Cash for Clunkers: It's Still a Clunker

More

Regular readers of this site will know that I am no leaping cheerleader of Cash for Clunkers, the government's auto revitalization program that gives away up to $4500 for new cars. We shouldn't be paying people do destroy working capital, it's rotten for used-car dealerships (who actually do something with the old cars besides junk their engine) and its apparent popularity is, I think, the product of historic pent-up demand for cars, which means we're paying people thousands of dollars for cars they might have bought later this year anyway.

Today I've stumbled upon two pieces of information that make me proud of trying to sound the alarm of C4C -- but also a bit sad for those billions of taxpayer dollars.


1) How environmental, again?
The environmental bonafides of this program have long been under question. Even though the program requires buyers to update to a more efficient vehicle, it's much easier to qualify for a rebate if you're buying an SUV than a car. On the one hand, a small miles-per-gallon upgrade among hoggish SUVs will make a bigger net difference in emissions than a medium-sized MPG upgrade improvement among cars that are already fuel efficient. On the other hand, the program seemed stacked to encourage more SUV purchases.

The first figures from the government on C4C-purchased cars surprised me. It said that the most popular new cars were almost exclusively small ones like the Ford Focus and Toyota Prius. But via invaluable commenter "ed," I've stumbled upon this report from Edmunds.com, which placed two trucks in the top 10 most popular vehicle list and named that crossover SUV Ford Escape the number one purchase.

2) Suffer the charities.
I always suspected that C4C would be bad for used car dealerships (no surprise, it is), but I forgot to think about the charities. Sounds like I'm not the only one:

Volunteers of America and other charities that receive tens of thousands of cars each year said such donations have quickly fallen up to 12 percent -- and fear a 25 percent drop eventually, or over $100 million -- as owners rush to trade gas guzzlers for new fuel-efficient models while federal rebates last.

So look, not to be all nah-nah about it, because I understand that the government has a legitimate interest in not only boosting car sales but also perpetuating the idea that consumer demand is on the rebound, but I still think Cash for Clunkers is getting too much praise in the media. Also, consumer spending still stinks overall. In fact, non-auto consumer spending was down in July at a 0.6 percent clip after rising by 0.6 percent in June. Could Cash for Clunkers actually be hurting non-auto consumption? Meh, I won't go there. Not yet at least.

Jump to comments
Presented by

Derek Thompson is a senior editor at The Atlantic, where he writes about economics, labor markets, and the entertainment business.

Get Today's Top Stories in Your Inbox (preview)

Juice Cleanses: The Worst Diet

A doctor tries the ever-popular Master Cleanse. Sort of.


Elsewhere on the web

Join the Discussion

After you comment, click Post. If you’re not already logged in you will be asked to log in or register. blog comments powered by Disqus

Video

Juice Cleanses: The Worst Diet

A doctor tries the ever-popular Master Cleanse. Sort of.

Video

Why Did I Study Physics?

Using hand-drawn cartoons to explain an academic passion

Video

What If Emoji Lived Among Us?

A whimsical ad imagines what life would be like if emoji were real.

Video

Living Alone on a Sailboat

"If you think I'm a dirtbag, then you don't understand the lifestyle."

Feature

The Future of Iced Coffee

Are artisan businesses like Blue Bottle doomed to fail when they go mainstream?

Writers

Up
Down

More in Business

Just In