Comments on: “Cash for clunkers is war on the middle class” but why not trade one in?

By: mario@online car sales

mario@online car sales — Tue, 01 Sep 2009 02:06:04 +0000

America went at its richest when taxes to the rich were at their highest, somewhere near 90% of earnings, and when its social safety net was at its tightest ever. That was in the ’50s and the ’60s.

I was struck, a few years ago, about how much market economy is deeply related with religion in Anglo-Saxon protestant communities.

Anglo-Saxon and WASP communities are tough to be pragmatic in every sphere of living… But not in economic life.

Something doesn’t look quite as it should in this picture, where you see ideologues preach what is honorable and what is not honorable in economy and not calling their discourse a religion, their discourse not being more founded in verifiable facts than any self respecting religion.

It must be a matter of the numbers of people who are following since it’s not a matter of facts.

By: Lord

Lord — Mon, 24 Aug 2009 19:16:24 +0000

“is invariably going to make us poorer as a whole”

Probably, but not certainly. Lack of stimulus would also have been costly as idle factories, idle workers, and idle money also have significant costs, even more so when they lead to more idleness. It is not merely a question of the cost of program but the cost of the alternatives.

By: Jake Stichler

Jake Stichler — Mon, 24 Aug 2009 17:49:27 +0000

1. My insurance is liability only, so no.

2. Why yes, the last time I saw my doctor I did pay in cash, as I lacked insurance.

3. You’re absolutely right, which is why this last time, I did get unemployment benefits. Even if I am paying in to it, I still see it as a form of welfare. Similar to Social Security, really.

By: Jon

Jon — Mon, 24 Aug 2009 14:57:20 +0000

Jake:
When you get in a car accident do you not file a claim with your auto insurance either? When you get sick do you pay your doctor in cash instead of using your insurance? To me it seems only a fool would buy insurance (unemployment insurance in this case) and then not file for a legitimate claim. Just because it’s compulsory (like auto insurance in most states and health insurance in Massachusetts) doesn’t take away the fact that it’s still an insurance plan. Yes, I too would like to have a self-insurance option for unemployment but not making legitimate claims is not going to help prove the point. In fact, quite the opposite is possible. By paying for the insurance but not making claims you only make it seem more effective to the bean counters and politicians to see it as a success.

By: Chris

Chris — Sun, 23 Aug 2009 19:25:49 +0000

I wasn’t referring to you specifically with that statement. But if it merely moved up car purchases that were going to occur within the next 6-12 months anyway (which I believe is what it has done), then what did it really stimulate?

Another thing at has done that is detrimental is remove perfectly good cars from the buying pool. The ones they are destroying could have been purchased by someone else who needed a reliable car for cheap.

By: mbhunter

mbhunter — Sun, 23 Aug 2009 19:19:18 +0000

Jake: That was noble. Lots of people don’t think that way.

Chris: A stimulus is a stimulus. Just because it only affects people at the margins (those who were close to buying anyway) doesn’t matter. More cars will be sold because of the stimulus. I wasn’t claiming that it people who had no intention of buying would all of a sudden go out to get one.

By: Chris

Chris — Sun, 23 Aug 2009 13:00:36 +0000

C4C did not stimulate anything. If you believe people who had no intention of buying a car went out and bought one anyway because of C4C, then you are fooling yourself. C4C only pushed up purchases that would have occurred anyway within the next 6-12 months. So now, the purchases won’t be made. I bet you will see the number of car purchases drop substantially in the next few months. That’s the law of unintended consequences that always occurs when the government meddles in the free market. They will never learn.

By: Jake Stichler

Jake Stichler — Sun, 23 Aug 2009 08:16:48 +0000

I went unemployed for a good stretch a couple years ago and refused to file for unemployment benefits. Had a nice long discussion over the phone about it with a fellow libertarian, who didn’t seem to understand where I was coming from for a bit (which was odd).

Being opposed to the ridiculous taxation in this country, however, I see nothing wrong with taking tax credits. The less taxes, the better. I prefer to just pay as few taxes as possible in the first place, though.