Congress Just Buying People Cars Now(economist.com) |
Congress Just Buying People Cars Now(economist.com) |
I wonder how much non-drivers' taxpayer money goes to subsidizing others' choices of transportation like this...
Anyway, Yes, people still buy cars, that's for sure. Not as much as before, it is one of the industries that is hit hardest by the so called crisis. The theory goes that if the car industry can be rescued at least when we get out of this crisis the recovery will be a bit quicker.
Good point about the non-drivers' taxpayer money though, I hadn't thought about that at all. It's not an obvious point and - as a driver - I would feel uncomfortable about using such a subsidy but then again I have tried hard to stay away from subsidies as much as I can.
My theory is that subsidies are a subtle way of getting in to an unsustainable situation, it's living above your means by another name.
Sure, everybody else does it but that doesn't mean it is a good thing. Some subsidies I can see the point of, such as subsidized housing or food for people below the minimum income level required to have a chance to get out of that situation. But even there there are two sides to the coin, for some that works well, others lose their self respect because of receiving the money and give up altogether.
There are no easy choices these days, 'cash-for-clunkers', even if it is asymmetrical and will not have the positive effect on the economy that the pundits claim it will have has some positive side effects. Transportation is one of the major engines of the American economy, what with the government now being a large - and somewhat involuntary - shareholder in a car company you can't really blame them if they want to at least improve the market for vehicles so they can recover some of the money through the backdoor and create the right conditions for an exit.
Another downside of the cash-for-clunkers program is that it moves sales that would have happened anyway into a shorter window of time nearer to the present. The usual effect of such an activity is that it will be followed by a slump.
This program could have required a 10 mpg improvement and could have been set up to require at least 28 mpg on the new vehicle, by using two different numbers, and it would still be very successful and have made the US less dependent on foreign oil imports. Oops.
Too much influence have the firms that make "campaign contributions".
Bonus points if the carpenter eats a low animal-protein diet.
I'm not advocating that we don't produce things--I just think we often overlook the costs of production when we look at environmental factors.
I appreciate this perspective, though. I've ridden my bike to work for the last eight years. My family lives in the city (I live not far from where I grew up) and we use public transportation. And I agree with the Economist--this program is really about getting people to buy new cars.
Cars? People still buy those things?
Yes. Why not? They're a tool, just like everything else. My family really enjoys traveling, so we (four of us) own one car. More often than not, it's parked in front of our house. We walk, bike, and bus ourselves around when we can. But it's also nice to be able to leave the city on the weekend and go camping and climbing. Or visit family. Acting as if you are on a higher moral plain because you can't comprehend why people still buy cars doesn't do much to advance the conversation and convince people to rethink some of their lifestyle choices.
That said, as I mentioned, I think this subsidy is a terrible idea.