[Waymninelia]

* MrFun pours some sodium silicate solution into Drake's beer.

[Nidsstese]

This is a dumb program. Giveaways to special interests like this erode my confidence that the leadership in Washington has any clue what they are doing with taxpayer money.

The fact that they're screwing the pooch on administration of the program doesn't help.

[seekfrieddy]

Jaguar told me his parents got an old car that didn't work repaired so that they could trade it in under this program.

This whole thing is just the broken window fallacy.

[Pszinygv]

I'm not an auto worker, so no.

[Retapleapse]

But it's being now criticized because it makes it harder to find old, used engines to put into cars?

It's being criticized because the whole plan is idiotic and creates perverse incentives.

[steevyjeors]

Cash for clunkers would have been a good idea if it had gone into effect 6 months or a year ago. This is a demonstration of one of the key reasons that Keynsian stimulus spending is so hard to do. Even fairly simple cash incentives to consume take far, far too long to work their way through the legislative and bureaucratic process. Recessions usually last less than a year. This recession lasted from Dec. 07 to (at a guess) June/July 09, but nobody knew we were in a recession (or how deep it would be) until the middle/end of 08.

In actuality, government spending often ends up being a DESTABLIZER. Backed up demand is supplemented by government spending that comes on line too late. In order to act as a stabilizer, fiscal policy needs to be automated. For example, if the US had a national sales/value-added tax then it could be set at a rate which was dependent on GDP outlook for the current quarter (say, via the aggregate leading indicator). Forward-looking agents would be incentivized to purchase during periods of weak growth/recession (before taxes rose again during the recovery) and this would tend to mediate downturns.

[DeilMikina]

a) "Dead cat bounce" doesn't mean anything. It's just a catchphrase for people who feel the need to explain something which is currently beyond our understanding.

b) Nobody can predict the future perfectly. But I think it's more likely than not that the worst is well behind us. Economic forecasting is a bit of a crystal ball. But as soon as we start talking about fiscal stimuli we're engaging in it implicitly, so we should at least do the BEST we can with it, rather than throwing in an additional 6 month or 1 year delay between data and action.

[Rqvtwlfk]

Well the purpose of the program is to reduce harmful emissions, yes? In order to do that (from an economics standpoint) you will create some economic inefficiency.

No, that's not the problem. In fact, reducing emissions only creates "economic inefficiency" when you aren't counting the emissions as harmful. The problem is that this has a huge deadweight cost associated with it that other methods of reducing emissions don't.

[k1ePRlda]

I'm not going to bother to address the Clunkers program in terms of its environmental impact because that's too ridiculous for words.

[famosetroie]

Judging by the amount of people taking advantage of this program, it seems to me that it's nothing but a complete success.

Unfortunately, what it seems and what it is are completely different animals.

[erepsysoulpfbs]

Judging by the amount of people taking advantage of this program, it seems to me that it's nothing but a complete success.

Unfortunately, what it seems and what it is are completely different animals. Well, I happen to think that it would be a good idea for the government to just give away cars. So this program, stimulating new car purchases in a roundabout way, seems good.

C'mon now. It's not like the money used for this program is actually worth anything anyways. It's only backed by the full faith and credit of the US government.

The only way this program is bad is if you aren't smart enough to take advantage of it.

[Timoxari]

The government should never plan things.

[tramdoctorsss]

Well, I happen to think that it would be a good idea for the government to just give away cars.

If you don't wanna pay for your car, why should I pay for your car?

[loikrso]

The poor administration of the program does not inspire confidence, true. Setting aside whether or not the program itself was a good idea (I thought it made a modicum of sense, actually), that's just poor form.

-Arrian

[kucheravka]

The argument isn't that the government is buying a car, it's that they are stimulating an industry. Reduction of auto inventories should lead to a need to refill inventories which will benefit everyone from the car maker, to the part maker, to the diner owner across the street from the part maker, etc...

IMO, the Cash for Clunkers was the first sign of intelligence by the government since the recession started and is the type of program money should be spent on. Much better than giving the arseholes at Goldman Sachs bigger bonuses for fvcking the system up.

[Muramoursuard]

Much better than giving the arseholes at Goldman Sachs bigger bonuses for fvcking the system up.

Goldman's already repaid the amount they were loaned, plus 26%.

[Quality4Qty]

Much better than giving the arseholes at Goldman Sachs bigger bonuses for fvcking the system up.

Goldman's already repaid the amount they were loaned, plus 26%. And I wonder how they did that? I guess it helps when you regulate yourself.

[xanaxonlinexanax]

IB != HF

I was going to say "everyone on Wall Street", but I felt that was generalizing a bit much. I didn't care so much as to get it right, so I threw the first evil sounding job that came to mind. As, DD would say, my give a **** is broken on that one.

[Voliscietle]

amazingly retarded

[Siliespiriulk]

Re: Goldman...

The latest criticism is that the gummint handed billions to AIG, and AIG turned around and paid off Goldman at 100 cents on the dollar. Therefore, it was a (not so) stealth bailout of Goldman. So the argument goes. Is this silly? If so, why, exactly?

-Arrian