Let’s kick off the weekend with a fresh thread. Remember that there are still separate campaign threads, so you can use this one to discuss anything outside election campaigning and punditry. Moving forward, we’ll stagger the roll-out of new Punditocracy and Spin Cycle threads based on the deep consensus achieved by our citizens’ advisory panel. And all the relevant threads are listed in the sidebar.
This Sunday’s Insiders line-up (with thanks as always to Mike Bowers) sees Barrie interviewing Simon Crean, the panel is Karen Middleton, Andrew Bolt and Malcolm Farr, and Talking Pictures has Paul Zanetti. On Sunday evening, of course, we’ll have the leaders’ debate at 6:30 AEST. More TV line-ups as they come to hand.
58 Comments
Pages: [1] 2 » Show All
Quick suggestion, when you embed hyper-links in articles could you configure them to automatically open in a new tab/windo? I believe that it’s a simple matter of setting; target=”_blank”
It will be interesting to see what sort of coverage this will receive in the Fairfax press…..
I know I shouldn’t take anything Mr Bolt says seriously, but can he do basic arithmetic?
In his blog today he says (while accusing Gillard of lying about population growth and immigration) –
“The Prime Minister’s key election promise so far is that she’ll cut net immigration, now running at an out-of-control 270,000 people a year.”
I checked the latest stats from the Department of immigration, and the latest figure adds up to around 220,000 p.a., and this is a decrease over last year.
“In the six months of July to December 2009:
The number of permanent additions was 109 778, a 4.5 per cent decrease over the corresponding period for the previous year. This is largely due to a decrease in the Non-program component of settler arrivals. This comprised 72 134 settler arrivals plus 37 644 onshore grants. The 11.8 per cent decrease in settler arrivals was offset by a 13.5 per cent increase in onshore grants.
Australia’s net permanent addition was 69 269—a decrease of 9.0 per cent over the previous period.”
http://www.immi.gov.au/media/publications/statistics/immigration-update/update-dec09.pdf
This suggests a population increase of around 9,000,000 by 2050, so we might be less than 30,000,000 by then.
So where does Bolt get his figures from?
Just wondering
Your “citizen’s advisory panel” is a hand-picked stalking horse for the grant-sniffing establishment climate-change lobby! I demand the right to be sceptical without any evidence necessary to prove my point!
John Many Johns, I’m not keen on that request, sorry. Setting links to automatically open in a new window takes the choice away from the user and could irritate as many people as it pleases. Depending on your browser, though, you should be able to choose to open links in a new tab or a new window by holding down either CTRL or Shift when you click it.
Bolt vs Farr should be a good watch. I reckon Malcolm doesn’t like him.
I know the Murdoch-controlled media thinks it’s smart to say that Labor “welshed” when they accuse them of changing their mind (presumably a puerile reference to Gillard’s Welsh background).
So can we think of a suitable expression for “making up the figures to suit your dogma”? I suggest identifying such things as “a Bolta” as in “the HUN does a Bolta on immigration figures”.
angra@3
I think he often gets them wrong because he doesn’t understand what he’s writing about, or because he churns out so much material, he simply makes mistakes.
On MTR and in his column the other day said “Under Labor it’s (immigration) running at an insane 270,000 a year, enough to give us 42 million (by 2050)”.
If you do the maths (even bearing in mind his figures are wrong), 270,000 x 40 = 10,800,000. Currently we have a population around 23,000,000 I think. That gives a total of about 34,000,000. He’s out by a very long way.
I find he often has errors of this magnitude. I’m sure it’s not intentional, him being a “journalist” of such integrity.
I think Jeremy or someone mentioned it on another thread, but I’m well looking forward to this citizens’ assembly. I bet that the answer to climate change turns out to be Master Chef or Nickelback.
And so you can diarise it now, we’ll have an answer regarding Australia’s response to global warming at the end of October, or mid November if Stacy’s netball team makes the finals. Go Ringtails!
What a circus.
Angra, it’s like he multiplies everything by a “Bolt coefficient”, denoted B, which varies depending on the point he is trying to prove.
Or just right click the link for a drop down menu.
Shouldn’t Bolt on Insiders during the election period be included as a coalition spokesperson and equal time allocated to a panellist from the Left.
gtpfb13,
It’s time for that chat.
When a man and a woman love each other very, very much, they have a very special hug. During this hug, the man puts a baby in the tummy of the lady. After a little while, the lady goes into hospital and the doctor takes the baby out of the lady’s tummy and gives it to the man. The man becomes a daddy, the lady becomes a mummy and the baby becomes an Australian.
Other than forgetting that men do to women what you just did to the arithmetic, you nailed Bolt big time.
Laugh? I almost did!
SMH reports that the federal government has censored approximately 90 per cent of a secret document outlining its controversial plans to snoop on Australians’ web surfing, obtained under freedom of information (FoI) laws, out of fear the document could cause “premature unnecessary debate”.
What are they hiding?
Upyasmum, thank you, I needed a laugh.
Upyasmum @13
You’re so conventional. You do know it doesn’t have to be that way EVERY time, right? But I’m glad to see you didn’t predicate the whole business on marriage.
So, weekend assignment – everyone go check out the hit-job the US conservative noise-box is setting up on the guy who wants to build that “ground zero mosque”, Feisal Abdul Rauf.
He apparently has some connection with a malaysian group that gave money to the free gaza movement – Check. He apparently refused to condemn any particular group in an interview because he’s trying to avoid becoming a partisan figure – Check. Apparently the money is likely to come from “saudi arabia and other muslim countries” – jeeze, how stupid ARE these people?
I suggest that, before believing any quotes attributed, find the context first.
@13
Oops. I did kind of forget that other small addition to the population. How embarrassment.
I will never doubt Andrew’s figures again.
Are there no journalistic heights to which ACA cannot reach?
Tonight it was Roberta Williams on Masterchef.
What next? Beauty tips from Myra Hindley, fashion advice from Ivan Milat?
@8 The 42 million figure used by Bolt is the figure from the Centre for Population and Urban Research which is based on immigration, fertility and increased life expectancy. See http://www.news.com.au/national/australias-population-to-grow-to-42m-by-2050-modelling-shows/story-e6frfkvr-1225854742172
Where Bolt is wrong is that he uses immigration to beat the Government about the head without at least acknowledging that this Government has already cut immigration numbers. It was the previous Government that oversaw record immigration. But he conveniently forgets that bit.
Steven @ 20,
News creamed off the highest figure in a range of possible projections based on different assumptions about fertility rates, life expectancy and net migration. The projections range between 30 and 40 million by 2050.
Try the ABS –
http://www.abs.gov.au/Ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/3222.0
However the figures show that net migration currently is 220,000 p.a. and decreasing. Hardly the “out-of-control 270,000 people a year” that Mr Bolt quotes.
The net immigration figures may include some ‘double dipping’. Over half of the net migration figures include ‘on-shore grants’, that is the awarding of permanent residence to people who are already in Australia. My wife is in this category.
Wouldn’t people already in Australia but who have not yet been granted permanent residency (such as students, family members of residents etc.) ALREADY be included in the population count? If so the net immigration figures (people granted permanency) as a component of net population increase is misleading.
Maybe we need a friendly population statistician to explain things for us?
This “citizen’s assembly” thing is a strange idea. Particularly after the (not exactly) glowing success of the last one. It’s also risky – either she selects people genuinely at “random” and runs the risk of getting a roomful of coal miners and V8-drivers, or she tries to stack it by picking postcodes and gets hammered for that. If she wants to sell the case, then sell it. Pick a couple of spokespeople .. and lead.
The other question to ask is: how would this tactic stack up against the tactics the other side will use? There is no way Australia is going to be allowed to take a decision on a carbon price without outside help. If one significant economy (and we are reasonably significant, particularly given our mix of exports) takes the plunge, that will give other world leaders a big opportunity, hence Mr Monckton saw it in his heart to come down and tell us all about communist conspiracies and stochastic graphs. That will happen again, and the usual suspects will be flat-out trying to undermine it.
Upyasmum
It’s time for that chat.
When a man or a woman get very, very old, they fall into a special sleep. With this sleep, they don’t wake up. After a little while, the lady or the man are put into a box and a special doctor takes the lady or the man away and puts them in the ground or sets fire to them. The man or the lady are no longer part of the Australian population.
Other than forgetting that people die and the Australian natural increase rate is negligible, you nailed gtpfb13 big time.
Matt, the attempts to stack the citizens’ assembly have begun as well. Lobby groups will demand a seat at the table and Gillard will be facing fresh advertising campaigns against her if their vested intersts aren’t “appropriately” recognised.
Now that the well in the gulf appears to be capped and under control, I hope the people who capped it get some credit and recognition. Whatever we might think about what led to the accident in the first place, the people who got it back under control really did pull off an impressive technical feat. Some of them might be the same people, some of them probably weren’t – I suspect that quite a few aren’t even BP employees. But they all clearly worked their tails off for just over a month, on a problem that didn’t have a known solution, under enormous political pressure and in (probably) occasionally dangerous circumstances. They were probably well-remunerated, but still … I say well done.
And I hope that Oby isn’t so dumb as to take the opportunity to ban drilling. That would be the wrong choice. The RIGHT choice would be to take the opportunity to review practices, work out whether the state of the art is safe, whether this is likely to happen again, and get the industry to propose, then review, acceptable guidelines for future activities. A ban just lets a republican lift the ban later on without doing the due diligence.
dendy @24
No way. I saw a documentary about pods from space that could make us live forever. Brian Denehy said so.
Oh, I enjoyed watching this:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/23/rachel-maddow-responds-to_n_656910.html
Yes, it’s huffpo. I can’t seem to get MSNBC’s player to work for me. But the content is the same. It’s Rachel Maddow taking a swing at Bill O’reilly about how whenever he (or fox) is criticized for being full of tish, he comes back with the “our ratings are better than yours” response (which he seems to do a heck of a lot – maybe it should replace “fair and balanced” as the network motto? At least it would be accurate).
It’s pretty comprehensive, and it’s an excellent example of how you CAN use facts in an argument, rather than just shouting opinions.
Apologies for finding this so darn fascinating … it’s what we’ll get here if AB gets his wish for a Fox News Australia. In the meantime I guess we keep an eye on MTR. This week’s ACA spot about asylum seekers showed great potential.
Here’s O’Reilly’s response to Maddow on his talking points memo. Pedro – notice that O’Reilly takes responsibility for breaking the story. Note well.
http://video.foxnews.com/v/4291624/money-race-and-the-media/
Straight away, he can’t get his facts straight. Maddow didn’t mention the black panthers. Maybe there’s some other story doing the rounds, or maybe he just threw that in to make his position seem more credible (I mean – who’d defend the black panthers, right?), but Maddow didn’t say anything about Black Panthers.
And notice that it’s a Bolta correction – he admits that he got maybe a little detail slightly incorrect, then makes up ground by making ANOTHER bogus claim to suggest that really he was right all along. Sorry, Bill, but you’re reaching. It’s pretty clear that she’s talking about her mindset at the time – that’s the point of the story. And it’s hardly “partisan advocacy” to talk about race in federal politics. Give it away. You were wrong. But your ratings are excellent.
Here’s the maddow segment that started the whole punch-up. Pedro should REALLY watch this one. It’s a nice summary of why I think fox owes somebody an apology. In fact, fox seems to think exactly the same thing, but they don’t understand the irony of the way they express it. And I just want to say … Dana Perino, you have fallen so far.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/vp/38353774#38353774
And just to indicate how far off the reservation The Right over there IS these days, here’s Coulter claiming it was all a left-wing plot:
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/2010/07/22/2010-07-22_andrew_breitbart_was_victim_of_fraud_in_shirley_sherrod_story_says_ann_coulter.html
Matt, I haven’t had a chance to watch the clips you’ve posted yet, but I know that Maddow invoked the “New Black Panthers” as one of a list of campaigns where scaring white people has been used as a political tactic. Here’s the relevant clip.
TZ @30
Thanks for that. I’d actually forgotten about the voter intimidation story. Maddow did talk about that the night before the talking points memo I linked to.
It’s a pity that parts of the US media are so appalling that they’re often actually the story itself. But it is very entertaining to watch.
US wacko watch alert.
There is a Muslim hate group called Stop Islamization of America which is attempting to spread to other countries, apparently already active in England, France, Denmark, Germany, Russia, Sweden and other places. They are getting quite a bit of press coverage. They are led by a seriously disturbed woman called Pamela Geller. Her Facebook followers include quite a few Australians who blame ‘Arab gangs for destroying Australia’, amongst other things.
On Facebook, various web sites, literature etc. they are promoting the ‘International Burn a Koran Day’ being organised by a lovely charitable Christian church called the Dove World Outreach Centre.
At the risk of making you bring up you lunch, here is their site –
http://www.doveworld.org/blog/islam-is-of-the-devil-signs-vandalized
They should be exposed for what they are (evil hate-mongers) and banned from starting any activity in Australia. How can they be allowed to set up a Facebook group?
It would be worth tracing their Australian connections.
The Sherrod debacle is fascinating. I wonder if this is not a watershed moment for faux news. Hopefully some people will now wake up to the fact that it is a propaganda organ. I know, unlikely, but we can but hope. I also hope Rachel Maddow takes another swipe at Billo the clown on Friday night (US time).
Hmm. Doing some pondering:
AB’s swiping at JGILL’s offer of $2000 to upgrade pre-95 cars to new ones that meet certain emissions requirements.
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/gillards_clash_for_clunkers_fraud/
Here’s the most detailed explanation of the policy – some of the reporting I’ve seen has actually been incorrect about one important detail:
http://www.alp.org.au/federal-government/news/cleaner-car-rebate-to-scrap-inefficient-cars/
The important point is that it has to be a NEW car. Andrew is right that it will mean that it will make it harder to find a car under 2000$, because any car that was manufactured before 1995 would now theoretically be worth precisely $2000 as a trade-in. But that’s only if the owner actually buys a new car with the proceeds – which isn’t necessarily going to happen. The claim that it’ll bid up the price of second-hand cars …. well, I’m not sure that follows – but if anyone can explain it to me, I’m all ears.
I’m not sure this comment makes any sense at all:
Eh? Somebody’s going to buy an unregistered car, then get it checked, insured and re-registered, just to collect 2000$ on the purchase of a new car? I’m not sure that’s going to be a very profitable exercise when, odds are, if it was even close to roadworthy it would probably be still on the road in the first place (our car market being what it is). Does anyone else think that’s probably unlikely? It shouldn’t be hard to stop, anyway – just require that cars being traded in have been registered continuously since, well, yesterday. I know one thing, though – if it even happens ONCE (or somebody even claims it has) we’ll never hear the end of it.
Hmm. If this only applies to new cars then I can’t see how that’s going to happen. A quick search on carsales.com suggests that it’s not all that hard to find a post-95 used car in the 2000-2500 price range.
And it’s not really credible to be simultaneously arguing that
and
Which one is it? Is it just a car they would have bought anyway? Or is it a car that needn’t have been manufactured?
I’ll declare one interest, though – I actually do drive a pre-95 car. While it’s not as great as it once was, It’s most definitely not a “gas guzzler”. I drive like a lunatic, and I get under 10l/100lm. It costs stuff-all to service and maintain and I don’t have to worry about the upholstery. And I actually enjoy driving it – it’s quick (enough), it’s light and on decent tyres it sticks to corners fairly well. I’m going to be a bit sad when it finally does have to go to the knackers … which, if somebody’s going to give me $2k might just happen early next year
Matt.
Let’s see if I have this right.
The very first mention of the Breitbart/Sherrod video on FNC is O’Reilly at 8.50pm for 30 seconds (taped earlier but with a live banner announcing Sherrod has resigned.)
9pm and Hannity says Sherrod has resigned.
10pm and Dana says Sherrod has resigned.
Yet Fox News lit the bomb that forced the White House to demand her resignation???? Really???
No sale. I’m with the staunchly Liberal Washington Post on this one.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/21/AR2010072106708.html?hpid=topnews
Pedro @35
A couple of points:
(1) you seem to be of the view that fox’s coverage of the story after the resignation doesn’t matter because she’d already resigned. That’s an interesting position.
(2) “staunchly Liberal Washington Post.” You WHAT?!?
(3) A bit more context: http://mediamatters.org/research/201007220004
For those who don’t bother to follow the link … the important content is this:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/07/19/clip-shows-usda-official-admitting-withheld-help-white-farmer/
That claims to be published on the 20th. That’s incorrect. It was originally published on the morning of Monday the 19th, shortly after the Breitbart video post. It was taken down and then republished the following day in a slightly altered form.
As your link suggests, “Fox executives say O’Reilly’s staff, which is not part of the news division, sought comment from USDA throughout the day”.
It all happened incredibly quickly, there is no doubt about that. But not only are wrong to be claiming that fox’s coverage didn’t matter because it all came after the resignation (which is ridiculous – a apology from fox is still warranted), you’re wrong to be claiming that in the first place. Fox had covered the story and was in contact with the USDA “throughout the day”. O’reilly record the show BEFORE the resignation, and apparently wasn’t as concerned about fine distinctions as you are
I used to dismiss talk of a Bolt-brain as a crazy paranoid conspiracy…
” While the Greens candidate seemed from an alternative universe:
“A Greens candidate called Bob Brown says Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda may not be responsible for the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks in the United States.”"
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/exactly_what_test_do_labors_candidates_in_flinders_have_to_pass/
Note for the unfamiliar with his wondrous ways: the quote in the quote refers to the section in itallics on his page, which like in another (separated) section in itallics on his page, he is (mis)quoting himself from the same link ["the Labor candidate seemed to be an anti-Catholic extremist:"].
If you are still following; in the original UPDATE he remembered to include “no relation to the boss”…
Pass the al-foil hat and call me shiny.
I always thought it would be rather fun to write newspaper headlines, but mistakes can be deadly!
The SMH has a lead article about Abbott talking about the importance of women in his life.
It’s now running as “Abbott Praises Women”
When it first appeared around 2 this afternoon the headline was “Abbott Acknowledges Women”.
Amazing how much difference one word can make!
Matt says: “you seem to be of the view that fox’s coverage of the story after the resignation doesn’t matter because she’d already resigned. That’s an interesting position.
I don’t “seem” to of the view, I AM of the view.
Anyone, just anyone, explain to me how Fox’s broadcast coverage of Sherrod’s resignation “LIT THE BOMB” that caused her forced resignation??? I mean, it is the broadcast coverage Maddow, Olbermann, Matt of Canberra etc have gone after….
There’s a very surreal yet clearly manipulative Back to Future-ness in all this idiocy.
Next point. By noon hundreds of websites had uploaded Breitbart’s video and it was full-on viral. Fox was one of those websites but, as you pointed out, the story was removed in short time.
So the, say, couple of hours it was there before the directive from Fox’s VP of News said hang onto the story until we know more, was all the White House needed to panic… and demand she resign? Not the hundreds of other sites, just FOX. Not the fact it hadn’t even been AIRED on Fox News Channel, just because it was on the website for a couple of hours.
Good grief. Has the media honestly become this sad and twisted and the left this desperate to protect Obama that if they can’t manufacture a Blame Bush moment they have to scrape up a Blame Fox one??
Last point.
“O’reilly record the show BEFORE the resignation, and apparently wasn’t as concerned about fine distinctions as you are ”
And O’Reilly HAS apologised. Two nights running.
Angra @ #3:
Probably got that one from the widely circulated media releases by whoever was on duty a few months ago (Joe Hockey maybe?).
I also checked the ABS at the time and was puzzled- don’t know/ can’t remember how they arrived at the 300,000 figure exactly- but later press soundbites from the Labs didn’t jump all over it and seemed to confirm the assertion- maybe they get their news from the same place as {Bolt}?
GDP targeted immigration has been steadily rising for decades under the Lib-Labs, so it’s all a bit meh.
UPDATE- re the quote of the quote blah blah- seems {Bolt} could possibly argue that he technically did quote himself correctly (assuming he follows some kind of convention) and was only misleading, rather than out and out misquoting-don’t know if I wasn’t paying attention or he has edited the link…not that around-the-clock {Bolt}-watch is something I would wish on anybody.
Matthew of Canberra@26
Too right! BP made heroes of themselves!!!!1!
….despite the fact that their criminal negligence cost the lives of 11 workers, injured 17 others, and has f*cked over the entire gulf coast ecology for probably the next 20 years, costing the livelihoods of hundreds of Gulf fisherman and their families. And then you turn around and try and make Obama the focus of the problem, when the whole situation was created by Bush’s laissez-faireattitude to oil-company oversight…..
You’re on a minor planet somewhere, pal, and I hope someone can reach you.
News Ltd is playing fast and loose with immigration statistics yet again. Yesterday Bolt claimed it is “an out-of-control 270,000″ per year. Today News Ltd reporting on Abbott’s plan to cut immigration says –
“Mr Abbott will announce today a Coalition Government would cut net overseas migration from nearly 300,000 to 170,000, and reduce the nation’s population growth from 2.1 per cent to 1.4 per cent.” News does not quote a source.
The only actual figure I can find for current net immigration p.a. is 220,000. (see @3)
monkeywrench @42
Settle down. There’s a difference between BP and the people who fixed that well. I don’t care about BP – they’ll get what’s coming to them. The people who did whatever it was that led to that well failing are not necessarily the same people who fixed it. Yes, the screwing up was very bad – but that doesn’t undermine the difficulty of the task of stopping the leak. It’s THOSE guys I’m talking about. The oil industry isn’t a simple matter of a few big companies, and everyone working for one of them. It’s a bunch of subcontractors, for the most part. The people (and I reapet – it’s the people I’m talking about) who worked their tails off for the last 40-so days probably worked for a company that does nothing but fix well problems. There’ll be an investigation and blame will be apportioned, but in the meantime I’m still impressed by what the fixer-guys did.
“And then you turn around and try and make Obama the focus of the problem”
Did I? I must have missed that.
“You’re on a minor planet somewhere, pal, and I hope someone can reach you.”
Major tom, out.
Wow. Touchy.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/07/25/2963433.htm
I’m surprised they even blinked at that. I guess they don’t want any “overtones of paulline” creeping into the leadership debate.
Matthew @ 45: he was also reported as saying:
In other words, he’s a religious fundamentalist. The last thing mainstream parties like the Liberals need is people like him polluting their brand.
Just on the BP thing. I was always relatively supportive of offshore drilling, until this disaster. Now I reckon until companies can demonstrate a technical capacity to plug leaks within say one week, offshore drilling should be banned. The telling thing for me about BP is their disaster management guidelines included something like 20 pages on handling the media, and less than half that on actually mitigating the disaster. An absolute joke.
The Liberals have sacked the Islamophobe candidate for Chifley whose gems of wisdom include –
“I don’t know if we want at this stage in Australian politics a Muslim in the Parliament and an atheist running the Government.”
The new candidate is called Venus Priest
Shouldn’t she be standing for the Sex party with a name like that?
confessions @46
Wow. Yes. Probably the wrong country for that sort of candidate.
confessions @47
Fair enough. But how do you know when they’ve demonstrated that capacity? Who decides? And what do you do when you discovered that there’s a kind of leak they didn’t think of? Remember – the best laid plans of mice and men, and all that.
If you want absolute certainty, then you might as well shut down all ocean drilling right now. And there’s quite a lot of it, most of which happens outside of the US’ jurisdiction.
Not that I get to decide, but I’d be assembling a group of very skeptical geologists and engineers and getting them to go over the technical and administrative practices currently in place. Find another Feynman and stick him (or her) in charge of it. Don’t expect a quick answer, and for goodness’ sake don’t leave it to the reps. If the potential damage is so great, then the best trick is to not screw up in the first place.
Nuclear power is also potentially very dangerous. In practice, overall, it’s actually very safe because the plants are well designed and properly run. Yes, accidents happen. Planes crash too – but you still fly. Perfect certainty doesn’t happen and right now we use a lot of that oil stuff.
I’m not sure that AB understands economics. Either that, or I don’t. Taking a look at his thread about the Cash For Clunkers proposal. He gives us this image:
http://blogs.news.com.au/images/uploads/cddar.jpg
(via http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/gillards_clash_for_clunkers_fraud/ )
and says “Every one of these, for instance, will be worth at least $2000 after Labor wins the election”
Now, basic checks aside (he seems to have not noticed the 1996 laser, for example, and the merc that’s out of rego), I don’t think he quite gets how this $2K will affect prices. I am going to assume that the cars being handed in need to be actually on the road (i.e. registered), otherwise the policy would be utterly pointless and AB would be right about people dumping wrecks on the forecourt. Common sense says that isn’t going to happen, since the whole point is to get old cars off the road. So that’s my big assumption going in.
So:
Imagine that somebody who has ALREADY decided to buy a new car that meets the criteria realizes that they can get a rebate if they have a clunker to hand in. This is basically the “best case” scenario. If the buyer has been tempted into it by the rebate, then the willingness to pay for a wreck is reduced, because the overall benefit determines whether they’ll make the purchase.
(b) If they already have an illegible car, then (assuming it’s not already worth $2K) it is now worth precisely $2K to the owner. If somebody wanted to buy it from them, they’d have to pay $2K + 1$. That basically takes it off the market (assuming it was worth less than $2K in the first place). In a lot of these cases, the owner would have traded it in anyway, and if it really is only worth a few hundred I suspect it’d just be junked anyway. Some of those advertisements might be dealers selling the car off-lot to avoid warranties. Those trade-ins won’t be bid up by $2k, they’ll simply disappear into the crushers. That will reduce the pool of cheap cars, yes.
(c) Assuming they DON’T have a clunker, then they’ll have to get one from somewhere. I’m assuming that it will have to be roadworthy and registered in their own name (otherwise they’re not legally able to transfer it to anyone). That will probably mean a REVS check, inspection and rego transfer, which will cost money. You can basically subtract that cost from the $2K, and every dollar the total tends toward 2000$ makes the deal less attractive to the buyer (who also has to stuff around with the transfer). So no, none of those cars will be worth “at least” $2000. It will bit up their prices a bit, but they will still be worth far less than $2K.
In either case, the policy works. It means that somebody is paid money to get an old car off the road. Whatever you think of the policy (which would be the first government handout in history that might actually benefit me personally), the claim that this is going to bid up the prices of cars by $2K is just bonkers.
The real question is – what will the effect on prices be if we remove just 200,000 roadworthy, pre-1995 cars from the roads? I have my doubts about this pushing up the price of a 700$ car by $2K. The supply of old cars just isn’t that tight.
Pages: [1] 2 » Show All