Need debunking: EU to introduce law banning 15 years or older cars from being serviced

TheNZThrower

Active Member
This twitter post has been sharing a video from a David Sacks (EDIT: David Knight) claiming that the EU will introduce a law which prohibits the repair and servicing of cars 15 years or older.


The article shown in the video claims that the ban is to a pre-existing EU "circularity requirement for vehicles"
The proposal is an amendment to the European Commission’s preexisting “circularity requirements for vehicle design and on management of end-of-life vehicles.”

https://winepressnews.com/2024/02/15/eu-considers-banning-repairing-cars-over-15-years-old/
Content from External Source
It links to the following EU proposal:
Proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL on circularity requirements for vehicle design and on management of end-of-life vehicles, amending Regulations (EU) 2018/858 and 2019/1020 and repealing Directives 2000/53/EC and 2005/64/EC

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52023PC0451
Content from External Source
The proposal does not mention such a ban on 15-year and older cars from being serviced as discerned by a word search.
Screen Shot 2024-03-02 at 1.06.56 pm.png
The aforementioned article also links to another article claiming that the EU proposal mentions something called "residual vehicles":

The draft proposes a set of criteria to define what is understood as a “residual vehicle” and a set of criteria by which a vehicle considered a “residual vehicle” is declared as “irreparable”.

https://www.jgclassics.com/en/2024/...n-union-intend-to-ban-the-repair-of-old-cars/
Content from External Source
However, there does not appear to be any mention of residual vehicles anywhere in the proposal:
Screen Shot 2024-03-02 at 2.28.36 pm.png
Given the absence of any mentions of a 15 year ban, the claim that the EU is drafting policy to ban cars 15 years and older from being serviced is debunked. It seems that the claim was just made up out of thin air.

However, if there is any further EU documents which seem to at least show that this bunk isn't completely conjured out of thin air, and is instead based on some misreading, then linking to them would be much appreciated.
 

Attachments

  • Screen Shot 2024-03-02 at 1.06.56 pm.png
    Screen Shot 2024-03-02 at 1.06.56 pm.png
    533.7 KB · Views: 10
Last edited:
This twitter post has been sharing a video from a David Sacks claiming that the EU will introduce a law which prohibits the repair and servicing of cars 15 years or older.
...
Given the absence of any mentions of a 15 year ban, the claim that the EU is drafting policy to ban cars 15 years and older from being serviced is debunked. It seems that the claim was just made up out of thin air.

However, if there is any further EU documents which seem to at least show that this bunk isn't completely conjured out of thin air, and is instead based on some misreading, then linking to them would be much appreciated.
[EDIT: it's not Sacks, so skip this bit]TBH, Sacks is in my list of known Putinista BS merchants. The idea that he might be trying to so discord about the EU is about as 100% his MO as it's possible to get. Thanks for doing the sniffing around into this one, there's nothing wrong in gathering more evidence that his trust level should be a flat line at zero.[END EDIT]
The killer part is the fact that the phrase "residual vehicles" was put in quotes, and that it nowhere appears in the proposal, despite the fact that the proposal even goes as far as defining the terms as well-established as "vehicle", "supplier" and "plastic".

The articles about this are nothing but dogwhistles aimed at stirring up the same kind of dissent that was behind Brexit. And the dogwhistles clearly work, as they elicit responses like:
The EU parliament’s totalitarianism is the warm bath in which civilization slits its wrists. It envelops the people with petty rules, strange dogmas, immoral duties, and forced sacrifices.
...
It slowly dispossesses each person of his personhood, until the population withers into frail, colorless facsimiles of the bleak, omnipresent State. Without the courage to act, the desire to think, the wisdom to pray, or the conscience to object, human purpose disappears. Society’is exsanguinated of its vitality, creativity, spirituality, and mirth — until it slips beneath the water and stops breathing.
Content from External Source
or from https://euroweeklynews.com/2024/01/12/eus-controversial-car-laws-vs-repairing-older-vehicles/ , linked to from your winepressnews article, clearly showing the mindset of their intended audience:

If this ruling comes about, it is yet another secision made by a lagely unelected core which conflicts with the majority view.
Content from External Source
Absolute nonsense from the corrupt EU government.
Content from External Source
Which interests is this Comission defending? Not the people’s! This is a fatal shot to individuals rights and freedom. Today it is cars, tomorrow european citizens will be banned from farting in order to meet the greenhouse targets!
Content from External Source
Apparently, "Known as the PEOPLE’S PAPER, Euro Weekly News is the leading English language newspaper in Spain.", from the footer.
 
Last edited:
It links to the following EU proposal:
Article:
Proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL on circularity requirements for vehicle design and on management of end-of-life vehicles, amending Regulations (EU) 2018/858 and 2019/1020 and repealing Directives 2000/53/EC and 2005/64/EC
The proposal does not mention such a ban on 15-year and older cars from being serviced as discerned by a word search.
Here are some items from the introduction of the directive:
The 3R type-approval Directive, adopted in 2005, establishes a very close link between the provisions of the ELV Directive and the design provisions on reusability, recyclability and recoverability of the type-approval process for vehicle types. In particular, the 3R type-approval Directive states that vehicles should be constructed so as to be 85% recyclable/reusable and 95% reusable/recoverable and the ELV Directive contains the same targets for Member States when it comes to the reusability, recoverability and recyclability of vehicles. The 3R type-approval Directive is part of the type-approval framework 10 , under which new vehicle types are tested and granted type-approval before being placed on the EU market, provided they meet a set of technical requirements.

The proposed regulation repeals both the 3R type-approval and ELV Directives and replaces them with a single legal instrument. Its overall objective is to modernise the EU existing legislation and to improve the functioning of the EU single market while reducing the negative environmental impacts linked to the design, production, service life and end-of-life treatment of vehicles and contributing to the sustainability of the automotive and recycling sectors.
Content from External Source
What is this about?

Generally, this directive tightens regulations on old cars nobody wants: on one hand, that manufacturers must make new cars recyclable, and on the other hand, that old cars should not be thrown away, but in fact recycled.
M17b – Setting fines for the ELV sector if an ELV is sold to illegal dismantlers and for dealers (and electronic platforms) dealing with dismantled (used) spare parts from non-authorised facilities
Content from External Source
This may be the end of your neighborhood junkyard that collects old cars and leaves them to rust as spare parts are pulled on an as-needed basis. The EU wants to track that every old car is dismantled in an "authorised facility", instead of rusting on a junk heap or shipped to third-world country where it would eventually end up in a landfill.

Consumers may face an increase in new vehicle prices of approximately EUR 39 per vehicle, and lower prices (by EUR 12 per vehicle) when selling second-hand cars due to the fall in exports. Conversely, measures to support the recovery and sale of used spare parts are expected to result in lower purchase prices and cheaper repair and maintenance for consumers, which is a benefit.
Content from External Source
The EU envisions that these regulations improve the availability of used spare parts. If that prediction turns out wrong, then older cars (for which the manufacturer is no longer required to provide spare parts) might become harder/impossible to keep running.

However, to read this as a ban on servicing older cars is an overreach on the level of assigning confinement as the intent behind the 15-minute-city concept (see https://www.metabunk.org/threads/de...o-confine-people-into-regimented-zones.12867/ ).
 
In the outskirts of Barcelona a couple of years ago after getting the catalytic convertor stolen ( 6 months after the battery got stolen ) We decided to actually trade in our car to the government. They gave us 3 years of unlimited free public travel, up to ~100km distance. Very good deal for us, as our 1995 car prolly wasn't worth €1000, which is what the cost of repair was going to be nearly, plus all the road tax etc we had to pay for something we would only use 1 time a month or so, a no-brainer.
FWIW We also weren't allowed to drive the car into the center of the city due to it being too old, due to the pollution restrictions. This came into force about 2 years ago.
https://barcelonalowdown.com/barcelona-low-emission-zone/

ps WRT looking at the BGatesIsAPsycho twitter handle. Weren't all the people that got the covid vaccine going to drop dead soon or am I misremembering?
 
The EU envisions that these regulations improve the availability of used spare parts. If that prediction turns out wrong, then older cars (for which the manufacturer is no longer required to provide spare parts) might become harder/impossible to keep running.
Also, it should be noted that if the prediction turns out wrong, it's codified into that proposal that a review should take place after 8 years. This seems like a responsible way of approaching market interventions. Skim-reading the proposal, I was definitely getting more of a feeling that, assuming manufacturers play their part, most of the proposals could lead to cars being able to be driven longer, the exact opposite of the scare-headlines. Manufacturers are incentivised *against* this, of course, they would naturally want you scrapping early and buying a new one often. The "muh freedums!" being most affected are those of the manufacturers, not of the consumers.
 
Skim-reading the proposal, I was definitely getting more of a feeling that, assuming manufacturers play their part, most of the proposals could lead to cars being able to be driven longer, the exact opposite of the scare-headlines.
Because 85% of the parts have to be reusable/recyclable, as is the current status anyway?
Or are there other parts of that directive that support your feeling?
 
TBH, Sacks is in my list of known Putinista BS merchants. The idea that he might be trying to so discord about the EU is about as 100% his MO as it's possible to get. Thanks for doing the sniffing around into this one, there's nothing wrong in gathering more evidence that his trust level should be a flat line at zero.
I just fixed my error. The guy in the vid is a David Knight.
 
The aforementioned article also links to another article claiming that the EU proposal mentions something called "residual vehicles":

The draft proposes a set of criteria to define what is understood as a “residual vehicle” and a set of criteria by which a vehicle considered a “residual vehicle” is declared as “irreparable”.

https://www.jgclassics.com/en/2024/...n-union-intend-to-ban-the-repair-of-old-cars/

No offense but readers should just read THAT article, as this thread did not help me understand the issue and bunk at all!
 
The mention of "Agenda 2030" was a bit of a warning flag for me. I recall conspiracist hysteria around "Agenda 21," which was an nonbinding set of goals proposed by the UN to promote environmental sustainability, and which was "interpreted" as being an effort to enslave us all.

Theorists argue that Agenda 21, a 23-year-old non-binding UN resolution that suggests ways for governments and NGOs to promote sustainable development, is the linchpin in a plot to subjugate humanity under an eco-totalitarian regime. One of its most outspoken critics, American Policy Center president Tom DeWeese, has described the resolution as “a new kind of tyranny that, if not stopped, will surely lead us to a new Dark Ages of pain and misery yet unknown to mankind”.
Content from External Source
Source: https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2015/jun/24/agenda-21-conspiracy-theory-sustainability

My wife is a consultant to a number of nonprofit organizations and, most relevantly, an institute promoting civic engagement at a local level. At the height of the Agenda 21 nonsense, we could count on some of these folks showing up to disrupt meetings on almost any issue or topic They've been subsumed by other movements now, and I don't hear "Agenda 21" mentioned these days, perhaps because 2021 is behind us now. I suppose Agenda 2030 will give them a chance to re-boot, though it seems there are sufficient conspiracy theories and political movements based on them that maybe the "Agenda Some Number" trope is no longer needed to arouse the troops.
 
Because 85% of the parts have to be reusable/recyclable, as is the current status anyway?
Or are there other parts of that directive that support your feeling?

I'd say the most important feature for longevity is the dismantleable requirement. As that is a prerequisite for reuse/recycling, I guess the answer to your question is more "yes" than anything else.
 
I just fixed my error. The guy in the vid is a David Knight.
Never heard of him. A StartPage search for ``david knight eu car recycling'' yielded as the top hit:
https://www.deezer.com/en/show/2206792
Listen to The REAL David Knight Show podcast - Deezer

... EU's Green Tyrants Claim Farmer Pushback is a Putin Conspiracy(2:52:30) ... recycling the same ignorant demands - like Groundhog Day (38:33) Everyday is ...
Content from External Source
Sounds like he's cut from the same cloth.
 
Ever since cash for clunkers I feel like the average car price has gone up quite a bit. Used to see used cars on the road all the time, now I don't think I've ever seen a 90s toyota corolla since 2010.

A lot of these incentives to buy new just result in people thinking they need new cars and it benefits the corporations and hurts the small people.
 
Ever since cash for clunkers I feel like the average car price has gone up quite a bit. Used to see used cars on the road all the time, now I don't think I've ever seen a 90s toyota corolla since 2010.
That's probably because in 2010 the 90s cars were only 15 years old on average. Now they are closer to 30.
 
That's probably because in 2010 the 90s cars were only 15 years old on average. Now they are closer to 30.
what you're suggesting is just the side effect of people being conditioned to get rid of the old and buy new instead of driving a perfectly fine 95 Toyota Carola today.
 
Ever since cash for clunkers I feel like the average car price has gone up quite a bit.

"Cash for Clunkers" or the Car Allowance Rebate System (CARS) only lasted approximately 2 months in 2009 and ended up scrapping 600K+ older model cars:

The program officially started on July 1, 2009, processing of claims began July 24,[2] and the program ended on August 24, 2009, as the appropriated funds were exhausted, having scrapped 677,081 vehicles.[3][4]
Content from External Source
To qualify, the "clunker" had to be 25 model years old at the time of trade in:

Vehicle must be less than 25 years old on the trade-in date.
Content from External Source
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Car_Allowance_Rebate_System

So, in 2009, the NEWEST "clunker" being removed from the road would have been from 1984. An older car even by the day and an ancient one by today's standards.

There is somewhere north of 263million cars in the US as of 9 years ago, more today I would venture:

Since 2009, the United States is home to the second largest passenger vehicle market of any country in the world, second to China.[1] Overall, there were an estimated 263.6 million registered vehicles in the United States in 2015, most of which were passenger vehicles.[2]
Content from External Source
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passenger_vehicles_in_the_United_States

I fail to see how removing approximately .25% of the oldest cars on the road nearly 15 years ago is affecting the current price now in 2024.

Used to see used cars on the road all the time, now I don't think I've ever seen a 90s toyota corolla since 2010.

I would argue the roads are full of used cars. In fact, any car more than a model year old is probably considered used. In 2010 a '90s era Corolla would have be 11-20 years old and would be 25 to 35 years old today. And the Corolla has always been one of Toyotas entry level base vehicles, not something destined to be a classic collector car.

A lot of these incentives to buy new just result in people thinking they need new cars and it benefits the corporations and hurts the small people.

Incentives to buy something from the selling party is just business. Weather one "needs" a new and/or expensive car is their choice, as should be the consequences of those choices. My current truck is pushing 10 years. Would I "like" a new truck? Sure! Do I "need" a new truck? Not for our current lifestyle, in fact as I not contracting anymore, it's a bit overkill, but it's paid for and does what we need.

I'll agree that rising car prices are often detrimental to "small people", but the reason for the higher prices are much more complicated than "Cash for Clunkers". Even base model cars today are far more complex and sophisticated that many "up scale" cars from 10-20 years ago. My daughter -in-law has an afore mentioned modern Corolla. It has a Government mandated back up camera system, something my much more expensive (even used) truck does not.
 
no they aren't
yes, they are. high prices are the opposite of buying incentives.

if you do the statistics by year, it looks different
Article:
Between 1935 and 2024: Cars experienced an average inflation rate of 2.44% per year. This rate of change indicates significant inflation. In other words, cars costing $15,000 in the year 1935 would cost $128,557.39 in 2024 for an equivalent purchase. Compared to the overall inflation rate of 3.56% during this same period, inflation for cars was lower.

Price Inflation for New cars since 1935
Consumer Price Index, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
SmartSelect_20240305-055651_Samsung Internet.jpg

And there's considerable variation by brand:
Article:

But that's US data, we're talking about the EU here.

The ECB says:
Article:
The decline in motor vehicle activity began in mid-2018, driven by a drop in demand for cars with a combustion engine. The more stringent emissions tests implemented in the EU in 2018 and the EU agreement on CO2 emissions targets reached in December 2018 generated an incentive in favour of hybrid and electric cars at the expense of cars with combustion engines. Before the pandemic euro area car producers had intensified their efforts to increase local production and sales of hybrid and electric cars. However, the relatively higher prices of these models contained demand and the required changes in factories entailed production shortfalls. At the same time, expectations of tighter regulations on car emissions probably led to car purchases being postponed as consumers shifted their preferences towards hybrid and electric cars, weakening demand for motor vehicles.[2] A structural vector autoregression model confirms that the drop in motor vehicle output between 2018 and 2019 was driven mainly by a fall in demand for cars and non-energy related supply shocks, such as transport costs and the effects of directives and regulations on supply (Chart B, panel a).
SmartSelect_20240305-060654_Samsung Internet.jpg

Article:
According to estimates by J.P. Morgan, only half of the new vehicle price increase can be attributed to higher input costs, such as raw materials. This suggests that the remainder of the price hike has directly contributed to the manufacturers’ record profits, which have more than doubled from €28 billion in 2019 to €64 billion in 2022. These unprecedented profits have, in turn, enabled a record pay-out of €27 billion to shareholders this year.

So, no, people are not incentivized to buy more cars, that's not true.

It's also misleading to claim that EU regulations drive car prices up.
 

Attachments

  • November-2023-Price-Increase-Since-2018.webp
    8.6 KB · Views: 10
what you're suggesting is just the side effect of people being conditioned to get rid of the old and buy new instead of driving a perfectly fine 95 Toyota Carola today.
That's not "just the side effect", that was the intention, it was a short-term stimulus bill. That at least was the incentive and therefore, by Munger's maxim, that would be the outcome.

Well, that's probably not true, it was a stimulus bill. The fact that it turned out to be short term, and suffered from reversal, is almost certainly an instance of Crusoe's Fallacy (perturbing a dynamic system as if it was a static one, not realising that it would respond to your perturbations).
 
what you're suggesting is just the side effect of people being conditioned to get rid of the old and buy new instead of driving a perfectly fine 95 Toyota Carola today.

But what your suggesting is that people "should" be driving a nearly 30 year old car right?

In the US, which is a bit off topic but is what you seem to be talking about:

U.S. citizens drive, on average, 12,785 miles per year based on the most recent report from the FHA.
Content from External Source
https://smartfinancial.com/average-miles-driven-per-year

This varies by state with New York having a low of 8,404 and Wyoming a high of 22,939.

So, if someone bought a new Corolla in 1995, they should not have. In this context they should have been driving a perfectly fine 1968 (first year in the US) Corolla, and by extension someone today should be ok with a '68 Corolla:

1709654486230.png

However, assuming someone had a moment of weakness and succumbed to all the "conditioning" in 1995 and purchased a new Corolla, on average that car would have 383,550 miles on it. I know, "but it's a Toyota!" (Side note: I only participate in one other forum on occasion and it's about RVs, so lots of threads about the "best tow vehicle" come up. One learns to NEVER doubt claims by Toyota-Fan-Boys that Toyotas are the best vehicles ever made and will run perfectly forever and ever Amen.)

Seriously though, trying to get around in a 30 year old vehicle with over a 1/4 million miles on it could be problematic, even if it is a Toyota. They're still machines and machines wear out, break down and need fixing. Over time, some people might decide that they would rather replace/upgrade their old ride for a newer one, rather than worry about what's going to need fixing next.

Some also feel that newer cars are safer, with collision avoidance, lane keeping, automated lights and all the rest. That's a debate for another time or thread, but it's a factor for many.

Yes, consumerism is all around us, but that I think is a result of a fairly open society. We don't have a central government planning what kind of bread or jacket or car is "perfectly fine" for us and then controlling the production thereof. You are free, within reason, to make something and try to get me to buy it and I'm free to take it or leave it.
 
Yes, consumerism is all around us, but that I think is a result of a fairly open society. We don't have a central government planning what kind of bread or jacket or car is "perfectly fine" for us and then controlling the production thereof. You are free, within reason, to make something and try to get me to buy it and I'm free to take it or leave it.

Consumerism is one thing, but where were at now is a bit beyond consumerism, the wealth gap between the invested and non invested creates unbearable strains on the non invested (larger) half of the country, that the invested (smaller half) is like, "its a booming economy! Look here is a graph I found on google to prove it!"

Also the goverment regulations have had a huge impact on the price of car sales. Don't let that mean I think we should get rid of seatbelt laws, but we can't deny that it has an effect on the consumers wallet then either:

https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/042015/how-much-impact-does-government-regulation-have-automotive-sector.asp#:~:text=Emissions Laws Increase Cost&text=While this expense is typically,restricted to the United States.


Emissions Laws Increase Cost​

Emissions laws also affect a car maker's bottom line. Catalytic converters and other devices designed to reduce a car's emissions cost money to develop, test and mass-produce. While this expense is typically passed on to the consumer, environmental regulations still significantly affect the day-to-day operations of the automotive sector.
Content from External Source
yes, they are. high prices are the opposite of buying incentives.

Incentives are not permanent.

Those clunkers would have been useful during the supply chain issues we're going through now.
 
Those clunkers would have been useful during the supply chain issues we're going through now.

We're getting off topic here, but you can't just make statements like that. See my explanation of the "Cash for Clunkers" program above in post #16. It was 644,000 cars that were at least 25 years old in 2009. That means today they would be 40-year-old cars at best. Many would be much older than that. The maximum credit one could get for a clunker was $4500:

Depending on the type of car purchased and "the difference in fuel economy between the purchased vehicle and the trade-in vehicle", the amount of the credit given in the form of vouchers to eligible customers is either $3,500 or $4,500.[24] New car dealers will be able to reduce the purchase price by the amount of the voucher for which that the customer is eligible.
Content from External Source
As the average used car price in 2009 was ~$8400:

1709679043085.png
The clunkers being traded in were being given a voucher comparable to the low end of the used car market. And that voucher was often much more than the actual trade-in value of the clunker (bold by me):

Some dealers believed the increase was only temporary. However, many people who visited car dealers found out their cars were not eligible and bought cars anyway. The majority of people who were able to participate were buying new vehicles, anyway, and their trade-in value rose significantly.
Content from External Source
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Car_Allowance_Rebate_System

That is, many of these clunkers were old, beat up and not worth much at the time, and the $3500-$4500 vouchers were a substantial amount giving what the car was really worth. Even without the program, most of these cars would not be around today as viable alternatives to more expensive options.

Besides wearing out, many of them probable don't even have parts anymore. Even many collectable and valuable cars from that era, rely on specialized boutique parts houses and repair shops to keep them going. And we're not talking about a lot of collector cars in "Cash for Clunkers".

A collection of beat up, barely running, hard to find parts for cars from 40-60 years ago is not going to have any effect on prices now, and the vast majority that had managed to make it to 2024 would not be useful. They'd be old, beat up money pits.
 
Also the goverment regulations have had a huge impact on the price of car sales.
Not in evidence. My source says it's a small impact; if the best example your source can find is a catalytic converter, that shows it's not much compared to the total cost of the car.
 
if you do the statistics by year, it looks different
Article:
Between 1935 and 2024: Cars experienced an average inflation rate of 2.44% per year. This rate of change indicates significant inflation. In other words, cars costing $15,000 in the year 1935 would cost $128,557.39 in 2024 for an equivalent purchase. Compared to the overall inflation rate of 3.56% during this same period, inflation for cars was lower.

Price Inflation for New cars since 1935
Consumer Price Index, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
SmartSelect_20240305-055651_Samsung Internet.jpg

And there's considerable variation by brand:
Article:

But that's US data, we're talking about the EU here.

When addressing what the effects of regultions likethe cash for clunkers scheme will do the the marketplace, US data is the appropriate data to look at.
However, the question is whether there's any reason for the EU regulations to be considered similar to cash for clunkers at all, and, currently, that's not in evidence. So your objection to the presentation of this data stands.

But as it has been presented it perhaps can be analysed more critically. Several things jump out:
- Firstly, there's no universally agreed upon "overall inflation rate", there's just the basket a bunch of basket cases have selected, which has caused great consternation amongst those who think it doesn't say anything useful anymore because it doesn't represent the real world at all - in particular as it contains a lot of high-elasticity products/services, and ignores the most important low-elasticity products/services. Come up with a more realistic basket (you don't need to get creative, prior baskets have been the official ones, you can just return to one of those) and you end up with a much higher inflation rate, and cars no longer look that bad. Here's an example of an alternative (and historical) basket, from shadowstats.com:

(via: https://www.shadowstats.com/alternate_data/inflation-charts)

- you can probably remove the VW bar from the bar chart because in the 2018- period, it's clearly an outliar :) . (I'm referring to the diesel emissions-test cheating scandal which cost it tens of billions of dollars in fines and settlements - more than the value of its whole Audi and Porsche businesses put together - and that shock perturbed its pricing models. So that datapoint is not actually an outlier, it just has too much noise associated with it, I just wanted to make the pun.)
 
When addressing what the effects of regultions likethe cash for clunkers scheme will do the the marketplace, US data is the appropriate data to look at.
Why?
Germany had the "Abwrackprämie" in 2009/2010, which was essentially the same thing, in a EU market.
But it's not the kind of regulation that's being discussed in the OP anyway.
 
You appear to be asking why looking at what happened after a policy was introduced is useful for understanding the results of that policy. I'd say that's a self-answering question.
I was actually asking why US data is appropriate when assessing EU market forces when EU data of the same kind is available.
I was also questioning whether looking at an economic incentive policy is appropriate when considering environmental regulations that potentially drive the price up.

I think it's appropriate to look at EU data on the kinds of policies we're discussing, not at US data on a different type of policy.
 
Plus in America, [NorthEast at least] people have gravitated toward much bigger cars for some reason. I imagine that would make higher average car prices.


(And we had the bail out of the automotive industry during obama and Bush. not sure if they got bail outs during covid or not. but i think all this skews "regulation makes prices higher" data, no?)

either way i think we should stick with one area and not bounce between eu and America.

edit : it was during both obama and bush
 
Last edited:
Back
Top