The Tao Of The Clunker
posted at 10:01 am on August 2, 2009 by Doctor Zero
The Left loves to criticize capitalism for being short-sighted, while benevolent government takes the long view, planning for the future through the brilliant designs of a command economy. Like many of the Left’s beliefs, this is the exact opposite of the truth. Consider the latest example of socialist government’s astonishing nearsightedness: the Cash for Clunkers program.
Originally slated to last through October, Cash for Clunkers blew through its billion-dollar funding in a week, and has received an injection of two billion additional dollars from Congress. Those are your dollars, by the way, assuming you are one of the 57% of Americans who pay federal income tax. You might not enjoy spending time in used-car lots, but last week, you were forced to help pay for thousands of old beaters. You might have had some unpleasant experiences at car dealerships, but I doubt any of them robbed you at gunpoint, as the Democrat Congress just did. Even more of your tax money will be appropriated to help destroy the clunkers, which aren’t even being broken down for spare parts. Downturns in the free market may reduce the value of assets, but only through the magic of government can the value of a useful asset be reduced to less than zero.
If it makes you feel any better, remember that all of this is being done in the name of a religion you probably don’t believe in. Oh, wait, that’s going to make you feel worse. Good. It should. The sight of Obama’s apparatchiks squealing with glee like little girls, and declaring Cash for Clunkers to be a phenomenal success, should fill you with blind rage. Maybe we could get a little value for our money by having the federal government assign the brainwashed schoolchildren trapped in its rotting educational system to fashion bits of metal from the destroyed clunkers into decorative keepsakes, and mail one to everyone who paid taxes last year. We could call them Planetary Savior Trophies, and each could come with a little prayer you recite each morning, to reduce global warming. It would be as effective as anything else Big Government forces us to do in the name of global warming.
Far from being short-sighted, the free market designed a system that generates useful value from automobiles decades after they are manufactured. New cars become “pre-owned” after their original owners decide they want a new vehicle. After the second owner gets finished with them, the cars devolve into “clunkers,” affordable by the young and the poor. Even when a clunker dies, its parts become useful assets in the repair and maintenance market. Every car is an organ donor.
The genius politicians who designed Cash for Clunkers, and blew through a billion dollars of taxpayer money in five percent of the allotted time, should be laughed out of the room when they call free markets “short-sighted.” What have they every produced that was still generating positive value twenty years later?
Besides transferring three billion dollars of our wealth to people who used to drive beat-up old cars, the Cash for Clunkers program also short-circuits the used car marked for the coming decade. Dealers get a short-term sales boost, but they’ll pay dearly for it over the next few years. Because the program generated some positive headlines, the government pronounces it an epic success, and plows more money into it. The only criteria for the success of any Big Government program is whether it produces a short-term bump in the polls, and comes in handy as a prop, every couple of years during elections. What system could be less likely to produce lasting, long-term benefits and deeply rooted economic strength?
It’s also worth noting that those $4500 clunker vouchers are not enough to completely pay for a new car. The people taking advantage of those vouchers will need to kick in a sizable amount of their own money. Those who would otherwise have waited to buy a new car will be diverting resources they would have invested elsewhere, if not for the voucher program – so it amounts to $3 billion spent to divert several times that much money from other industries, into new car sales. By the way, who makes those new cars? Do they have some sort of trade organization, which has a cozy relationship with the Democrats? I seem to remember reading about something along those lines.
The Left always portrays businessmen as rapacious predators who would gorge themselves on today’s profits, without any thought for the future. This is a far more accurate description of socialist government. Capitalists, as a group, are not interested in destroying vast amounts of future wealth to obtain a quick infusion of immediate profit – that’s just stupid. Some individual businessmen may act in such a manner, and some take it to the level of criminal activity that should be punished, but the vast majority of them are in business for the long haul. By definition, a company that destroys its own market for immediate gain is destroying itself. Individual companies rarely have the power to inflict that kind of market damage anyway – such power is the province of Big Government alone. Even if greedy new-car dealers and manufacturers wanted to increase their profits by blowing all the old cars off the road, they could never have done what Big Government did last week.
Only the government is eager to sacrifice future wealth for immediate gain. It’s written into the DNA of socialism. A businessman would think you a fool for suggesting he sacrifice decades of future opportunity for immediate gain, while a politician would think you a fool for suggesting otherwise. What matters to a politician more than today’s polls, and next year’s elections? A businessman looks at people who aren’t his customers yet, and sees the opportunity to expand his market. A politician looks at people who aren’t his constituents yet, and sees enemies that need to be suppressed. Politicians think they have an infinite supply of tax money to tap into, when their schemes go wrong. The deficit can always get a little bigger, and they can always steal a little more from the vastly outnumbered top income earners. Crashing the entire financial system for political gain in the 90s was a net win for the Democrats, and they would do it again in a heartbeat. Destroying the auto market to provide a little economic “stimulus” they can trumpet on the Sunday talk shows is a no-brainer.
If you paid federal income tax last year, you should stop by a new-car dealership today. They’re probably serving free coffee and soda to their crowds of customers. If you’re lucky, they might be giving away hot dogs and pizza. Help yourself to as much as you can eat and drink, because it’s the only thing you’re going to get in exchange for the three billion dollars the Democrats just stole from you. When someone treats you the way Barack Obama just treated taxpayers, the least you can do is expect them to buy you a drink.









Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: 1 2 3 Next »
Wow. Excellent article. Thanks.
clorensen on August 2, 2009 at 11:09 AM
I’ve donated 3 cars that have been used by people less fortunate than I. I ain’t rolling in it either but I don’t need someone to tell me to do something.
tomas on August 2, 2009 at 11:14 AM
I may be getting sick
CWforFreedom on August 2, 2009 at 11:17 AM
There’s a lively discussion on NewsBusters about this topic today.
I think if the Dems really wanted this to be stimulative, they may have considered it as part of the Chrysler and GM bankruptcies. Rather than behead dealerships and put more people out of work, they could have implemented this plan -without requiring the termination of the vehicles- to help save some of the dealership jobs being lost. I’ve heard of a number of dealerships on the cut list transitioned to Used-Car (only) centers; had they been able to rid their new-car inventory thru an incentive program like this one, and replaced it with a used-car inventory (and the sales revenue to scrap yards) many of these dealers may have been able to make that transition without laying off as many workers, and some may have been able to continue in this realm rather than closing down.
But, of course, it was never meant to be stimulative, now was it?
BKeyser on August 2, 2009 at 11:24 AM
If you feel sick watching a perfectly functional car being destroyed, that may just be a subconscious understanding of economics kicking in.
Count to 10 on August 2, 2009 at 11:25 AM
Call me crazy people but I don’t see the problem.
The govt. is offering a generous rebate to people who can use it to buy a new car.
They get the money in exchange for their old car.
Sounds like a good deal to me.
Worrying about whether $4,500 is enough to buy a new car or that people will have spend their own money doesn’t seem to make sense.
OF COURSE you have to spend your own money when buying a car.
Is that something new?
Also this program offers people who couldn’t otherwise afford to upgrade the chance.
I’m not in the market for a new vehicle now but if the govt. offered me $2,000 to go buy a flat screen 60 inch t.v. or to take a plane to Vegas I might just accept.
One of the points of the program is to get aging gas guzzlers off the road and put people into a new car.
Why then would the govt. turn around and put the clunker back on the road?
As far as the point about the used car market taking some sort of hit from the program I am sure there will be penty left as there are close to 251 million vehicles in America.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passenger_vehicles_in_the_United_States
There may be one or two clunkers left over after the program expires.
If people are so concerned about what happens to the auto after the sale then let them sell it privately.
What is the difference between C4C and the $8,000 tax credit for new home buyers?
NeoKong on August 2, 2009 at 11:35 AM
Look on the bright side….
In the coming months & years about 30% of those new cars will be reposessed by the loan companies & auto dealers. This should create a nice “new used” car pool of about 100,000 cars. Many dealers will probably be stiffed by Obama so they will be watching these loans like hawks – ready to swoop in after one payment is missed.
izoneguy on August 2, 2009 at 11:36 AM
What is the difference between C4C and the $8,000 tax credit for new home buyers?
NeoKong on August 2, 2009 at 11:35 AM
C4C was an outright giveaway of tax dollars. A tax credit is a different thing.
izoneguy on August 2, 2009 at 11:39 AM
If it makes anybody feel better, the USA is only following the example of several other countries:
Apparently Canada, Italy, France, Germany, China, the UK, Spain, Romania, Luxemberg, the Netherlands, Portugal have all recently offered tax-payer funded concessions to people buying new cars.
YiZhangZhe on August 2, 2009 at 11:39 AM
Try this:
http://www.tv.com/Yogi%27s+Gang/Mr.+Waste/episode/1198162/summary.html?tag=container;episode_guide_list
Count to 10 on August 2, 2009 at 11:40 AM
Actually, both are examples of wealth transfer, but only one involves the destruction of capital, and induces an unnecessary shortage of goods available to low income persons.
Count to 10 on August 2, 2009 at 11:42 AM
The difference between C4C and a tax credit is that the tax credit does not require you to destroy an old house before you get a newer one.
C4C destroys old wealth in exchange for… nothing really. There may be a marginal increase in fuel efficiency, but a total waste of the energy that went into manufacturing the old car.
A tax credit encourages creation of new wealth without destroying old wealth.
See: The Parable of the Broken Window
ZenDraken on August 2, 2009 at 11:43 AM
Problem 1: Cars can only be bought by people who can already more or less afford one. This means that, effectively, the poorest tax payers (who cannot afford a car at all) are being made forced to subsidise the better lifestyle of wealthier people.
Problem 2: Governments are all whining about how we must be more environmentally conscious but on balance this isn’t environmentally friendly, due to the pollution involved in creating new cars.
Problem 3: You cannot make a nation wealthier by destroying its assets. Destroying assets and paying for them to be replaced shuffles money around (which is the whole point of these programmes) but the overall result is to leave the nation poorer than it would have been if the assets had not been destroyed.
YiZhangZhe on August 2, 2009 at 11:48 AM
Hey you liberal boobs. While we’re on the subject of cars, let’s remember the old chestnut from Toyota, “You asked for it, you got it.”
When things go to sh*t, as they soon will, it will al be YOUR fault.
Mr. Grump on August 2, 2009 at 11:56 AM
Free money is free money no matter the reason.
These are not welfare payments.
If I get the chance to take back $4,500 of my tax money I will take it.
Apparently many people agree with me judging by how fast the money was spent.
No one is forced to participate.
If the thought of what happens to the car after it has been bought and paid for bothers them then they don’t have to do it.
Anyone who wants to spend and extra $4,500 on a car that they don’t have can go right ahead.
I would take the rebate.
And please…let’s not pretend.
If any of those four people I blockquoted were buying a new car tomorrow are they trying to tell me they wouldn’t take the rebate….?
Pfff…yeah right.
How many people returned their $300 or $600 dollar stimulus check…?
NeoKong on August 2, 2009 at 12:02 PM
Consider actually engaging the arguments that have already been made, rather than asking for more arguments that we can’t reasonably expect you to study, either.
Kralizec on August 2, 2009 at 12:13 PM
I did. Actually, I was required to file some paperwork, and when it wasn’t filed they sent me a reminder, and I returned it saying “no thanks”.
KendraWilder on August 2, 2009 at 12:15 PM
How about this, geniusboy? I’m a working-class nobody, and I get precisely shit from this program. And ya know why that is? I don’t have a car!
And hundreds of thousands of cars I could have had at an affordable price are being taken out of circulation. What about this program is it that you fail to understand, moron?!
/facepalm
gryphon202 on August 2, 2009 at 12:18 PM
Uh hoh geez….
Kralizec is getting a little snippy.
Try some Metamucil.
I’ll still take the rebate thank you.
NeoKong on August 2, 2009 at 12:19 PM
1. You are confusing money with wealth. Money is a tool to measure the value of wealth, but it is not necessarily wealth itself.
2. While that $4500 may be of benefit to you personally, the destruction of the older car is an overall loss for the economy as a whole.
3. Policies like this are exercised on a large enough scale that they ultimately shrink the economy through destruction of wealth, and that is a loss for all of us.
C4C is wasteful, destructive of capital, destructive of resources and energy, harms all of us, and is therefore immoral.
ZenDraken on August 2, 2009 at 12:20 PM
I expect the Americans who think the “Cash for Clunkers” program is a good idea will have a humiliating moment of realization, when they hear someone with little income say he can’t find an inexpensive car to drive to work.
Kralizec on August 2, 2009 at 12:22 PM
There are actually two arguments taking place here. One economics the other political. Economics will never persuade the political, nor will the reverse because the objectives of the two do not meet.
The political rejects the economic argument because the purpose of this governmental policy is to gift special benefit to a favored political faction.
Skandia Recluse on August 2, 2009 at 12:25 PM
Consider actually engaging the arguments that have already been made, rather than wasting your time insulting someone who doesn’t matter. But since you think what you want is what we should consider, note well that your willingness to take from others tells us nothing other than that you’re willing to take from others.
Kralizec on August 2, 2009 at 12:29 PM
Really? I can think of at least one person that was “forced to participate” — me. Where in the hell do you think that this money comes from? In the immortal slogan of Robert Heinlein, TANSTAAFL (There Ain’t No Such Thing As A Free Lunch). It either comes from tax revenue (i.e., my money) or government borrowing (i.e., my money for both the principal and interest). And the argument that no one who took the stimulus checks — or, for that matter, who participates in C4C — has moral standing in the argument is puerile. Everyone knows how government works — once the money’s appropriated, it’s not going to be un-appropriated just because it isn’t spent. If everyone made a principled stand not to take the money, it wouldn’t be returned to the taxpayers or used to buy back the T-bills used to borrow the money for that purpose — it would be re-funneled to something most likely even more hare-brained. Once the money is appropriated, it’s as good as spent — it would be immoral not to take it. The principled conservative tries to block the appropriation ab initio by explaining the proper role of government and the real principles of economics. Bottom line: As with any other redistributive program, C4C is theft.
loneloc on August 2, 2009 at 12:30 PM
I have been wondering which group could be both be driving a clunker and have enough money to buy a new car. Finally figured it out this morning: recent college graduates. Now who did most of these vote for in 2008?
agmartin on August 2, 2009 at 12:30 PM
1. You are confusing money with wealth. Money is a tool to measure the value of wealth, but it is not necessarily wealth itself.
2. While that $4500 may be of benefit to you personally, the destruction of the older car is an overall loss for the economy as a whole.
ZenDraken on August 2, 2009 at 12:20 PM
The damn thing isn’t worth $4,500.
It is not wealth.
It is the opposite of wealth.
It is junk.
NeoKong on August 2, 2009 at 12:31 PM
Dammit, almost forgot again — Kirk delenda est.
loneloc on August 2, 2009 at 12:32 PM
Bringing together a band of pirates is a political founding, and piracy is an economic activity.
Kralizec on August 2, 2009 at 12:36 PM
If you can get it I wouldn’t blame you for doing so. Lucky you.
Your good fortune won’t change the fact that these programmes are economically and environmentally asinine. Since the poorest of tax-paying people effectively subsides the affluence and environmental consciousness of wealthier people they are also morally dubious.
As mentioned by
these programmes do appear to be political. The beneficiaries are not just the car buyers but also car manufacturing workers, who tend to be heavily unionised and likely to vote for socialist political parties hence this could be seen as socialist parties bribing their supporters. Many people would consider that to be a problem too.
YiZhangZhe on August 2, 2009 at 12:37 PM
Heh..
You can convince a pirate to give up his pursuit of treasure by making piracy too expensive to practice, but that requires a political decision, i.e. organize punitive raids against the pirates.
Skandia Recluse on August 2, 2009 at 12:42 PM
You’re still not reading. I answered the argument that these cars are worthless before you’d even made it.
Kralizec on August 2, 2009 at 12:42 PM
LOL….Take a deep breath and call your mother.
I can solve that problem for you.
You can:
A. Stand in front of a car lot and offer to buy a clunker from someone or…
B. Look in the damn newspaper.
If you can’t find a used car in about two minutes then maybe you should stay away from the stove and sharp knives as well.
Spare me your rage.It only makes me giggle.
NeoKong on August 2, 2009 at 12:44 PM
I have to believe that you’re being deliberately obtuse. The point about affordable vehicles is that the effective floor for the price of used vehicles is now $3500. Moreover, since all engine parts for these vehicles are now being destroyed, the TCO for these vehicles for those who don’t trade them in will become prohibitively expensive. In addition to its other charms, C4C is regressive.
Kirk delenda est.
loneloc on August 2, 2009 at 12:50 PM
So war is both political and economic. To return to your first point, it seems the reason some of the economic arguments are ineffective isn’t that the objectives of politics and economics are different and incompatible. Instead, the common advantage of the takers differs from the common advantage of those from whom they’re taking.
Kralizec on August 2, 2009 at 12:56 PM
NeoKong on August 2, 2009 at 12:31 PM
You are one of the dumb masses
DougDavis on August 2, 2009 at 12:57 PM
If it was truly junk, it would not be functional. C4C specifically requires functional cars that have been on the road and insured for the last 12 months. That car still has utility and hence is not worthless. Take a look at some of the C4C videos showing cars with a lot of life in them (like a 2007 Volvo) being destroyed. It’s a shameful waste of energy and resources.
Furthermore, C4C requires the destruction of the engine, which is the most valuable part of the car since it can be recycled for spare parts. Again, C4C is immoral because it destroys wealth. It’s also immoral because it is using our tax money to destroy wealth.
ZenDraken on August 2, 2009 at 12:57 PM
You’re still not reading.
Kralizec on August 2, 2009 at 12:59 PM
Doc, this is an excellent article.
It seems that this is the liberal definition of a successful program: handing out money to people. That’s it. They’ve been going around talking about how successful this is, but handing out free money is always popular.
I imagine if the government set up a booth outside the capitol and advertised that whoever showed up would receive $4500 there would be a line stretching to Baltimore. The Democrats would then declare the program to be an overwhelming success because so many people are taking them up on their offer of free money.
Bill Kristol made a good point today on Fox News Sunday. He said why not make it $10,000 or $20,000. That would be better, right? And why stop at cars. Why not have cash for boats and houses and food. If government handouts are so stimulative, then why not make them bigger and broader? More would be better, right?
JohnInCA on August 2, 2009 at 1:06 PM
Here’s a report of some of the damage being done by “Cash for Clunkers.”
http://www.bizjournals.com/sacramento/stories/2009/08/03/story3.html
Kralizec on August 2, 2009 at 1:10 PM
Kristol was exaggerating for effect; he knows the real liberal definition of a successful program as well as I do, that being whether or not behavior is controlled according to the liberal plan du jour. If it can be controlled by giving away money, that will be done; if it can be controlled by taking away money, that will be done. The question is always whether behavior is successfully modified (i.e., whether power is successfully exercised); it is never how behavior modification will be paid for, much less whether they have the right to modify behavior.
loneloc on August 2, 2009 at 1:12 PM
Krazilec…..I don’t need you to explain english to me.
I disagree with your point.
GET IT?
The idea that people won’t be able to find a used car after the program is RIDICULOUS.
Maybe it’s you who has trouble reading.
Here…one more time.
I do not think the supply will run out anytime soon.
NeoKong on August 2, 2009 at 1:14 PM
If you like seeing businesses ruined, you’ll love “Cash for Clunkers.”
http://www.monroenews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090802/NEWS01/708029956
Understand, it took no appreciable effort to find this story or the one I’ve already cited. I went to Google, searched on the keywords “used,” “car,” and “dealers,” and followed the news link.
Kralizec on August 2, 2009 at 1:19 PM
Apparently Zen some people disagree with you.
They would be the people who actually own those cars.
Why don’t you go speak to them?
Go stand on a car lot and see how many people you can talk out of taking the rebate.
Present your best argument to them and if they agree with you then I will stand by their judgement.
Good luck.
NeoKong on August 2, 2009 at 1:21 PM
Since the idea that literally every household in the country has 2.5 cars is absurd, it has to be the case that government, corporate, and rental fleets are included in that figure. When these are sold to the public after they’ve reached the end of the fleet lifecycle, it is not at the below-$3500 price point. The argument is not that there will no longer be used cars on the market; it is that the supply of cars affordable to the lower class will be dried up, and such supply as remains will be prohibitively expensive to operate due to lack of parts. To reiterate, C4C is regressive.
loneloc on August 2, 2009 at 1:24 PM
I didn’t say people won’t be able to find a used car. Here’s what I said.
I implied I expect it will become difficult for someone with little income to find an inexpensive used car. NeoKong, it appears you’re still not reading.
Kralizec on August 2, 2009 at 1:29 PM
I don’t think so. The program excluded any vehicle that got 19 MPG or better, which leaves every 4 cyl and most 6 cyl clunkers on the market for people to buy.
What is getting traded in on this program are the 100K-mile plus SUV’s, vans and pickups that were otherwise worth $500-1000 and have gotten to the point of being a money pit to those who owned and drove them. I doubt that your low-income person looking for an inexpensive car would be as interested in a $500 vehicle that guzzles gas and needs $3000 of work to remain road worthy.
ChenZhen on August 2, 2009 at 1:45 PM
You have convinced me.
Now that you have italicized your key words it all so make so much sense to me now. I don’t understand why I did not understand it the first four times you posted it.
Thank you for opening my eyes.
NeoKong on August 2, 2009 at 1:45 PM
For one thing, you have failed to engage anything in the exchange between “Skandia Recluse” and me, so you are still not considering the arguments that have already been made. For another, your point that men will accept gifts is well-known and not very interesting. We are discussing the losses to others and to the Americans considered as a whole.
NeoKong, the reason so many readers are arguing with you is not that you are difficult to refute. Your arguments are very easily refuted, yet you don’t recognize the refutations. Intellectually, you’re like a skinny punk who can’t defend himself, but doesn’t have the good sense to run away. And we’re enjoying the exercise. You can’t argue us out of taking what you give up so easily, but when we’re tired of wrecking you, we’ll go away.
Kralizec on August 2, 2009 at 1:50 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 3 Next »