Two economists from the University of Delaware looked at the Car Allowance Rebate System (CARS) program, and concluded that it was a big waste of money. (The paper is a free download, but you have to give your name and email address.) The program cost taxpayers $2 billion, but produced only about $400 If order viagra viagra you have no time to visit a physician to get complete instructions. Too many webmasters seem content to let their creations loaf about the free viagra online web, draining their creator’s time and money. Going for a 20-30 moment brisk go walking every day, can treat this matter and can sustain sexual health without any fear viagra on line djpaulkom.tv of side effects. No Need to Visit 50mg sildenafil generic a Physician or take the aid of internet to complete a comprehensive research. million worth of benefits, they estimate.
Another analysis by economists from the University of Michigan estimated that, because of the program, autos sold during July and August were about 3 percent more energy efficient than they would have been without the subsidy. However, they make no judgment about whether the program was worthwhile.
Someone…erm…”forgot” to mention the average mileage went up as a result. But that was at the expense of Dinosaur Detroit, so apparently not worth…uh…”remembering”.
DS
Well just the other day the The Autoplanner said:”…there is no substitute for automobility…”, so why is he now complaining about CARS?
Sorry, you can’t have your fruitcake agenda and eat it too!
Average mileage going up was was mentioned —-> “autos sold during July and August were about 3 percent more energy efficient than they would have been without the subsidy”
Someone…erm…â€forgot†to mention the average mileage went up as a result. But that was at the expense of Dinosaur Detroit, so apparently not worth…uh…â€rememberingâ€.
Actually, that’s in the paper (both of them, in fact) if you take the time to read it. As the Abrams/Parsons paper indicates the effect on fuel economy was miniscule, as is reflected in the relatively low benefits estimated from the program.
I did enjoy Abrams and Parsons’ reference to Bastiat and the Broken Window Fallacy at the beginning of their paper. It was spot on.
CARS = government as window breaker
Someone called it “energy efficient” rather than what everyone else called it: ‘better/higher mileage’. Someone also decided that fewer deaths is a clunker, as well as jobs not lost, etc. And the cute widdle letter’s conclusions don’t include all the conclusions. No wonder some like it so much!
DS
The semantics don’t bother me so much. Yes, ‘better/higher mileage’ could have been used, but it seems that ‘energy efficient’, which implies conservation of fuel, would work just as well.
On the other hand, I don’t really believe that this program had any impact on traffic fatalities. I certainly don’t believe that it created jobs (just wait for next quarter’s sales figures), and I am agnostic in regards to the term ‘jobs saved’, which nobody seems to be able to rigorously define, much less measure.
If there are more conclusions to be mentioned I’d be willing to hear them, but I think most of the stones have been cast.
Most people quote from findings, rather than reword them.
Nonetheless, the old fleet scrapped was less safe – esp as most traded in were old…um…inefficient…SUVs and pickups. Numerous places have noted…um…cast stones about the safety factor as well as the number of jobs saved.
DS
The fact that the Cash for Clunkers program generated so much activity so quickly says to me that the subsidy was way too high. I would think they could have had the same activity with half the subsidy or less, though it would have taken more time.
“…as well as the number of jobs saved.”
I’d sure like to see a source/study on this.
Where were those jobs that were saved? Dinosaur Detroit? Or Japan/Korea/China? And what types of jobs? Sales? Manufacturing? Engineering?
Or are #1, #5, and #7 yet more examples (in a seemingly endless barrage) of a histrionic narcissist’s pontification and grandstanding?
I agree with Borealis’ observation about the pigs rushing to the trough.
Or are #1, #5, and #7 yet more examples (in a seemingly endless barrage) of a histrionic narcissist’s pontification and grandstanding?
One suspects many here note this weak, simpering rhetorical tactic when certain posters have nothing else to work with. One wonders at the addled, tap-danced reasoning that penalizes replies on a discussion board – is the weak-*ss position so weak-*ssed that the flimsiest rhetorical straw is flailed about, wishing for it to be cudgel-like?
IOW: grow up, boy. And The Google is an effective tool to answer the purportedly serious questions.
DS
Rhetoric instead of facts or studies or empirical evidence. What I’ve come to expect from you, Dan.
Gosh, lots of Dan’s comments go into spam queue due to the plethora of links to evidence, and yet here we have some poor lad making sh– up about expectations of Dan. Awwwww…don’t you have anything to go on, boy? Shucky darns!
So. Do you want to do what normal discourse calls for: ask for evidence for my assertions, or do you wish to continue to stomp your widdle foot?Or would you rather use yo’ mad skull skillz to take 4 seconds to look it up yourself (provided your selection bias allows you to see reality’s results)?
DS
Try leaving out the html to avoid the spam queue.
Here are the top results for effects of cash for clunkers on jobs:
Effects of Cash for Clunkers not yet known
ParaPundit: New York Times Misses Real Cash For Clunkers Effects
Cash for Clunkers may boost the economy in the short-term
Is Cash for Clunkers an Economic Stimulus?
Dust-Up: Cash for clunkers — a clunker?
Effects of Cash for Clunkers not yet known
Critics Blast ‘Cash for Clunkers’ $2 Billion Lifeline
8 Reasons Why Cash for Clunkers is a Bad Idea
“Cash for Clunkers” Closes Out : Industry Market Trends
Cash for Clunkers: Car-Scrapping Plans
More Unintended Side Effects of Cash for Clunkers
So, only one of those touts the supposed economic benefits (#9), and even this one provides analysis to Obama’s dubious claims. (“Dealers worry that a significant proportion of the people who participated in “cash for clunkers” may have been in the market for a later purchase, and thus the program merely accelerated sales for 2009 by draining demand from the next few years.”) Bye-bye “saved” jobs.
I like the “unintended consequence” blog entry that reads in part:
Thanks for the bare assertion fallacy.
Put up or shut up.
And get over yourself and seek psychiatric counseling for your personality disorder(s).
A real scholar that one. All those links and references for us to check. Yet Dan is expected to do…do…whatever comes to mind to have play.
The creator of the ‘Frank’ parody character is to be commended for their talent and for recognizing the potential of the Interwebs for new channels for performance art. For the Frank character, surely, is performance art.
————–
4.3 sec. on The Google finds:
The mind reels at the quality of the parody character.
DS
Note how the character acts like an & says ‘put up or shut up’, rather than asking for evidence for the assertion.
Parody character creator: can you make your parody character less of an a-hole? Thanks. Makes the character more real, instead of a misanthrope.
DS
Nonetheless, the old fleet scrapped was less safe – esp as most traded in were old…um…inefficient…SUVs and pickups. Numerous places have noted…um…cast stones about the safety factor as well as the number of jobs saved.
The fact that they were pickups or SUVs does not make them less safe, a priori. SUVs are more prone to certain types of crashes (e.g. rollovers), but not more crashes in general. You are also less likely to die if involved in a collision with another car, especially if that other car is smaller than yours. Many of the vehicles that were traded in were not driven much either, suggesting that there is little to be gained in terms of safety by buying a newer vehicle. Of course, if more heavy vehicles made us less safe, it would be hard to explain the secular decline in crash and fatality rates (normalizing for exposure rate, of course).
As for the jobs “saved”, I would love to see how that number came about. A magic wand was involved, I presume.
Thank you for your critical thinking exhibition, MJ. I appreciate it and its appearance here.
The funny bars you see on the new small SUVs at the tires (the ones that make us want to consume something else) are engineered to obviate rollover danger. Old SUVs have certain dangers – including higher death rates for the vehicles struck by them – that include rollovers.
I, too, would like to see where the jobs numbers come from. Just as I’d like to see where the ‘failure’ numbers come from.
DS
1/2 the energy consumed in a vehicles life span is used simply to manufacture a vehicle. Taking that into account, this program may have actually caused more energy to be consumed rather than less.
That 60% of the new vehicles that were sold were cars shouldn’t be a surprise. If you’re driving a 1997 Ford Windstar, you probably can’t afford the $30k you’ll need for a new minivan. A small or mid size car on the other hand will be more affordable.
Note that for all the talk of fuel efficiency, an SUV and 2 full size trucks were in the top ten.
The program did not “save” any jobs. Sales are down 50% from their clunker high. Heck, sales for Sept were down by double digits compared to the previous September. October isn’t looking any better.
And what all of this overlooks is the original study which took a look at the value of the savings versus the programs costs and found that the costs far outweighed the savings.
Taking that into account, this program may have actually caused more energy to be consumed rather than less.
One must take into account these vehicles were likely already sitting around gathering dust as unsold inventory and not produced on demand.
The program did not “save†any jobs. Sales are down 50% from their clunker high.
This unsupported assertion is counter to the links above.
And what all of this overlooks is the original study
If you mean the opinion column by Abrams and Parsons, it is an opinion column, not a study. You’ll have to take their polemical word for it.
HTH.
DS