Jalopnik 
Enter your username and password.
-
posts about #catoinstitute more → 
The Broken Windshield Fallacy: A Libertarian Argument Against Cash For Clunkers
Detroit, 1:04 AM
Thu Dec 3
32 posts in the last 24 hours
Tip your editors:
Editor-in-Chief:
Ray Wert | | AIM
Road Test Editor:
Wes Siler |
Weekend Editor:
Murilee Martin |
Associate Editor - Houston:
Associate Editor - Detroit:
Editor-at-Large:
Contributors:
John Krewson |
| posts about #catoinstitute more → |
The Broken Windshield Fallacy: A Libertarian Argument Against Cash For Clunkers |
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.
09/02/09
That being said it does appear that you quoted the most agreeable portion of the article. The problem being that The Cato Institute is simply being disingenuous by implying that they care about poor people in developing countries.
09/02/09
08/31/09
Using tax payer dollars to bail out people cause the car they owned was obsolete.
In that case they should buy all the old shitty energy leeching TVs and electronics from people.
09/02/09
There are tax incentives for people to do lots of things; buy homes, get married, have kids, donate to charity, invest, save for retirement, etc... Why is buying a new car any different?
Furthermore, it isn't only the car buyer; its the dealerships and their employees, it's the auto companies and their employees, part suppliers, etc.., it's finance companies writing loans, insurance companies writing new policies... The list could go on an on depending on how far down the line you would like to go.
It always, for whatever reason, surprises me how simple some people's understanding of really anything is. I can only assume it's rooted in some anti-understanding, anti-context, anti-knowledge philosophy I'm just not aware of.
08/31/09
You can tell he's uncomfortable with his own arguments. "So replacing old cars with new ones requires a big up-front energy investment." Duh, and the consumption of the USA auto fleet goes down. Mission accomplished.
08/31/09
Just remember the kinds of cars produced in the highly successful Socialist paradises of the 20th century - Ladas and Trabants.
Now that Fiat owns Chrysler, maybe we can get our own version of the Fiat 128.
08/31/09
You know, like with agriculture.
09/02/09
08/31/09
This way most of the used cars trickling down to poor folks in the future will be fairly fuel efficient, so there won't be so much flak flying about the poor paying an unfair share of an increased gas tax, because "fortunately" our wise government had the foresight to cull all the guzzlers from the system before this happened.
08/31/09
A free (or heavily discounted) car would allow poor people to get a job that riding the bus or walking would not normally allow them to get.
So while the CARS program benefited the middle class immensely (ie those who can afford, or nearly afford a new car), the lower classes were left without any real benefit.
08/31/09
The argument was, hey, if cars last forever, all these people are going to be out of work!
And the holes in the arguments were that cars would still die, gradually, as they aged; and that most people don't wait until the car is completely junkered out to get a new one. The real motive was greed, of course; good profit is not enough, we want excessive profit.
CFC is based on equally bad premises; if you really wanted to help the environment, you would have to do the math on every car; if I want to trade mine in, an existing used car with high mileage is even better than making a new car for me, depending on the cars in question. Forcing me to buy a new one helps car dealers, not the environment so much. And the poorest people, who might be driving really old and crappy cars, aren't benefited anyway.
Plus, it's obscene to destroy anything perfectly good that might help someone in need.
08/31/09
The tragedy is in the implementation.
The inclusion criteria could've/should've been better written. There was no real need to scrap the cars, and even in scrapping, there was no need to kill the motors or accelerate their destruction.
I'm curious to see what happens to car sales for the rest of the year. Time will tell whether the program generated sales that wouldn't otherwise have happened, or just compressed the rest of the year's sales into two months.
08/31/09
If you had the money or desire for a new car this year, you would have thought very hard about doing it when you could get a practically free $4500 and would scramble to do so - considering the numbers of affluent people out there driving ginormous SUVs who were bitching about gas prices last summer, it's not hard to imagine they were still able to afford a new vehicle in this situation (if they hadn't done so already last year).
When I read that they automakers were spooling up manufacturing lines again, I thought "EFFING STUPID" because they still have a huge backlog of cars available (just not CARS - able) and and this will most likely only serve to 'double dip' the recession. In a few months those lines will have to be shut down again, and all those cars will sit, waiting for another CARS program.
I hope I'm wrong but since I wont be in the market for a new car, ever (not at $10/hr., anyways) I could give a sh*t less...
08/31/09
I'm surprised how popular the program was. I figured there weren't that many people around that had a vehicle worth less than $3500-4500, but did have money for a new car payment.
The doomsayers are predicting a wave of auto-repos to follow, as many of these people might not have actually had the cash for their new cars.
09/01/09
I said in another thread how most people able to pick up a more fuel-efficient vehicle probably did so last summer before the meltdown and wouldnt bother to pick up another car payment now. I stand by that thinking and will probably be proven correct in the end.
In the meantime, I'm seriously wish I'd gotten an apartment with a garage/space to work on my lil mazda. Not that many were clunker'd, but you could practically re-build about 100 different models/makes for damn cheap right now. Thinking the next Lemons is going to be jam-packed with some fantastic, legitimate sub-$500 junkyard parts beaters.
If only I had a job right now...
08/31/09
The parable describes a shopkeeper whose window is broken by a little boy. Everyone sympathizes with the man whose window was broken, but pretty soon they start to suggest that the broken window makes work for the glazier, who will then buy bread, benefiting the baker, who will then buy shoes, benefiting the cobbler, etc. Finally, the onlookers conclude that the little boy was not guilty of vandalism; instead he was a public benefactor, creating economic benefits for everyone in town.
Bastiat's original parable of the broken window went like this:
Have you ever witnessed the anger of the good shopkeeper, James Goodfellow, when his careless son happened to break a pane of glass? If you have been present at such a scene, you will most assuredly bear witness to the fact, that every one of the spectators, were there even thirty of them, by common consent apparently, offered the unfortunate owner this invariable consolation—"It is an ill wind that blows nobody good. Everybody must live, and what would become of the glaziers if panes of glass were never broken?"
Now, this form of condolence contains an entire theory, which it will be well to show up in this simple case, seeing that it is precisely the same as that which, unhappily, regulates the greater part of our economical institutions.
Suppose it cost six francs to repair the damage, and you say that the accident brings six francs to the glazier's trade—that it encourages that trade to the amount of six francs—I grant it; I have not a word to say against it; you reason justly. The glazier comes, performs his task, receives his six francs, rubs his hands, and, in his heart, blesses the careless child. All this is that which is seen.
But if, on the other hand, you come to the conclusion, as is too often the case, that it is a good thing to break windows, that it causes money to circulate, and that the encouragement of industry in general will be the result of it, you will oblige me to call out, "Stop there! Your theory is confined to that which is seen; it takes no account of that which is not seen."
It is not seen that as our shopkeeper has spent six francs upon one thing, he cannot spend them upon another. It is not seen that if he had not had a window to replace, he would, perhaps, have replaced his old shoes, or added another book to his library. In short, he would have employed his six francs in some way, which this accident has prevented.[2][3]
[edit] Fallacy of the argument
The fallacy of the onlookers' argument is that they considered only the benefits of purchasing a new window, but they ignored the cost to the shopkeeper. As the shopkeeper was forced to spend his money on a new window, he could not spend it on something else. For example, the shopkeeper might have preferred to spend the money on bread and shoes for himself (thus enriching the baker and cobbler), but now cannot because he must fix his window.
Thus, the child did not bring any net benefit to the town. Instead, he made the town poorer by at least the value of one window, if not more. His actions benefited the glazier, but at the expense not only of the shopkeeper, but the baker and cobbler as well. Moreover, the benefit to the glazier is relatively small, because most of what he charges is to compensate him for his tedious and strenuous labour, as well as the materials he uses.
08/31/09
08/31/09
08/31/09
08/31/09
08/31/09
08/31/09
When it comes to comments, usually the longer the comment (particularly on a contentious issue) the more rant-y it is. The more rant-y it is, the more likely it'll be a spouting off of a viewpoint I'm already familiar with.
08/31/09
Actually, I did read your whole long post. I know exactly what you mean. But I can usually read the first paragraph or two to decide if I'll bother with the rest. I can stop reading once it gets too ranty.
08/31/09
08/31/09
this country is insane.
08/31/09
Cars don't end up in the Pacific garbage gyre, plastic bags and packaging material does.
08/31/09
08/31/09
Not everybody lives in Dixie, where it seldom snows, or southern California, where it nearly never does. If I did, I'd probably still be driving my '86 Dodge Omni, that is, if my wife hasn't destroyed it by now (she's hard on machines). Heck, I might even have gotten a professional to properly fix the damn brakes.
But no, I live in the Snow Belt, so I get a new car every decade or so no matter how much I loved my old car. And don't even say jack about how I shouldn't drive it in winter. I don't hibernate from December to April like some species.
08/31/09
The alternative is oiling the underside of the car - my nearly-rust-free '89 Volvo has spent almost all of its life up here in New England that way, but it makes a damn mess of the engine bay. Not a bad tradeoff, though, really.
08/31/09
08/31/09
If I were a more egotistic individual, I might look up my previous comments to this exact end.
/bleeding-heart lib
//-ertarian
08/31/09
08/31/09
08/31/09
08/31/09
08/31/09
08/31/09
08/31/09
08/31/09
Libertarioans enrich themselves the same way we all do - using their skill set and resources to maximize their personal situation. And most of them do not follow a scorched-earth policy.
Libertarians chafe at the thought of the government doing the thinking, or heavy lifting for them. And they won't trade potential for security.
08/31/09
I'd just about bet that if the government had instead implemented a system where subsidies would be given and the cars sent to developing nations, Cato would find plenty to complain about there, too.
None of this is to say that there aren't valid and compelling reasons to oppose the program. Just that this one sounds disingenuous.
08/31/09
08/31/09
How about this, send our clunkers to the third world and trade them for the death traps they have rattling around there and crush THEM?
08/31/09
08/31/09
08/31/09
08/31/09
08/31/09