Breaking: Cash for Clunkers was a dumb idea

[Al B. Sure!]

Yeah, my INTRO ECON books never covered that kind of stuff. I never took any HR classes.

Well HC is 17 and has no idea what he's talking about which is kind of usual for him. His smug assumptions are kind of humorous though.

I took the obligatory introductory HR class and like 2-3 more as electives. All HR classes are about are laws and regulations, measures of efficiency/productivity, managerial ideas on how to best improve those areas (with a lot of case studies on the need to "Inspect before you Expect" and the pitfalls of this very "You get what you measure" issue), with some really dumb vague buzzwords thrown around (kind of like operations management classes). I'm amazed it's a major (but I'm also amazed Marketing is a major as well) since it seems like something you could all put in a weekend seminar.

[Hauldren Collider]

Yeah, my INTRO ECON books never covered that kind of stuff. I never took any HR classes.

I wasn't talking about your HR example, more the fact that it's obvious that the only thing CfC did was destroy wealth.

[Al B. Sure!]

I wasn't talking about your HR example, more the fact that it's obvious that the only thing CfC did was destroy wealth.

Let's review, shall we?

rah points out bad incentivizing... Ogie responds directly to him with:

The US is replete with examples of perverse company incentives. I would wager there are a number of books written on that subject alone.

You quote ogie, and state that the books often say economics 101 on them. Were you referring to some other books besides the ones just mentioned by Ogie? If so, why? What was the relevance? Ogie's hypothetical books obviously were regarding examples of perverse company incentives, such as rah's example. Did you think he was referencing books on Cash for Clunkers?

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Let's review, shall we?

rah points out bad incentivizing... Ogie responds directly to him with:


You quote ogie, and state that the books often say economics 101 on them. Were you referring to some other books besides the ones just mentioned by Ogie? If so, why? What was the relevance? Ogie's hypothetical books obviously were regarding examples of perverse company incentives, such as rah's example. Did you think he was referencing books on Cash for Clunkers?

My hypotheticals were likely real world examples submitted to Scott Adams.

[Snotty]

Taking old and inefficient gas guzzlers of the streets sounds like a good deal to me.

[Al B. Sure!]

My hypotheticals were likely real world examples submitted to Scott Adams.

And I have never seen Dilbert parody Cash for Clunkers or any other government macroeconomic policy, have you?

[Al B. Sure!]

Taking old and inefficient gas guzzlers of the streets sounds like a good deal to me.

So what will the poor drive? They'll be forced to not have cars?

There is a larger issue here though that people do need to stop driving so damn much. If people walked more, there would be less pollution, better health, etc. But people, especially Americans, are *********.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

And I have never seen Dilbert parody Cash for Clunkers or any other government macroeconomic policy, have you?

Not as such although the whole bueracracy is FUBAR motif certainly would apply.

[Snotty]

Al B thats probably the first thing youve said I agree with

in all seriousness my comment was pertinent due to the recent deepwater horizon catastrophe. Older American cars have a reputation for gross fuel inefficiency, and giving an incentive to remove these cars from the system gets two green thumbs up from me.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Taking old and inefficient gas guzzlers of the streets sounds like a good deal to me.

The latter part of the article describes the infinitesimal impact to overall fuel usage and pollution effects. Sounds good but.....

[Al B. Sure!]

Al B thats probably the first thing youve said I agree with

in all seriousness my comment was pertinent due to the recent deepwater horizon catastrophe. Older American cars have a reputation for gross fuel inefficiency, and giving an incentive to remove these cars from the system gets two green thumbs up from me.

Yeah but you do see why this destruction of old vehicles is problematic, right? The poor guy whose car breaks down can't afford the new fuel efficient car even with the rebate and with having to repair it to make it road-worthy since clunkers needed to be in drivable condition to be eligible for the trade-in. So this guy is first to buy a gas guzzler for his next car purchase but with all these used cars being destroyed, the prices for used cars is increased. In sum:

No great insight was needed to realize that Cash for Clunkers would work a hardship on people unable to afford a new car. “All this program did for them,’’ I wrote last August, “was guarantee that used cars will become more expensive. Poorer drivers will be penalized to subsidize new cars for wealthier drivers.’’ Alec Gutierrez, a senior analyst for Kelley Blue Book, predicted that used-car prices would surge by up to 10 percent. “It’s going to drive prices up on some of the most affordable vehicles we have on the road,’’ he told USA Today. In short, Washington spent nearly $3 billion to raise the price of mobility for drivers on a budget.

[Snotty]

Wow, I got pulled up for commenting without having read the article. Fair play guys, shame on me.

I wish I was right though

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

In somewhat related news, Obama thwarted a second time from destroying 23000 jobs

http://online.wsj.com/article/NA_WSJ...384563880.html'

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE68050620100901?feedType=RSS&feedName=politicsNews&rpc=22&sp=true

[Hauldren Collider]

[Kuciwalker]

They did, actually. But Cash for Clunkers was quite popular with the economically-illiterate masses of Kidicious clones.

Kuci was telling me a while back about a friend who actually got a broken car repaired just so that it could be destroyed to get a cash for clunkers rebate.

Pretty sure that was Jaguar.