About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unread


Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 0

Sunday, August 9, 2009 - 4:30pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
The media has been hyping the Obama Administration's "Cash for Clunkers" policy, otherwise known as the Car Allowance Rebate System (CARS), by which used-car owners are encouraged to trade in their clunkers to a dealer in exchange for a $3,500 to $4,500 rebate, which can then be applied toward the purchase of a new, more fuel efficient automobile. But what may not have been so widely reported is the toll the program is taking on second-hand car dealers who can't compete with the government's $4,500 price tag, plus the toll it's taking on poor people for whom the opportunity to buy a good used car at a cheap price is drying up.

Used-car dealers are being driven out of business, because people are now selling their used cars to dealers who are required to destroy these perfectly good serviceable automobiles, thereby dramatically reducing the supply and availability of used cars and denying low-income people the opportunity to own a set of wheels. The whole point of the program is to get fuel-inefficient vehicles off the road, which means that the engines have to be destroyed. Reducing the availability of used-cars does, of course, drive up their prices, putting them out of reach for many poor people -- the very folks the Obama Administration makes such a point of wanting to help.

This reminds me of the farm price support program whereby farmers are paid to destroy perfectly good food in order to drive up farm prices. The ostensible purpose of the CARS program is to help the environment and serve as a stimulus to American automakers, but it turns out that there is likely to be very little if any reduction in pollution from the program, and the stimulus to American automakers may be insignificant if buyers purchase Japanese cars instead of American.

Then, of course, where does the government's rebate money come from? It comes from you, the taxpayer, who must foot the bill for yet another stimulus scheme designed to help bail out businesses who can't compete successfully in a free economy. So, used-car dealers who can compete successfully and are in turn providing a much needed product to low-income buyers, are being put out of business in order to help American automakers who cannot compete successfully and are catering to a much wealthier segment of the market.

And that, my friends, is justice, Obama style! Don't you just love it?!

- Bill



Post 1

Sunday, August 9, 2009 - 5:08pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I read two separate articles on this last week that gave me an interesting perspective on this, if the articles themselves are to be trusted. The first listed the top 10 vehicles that are being traded in via this program. 10-10 American. The other listed the top 10 cars purchased through the program. 6-10 foreign. So the question is, "Are we really so stupid as to subsidize an exodus out of the industry that we just got done subsidizing?"

Post 2

Sunday, August 9, 2009 - 6:07pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Time for General Motors and the stupid U.A.W. to put up or shut up.

Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 3

Tuesday, August 11, 2009 - 11:28amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Bill,

I hadn't considered the CARS' affect on secondary markets. That's very interesting. I'd like to read more. Do you have links?

One anecdote: I have two crappy mid-90s Toyota Corrollas that I'd love to trade in for one nicer, more modern, used car. But alas, they don't qualify for CARS. Their mileage is too good (above 18-mpg). And CARS wouldn't give me money for a used car anyway, even if that car gets better gas mileage than some new car, and even if it's American-made. CARS is not a smart way to achieve its proposed goals.

Another anecdote: My boss wants to trade in his mid-2000s luxury Jaguar for a Prius. It'd save on gas and lower his car payments. The Jag gets crappy gas mileage so it qualifies for CARS, but my boss won't do it because CARS would require the Jag to get scrapped. It could easily be stripped and sold for parts, but CARS won't allow. My boss just can't bear the waste of such a nice machine.

My boss also mentioned a good point by Senator Feinstein. CARS allows people to trade in an 18-mpg car for a 20-mpg car. Is that 2-mpg really going to make a gargantuan difference? That trade in gets the same cash as say someone who trades in an 18-mpg car for a 35-mpg car. How goofy is that? A sliding scale would make more sense, i.e., the greater the difference between old and new car mpg, the more CARS money for the trade. But again, CARS is not a smart way to achieves its proposed goals.

Jordan







Post 4

Tuesday, August 11, 2009 - 2:59pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I don't have links, but it was reported on my local morning television news that used car supply is down 10 to 15% because of this stupid scheme.

Post 5

Tuesday, August 11, 2009 - 9:27pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jordan,

Like Teresa, I too was relying on local news coverage, but economists have also commented about this on air.

- Bill

Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 6

Monday, October 5, 2009 - 10:04amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Took a while, but some of MSM catching up...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703628304574453280766443704.html?mod=djemEditorialPage

regards,
Fred




Sanction: 17, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 17, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 17, No Sanction: 0
Post 7

Monday, October 5, 2009 - 1:08pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I'm amazed at how much Glenn Beck has had to do with this (and that Briet Bart web site).

Bill O'Reilly was always calling out the MSM for their bias, but he wasn't doing much real investigative journalism and he is mostly seen as pushing his wonderfullness. Beck comes along and in one instance after another he comes up with totally fresh news and sharp economic viewpoints, juiced up the tea parties, and always advocated the position of the individual versus the state... of Capitalism against Statism - NEVER the Republicans versus the Democrats, and not even the Conservatives versus the Liberals. And the people GET it - they are responding to it in big numbers. Where as they are fed up the other viewpoints as partisan carping over power and money that is always wrapped up in spin and talking points.

The other Fox News people quickly picked up the issues he unearthed (although they even took a while on some of them), and the bloggers went crazy, and finally the total effect has been to shame some of the MSM into follow along, albeit sloooowly and only part way. No, let me take that back. They haven't shown any shame (which would require a moral position they don't take)... I'd say it more a case of their stealing some good stories and pretending that they are shiny new MSM discoveries.

We still don't how it will all turn out, but, ladies and gentlemen we ARE, right now, living a notable period of history - some kind of turning point.

Post to this thread


User ID Password or create a free account.