JS, thanks for reminding us that perhaps the world is NOT coming to an end from global warming. Most of us are in a position such that, if we go by which side our bread is buttered, we have a vested interest in global warming not being for real.
We need to look at the possibility that some folks out there have a heavy emotional vested interest in global warming, as they never liked the automobile to begin with.
"WHEN?" See the WSJ article written by the CEO of Edmunds.com. All this kind of incentive does is reduce sales before and after the program (i.e. anyone with half a brain that would qualify and was going to but a new car would do it while they could get more $$). Once the program is over, sales for these vehicles will collapse (I'm sure that'll be great for auto employment).
Also, why am I forced to subsidize people buying new cars? Why is the program only open to people who old own older cars that don't get good mileage? The global warming stuff is BS (it has been getting cooler for a few years).
"they would buy it anyway..." WHEN? Ultimate purpose is to get the automotive companies' employees back to work.All Toyotas and Hondas are not buit overseas. Four of the top 10 American-built vehicles with 75% of ALL parts manufactured in the United States are Toyotas. Number 1 of top 10 is the Toyota Camry. While other economic arguments are valid, theydo not put food on family tables of the unemployed.
I took advantage of cash for clunkers even though I wasn't really ready to purchase a new vehicle. But the opportunity to get $4500 from Uncle Sugar and $3500 from the manufacturer was to good for me to pass up.
My personal opinion that 1. the bailout was just an excuse for a bunch of fat cats to get rewarded for doing a lousy job. 2. the bailout money should have been given to the American taxpayers that have to foot the bill anyway with the stipulation that all debt had to be paid 1st (would have put money into bank coffers), would have been much easier for the IRS to track the bailout money through the tax payers than is for the gov to track where the corporations stash or make money disappear.
Instead of gov trickle down economics it should have been trickle up economics.
I know some people have criticized the cash for clunkers program on grounds that cars built overseas, i.e. Toyotas, are as eligible as those built domestically.
While I'm not an Obama fan, I support the policy of giving people cash for clunkers for purchasing cars like the Toyota Corolla or Prius. The reason is, if the carbon dioxide/global warming crisis is so serious as to justify draconian 35 MPH CAFE laws, it would be a frustrating contradiction to deny people cash for clunkers credit for wanting to buy outstanding products such as the Prius, simply because its not invented or built here in the USA.
Is the cash for clunkers program as a whole, warranted? Perhaps instead of rendering older cars permanently inoperable, we should impose a carbon tax on fossil fuels at the coal mine or oil well, and let the market decide when's the best time to scrap older cars and trucks.
I agree with andrewg4153: This is not a good forum for automotive news, policy, or other things that are so obviously unrelated to electronic news.
Besides, that is a very poorly written opinion piece that really just comes off as a fragemented rant.
Hey, EETIMES - Delete it!
I'd like to share a couple of points:
1. President Obama (and I would suggest that out of respect for the office that you use the honorific even in headlines) cannot 'kill' Cash-for-Clunkers. Funding for the program is controlled by the Congress. Phrases like 'Obama should' distort the complexity of the debate.
2. Given that Ford reported the first increase in year-to-year sales in 15 months today, I think that your 'they would buy new cars anyway' thesis is not borne out by the evidence. People weren't putting off purchases, they were changing the rate at which they make them.
3. Regardless of the policy implications of the program, good or bad, why in the world is this column in my RSS feed for EETimes.com? How is this even remotely connected to 'Electronics Industry News'?
This is an interesting question and an interesting debate, but I don't want to read or talk about it here.
What are the engineering and design challenges in creating successful IoT devices? These devices are usually small, resource-constrained electronics designed to sense, collect, send, and/or interpret data. Some of the devices need to be smart enough to act upon data in real time, 24/7. Are the design challenges the same as with embedded systems, but with a little developer- and IT-skills added in? What do engineers need to know? Rick Merritt talks with two experts about the tools and best options for designing IoT devices in 2016. Specifically the guests will discuss sensors, security, and lessons from IoT deployments.