bitterlyclingin
Silver Member
- Aug 4, 2011
- 3,122
- 425
- 98
(If your program didn't stimulate the economy, didn't increase US Manufacturer market share, didn't improve US average fleet fuel economy by a heck of lot, but did drive up prices in the long run, what would you call it? Does it bring back images of the folks kicking, clawing, and gouging each, other trying to get their hands on the $1500 cash vouchers being handed out gratis in Detroit's COBO Arena just after Obama took office? You might call it mob mentality politics, but isn't that what community organizing is all about? Oh yeah! Then, there's OWS)
"Washington Posts Ezra Kleins substitute writer Brad Plumer got the unenviable job of having to admit that the governments infamous Cash-for-Clunkers stealth auto dealership bailout in which people traded in still-useable cars in exchange for trade-in money for a new car didnt particularly stimulate the economy, didnt improve US car manufacturers market share, and increased average fuel economy in the United States by just 0.65 miles per gallon. The trigger event for this admission was this Resources For the Future report that is fairly damning, in its somewhat dry and equation-laden way: of course, we on the Right were all yelling about this issue right from the start, but its still nice to see some math backing us up.
Still, Kleins substitute doesnt consider another economic factor: what happened as a result of taking used cars off of the market. You see, theres a considerable demand for almost worn-out cars: poor people, young people, and/or urban minorities can maintain them well enough to be cost effective if the price is low enough. And what happens, class, when demand remains the same but the supply decreases?
Thats right: prices go up."
Cash for Clunkers’ failure: minorities, poor people hardest hit. | RedState
"Washington Posts Ezra Kleins substitute writer Brad Plumer got the unenviable job of having to admit that the governments infamous Cash-for-Clunkers stealth auto dealership bailout in which people traded in still-useable cars in exchange for trade-in money for a new car didnt particularly stimulate the economy, didnt improve US car manufacturers market share, and increased average fuel economy in the United States by just 0.65 miles per gallon. The trigger event for this admission was this Resources For the Future report that is fairly damning, in its somewhat dry and equation-laden way: of course, we on the Right were all yelling about this issue right from the start, but its still nice to see some math backing us up.
Still, Kleins substitute doesnt consider another economic factor: what happened as a result of taking used cars off of the market. You see, theres a considerable demand for almost worn-out cars: poor people, young people, and/or urban minorities can maintain them well enough to be cost effective if the price is low enough. And what happens, class, when demand remains the same but the supply decreases?
Thats right: prices go up."
Cash for Clunkers’ failure: minorities, poor people hardest hit. | RedState