CARS Problems
When I first heard about our country’s new CARS program, my reaction was, “Hey! Free money if I trade in my Durango for a new SUV! Despite the dumb name, this seems like an excellent plan! Almost too good to be true!”
Of course, that should make us stop and think about it.
And I have. I have some problems with this new plan. I get the sales pitch: Make it easier to buy a new, more fuel-efficient vehicle. Help out the auto makers by increasing sales. Help out the environment by replacing a number of higher-pollution vehicles with lower-pollution vehicles. Reduce our oil dependency by replacing a number of less efficient vehicles with more efficient vehicles. And I get a new car. Everybody wins!
Well, I do have a number of problems with it.
I have a nomenclature problem. I don’t understand why we have to come up with a cute little acronym name for this program. It is also known as “Cash for Clunkers,” which is equally dumb. My 1998 Durango, which definitely qualifies for the full $4500 rebate, has been a great vehicle for me, runs quite well, and is definitely not a clunker by my definition. This lets you know what sort of vehicle standards the folks in Washington have, and how disconnected they are from the world in which their constituents live.
I have a fundamental problem. It should not be the place of the government to get involved in consumer affairs like this. We’ve had a lot of ever-increasing government intervention in society over the last 60+ years, but rarely has this intervention actually done any good; often it hurts more than it actually helps.
I have a financial problem. Where does all of this money come from? Well, ultimately it has to come from the pockets of the taxpayers, either in increased taxes or in increased prices due to inflation caused by printing money to cover it.
I have a principle problem. Taking a perfectly good, functioning vehicle and scrapping it is flat-out wasteful. There’s this part of my being that screams out that we can’t expect a net good to come from a plan that isn’t founded in solid principles.
I have an economics problem. Junking these cars will have an inflationary effect on the general price of cars. It’s simple supply and demand. Given a closed ecosystem with 100 car owners with one car each, suppose 10 are new and 20 qualify for the CARS program. Under normal conditions, we might assume that twenty people are buying a car each year, half of them are buying new and half are buying used, and so ten cars are cycling through the ecosystem per year. Now you inject CARS into the mix. There will be people participating who might normally not have bought this year at all, or who might have bought this year but would normally have bought used instead of new. If half of the 20 participate, and half of those would not have normally bought this year at all, that means instead of 10 new cars entering the ecosystem we have 18, if my math is right. To balance it, there must be 18 older cars leaving the ecosystem instead of the normal 10. What you end up with is fewer used cars — 82% are used instead of 90% — and the average car value has gone up. But note that, at best, the economic condition of the people in the group hasn’t changed. In fact, it should have gone down by around $400 per person ($3500 to 4500 times ten participants, divided among all 100 participants). With fewer used vehicles in the ecosystem but the same number of buyers, the demand for used vehicles will go up, driving up the price of used vehicles.
So if you already own a used vehicle in that ecosystem it is only partially bad, because the value of your used car should be higher now. It’s only a problem if you want to buy. But I’m not sure this will help automakers beyond this year. What effect will higher used-car values have on new car sales? I think you could just as easily argue that it will hurt as much as it will help.
At any rate, it causes yet another economic bubble. This program artificially inflates the market for car sales and makes adjustments to the ecosystem, based not on the GDP of the people in the ecosystem but on government intervention to make affordable a good that is less affordable if free market economics are left to do their thing. The government tried this same tactic with the general housing market, and I think history shows that did not turn out too well.
So what we really have here is yet another government program with a dumb name, based on poor principles, with dubious economics at best, that you and I get to pay for.
It’s doubtful it will do anything but hurt us in the long term. Which is why I’m considering participating. I mean, if I have to pay for it anyway, I might as well get a new SUV and $4500 out of the deal.











