Minus the multitude of people who participated in the program and caused it to run out of money in its first week, “Cash for Clunkers” is universally panned. For good reason, too–it’s easy to say “Cash for Clunkers” in a derisively sarcastic manner.
Honestly, I have yet to meet someone who thought the program was a good idea. At the same time, I have yet to meet anyone who could explain why they felt this way. Anytime I ask, I either get 1) a sentence that starts with “your boy Obama” then trails off to nothing but Democrat bashing that includes some derivative of “socialism,” 2) a diatribe on health care, or 3) an excuse that Twitter only allows 140 characters.
As you can probably tell, I am of the opinion that most people around here have little to no understanding of the program and are opposed to it out of the principle that it was sponsored by members of the Democratic Party. So, here is what the program does: It buys older, low fuel efficiency vehicles for the purpose of getting them off the road and reducing the amount of pollution coming out of tailpipes. In return, the seller receives up to $4,500 that has to be used to purchase a brand new car.
So, in essence, the program does two things. It helps the environment and stimulates the economy for auto sales. And considering that the $1 billion that was initially allocated was gone within a week, that means (by my math) at least 220,000 gas guzzlers (mostly SUV’s and trucks) have been replaced by fuel efficient cars (mainly small sedans) and car lots across the country have been injected with $1 billion in federal funds plus whatever extra the car purchasers had to pitch in to upgrade to a new vehicle. That also means banks have had a bit of a boom in auto loans.
What a failure! Those jerks helping out two struggling industries during a recession!
Doing the work of my conservative friends, I will give you my one misgiving about the program. As part of the stimulus package dubbed the “Auto Industry Bailout” the U.S. Government ended up taking equity in companies like General Motors. That made us, the tax payer, share holders of car companies. Then, a few months later congress passes legislation that is designed to assist the industry that the country now partially owns…there are definitely some ethical dilemmas involved here, and as a CPA, I am bothered by the lack of an arms-length transaction.
Of course, the reason conservatives shy away from this argument is that this is exactly the kind of thing they have encouraged in the past when pushing for privatization. If social security, for instance, were invested in the private market, the government would have incentive to favor certain industries for financial gain, and thereby giving companies with federal investments an unfair competitive advantage.
This certainly is not the problem Jim Inhofe, who for his part actually has tried to explain his opposition, cited when publicizing he would not vote to extend “Cash for Clunkers.” His reason? It is a “regressive tax.”
As one of those liberals who has complained about regressive taxes for years, this concerned me. Upon even a minimal amount of analysis, though, I was able to conclude that Jim Inhofe’s brain might be eligible for a $4,500 trade in price. You see, a regressive tax is the opposite of a progressive tax, and progressive tax is how our income tax system works. The theory behind the progressive tax is that people who earn more money can afford to pay more in taxes because the value of the dollar decreases as one acquires more. (It is also related to the economic theory of declining value–but since this is The Lost Ogle and not The Wall Street Journal, I will go back to more elementary discussion.)
So taking that into account, the regressive tax being the opposite would mean that more tax is charged to people who make less money. Now follow closely here, because this is where Jim Inhofe’s stance falls apart: “Cash for Clunkers” does not take money, it gives money. Therefore, it is not a tax at all.
I guess you could have probably skipped the whole regressive versus progressive paragraph.
If you have any other reasons to dislike the program, the comments section is open.
Popularity: 1% [?]
No related posts.
The government takes a couple grand of your money and gives it to your neighbor. Press interviews neighbor, declares program “successful” and “wildly popular.” Welcome to Cash for Clunkers.
Ummm… The government takes less than a penny of your money, puts it with the fraction of a cent taken from millions of other citizens and helps your neighbor to buy a car. The car sale helps your other neighbor – the car salesman, and your other neighbor, the junk yard owner who will use the parts that aren’t destroyed, and your other neighbor the banker, and (oh yeah!) you who have to breathe whatever comes out of the tailpipes of the cars.
Then the government takes the rest of the money you and all the others of us in America pay in taxes and buys weapons to fight for your freedom in Afghanistan, and to build highways, and schools and other useless junk.
Is anyone else tired of people who think thousands of dollars of THEIR money go to any one program? I guess ignorance is bliss, but I get tired of trying to talk to some of my blissed-out neighbors.
I know I only went to public school, but let me take a shot at this..
1. Supply/Demand says when you reduce Supply, and Demand stays the same, prices will increase
2. By Destroying used cars, less used cars are available for resale.
3. Used car prices rise
4. By Destroying Engines and Drivetrains, Prices increase on those items
5. Poor people generally are not out buying brand new rides eligible for C4C $$
By this I can apply the ever popular “Rich get richer, poor get poorer” argument
As for enviromental concerns, with the net effect of destroying the vehicle, and building a new one, you are adding carbon http://www.examiner.com/x-8018-DC-Motorcycle-Examiner~y2009m8d6-Cash-For-Clunkers-is-for-suckers–a-look-at-the-environmental-impact
So regressive tax is saying that a tax hits the poor harder than the rich? By increasing prices of used cars/parts, those who buy them will feel the effects, while those who just buy new cars when their car begins to have issues will get gov’t money…
after reading about regressive, progressive, inhofe’s head, etc., i’ve got a headache.
Great post, seriously.
My concern with cash for clunkers (other than the one you described) was the fact that the cars that are “traded in” are destroyed. This takes used cars that would have previously been on the market for lower income individuals to purchase completely off the road. Now, I understand that the reason behind this is to get higher emission cars off the road but I think they should have done it where they considered the make, model and condition of the cars being traded in before destroying all of them.
Great post except most of the vehicles bought were trucks, you get to pay for your neighbor’s car and what part of tax money is confusing? If the government wants to stimulate the economy, cut the taxes people pay. Wasn’t that what the 787 billion was for? Sorry, I am a capitalist. They borrowed your money, gave it to others to stimulate a part of the economy they now own and you get to pay interest on it. Good luck on cheap interest rates in about a year, Jimmy Carter will look like a genius. (disclosure, not an Inhofe fan)
Great post Clark!
@ Ivan – it’s not your money. The gov. makes the money and since it’s not backed by anything (gold standard) it’s only worth something b/c they say it is. So quit bitching about “they are taking our money!” It was never ours.
Spin….I…er…ah…you are right, money is a magical thingy that is created by government and given to us as they choose. Wait….what?
i can give you a great example of how this program sucks, and i’m even a card-carrying democrat. put yourself in the shoes of a person who is trying to buy a high mpg vehicle, but you do not qualify for cash-for-clunkers. i say this because i am in this situation.
my wife and i have been saving money for a new car, and when her car was totaled after being hit recently, we figured we’d go ahead and buy. looking at prices lately, we’ve saved about $15k to put down on a new car and figured we’d finance about $10k. we’ve been [somewhat] keeping track of things, and we figured we could get the Prius model we wanted for $25k or so.
we went around from lot to lot, and to our surprise, there are barely any high-economical cars on the lots, and the ones that are there are either the bare-bones models or the ugliest colors. and on top of that, they are all marked ABOVE MSRP.
cash-for-clunkers has flooded the market with money, meaning that people have all gone in and traded out their vehicles for ones that qualify (25 mpg or more). with a decent demand for these cars before C4C, the dealers can be certain that the qualifying cars will sell quickly, so they are keeping them at MSRP or are actually raising prices (I got a quote for both a Prius & Equinox from local dealers for $1k OVER what the Chevy & Toyota websites say MSRP should be, and we all know MSRP prices are heavily inflated). Bob Howard Toyota had a new [fully-loaded] Prius for $36,500 when MSRP is $34,500. Bob Howard Honda told us they wouldn’t have a new Insight for at least a week and wouldn’t lower the price when they got here.
so with the ability to basically guarantee sales, and with a lot of [guaranteed] money in the consumers’ hands, the dealer lots are now almost completely wiped of cars that qualify, AND those that are left are marked up AND are the undesirable leftovers (saw a Prius that was the color of a booger).
and since my wife was apparently an idiot when she bought her Ford Escort 10 years ago that gets 28 mpg, we qualify for nothing. so from my perspective, C4C has done nothing but drive up prices while dwindling supply and availability. it alienates those who made the right decision in the first place and rewards those who screwed themselves [and others] (in typical American gov’t fashion). C4C has driven UP prices on some vehicles, making it extremely difficult for those who don’t qualify.
there’s no better feeling than saving up for a year and a half and having a salesman tell you he won’t budge on the price (not even $500), only to go watch some fat slob with a 2000 Expedition walk up and get $4,500 off. so what should’ve been done? those with vehicles with 18 mpg or less should have got a $3,000 rebate, while those with 19 mpg or better should have got $4,500. everybody wins, but we reward those who think ahead a little more than the idiots who don’t.
Since this program is such an apparent success, maybe it should be expanded to people. Take old fat uncle Charlie who passes a lot of gas and trade him in for Pablo the pool boy and get money from the government as additional incentive. Aunt Gert wins by getting a studley new dude around the house and her neighbors get to pay for it even tho she picked Charlie in the first place and knew he was gonna be a lazy old fart. A deal only the federal government could invent.
Cornercuttin’, welcome to the brave new world of government programs which invariably penalize the ant while rewarding the grasshopper.
@Ivan – I’m glad you see my point. Where was your fake outrage when we were spending billions to give to people in Iraq cash for there losses (that’s right we just gave cash to ordinary Iraqi citizens, no paper work or nothin’). $2 billion of that money just “disappeared”. But when the government spends half of that to help our own citizens, Republicans get in a tizzy. So with all do respect, if you are going to feign outrage over poorly managed money by the federal government, at least be outraged when your people mismanage it as well.
… And yes the government does create the money we use, and I would argue that it is a “magical” thing. Without it I wouldn’t be able to get laid.
Cash for CLunkers is a commentary on just how economically illiterate people actually are. But you say “Free money — who could be against that?” Well, me, for starters.
Henry Hazlitt (Economics in One Lesson) pointed out what he called the “broken window fallacy.” If you were to walk downtown in your little burg, and throw a brick through the front window of fifty or more shops, in what ways would this provide economic stimulus? It most certainly would provide an economic stimulus . . . to the local glazier. He would be as busy as a one-legged butt-kicker, and it would be his best quarter ever. Moreover the stimulus would be concentrated in one place, and the local teevee news reporter could toodle on down there, and the guy would look into the camera and say something like “this was the best quarter ever.” And the folks at home would think, whoa. Prosperity is busting out all over.
Now of course we still lock up public spirited brick-throwers, but this is simply the force of our ancient superstitions, still held by those throwbacks among us who still identify vandalism as destructive. Those superstitions have started to erode, however, because we have already bought into the economic fallacy involved. We have come to think that this would be a good idea, provided only that the mayor be the brickthrower, and we have passed a law, making the whole thing legal. Well, as Dickens has somebody say somewhere, the law is an ass.
The problem, of course, is that all the cash that puddles around the glazier in visible ways had to come from some other place. Say that the glazier took in $100,000 extra. That is $100,000 that could not be spent elsewhere. But the “elsewheres” are diverse. One shop was going to buy a new cash register, but now won’t. One shopkeeper was going to take a vacation he will now postpone. And insurance doesn’t help, because this just pushes it back a step. The money the insurance companies pay out is money that comes from somewhere. Money is a creature, and therefore cannot be in two places at once. If it goes to the glazier, it doesn’t go somewhere else. And the television reporter does not have the competence to round up all the places that suffered a cumulative loss of $100,000 dollars. And since we can’t film it, it must not exist.
Wealth is not created by taking money from one place and putting it in another. As well tell your wife that you got her some new furniture just because you moved the couch across the living room.
So rearrangement is not wealth creation. Those in Congress who are cheering the cash for clunkers program are either scoundrels or fools, or both. They are both lying and stealing, which is twenty percent of the Ten Commandments. At a minimum.
I think Spinlenox and Ivan are falling into the same old argument of “if it isn’t perfect I don’t want it!” I am of the opinion that the C4C program as part of the greater stimulus package was/is a pretty good idea that is working perhaps better than expected in Oklahoma. Think about it, what other state has felt LESS of the economic recession (i.e. unemployment and decreased housing prices specifically) yet has such a high per-capita rate of “cars-on-blocks-in-yards!”
Corner got screwed, no doubt. But, thrift, conservative habits, and intelligence are their own reward. Hell yes! We,(the working, tax-paying, insurance carrying, 401K contributing,)are going to bear the burden of the mistakes made by those that came before us and made poor decisions (for their money, their health, and the freakin environment too!)
They say GenX is bitter, ambivilant, and lethargic, but maybe we are just realists who see the stinking pile of crap we have inherited and now get to clean up! That however DOESN’T mean that we don’t have to clean it up, and you have to start somewhere.
C4C and the Health Insurance Reform Act are a place to start. I sent my email to Inholfe this week, have you Ivan? Corner? Clark?
$3 billion is paying for the destruction of driveable cars so that 80% of their owners can then replace them with foreign cars. Will somebody please tell me how this helps get affordable cars into the hands of those who need them, or how it helps the U.S. auto industry?
I would send Inhofe a letter, but any time I have in the past, the response received, when there was a response pretended I agreed with him. It’s far more fruitful to educate the people who might consider voting for him.
@girlballer – I’m not under the impression that it has to be perfect. It just baffles me that people get upset that our government is spending money to get our economy back on track. We can spend the same amount for a war and no one cares, but we spend a crap ton of money to help ourselves and everyone gets upset.
I think what Inhofe meant to say is that Cash for Clunkers is a hoax. More specifically, he meant to say that the idea of gas gusslers is the 2nd greatest lie ever perpetuated on man. The socialist EPA measures fuel efficiency and rigs the odometers in your car to make it seem like you haven’t gone as far as you really have on that tank of gas, making liberals hand more power over to the government so it can hand out money to people and turn America into a communist country and tell you who you should marry and what religion you should follow… wait, no, sorry, scratch that, liberals want your money, Republicans want your personal life, and Obama wants your crappy cars.
In the end, 220,000 people now have better cars, which significantly increases their chances of getting laid, which I believe is what our founding fathers were really talking about when they spoke of the “pursuit of happiness”. You see, Cash for Clunkers is patriotic and if you don’t like it your are unAmerican, less attractive, and alone.
You had to love the salvage yard owner in the Oklahoman story who was outraged that he could not take the parts from the old clunkers, put them in other old clunkers so they could get back out on the road polluting and wasting fuel. He had an idiotic bitch and so do most of the people commenting here. When you see the Bob Howard car lot almost vacant you know something has happened that has transferred some money around. It has to help. The cost of retaining a job is less than than the cost of creating that same job. I wish I had a clunker. I am one of the poor unfortunates who does not have a crappy car to trade. So, all together, let’s boo hoo for me.
Bravo. If only real journalists wrote articles like this…. sigh. This program, Cash for Clunkers or CafoClun, helps achieve two goals: improving the environmental-friendliness of our transportation fleet and reducing our dependence on foreign oil, a pet cause for the GOP. I know it’s causes temporary supply shortages for fuel efficient cars and it does suck that you must have a clunker to get this discount on a new vehicle, but I think the benefits clearly outweigh the negatives.
The government should not pick winners and losers. This is in essence a regressive tax — that is it is going to be paid for by those in the lower economic levels that cannot benefit from the program. It rewards those who can buy new vehicles and punishes those who cannot. Because the vehicles are destroyed, the cost of used auto parts are already going up. In addition, it is artificially inflating the values of used cars as these are taken off the market. Eventually, this will actually lead to fewer college graduates (How? you might ask — simple. We all know at least one kid who made a decision in high school to get a job right away to get a new ride instead of going to college. Since these rides are now going to cost more, more will make this decision.) WHEN YOU SCREW WITH THE ECONOMY YOU GET UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES!
Why, Clark Matthews? Why?
@i will cut you – yes. when i see the Bob Howard lot empty, it lets me know that money has moved from the gov’t into the hands of the dealer, which then gets funneled back into the manufacturer, then back into the government (in GM’s case).
the idea is so stupid. we give GM billions to stay afloat, then give the population a few billion in hopes that we will funnel some of that back to GM so that GM can say that the gov’t funding has helped, that they are back on track and the people’s money didn’t go to waste. it is one big circle jerk, and people like me are in the middle getting rained on. i’m not against helping people, but i am against bailouts of entire companies and industries.
we took GM out for dinner and drinks, and this $3 billion is a boastful tip in hopes that it will be impressive enough for us to get laid. but in the end, we spent a lot of money for something that will never pay off, and we knew the whole time we were just going to end up screwing ourselves.
Inhofe didn’t say “it is a regressive tax”. He said “it acts as a regressive tax”, with the intended meaning “similar to” and then went on to explain the direct reasoning. I thought a CPA would have a better understanding of economics, maybe not linguistics so much, but I really thought Democrats cared about poor people. I know you want to say poor people should be riding the bus anyway, you just can’t bring yourself to say it to their face.
“It is one big circle jerk.”
Yes, Corner Cuttin. Yes.
And the responsible person who saves, builds up capital, invests, and is productive and constructive rather than consumptive and destructive doesn’t really benefit.
As long as our government endorses folly instead of wisdom true prosperity will never be realized.
I would just like to make the observation that when you guys blog about boobs, the comments are also far more tolerable.
Goodbye cruel blogsite.
Actually, JackD (responding to several posts back) money can be in more than one place at one time. That’s what credit does, for example. It unites a person with drive and ability with the means to accomplish something. The person who loans the money still has the asset (albeit an asset at risk), but the borrower has the money, too,(albeit a liability) and when it’s done right, the result is a new business or a home or a farm that eventually creates the wealth required so the money can “reproduce” itself in the form of a paid off-note. A loan is a stimulus, and while there’s no guarantee that the debtor will make proper use of that stimulus, and there is no guarantee that the lender will make a good investment choice, I think the jury has been back for a long time on the importance of access to credit in a healthy economy.
Government subsidies like C4C are another form of stimulus. We can argue about whether or not governments should try to manage economies at all but it’s misleading to say that money is being taken from me to help someone else, as if it were a straight line transaction in which I lose and the mysterious other person wins. The reality is a lot more complicated. If the stimulus works (and I realize that it is too early for an honest person to say anything one way or the other about that) the money will make its way through the economic system helping to create wealth along the way. I would argue that helping to create a little prosperity and maybe getting inefficient polluting vehicles off the road is exactly what I want bought with my tax dollars.
cyrano,you’re correct. Credit has a way of making money duplicitous. I can take the bank’s money and use it to make wealth…my own wealth (through a home, a farm, a business…whatever). And in doing so I pay the bank back, saying “thanks, bank. You made some money. I made some money. Have a nice day.” So when money is used on an appreciating or foreseen appreciating asset it can functionally be in two places at once. Good observation.
BUT if credit is used on a depreciating asset…say an automobile…the bank makes a return on its investment, but the borrower does not. The borrower gets the joy and convenience of the actual automobile, but he is really none the richer, because the automobile is a anti-investment. Once it is purchased it’s a loss. A loss we agree to take, because we need automobiles, and because they are relatively expensive a lot people use credit to buy them.
Now, how we got into this mess proves my point entirely. Practically everyone believed that real estate was one of the safest of appreciating assets. Massive amounts were borrowed at realtively low interest rates, and everyone thought they would win. But then the housing bust occurred. People owed more on their houses then their houses were worth, and the money failed to be in two places at once. A plummeting home value was not a loss people agreed to take. Thus the mortgage crisis.
So yes, credit is part of a stable economy. But it doesn’t guarantee to make a people prosperous, because credit can be one-sided.
If only cars were like horses . . .
Horses run on biomass . . .
Horses create waste that biodegrades and has economic value . . .
Horses can be used to create replacement horses . . .
Horses biodegrade when you are through using them . . .
You can get a claimer at the race track for about $4,000 . . . or less than the rebate from the Cash4Clunkers program. We could have just bought a quarter-million ponies for 16-year-old girls around the country driving convertibles and made a far-greater impact on emissions.
Here’s one possible alternative to the bailouts. However, I must note that they were started under George W. Bush and at the time he had his bags packed and was counting the days like a kid waiting for Christmas until he could give his pardons and head to Texas.
GM and Chrysler collapse into bankruptcy. Foreign automakers buy them up at bargain prices and have control of most of the auto market in the world. Plants are shuttered for good, parts suppliers across the country go bankrupty or just close their doors, and then the economics “trickle down” in a roaring river. At the same time the financial markets collapse and you have to have 50% down and great credit to buy a home…if you can find a lender with money. (note: fortunately many Oklahoma banks and mortgage divisions made prudent decisions with their loan portfolios and were not as impacted as many national lenders or brokerage houses).
It was ok for us to take suitcases full of cash into Iraq that weren’t accounted for, fund the invasion, plus rebuild their schools and infrastructre, but not spend $2bb on the cash for clunkers.
And how many of you folks were opposed to the Oklahoma County plan that purchased the old GM facility for $55m? USA Today did a page 3 story on the OKC economy and how successful that decision has been. Just like businesses have to invest money to make money, cities, states and the feds have to also at times.
Cornercuttin – I am guessing you are employed. I am guessing you have health insurance. To have you employed and insured helps all of us in Oklahoma. It is a good thing. But there are others in this state and in other states who are hanging by a thread. You can’t see them. You don’t know them. But to let them go under is wrong. They didn’t create the situation that is effecting them. Show me your crystal ball – let’s see what the future holds. I say spend money now and save jobs. Do you think Bob Howard will stick that money in his pocket? He has a huge nut every month. A good month will help him and everyone on his payroll. (You were respectful in your reply, and i appreciate it, I hope I was as well)
Right off the bat great post…. most comments in forever, indicates politco interest. Except reading all the post makes me think i’m watching ” America’s Got Talent”. No, this is not a good thing. Are Oklahoman’s in general really this (for lack of a better word) STUPID. Inhofe doesn’t care about you period. Unless your a fossil fuels CEO Insurance CEO or Millionaire. Inhofe loves that you think he does though. That’s what you Republican retarded “religious” freaks believe. No, America does not print money whenever they want the World Bank would balk immediately, plus the value of our currency would plummet even faster. Ever heard of inflation (DUH) The benefits far, far ,far outweigh the neg’s. Increases loans, which in turn lowers rates. Decreases steel cost’s, increases loans for components manufacturing, which again in turn lowers rates so on and so on. Yes it does take resales off the road. Is that really all that bad. Would help the environment in a dual fashion less vehicles on the road w/o insurance( another synergistic +) and public transportation increase due to less smoking beaters on the road. To sum it up I’ve had several fantasies about 16 year old girls riding horses recently for some reason…. Has anyone seen my skin lotion and Kleenex…….. Uhm yeah, if your not down with this program, YOU HATE AMERICA, AND BABIES, AND PUPPIES, AND APPLE PIE YOU STUPID OKLAHOMAN FUCK….
I find it odd that you can get $4500 from the government to buy a Lexus. Also, I am sure TheLostOgle writers all peed themselves with glee when they saw that George Kaiser story on NewsOK.com today. It’s amazing how he thinks pre-K has saved Oklahoma. Last I checked we’re still pretty sucky in a lot of categories.
what is the “New Sock dot Com” of which you speak, h2okie?
Gravity? Maybe.
Lucid? Not so much.
Blah blah blah taxes blah blah blah government blah blah blah energy blah blah blah socialism blah blah blah money blah blah blah midgets blah blah blah GM blah blah blah welfare blah blah blah neighbors blah blah blah
@i will cut you – i completely understand the fact that there are people in our country who are hurting financially. but people seem to think that there are no specific, defined losers in the C4C scenario, and that’s where i beg to differ. i consider myself a very blatant loser, in that i will be paying more for my vehicle and that i don’t get the same help that other people get. proponents overlooked the fact that C4C would dwindle supply, increase demand by an insane factor, drive up prices, and make it more difficult for those who don’t qualify to get a good price.
the idea that C4C was done to help the environment is bogus. if it were to help the environment, then you should be able to get $4,500 for a new car that gets 25mpg or better, and $4,500 for a used car that gets 35mpg or better. the fact that the gov’t is excluding the used car market shows that mileage doesn’t mean a thing. it is all about trying to give GM some inflated sales so that the books show GM has “turned it around”, and that the tax dollars didn’t go to waste. extending this rebate to used lots would help a lot of mom-and-pop owned business, but that money doesn’t get back to big corporations like GM, Ford…
saying it is for fuel economy is an attempt to wrap a pretty ribbon around some bullsh*t in hopes that we won’t see what we are really getting.
and those who are “hanging on by a thread” aren’t the majority of the people taking advantage of this. people with no money can’t get a loan for the difference, and even if they can, it is a stupid idea to take a loan out for the $20,000+ difference if you are “hanging on by a thread” (i like the fact that those who “need” this money will just be digging themselves deeper in debt). i know people who have plenty of money, and they are just using C4C to get rid of their old beater work truck that rarely gets used.
@jiminy Lucidless sounds like another enlightened, non-judgemental soul.
@lucid gravity…That wasn’t terribly lucid, or grammatically correct. I only point it out because you called people stupid, but don’t know how to use apostrophes. What, exactly, did you intend to say?