Cash for clunkers

[Kevin_Kennedy]

AMEN! Our economy has been up and down for a few hundred years, and history has shown that the recovery has taken less time to recover given its' own course than with government intervention. It took WWII for the FDR years to recover. It may take another WW for ours to recover under Osama.

Well WW2 didn't help us recover in the least. If we accept that FDR's spending didn't help why would we assume that more government spending would help? Makes no sense. Wars don't help the economy, they hurt it. It was the reduction in spending and government control over the economy after WW2 that finally got us out of the Great Depression.

You're nuts.

EH.Net Encyclopedia: The American Economy during World War II

No more nuts than someone who thinks wasting resources on a war somehow helps the economy, or that shortages, rationing, and price controls are indicative of a recovering economy.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Aaah ... but according to your "the economy didn't right itself until after the war" logic, then everything that happens economically is a direct result of that days actions. So yes, either the war helped the economy limp back over time, which showed to be upright at the same time the war ended, or it was because of the war ending ... those are the only two possibilities, if it was because the war ended then Obama is to blame for all our current problems as well, unless you are a hypocrite.

I am completely lost.

That's good. Now I want you to start your history lessons over.

I was lost on the twisted logic Kitten used to come to the conclusions in her post, not what I know of history or economics.

 

[MaggieMae]

Well WW2 didn't help us recover in the least. If we accept that FDR's spending didn't help why would we assume that more government spending would help? Makes no sense. Wars don't help the economy, they hurt it. It was the reduction in spending and government control over the economy after WW2 that finally got us out of the Great Depression.

You're nuts.

EH.Net Encyclopedia: The American Economy during World War II

No more nuts than someone who thinks wasting resources on a war somehow helps the economy, or that shortages, rationing, and price controls are indicative of a recovering economy.

I'm anti-war too, but to say they don't spur the economy is ignoring history, although that somehow didn't work too well in the Iraq war, which only lined the pockets of a few.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

You're nuts.

EH.Net Encyclopedia: The American Economy during World War II

No more nuts than someone who thinks wasting resources on a war somehow helps the economy, or that shortages, rationing, and price controls are indicative of a recovering economy.

I'm anti-war too, but to say they don't spur the economy is ignoring history, although that somehow didn't work too well in the Iraq war, which only lined the pockets of a few.

I'm not ignoring history. I've already cited how WW2 made our economy worse, not better.

 

[Soaring]

During WWII there was a "0" (zero) jobless rate. When everybody has a job, or at least those who want one, then the economy will thrive. America was busy building the war machines it took to win WWII. Immediately following WWII, the economy was back on track and our country began to become rich again. Even the Korean war didn't slow down our economy.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

During WWII there was a "0" (zero) jobless rate. When everybody has a job, or at least those who want one, then the economy will thrive. America was busy building the war machines it took to win WWII. Immediately following WWII, the economy was back on track and our country began to become rich again. Even the Korean war didn't slow down our economy.

Yes, sending people overseas to die in a war will reduce the unemployment rate. However, that's not productive to the economy. Building weapons of war is also not productive to the economy. Simply putting people to work doesn't mean they're helping the economy. You could pay half the population to dig holes in the desert, and the other half to fill them back in. You'd have no unemployment but the economy would still be in terrible shape. Sending people to die in war and employing others to use resources to build weapons of war does not benefit society. I've already mentioned how there were shortages, rationing, and price controls during WW2 and nobody has yet addressed how these are indicative of a healthy economy. The economy was not back on track immediately following WW2.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

This program is the SAME THING THEY DID TO THE MORTGAGE INDUSTRY... they subsidized mortgages, making them cheaper and easier to get...

What did that do? it shoved up the price of the underlying product; REAL ESTATE.

This will do one thing... drive up the price of USED CARS... as it reduces the number of available used cars.

Now who buys used cars?

That's right... this program is going to make it harder for that single Mom with bad credit to run out and grab herself a reliable used car, which is priced within her means...

And who do ya suppose we're going to need to FIX THAT PROBLEM? Why, just like always, we'll need those WHO CAUSED THE PROBLEM TO FIX IT.

ROFL...

Leftists...

 

[BaronVonBigmeat]

During WWII there was a "0" (zero) jobless rate. When everybody has a job, or at least those who want one, then the economy will thrive. America was busy building the war machines it took to win WWII. Immediately following WWII, the economy was back on track and our country began to become rich again. Even the Korean war didn't slow down our economy.

You can't just look at employment numbers as a sign of a healthy economy. We could take half the unemployed people and have them dig holes in the dirt, while the other half fill them in. The unemployment rate would drop to zero. Come to think of it, nazi Germany and communist Russia had zero percent unemployment, by implementing similar methods. This is not economic progress however.

 

[BolshevikHunter]

Lunatic Red Diaper Doper babies. Their Socialist program is already failing. The leftist MASS media is covering their ass because the truth is they ran out of money because of fraud within this joke for a system. LOL!!! They already had to fund it again so soon? Oh, here is another 2 billion in order to get more car parts for the Black Market to sell to Cuba. LOL!!!! This is criminal. These are lunatics running The Oval Office. Obama is a madman, International Socialist who is going to destroy this Country if Americans don't stand up for it. LOL!! Cash for clunkers, What a joke. ~BH

 

[KittenKoder]

This program is the SAME THING THEY DID TO THE MORTGAGE INDUSTRY... they subsidized mortgages, making them cheaper and easier to get...

What did that do? it shoved up the price of the underlying product; REAL ESTATE.

This will do one thing... drive up the price of USED CARS... as it reduces the number of available used cars.

Now who buys used cars?

That's right... this program is going to make it harder for that single Mom with bad credit to run out and grab herself a reliable used car, which is priced within her means...

And who do ya suppose we're going to need to FIX THAT PROBLEM? Why, just like always, we'll need those WHO CAUSED THE PROBLEM TO FIX IT.

ROFL...

Leftists...

If not for that last part, that's a good angle. But it's not "leftists" and by using that term you show that you are being partisan still. The rest though, is one side effect those supporting this stupidity have not considered.

 

[Soaring]

During WWII there was a "0" (zero) jobless rate. When everybody has a job, or at least those who want one, then the economy will thrive. America was busy building the war machines it took to win WWII. Immediately following WWII, the economy was back on track and our country began to become rich again. Even the Korean war didn't slow down our economy.

You can't just look at employment numbers as a sign of a healthy economy. We could take half the unemployed people and have them dig holes in the dirt, while the other half fill them in. The unemployment rate would drop to zero. Come to think of it, nazi Germany and communist Russia had zero percent unemployment, by implementing similar methods. This is not economic progress however.

Yes, you can look at the employment rate as a measure of a healthy economy. Your analysis of digging holes in dirt is just a ridiculous childish analogy that doesn't fit the real world in which we live. If you have ever studied the Mayan history you would understand this simple analogy. They built a city in the forest, and everybody had a job. So, there was no unemployment and everybody contributed to the society of the village. Once the city was built after about 100 years, the people left the city and went further into the forest to start a new city so that everybody would be employed again. It worked for them until the fuckin' Spainards attacked and killed their intelligent and beautifully orchestrated society.
What we need is a society of people who truly want freedom from a central government, but enough leadership to keep us all connected and headed in the same direction of the means to achieve and maintain the freedoms that our forefathers sought to inherit to us. Right now, we are disjuncted by the current leadership in Obama, and we are heading down the road of a liberal socialistic government that will eventually turn into a communist state if we aren't vigil enough to say no in our voting preferences.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

During WWII there was a "0" (zero) jobless rate. When everybody has a job, or at least those who want one, then the economy will thrive. America was busy building the war machines it took to win WWII. Immediately following WWII, the economy was back on track and our country began to become rich again. Even the Korean war didn't slow down our economy.

You can't just look at employment numbers as a sign of a healthy economy. We could take half the unemployed people and have them dig holes in the dirt, while the other half fill them in. The unemployment rate would drop to zero. Come to think of it, nazi Germany and communist Russia had zero percent unemployment, by implementing similar methods. This is not economic progress however.

Yes, you can look at the employment rate as a measure of a healthy economy. Your analysis of digging holes in dirt is just a ridiculous childish analogy that doesn't fit the real world in which we live. If you have ever studied the Mayan history you would understand this simple analogy. They built a city in the forest, and everybody had a job. So, there was no unemployment and everybody contributed to the society of the village. Once the city was built after about 100 years, the people left the city and went further into the forest to start a new city so that everybody would be employed again. It worked for them until the fuckin' Spainards attacked and killed their intelligent and beautifully orchestrated society.

The employment rate can be an indicator of a healthy economy, but not always. If the people aren't employed doing something beneficial to society then they're not helping the economy. During WW2 there was an automobile shortage because of the war effort. Most people couldn't buy a car because the car manufacturers were too busy building things for the war. It would have been better for the economy had they been producing cars rather than tanks or bombs which nobody could use here at home for any purpose.

 

[BaronVonBigmeat]

During WWII there was a "0" (zero) jobless rate. When everybody has a job, or at least those who want one, then the economy will thrive. America was busy building the war machines it took to win WWII. Immediately following WWII, the economy was back on track and our country began to become rich again. Even the Korean war didn't slow down our economy.

You can't just look at employment numbers as a sign of a healthy economy. We could take half the unemployed people and have them dig holes in the dirt, while the other half fill them in. The unemployment rate would drop to zero. Come to think of it, nazi Germany and communist Russia had zero percent unemployment, by implementing similar methods. This is not economic progress however.

Yes, you can look at the employment rate as a measure of a healthy economy. Your analysis of digging holes in dirt is just a ridiculous childish analogy that doesn't fit the real world in which we live. If you have ever studied the Mayan history you would understand this simple analogy. They built a city in the forest, and everybody had a job. So, there was no unemployment and everybody contributed to the society of the village. Once the city was built after about 100 years, the people left the city and went further into the forest to start a new city so that everybody would be employed again. It worked for them until the fuckin' Spainards attacked and killed their intelligent and beautifully orchestrated society.
What we need is a society of people who truly want freedom from a central government, but enough leadership to keep us all connected and headed in the same direction of the means to achieve and maintain the freedoms that our forefathers sought to inherit to us. Right now, we are disjuncted by the current leadership in Obama, and we are heading down the road of a liberal socialistic government that will eventually turn into a communist state if we aren't vigil enough to say no in our voting preferences.

I probably wasn't very clear there, so let me rephrase it.

You cannot look at employment rates--by themselves --and get a complete picture of the well-being of the economy. Unemployment rates do matter, but you also have to look at living standards, what the average wage can buy, and so forth. During WW2, nearly everybody was employed. Great! But people don't just work for the joy of working, they work to put food on the table and enjoy the good life. And during the war, there wasn't a whole lot you could buy. Shortages were rampant. To put it another way, what good would it do to make a million dollars a year, if there is nothing to spend it on?

The recovery did not start until after WW2, when the federal government slashed spending by 2/3ds. Mainstream Keynesian economists like John Kenneth Gallbraith predicted an economic apocalypse, but the opposite happened. Strangely, we are still listening to Keynesians instead of laughing and throwing rotten tomatoes at them and calling them cranks.

The bit about digging holes may seem childish; but this is quite literally what Keynes taught, and equivalent to what you apparently advocate. Promoting production of anything, regardless of whether or not it is productive. Putting money into bombs and them blowing them up produces nothing but bits of shrapnel. How does that benefit the average consumer? It doesn't, and this is one of the oldest and most stubborn fallacies in economics.

Putting resources into building elaborate pyramids kept Mayan workers doing...well, something. But how did it benefit them? Did the pyramids make their lives any easier? If their labor had been directed elsewhere, could they have actually...you know, advanced their civilization? Instead of remaining in the stone age for a thousand years and engaging in the ghastly savagery of human sacrifice?

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

The government was suprisied that when giving away free money people will take it.

 

[MaggieMae]

During WWII there was a "0" (zero) jobless rate. When everybody has a job, or at least those who want one, then the economy will thrive. America was busy building the war machines it took to win WWII. Immediately following WWII, the economy was back on track and our country began to become rich again. Even the Korean war didn't slow down our economy.

I'm glad we can agree on at least something. Following WWII, returning soldiers (my dad was one) were able to tap into the GI bill and go to college plus get zero down and low interest mortgages through the VA. A government program that WORKS! Surprise surprise.

 

[Care4all]

well, matt and i own a clunker that is 15 years old, that DOES NOT QUALIFY for the 4500 or the $3500 rebate which really stinks, for goodness sakes!

our 15 year old clunker got 22 miles per gallon when bought, and only people who owned the expensive gas guzzlers like 6 or 8 cylinder SUV's, OR big gas guzzling american cars can get the money....18 mpg or less on the clunker!

this is a tax gift to the people who had money in the first place to buy the chevy tahoe...or ford exployer or lincoln continental!

 

[dilloduck]

well, matt and i own a clunker that is 15 years old, that does not qualify for the 4500 or the $3500 rebate which really stinks, for goodness sakes!

Our 15 year old clunker got 22 miles per gallon when bought, and only people who owned the expensive gas guzzlers like 6 or 8 cylinder suv's, or big gas guzzling american cars can get the money....18 mpg or less on the clunker!

this is a tax gift to the people who had money in the first place to buy the chevy tahoe...or ford exployer or lincoln continental!

bingo

 

[Navy1960]

I've given this issue a lot of thought and have come to the conclusion that while this program may be of limited sucess when it comes to the sale of new cars it has a flaw in several areas. Lets take for example the programs general aim is to provide the incentive for people to trade in their so called "clunker" for a new more environmentally friendly car. More often than not these "clunkers" are paid in full and the people trading them in have no financial obligation other than general upkeep and fuel. So when trading it in they then become indebted for a new car thus adding more people to an otherwise strained credit market. So how does this provide the incentive for people to save money in a time when the nation is economic trouble? One other thing to consider here is that by taking these perfectly good working cars off the road you limit the number of used cars available to those who cannot afford new cars and drive up the price of existing cars. Additional factors include, that 50% of the cars traded in are to foreign car companies thus leading to the creation of more jobs in the foriegn nations. So in conclusion this program is yet another attempt to socially engineer the way Americans live their lives when congress should be spending it's time on passiing legislation that actually provides incentives for Americans to have better lives. This one isn't it.

 

[pete]

So when trading it in they then become indebted for a new car thus adding more people to an otherwise strained credit market.

Now that extra money they did have if any is tied up in a an auto loan and less will be spent to stimulate the economy.

Wasnt the government getting ready to save for us? Now having people spend when they were content with their perfectly good (in some cases) running vehicle.

The positive side ... Ford is topping sales and Chrysler adding gains to their losses and well Government Motors ... still down.

 

[BaronVonBigmeat]

Let's not forget: this may very well not save any energy at all.

The government has been mandating higher energy efficiency in appliances and autos since the 70's. Do we use less energy then? No. People take their high mileage cars and move further away from work and drive more. People respond to lower electric bills by cranking up the thermostat, and buying bigger houses.

But okay, let's assume a fanciful world where people do not adjust their behavior. Surely now we are saving money, right? Maybe not as much as you might think. The manufacture of one car--any car--involves a vast supply chain and large expenditures of energy. Energy to dig iron ore out of the dirt. Energy to transport it. Energy to refine it, and energy to cast and forge it.

Ditto for copper, and ditto for aluminum--which is lightweight and great for efficiency, but uses vast amounts of electricity. Glass has to be created from sand, there's a ton of energy right there. The assembly plant employs a ton of people who consume energy, the lights and robots consume energy, welders consume energy. Even the paint is basically refined petroleum, which takes energy and then requires heat energy to bake.

So the "fixed" energy for that old clunker has already been spent, and it's a significant portion of the energy a car will use over it's lifetime. Throwing it away prematurely is like throwing away energy. It's wasteful and foolish, which is why government has to subsidize it. People wouldn't do it otherwise.

I'll wrap this up by making four guarantees. In 20 years:

A) things will be more efficient
B) the total per capita energy consumption will be higher than ever
C) we will not have energy independence
D) nobody--but nobody--will remember that this was predicted, and people will make more calls for even higher efficiency regulations.