Skip to main content

More on Clunker Cash....

Right-wingnut naysaying USA Today weighs in :

The so-called "cash for clunkers" program is off to such a fast start that its $1 billion allotment is almost gone in just one week of operation. The House of Representatives quickly allocated another $2 billion Friday before leaving town for its August recess. A somewhat more robust debate is expected in the Senate this week.

Could it be that in this program — which entices car buyers with credits of up to $4,500 to trade in their old gas guzzlers — the government has actually devised a smart, clever stimulus program?

In a word, no.

From its outset cash for clunkers has been more about rewarding two politically powerful industries — automakers and auto dealers — than about promoting energy efficiency or juicing the economy.

As a way to improve mileage, the program has always been a farce. Car buyers would qualify for a $3,500 credit with trade-ins that net just four additional miles per gallon. With 10 additional mpg, they'd get $4,500. (For light trucks and SUVs the numbers are even smaller: two and five.) Since all trade-ins must get 18 miles per gallon or worse, it provides no incentive whatsoever to buy any cars getting greater than 28 miles per gallon, because that is a segment of the market where the foreign makers are strong.

As economic stimulus the program is bogus as well. The money allocated is enough to generate about 250,000 trade-ins. While that may seem like a lot, about 200,000 would have happened anyway industry experts say.If taxpayers are spending $1 billion for about 50,000 additional car purchases that comes to about $20,000 per car.

In theory, the first allocation clears out all of the people who would have traded in anyway, so any additional money could be more stimulative to the economy. That may be so. But if the best that could be said for spending another billion or two is that it won't be wasted like the first billion, it makes for a pretty weak argument.

So far the program has actually been de-stimulative to the economy. That's because people in the market have stalled, in some cases since February when the idea was first floated, waiting to take advantage of the sweet deal from the taxpayer.

Now, with buyers pouring into showrooms, it has created an enormous spike in demand, stretching the available inventory and removing the need for dealers to offer even the most routine of incentives.

Cash for clunkers may be good for dealers and good for the Big Three. But for the taxpayer it is little more than a clunker — one with no trade-in value at all.

____________________________________

Radley Balko (Reason / The Agitator) has an interesting formula to describe the energy savings farce more clearly :

There’s also the laughable idea that the government is ordering the destruction of tens of thousands of used automobiles it paid people thousands of dollars to exchange . . . for new cars that may get no more than an added four miles per gallon. And all in the name of saving energy....

...the government’s energy savings equation looks something like this:

(All of the energy that went into making the old car) + (The energy it will take to destroy it) + (All of the energy it took to make the new car) + ($3,500) = (less than an extra 4 miles per gallon!)

____________________________________

Ron Paul on How Cash for Clunkers Hurts the Poor

Comments

Kilroy said…
"Now, with buyers pouring into showrooms, it has created an enormous spike in demand, stretching the available inventory and removing the need for dealers to offer even the most routine of incentives."

I agree! In May 2008 we purchased a new Ford Fusion and received $3000.00 rebate and 0% financing. Also, dealer gave me I believe 1200.00 for a 1997 jeep with 145,000 miles. So there is $4200.00towards purchase of new car. Wouldn't it be great if Ford gave that $3000.00 plus the $4500.00 Cash for Clunkers.

This is the time of the year auto makers cut prices on outstanding inventories to may way for the new model year aka clearance sale. So when the Cash for Clunkers expires the auto makers will be back to the old cash rebates.

I just checked online and Ford is only offering $1500.00 rebate on 2009 Fusion.

Popular posts from this blog

A Libertarian Martin Luther King Jr. Day post

In which we travel into interesting waters . . . (for a fairly long trip, so be prepared) Dr. King's 1968 book, Where do we go from here:  chaos or community? , is profound in that it criticizes anti-poverty programs for their piecemeal approach, as John Schlosberg of the Center for a Stateless Society  [C4SS] observes: King noted that the antipoverty programs of the time “proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils,” with separate programs each dedicated to individual issues such as education and housing. Though in his view “none of these remedies in itself is unsound,” they “all have a fatal disadvantage” of being “piecemeal,” with their implementation having “fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies” or been “entangled in bureaucratic stalling.”   The result is that “fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.” Such single-issue approaches also have “another common failing — ...

More of This, Please

Or perhaps I should say, "Less of this one, please." Or how about just, "None of them. Ever again. Please....For the Love of God." Sunshine State Poll: Grayson In Trouble The latest Sunshine State/VSS poll shows controversial Democratic incumbent Alan Grayson trailing former state Senator Dan Webster by seven points, 43 percent to 36 percent. A majority of respondents -- 51 percent -- disapprove of the job that Grayson is doing. Independents have an unfavorable view of him as well, by a 36/47 margin. Grayson has ignored the conventional wisdom that a freshman should be a quiet member who carefully tends to the home fires. The latest controversy involves his " Taliban Dan " advertisement, where he explicitly compares his opponent to the Taliban, and shows a clip of Webster paraphrasing Ephesians 5:22 -- "wives, submit to your husbands." An unedited version of the clip shows that Webster was actually suggesting that husba...

A reply to Salon's R. J. Eskrow, and his 11 stupid questions about Libertarians

Posts here have been in short supply as I have been living life and trying to get a campaign off the ground. But "11 questions to see if Libertarians are hypocrites" by R. J. Eskrow, picked up at Salon , was just so freaking lame that I spent half an hour answering them. In the end (but I'll leave it to your judgment), it is not that Libertarians or Libertarian theory looks hypocritical, but that the best that can be said for Mr. Eskrow is that he doesn't have the faintest clue what he's talking about. That's ok, because even ill-informed attacks by people like this make an important point:  Libertarian ideas (as opposed to Conservative ideas, which are completely different) are making a comeback as the dynamic counterpoint to "politics as usual," and so every hack you can imagine must be dragged out to refute them. Ergo:  Mr. Eskrow's 11 questions, with answers: 1.       Are unions, political parties, elections, and ...