Thursday, September 24, 2009

Whew!

At least I'm in the clear. Can't speak for you clowns, though:


ht: R 4 '12

5 comments:

Beetz McDogg said...

Not sure what I'm doing wrong but I keep on going back to the first question. Maybe next time we get together someone can splain to me. Plus ACORN told me if Bomma got in I aint gotsa do no mo readin

SheaHeyKid said...

also your gas should be free

dark commenteer said...

Well as pointed out by Caboose on Facebook:

A car at 15mpg/12k miles per year uses 800 gal a yr of gas. A car at 25mpg/12k miles per year uses 480 gal a yr. The average clunker gone will reduce consumption by 320 gal per yr. They claim 700k cars so that's 224,000,000 gal/yr. That's a... bit over 5 million barrels (bbl) of oil. 5 mil bbl of oil is about 1 days US use. 5 mil bbl costs about $350 million at $75/bbl. We spent $3 billion to save $350 million.

Fredo said...

Let me play devil's advocate:

Well, assuming all Caboose's facts and math are correct (which I always do), that means this investment pays itself back in about 8.5 years (at $75/barrel). Plus, it reduces crude demand, prevents some pollution at the margins, and provided a short term incentive for capital expenditures in the midst of a deep recession.

Don't know why I'm doing this.

Fredo said...

Just to be clear, I was against cash-for-clunkers, but more on philosophical grounds than anything else.

There were several questions regarding this program that are worth addressing:

1. Was it actually an economic "stimulus"?

It's a grey area, but it seems to be a "yes." I'll spare you the analysis, but you could write reams on this point alone.

2. Do we want/need more "stimulus"?

Again, something of a value judgment. You can always stimulate the economy today by spending tomorrow's tax dollars today. At what point do you cross the marginal benefit barrier? The first dollar of deficit spending? The first billion? The first trillion? I'd say we're way past the threshold, wherever it may lie.

3. What message does this send the American people? Does it change how we understand our nation's economic legacy, or capitalistic heritage?

This is the main problem I have with cash-for-clunkers, refundable tax credits, government-imposed mortgage refis, or most any direct "stimulus" program. Are we self-reliant, or pawns of the government? Why should I buy a car today if I might get reimbursed next year? Or maybe I should by today, and spend money I don't have, b/c next year when I'll need a car, I might not be able to get the government subsidy. These types of programs create all kinds of economic inefficiencies.

But what may be worse, they also create a mindset among citizens that the government will dictate when to buy things; that the government is responsible for making things "affordable." A terrible precedent, IMHO.

AddThis

Bookmark and Share

Always sniffing for the truth

Always sniffing for the truth

Blog Archive

Follow by Email