Comments on: How to Judge “Cash for Clunkers”

By: cedichou

cedichou — Thu, 06 Aug 2009 20:26:21 +0000

Well, if the purchase of a new car is advanced by one year, then that’s 10,000 miles at 10mpg that is saved on gas. As you mention, the other environmental cost is break even, as the new car would be manufactured to replace the clunker one year down the road no matter what. So 250 million gallons is saved by the program.

The other benefit is that the economy is in dire need of stimulus now. Like, 12% unemployment in CA. And the $4,500 subsidy turns into a, say $25,000 purchase, then that’s a pretty good way to stimulate the economy. The whole issue of stimulus is too find “bang-for-the-buck,” ie to give money where it will be spent. In this case, it’s spent right away, and 5 times over.

@Rhywn: that’s “bang-for-the-buck” is THE difference with Bush rebates: you can save a rebate, put it in your retirement, or just on a CD, and there’s no effect whatsoever on the economy. You can’t save with C4C, you must spend.

By: Opus the Poet

Opus the Poet — Thu, 06 Aug 2009 05:28:29 +0000

The most ironic thing about cash for clunkers (well top 2) is the program doesn’t allow purchasing bicycles, which are rated at 900 MPG(equivalent) Highway and 250 City. The larger of the CARS bonuses (or whatever you want to call it) will buy 9 nice bicycles equipped for city riding and capable of carrying about 300 pounds of payload (rider and cargo). As a point of comparison, this is about the same capacity as a tricked out Suburban, except when equipped to carry 8 passengers and a driver, you can’t carry a whole lot of stuff, so with 9 bicycles you actually have more cargo capacity than a 9 passenger Suburban, with an energy efficiency of 250 PMPG(equivalent), compared to the Suburban which even with the “small” motor only gets 162 PMPG City, and how often do you see a fully-loaded Suburban running around?

The other in the top 2? If your clunker is too old you can’t get anything for it.

By: Rhywun

Rhywun — Wed, 05 Aug 2009 07:10:36 +0000

I’m an elitist non-driver–so I can only judge this from the outside looking in–but to me it seems nothing more than a clever variation on Bush’s $300 rebate checks from a few years back. Except this time it’s targeted at certain voting blocks (the lower middle class, union laborers) who voted pretty reliably for Mr. Obama.

By: Ian Turner

Ian Turner — Tue, 04 Aug 2009 20:07:39 +0000

At this point I’d say it’s pretty clear what the program is supposed to accomplish: It’s supposed to get incumbents reelected.

By: rlb

rlb — Tue, 04 Aug 2009 20:03:12 +0000

Cash for Clunkers is a way to prop up the auto industry. From an economic perspective, the auto industry is the most important industry in the country and has the most jobs attached to it. People who supply parts for the auto industry that would have been out of a job a few months from now may not be as a result of cash for clunkers. This is why cash for clunkers exists. The environmental consequences of cash for clunkers are laughably secondary.
Granted, transit workers may soon be out of a job that may have been saved were that billion dollars placed somewhere else.

By: Daniel Nairn

Daniel Nairn — Tue, 04 Aug 2009 19:59:48 +0000

It’s good to hear Ryan weigh in. It would go a long way if mainstream environmentalist groups were to use their political clout to carry this message to the Senate. We all understand that the CARS program we have now is not at all the same thing we thought it would be six months ago.

By: Mark Walker

Mark Walker — Tue, 04 Aug 2009 19:15:24 +0000

By getting older (but fixable) cars off the road, Cash For Clunkers may have actually denied current and future jobs to auto repair personnel.