Government to offer loans to buy cars

kennyboy66_2

Wookster wrote: »

Still not getting it Humphrey.

People always want cars, people always want the nicest watches, the best clothes, the coolest holidays.

They never had the money to pay for them until the credit boom of the last 10 years.

Now we are finding out that actually, they couldn't afford those things.

In a world of cheap, easy, convenant lite credit people buy willy nilly but it doesn't mean that the businesses they buy from are viable in normal trading conditions.

Or is that concept lost on you?

More new cars were sold in the UK in 1988 than in 2008

In fact for all this "credit fueled boom / MEWing / NuLabour selling our children into debt slavery" nonsense spouted, car sales in 1989 were 2.3 million against 2.34 million in 2006.

It would not surprise me if 2009 sales are less than 1983, 1984, 1985 despite GDP being about 40-50% bigger now than in the mid 1980's.

There is certainly overcapacity in the car industry, particularly the US, however I for one hope that plant closures are in France / Italy / Spain / Germany than the UK.

Wookster

Any wrote: »

And what if they haven't got any???
There are some people out there that find it difficult just because they haven't got any credit yet and still find it difficult to get a loan.

If you don't have debt then perhaps you have savings? Remember the good old days when our parents paid for everything in cash and the only debt they had was the mortgage? Perhaps they weren't such bad times after all?

My comments RE buying cars new - just my own personal view. I can understand why people would, for entirely non financial reasons want a brand new car, though for me personally the extra cost does not justify the perceived benefit.

Sir_Humphrey

FWIW, I would prefer even more to have investment put into public transport. I am also drawing a distinction between efficient car makers and the hopeless US dinosaurs like Ford and GM. If Capitalism is left to it's own devices, it will fail just like the systems Generali mentions. All the systems, including Capitalism have a high body count.

Sir_Humphrey

Wookster wrote: »

My comments RE buying cars new - just my own personal view. I can understand why people would, for entirely non financial reasons want a brand new car, though for me personally the extra cost does not justify the perceived benefit.

Unfortunately, again you fail to look at the system as a whole. For you to buy a car second-hand (a sensible thing to do), someone else has to buy it new.

Wookster

Sir_Humphrey wrote: »

Unfortunately, again you fail to look at the system as a whole. For you to buy a car second-hand (a sensible thing to do), someone else has to buy it new.

What exactly is your point?

I'm just telling you how I behave as a consumer, (thankfully) not everyone behaves in the same way.

Generali

I think SirHumphrey would rather direct production than have production directed by those that have to buy it.

People want to drive to their destination so Socialists want to build more public transport. Seems a bit odd to me.

Sir_Humphrey

Generali wrote: »

I think SirHumphrey would rather direct production than have production directed by those that have to buy it. People want to drive to their destination so Socialists want to build more public transport. Seems a bit odd to me.

People wanted to spend money inflating house prices. According to your argument the government should just let them. And so they did, with consequences for all to see. There has to be trade-off between government direction of the economy and individual decisions. In the case of public transport, for some journeys there is no choice but to drive. Government spending on providing alternatives would therefore increase choice.

Generali

Sir_Humphrey wrote: »

Government spending on providing alternatives would therefore increase choice.

Not for poorer people priced out of driving cars!

I pay about 40p/litre for petrol so poor people can drive to work where I live. In the UK you pay a quid so they can't. In the UK petrol is taxed very heavily so poor people have the choice between the bus and Shank's Pony.

The reason for the difference? UK Governments claim driving is wrong so try to stop poor people from driving. It doesn't stop the rich of course.

Any

Wookster wrote: »

If you don't have debt then perhaps you have savings? Remember the good old days when our parents paid for everything in cash and the only debt they had was the mortgage? Perhaps they weren't such bad times after all?

Yes, those times weren't too bad... Factories had buses to pick up people to go to work for their shift... Or Government put bus stops and bus services near to the factories... Those were the times, weren't they???

Well, it's time for you to wake up, because this is not happening any more.
I certainly rather take a loan IF I CAN AFFORD IT to have a car and get to work in 20mins, rather then to spend 1 hour and 14 mins on the bus.
That saved 1 hour and 48 mins I will spend with my family and have a life.

Sir_Humphrey

Generali wrote: »

Not for poorer people priced out of driving cars! I pay about 40p for petrol so poor people can drive to work where I live. In the UK you pay a quid so they can't. In the UK petrol is taxed very heavily so poor people have the choice between the bus and Shank's Pony.

No, with higher petrol taxes the poor have the choice between a bus and a tram. In some poorer parts of the UK this choice exists (Nottingham, Croydon, Manchester). All your 40p Australian petrol is doing is making sure that Australia will become uninhabitable in 100 years. What sort of legacy is that for your grandchildren!