Unintended clunker consequences

Lots of folks are being hurt by the auto-subsidy program.

Gary Jason

The Cal State Fullerton instructor is a contributing editor of Liberty

The idea that we can stimulate an economy by destroying things (and thereby creating work repairing or rebuilding them) is a fallacy common and antique enough to deserve a name. It is called the "broken windows" fallacy, and was debunked in 1850 by the French politicial economist Frederic Bastiat.

The theory is that if a vandal smashes my window, there is a good result: A job is created for a contractor I have to hire to fix it. But as Bastiat observed, while the money I spend to fix the window will employ the contractor, had my window not been broken, I could have purchased, for example, some shoes. That would have employed a shoemaker, so there really isn't a net gain in jobs Moreover, had my window not been broken, I would have both a good window and new shoes, instead of just a good window.

But President Barack Obama apparently hasn't read Bastiat, because he pushed through a willing Congress a "Cash for Clunkers" program, under which people are given up to $4,500 to trade in older cars to buy a new one. Under this truly asinine program, perfectly functional used cars are taken off the road and destroyed, creating work for autoworkers to make new cars. And the numbers are not trivial: We blew through $1 billion and destroyed a quarter-million used cars in the first couple of weeks. The Congress has approved another $2 billion, and the program may get renewed endlessly.

We are beginning to see the unintended negative consequences of this daffy deal.

The first is the one Bastiat indicated. The $3 billion being spent to destroy useful cars and buy new ones for a relatively small number of people will come from other taxpayers. That means that the other taxpayers =96 the ones stiffed on this deal =96 have $3 billion less to spend for the things they would have liked to buy, so commensurately fewer workers outside the automotive industry will be employed. Moreover, the stiffed taxpayers will have fewer things that they wanted.

The second unintended consequence is ironical. The program essentially deprives workers in nonautomotive industries of work in order to employ more people in the automotive industry, but that is proving problematic. Owners of independent auto repair shops are complaining of lost business =96 the work they would have had keeping those used cars running. So while some workers in the auto industry may have kept jobs building new cars, other workers in a related industry are losing their jobs repairing old cars.

And the automobile "aftermarket" of auto parts stores, repair shops, body shops and so on is a big industry =96 $250 billion a year and employing 4.6 million workers.

The irony here is not lost on the auto aftermarket people. Bill Wiygul, a repair shop owner, asked a reporter, "How do we get on the special-interests, special-treatment bandwagon? How much is it going to cost me and to whom shall I send the check? Who picks the winners in this game 'cause obviously the game is fixed."

Who picked the winners in this rigged game? A fellow named Obama. You will need to send a check to him. How much does it cost? The UAW and other unions gave Obama millions during his campaign, so you'd better be prepared to dig deep, amigo.

But in reality, the game is now closed. Since Obama nationalized GM and Chrysler he simply can't allow them to fail.

There is a third unintended consequence of the clunkers program. By destroying something like three-quarters of a million used cars, inventory that would normally be sold on used car lots, the prices of used cars are being driven up. Alec Gutierrez, senior market analyst with Kelley Blue Book, estimates that this program will raise used-car prices by 5 percent to 10 percent. So poor folks will find buying a car harder than ever

Reply to
Pete E. Kruzer
Loading thread data ...

Wait unitl you see how much a used engine will be costing in the near future now that they have been fried. Same goes for rebuilts as the blocks are no more.

Reply to
QX

I have posted about the "broken window" false economy before (before the current administration).

It seems that a lot of people in Congress - on both sides of the aisle - have such weak minds and a poor understanding of economics (it's taught as a fallacy in econ 101 pretty much everywhere) as to think it is a good economic theory, but it is especially strong among union supporters and those who believe in redistribution of wealth. No doubt, *many* people, though they have never had such a theory explicitly explained to them nor would they recognize it by name, would understand the concept and tell you they believe in it. And that is unfortunate because they vote.

Reply to
Bill Putney

Though economic growth in excess of losses is exactly what occurs after most natural and man-made disasters.

Reply to
News

A few thousand people in New Orleans might disagree with you on that. Politics aside, seriously (I know we have our differences) - how can you really believe that destruction increases overall wealth and quality of life? Yes - some are certainly enriched by any disaster, but overall, wealth has to be decreased. And certainly to base a political philosophy for improving people's lives on such theories is just wrong.

Reply to
Bill Putney

It's widely studied and understood. Google "economic resilience" and "disaster".

The Katrina exception is a manifestation of the prior administration's incompetence.

Reply to
News

Hah! Never mind. You're hopeless.

So you actually do believe in the "Broken Window" fallacy of economics in general (Katrina being an exception of course).

President Bush didn't cause Federal money that had been provided to New Orleans to enhance the levies to be used for local feel good projects instead.

Reply to
Bill Putney

Some questions for you: (1) Should California be rewarding the people who set the fires (instead of trying to find and prosecute them)? Are the fires a way of stimulating California's economy - lots of doors, windows, lumber, labor, etc. will be used to build new houses. (2) Should Obama be reimbursing insurance companies for all the fender benders and actually paying incentive payments to people who have accidents that don''t cause injury or death? After all, by the "broken window" and liberal logic, fender benders help the economy.

Oh - and for answering the above questions, assume a Democrat is in the white House - after all, we know that the "broken window" theory is only negated when a Republican is in the white House. When a Democrat is in the White House, anything bad that happens is good for everybody - by the "broken window" theory of economics.

Are you going to tell us that the broken window theory of economics only works when it is applied in controlled doses? IOW - how big of a disaster should we all be praying for to stimulate the economy without doing damage to it? Have the "experts" who believe in the "broken window" theory come up with the cross-over point in their calculations?

And are these the same "experts" and "scientists" who have been selling us on "Global Warming" all these years (and have now changed the name to "Climate Change" because even they can't lie to themselves any longer that the earth is on a warming cycle)? How long does Obama figure he has to *not* mention Global Warming? so that he can introduce a plan on Climate Change?, figuring that enough people will have forgotten that the claim was for the earth warming over that period of time?

Reply to
Bill Putney

The problem with your analysis is that it's just one of many possible theories and there is no more proof for your's then for any of the others. The total economy is too large and interconnected to be sure of much of anything being the result of anything else. Many people believe one of the biggest factors in having a good or bad economy is the mental state of the players. If everyone things the world is ending and stops buying stuff it slows down the economy. The point of the C4C as far as I'm concerned was to get some money circulating and improve the mental state. Does it impact other markets? Sure. Will the repair shops have a problem? Maybe, but maybe not since just a few weeks ago the "experts" were saying how much more business they would have due to people keeping their old cars and fixing them. Since there are many many millions of old cars in the country, it's unlikely that the C4C is eliminating ALL that new work.

Reply to
Ashton Crusher

It also reduces employment in the oil/gasoline business. The crushed vehicles burned more fuel than those that replaced them.

Those who resisted this deal and kept their oldie gas guzzling vehicle, may find it's value has slightly increased, due to a shortage of the bigger vehicles crushed.

Reply to
who

You can propose whatever outliers you choose, and you can study them.

The topic has been widely studied, understood and is settled. Google "economic resilience" and "disaster".

Reply to
News

OK - so you're on record as believing in the "broken window" theory of economics, and that when it comes to fixing an economy, governments should operate on the broken window philosophy.

Reply to
Bill Putney

And you're a wingnut. There, it's settled.

Reply to
News

Exactly. The reason the government should be hands off if they don't know the results of major things they are about to do with my money. Unintented consequences. That's why free market, with all its warts, works better than any economy micromanaged by a government.

Certainly true. So, did all the "stimulus" money to the banking industry get new projects and construction going again? Are they lending money? Or was it money wasted? My point about government micromanaging having the worst effect.

I understand the reasoning behind it. But it's just wrong to transfer my money to someone else on that basis. It's all payback to unions.

Reply to
Bill Putney

There's something like 300 million vehicles on the road, maybe twice that. Do you really think taking several hundred thousand of them off the road (and replacing them with an equal number of new ones) is going to have any meaningful effect on used vehicle prices?? At most, it might add $100 to the average cost of an old vehicle. Big deal.

Reply to
Ashton Crusher

The Katrina exception is a manifestation of the prior administration's incompetence.

I don't believe it was a manifestation of the prior administration's incompetence is entirely true despite the fact that; Having seen and witness first hand Hurricane Katrina I know first hand what the problem were. Money was pouring in left and right from both the Government and private sector. There were two many officials from the state, local and federal government and no one was coordinating because they all want to be in charge. Our babbling Governor Blanco at the time could not lead a horse to water prior to Katrina and surely could not handle the pressures of this disaster.

The biggest issue I see with the recovery is the residence in the New Orleans area want the government to give them everything. Many other areas besides New Orleans was destroyed and many have recovered over 90 percent without the governments help. There is still sections of New Orleans where houses have been left abandoned because the owners want someone else to rebuild it for them for free.

Reply to
Licker

Now that's not PC !! Some people won't be able to handle the truth.

Reply to
Ashton Crusher

I can just see a huge amount of Buick Electra 225's, 455 V-8's running around on the road. Maybe we will see people bringing their old 70's cars out of hiding and driving them again!

Reply to
Guy Caballero

Note to self.... new peak in .net stupidity achieved, 9/6/09, 8:40PM.

Reply to
Steve

No it doesn't. It just reduces (so negligibly as to be un-quantifiable) their sales to consumers, and shifts more sales to mining, raw materials transportation, ore refining, and other production processes.

Have you actually READ the list of "most clunkered" vehicles? Nothing collectible there. Some very good inexpensive, reliable, basic transportation, but nothing collectible.

NOTHING good came of that program. Not one iota.

Reply to
Steve

MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.