with many variations"
Correct, which is not all all the same as your claiming they had a problem or were incorrect. You can easily add the govt' s subcategories to get the overall picture if you wish. You can't divide out Edmund's collective data to find out how many hybrid versions were sold. SO in fact the govt's data are more informative.
Which statement has more information:
" We sold 3 regular Fusions and 2 Fusion hybrids"
or
"We sold 5 Fusions"?
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
Ron 10
1. When you divide the subgroups into seperate groups you water down the data. In this case since there are 7 different types of f150's if you sold two of each and three Civics you are claiming that the Civic is the most popular car.
Never mind that there were 14 f150's sold and only 3 Civics.
2. The Govt HAS NOT reased the data. So you have no idea what is really in it.
Never mind that there were 14 f150's sold and only 3 Civics.
2. The Govt HAS NOT reased the data. So you have no idea what is really in it.
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334
kallend 2,112
Quote1. When you divide the subgroups into seperate groups you water down the data. In this case since there are 7 different types of f150's if you sold two of each and three Civics you are claiming that the Civic is the most popular car.
.
Providing MORE detail is not "watering down the data".
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
Ron 10
Quote
Providing MORE detail is not "watering down the data".
The Govt has not released the data. So you fail there.
And selling 14 F150's and classifying them as 7 different models due to trim differences when the frame/body/engine are all basically the SAME and trying to claim the three Civics you sold as being the most popular is not being accurate.
You know it, you just don't want to admit it.
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334
kallend 2,112
Since the different models have different mpg, HOW will you know the mpg change without knowing which models were sold? Kindly explain without ranting.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
http://finance.yahoo.com/retirement/article/107500/debt-burden-to-weigh-on-stocks;_ylt=AujSQggxOOjDyLMFlyKctRK7YWsA;_ylu=X3oDMTE1cnZvbWhhBHBvcwM2BHNlYwN0b3BTdG9yaWVzBHNsawNkZWJ0YnVyZGVudG8-?mod=retire-401k&sec=topStories&pos=4&asset=&ccode=
While consumer spending is the major drive in the economy (2/3), debt spending is not the goal for a healthy recovery IMO.
And for those that think the banks have learned the lesson....
http://finance.yahoo.com/loans/article/107489/old-banks-new-lending-tricks.html;_ylt=AnzhvHIdGP_n05rBeClRfVS7YWsA;_ylu=X3oDMTFhOTFzOHAwBHBvcwMzBHNlYwNwZXJzb25hbEZpbmFuY2UEc2xrA3NhbWVvbGRiYW5rcw--?mod=loans-personl_smallbiz
"tied to complicated and volatile derivatives" does not sound like a lesson learned.
Payday loan programs?!?!?!?!?
And if house prices had continued to rise we would have been in a great place as well.
It does not sound like they have learned.....
So if big banks like 5/3rd and Wells Fargo are getting into payday loans, and banks like BofA, Citigroup, and JPM Chase have rolled out new corporate credit lines tied to complicated and volatile derivatives..... Does that make it sound like the banks have changed their ways? Or that they are now looking for new sources of income?
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites