Conor Friedersdorf offers a sensibility to the debate over the effectiveness and efficiencies of the Cash for Clunkers program. Just becasue the arguments of the loudest critics are crazy and make no sense that does not mean the there are no good arguments against the program. Friedersdorf writes:"Just because the right includes a lot of people making very bad arguments right now doesn’t make the people they’re arguing against right. It’s a lesson I learned when I saw the behavior of bombastic, juvenile folks on the left translate into support for President Bush’s bid to invade Iraq."Friedersdorf offers these places as good arguments against Clunkers:
Radley Balko
Challenging Jon Stewart's treatment of Democrats, Balko takes issue with Stewart piece on Clunkers. Balko breaks it down to a mathematical equation:
(all of the energy that went into making the old car) + (the energy it will take to destroy it) + (all of the energy it took to make the new car) + ($3,500)
Rich Lowry
Lowry argues that Clunkers only creates an illusion of demand. Essentially reducing future demand. Also, destruction of the trade in cars is a waste of goods with economic value.
Derek Thompson:
Thompson point is that C4C, as he calls it, incentivizes the purchase of environmentally unfriendly SUVs and has only encouraged auto sales that would have happened soon regardless of C4C. Unlikely to increase the annual auto sales number. Sphere: Related Content
No comments:
Post a Comment