"Cash for clunkers" program payments called "rebate" - local abberation or common practice?
Eric S. Harris
suspending the "cash for clunkers" program, and used the word "rebate"
to describe the government payments to people who trade in qualifying
old cars when they buy new cars.
If the money came from the car manufacturers or car dealers, that would
be a suitable and honest word to use.
As it's not ("subsidy" would be much more accurate) it got me wondering
(right after I shut the radio off): is this a local aberration, or is
this a widespread phenomenon?
Anyone else have any experience with this? -Eric
--
Replace the "w" with a "y" when replying via e-mail. If I haven't
replied to an alleged rebuttal (yet), it may not be the most deserving
of correction; it's a big Internet: http://xkcd.com/386 May 2008: The
yahoo.com address has technical difficulties. Dec: Yahoo is fixing ...
Eric S. Harris
> My local NPR station broadcast a piece about the Obama administration
> suspending the "cash for clunkers" program, and used the word "rebate"
> to describe the government payments to people who trade in qualifying
> old cars when they buy new cars.
>
> If the money came from the car manufacturers or car dealers, that would
> be a suitable and honest word to use.
>
> As it's not ("subsidy" would be much more accurate) it got me wondering
> (right after I shut the radio off): is this a local aberration, or is
> this a widespread phenomenon?
>
> Anyone else have any experience with this? -Eric
Follow-up: stats for Google web and news searches: (1) "cash for
clunkers" rebate, (2) "cash for clunkers" subsidy.
Clearly the word "rebate" is more popular than the more accurate (less
inaccurate) word "subsidy", in both the web and on news pages.
Web:
485,000 rebate
52,300 subsidy
9.27 Ratio rebate/subsidy
News:
6,191 rebate
163 subsidy
37.98 Ratio rebate/subsidy
Several possible explanations come to mind for the difference in the
ratios. One is that much of the sausage that is news is made from raw
materials such as official press releases, and quotes from spokesmen.
They would tend to use the word "rebate" and most definitely would tend
to not use the word "subsidy".
It's possible that honest words other than "subsidy" are used a lot, or
no characterization is used other than the objective word "program".
Some possible follow-up searches worth considering:
1. "cash for clunkers" -rebate
2. "cash for clunkers" program
3. "cash for clunkers" boondoggle
4. "cash for clunkers" give-away
5. "cash for clunkers" giveaway
If you do additional searching for posting here, please repeat one or
both of the two above at the same time, so there is an accurate basis
for comparison. -Eric
Eric S. Harris
Today, the "cash for clunkers" story in the 6:00 am (Central) NPR news
did not use the word "rebate" and did use the word "subsidy", which
frankly astonished me, twice.
While I would love to think this little two post thread made it happen,
it seems highly unlikely. I suspect there is some other reason for the
switch to more honest word choices.
Still, sometimes a dropped pebble creates a ripple that doesn't obey the
inverse square law, because the pebble and the ripple don't know they're
in a metaphor. (Or in a self-serving ego-boosting delusion. Take your
pick. I sure took mine!) -Eric
P.S. The mathematically-included might focus on the metaphor ... and the
wording and punctuation of this sentence ... for two hints on how to
adjust the metaphor to eliminate the inverse square problem. (Yes, I'm
talking to you in the BCC: Joe, Lloyd and Michael.) -ESH
Eric S. Harris
> Eric S. Harris wrote:
>
>> My local NPR station broadcast a piece about the Obama administration
>> suspending the "cash for clunkers" program, and used the word "rebate"
>> to describe the government payments to people who trade in qualifying
>> old cars when they buy new cars.
>>
>> If the money came from the car manufacturers or car dealers, that
>> would be a suitable and honest word to use.
>>
>> As it's not ("subsidy" would be much more accurate) it got me
>> wondering (right after I shut the radio off): is this a local
>> aberration, or is this a widespread phenomenon?
>>
>> Anyone else have any experience with this? -Eric
>
>
> Follow-up: stats for Google web and news searches: (1) "cash for
> clunkers" rebate, (2) "cash for clunkers" subsidy.
>
> Clearly the word "rebate" is more popular than the more accurate (less
> inaccurate) word "subsidy", in both the web and on news pages.
>
> Web:
> 485,000 rebate
> 52,300 subsidy
> 9.27 Ratio rebate/subsidy
> News:
> 6,191 rebate
> 163 subsidy
> 37.98 Ratio rebate/subsidy
Update 08/09
Web:
4,330,000 "cash for clunkers" rebate
105,000 "cash for clunkers" subsidy
41.23 rebate/subsidy
News:
21,556 "cash for clunkers" rebate
2,465 "cash for clunkers" subsidy
8.74 rebate/subsidy
Interesting. On the web, the word "rebate" is becoming even more
popular (ratio changed from about 9 to about 40) but in the news the
more honest word "subsidy" is becoming more popular (ratio going from
about 38 to about 9).
I would have expected much improvement on the general web and perhaps a
slight improvement for news on the web.
It's still terrible, but the news seems to be shifting away from being
(so) overwhelmingly bad to merely terribly bad.
I wonder what this means. Any ideas? -Eric