Thursday, September 24, 2009
Whew!
At least I'm in the clear. Can't speak for you clowns, though:
ht: R 4 '12
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
AddThis
Always sniffing for the truth
Contributors
Links
- Love and Lunchmeat
- Long Island Prepper
- Fredo's Mets Blog
- Continental Sausage
- Human Events
- Maker's Mark
- Michelle Malkin
- National Review
- Newt Gingrich
- NRO
- Pro Ecclesia
- Ralfy's Whisky Reviews
- Red Albany
- Res Publica et Cetera
- Sour Mash Manifesto
- Straight Bourbon
- Taki Mag
- The American Conservative
- The American Spectator
- The Anchoress Online
- The Politico
- The Weekly Standard
- Wild Turkey Bourbon
Blog Archive
-
▼
2009
(304)
-
▼
September
(18)
- There, I Fixed It
- RIP
- Might want to tighten up the posting procedure a b...
- Joke of the Day
- Something's Not Adding Up
- More goodies from the Tube
- Real Men of Congress
- Whew!
- Dumb-ocracy
- Obamacare Close to Home
- Happy Steuben Day
- 5 to grow on
- It's the people, stupid.
- Today's quote of the day
- Wow!
- For All You Giants Fans Out There
- Why Am I Not Surprised
- Ahh, the Classics...
-
▼
September
(18)
5 comments:
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
also your gas should be free
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.
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.
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.