Feed on
Posts
Comments

Destruction is not productive. Well, not unless sodium silicate can be poured all over Washington, DC and every state capital.

If that’s true, heaven help the other programs. Last week U.S. automakers reported that new car sales for September, the first month since the clunker program expired, sank by 25% from a year earlier. Sales at GM and Chrysler fell by 45% and 42%, respectively. Ford was down about 5%. Some 700,000 cars were sold in the summer under the program as buyers received up to $4,500 to buy a new car they would probably have purchased anyway, so all the program seems to have done is steal those sales from the future. Exactly as critics predicted.

Cash for clunkers had two objectives: help the environment by increasing fuel efficiency, and boost car sales to help Detroit and the economy. It achieved neither. According to Hudson Institute economist Irwin Stelzer, at best “the reduction in gasoline consumption will cut our oil consumption by 0.2 percent per year, or less than a single day’s gasoline use.” Burton Abrams and George Parsons of the University of Delaware added up the total benefits from reduced gas consumption, environmental improvements and the benefit to car buyers and companies, minus the overall cost of cash for clunkers, and found a net cost of roughly $2,000 per vehicle. Rather than stimulating the economy, the program made the nation as a whole $1.4 billion poorer.

Roosevelt killed pigs in order to help feed Americans that were starving. That is the kind of logic that passes as “Progressive” and thoughtful in Washington. Every time I think that it can’t get worse, I am proven spectacularly wrong.

2 Responses to “I Wonder What an Unsuccessful Program Would Look Like?”

  1. 115551 639150You produced some decent points there. I looked on the internet for that problem and located most individuals goes along with along along with your internet web site. 290919

Leave a Reply