Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2009 18:39:10 -0400
Reply-To: Chris S <szpejankowski@GMAIL.COM>
Sender: Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From: Chris S <szpejankowski@GMAIL.COM>
Subject: Re: economic woes and such ..
In-Reply-To: <5A81A9B088E6426A903A940314EB4DA1@gp207joel>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Ok, now all I have to do is decide what vanilla GM or Chrysler product
I'd rather drive than my 2001 VW Beetle TDI on a daily basis.
Mmmmm... I'm drawing a blank. Somebody help me out. It has to
average 45 MPG during my commute, come with a manual transmission, and
be fun to drive.
But I can see how this would work for others! :-)
On 4/17/09, joel walker <uncajoel@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> all this credit card talk got me to thinking about all this economic
> stimulus stuff.
>
> and an idea popped into my head. (hey, it happens!).
>
> suppose, just suppose, that instead of giving money to the car
> companies, the government just reimbursed them as they GAVE their
> inventory away.
>
> An Alternate Ecomonic Bailout Stimulus Package Deal :)
> (bailout to me has always been what you do with a parachute when the
> plane is on fire or the wings are falling off. stimulus? well, the
> less said, the better).
>
> tell me what you think ...
>
> 1. GM and Chrysler would GIVE away their inventory of cars to
> customers.
>
> 2. the government would pay wholesale prices to these companies.
> no paperwork fees or any other sorts of fees would be allowed
> at the dealer.
>
> 3. the customer/recipient would be responsible for all local and
> state
> taxes, as well as insurance and licensing costs.
>
> 4. the customer must agree to keep the car for a minimum of three (3)
> years.
> it cannot be sold prior to that time.
> it may, however, be traded on another new car during the three
> years.
>
> the idea is, this would reduce the ailing car companies inventories
> of unsold cars.
> and could be used in place of some of the 'bailout' money.
>
> it would help the economy in the following ways:
> a. less gas should be consumed by newer more efficient cars.
> (in theory anyway)
>
> b. less greenhouse emissions should be produced by the newer cars.
> (again, in theory)
>
> c. auto dealers would reap benefits from their service departments
> when these cars need oil changes and other maintenance.
>
> d. the customers would have more money to spend on other local
> economy
> purchases since they are not making car payments.
>
> e. it might even cause the companies to recall laid-off workers to
> build
> more cars for the program, thus giving some relief to the
> workers and to the suppliers to the companies assembly lines.
>
> f. it would increase the volume of business for auto insurance
> companies
> since it is likely that a lot of people who cannot afford an
> auto now would get one under this program. so money needed to bail
> out
> insurance companies would be less. maybe.
>
> however, some issues might cause problems:
>
> i. if the customer already has a car, even an old clunker,
> what do we do in that situation?
> should they be forced to trade it in? or give it to the dealer?
> if so, should certain aged cars be scrapped?
> or should the cars be resold? this might cause a problem with the
> used car dealers becoming overstocked very quickly.
> and with free new cars available, who would want a used car?
>
>
> anybody got any additional suggestions? other than scrapping the whole
> idea. ;)
>
> unca joel
>
--
Sent from my mobile device
Chris S.
Disclaimer: "Death and serious injury may occur"
| 
