Unintended clunker consequences

Bill Putney wrote:
> News wrote:
>> Bill Putney wrote:
>>> News wrote:
>>>> Pete E. Kruzer wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> The idea that we can stimulate an economy by destroying things (and
>>>>> thereby creating work repairing or rebuilding them) is a fallacy
>>>>> common and antique enough to deserve a name.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Though economic growth in excess of losses is exactly what occurs
>>>> after most natural and man-made disasters.
>>>
>>> A few thousand people in New Orleans might disagree with you on that.
>>> Politics aside, seriously (I know we have our differences) - how can
>>> you really believe that destruction increases overall wealth and
>>> quality of life? Yes - some are certainly enriched by any disaster,
>>> but overall, wealth has to be decreased. And certainly to base a
>>> political philosophy for improving people's lives on such theories is
>>> just wrong.
>>>
>>
>> It's widely studied and understood. Google "economic resilience" and
>> "disaster".
>>
>> The Katrina exception is a manifestation of the prior administration's
>> incompetence.
>
> Some questions for you:
> (1) Should California be rewarding the people who set the fires (instead
> of trying to find and prosecute them)? Are the fires a way of
> stimulating California's economy - lots of doors, windows, lumber,
> labor, etc. will be used to build new houses.
> (2) Should Obama be reimbursing insurance companies for all the fender
> benders and actually paying incentive payments to people who have
> accidents that don''t cause injury or death? After all, by the "broken
> window" and liberal logic, fender benders help the economy.
>
> Oh - and for answering the above questions, assume a Democrat is in the
> white House - after all, we know that the "broken window" theory is only
> negated when a Republican is in the white House. When a Democrat is in
> the White House, anything bad that happens is good for everybody - by
> the "broken window" theory of economics.
>
> Are you going to tell us that the broken window theory of economics only
> works when it is applied in controlled doses? IOW - how big of a
> disaster should we all be praying for to stimulate the economy without
> doing damage to it? Have the "experts" who believe in the "broken
> window" theory come up with the cross-over point in their calculations?
>
> And are these the same "experts" and "scientists" who have been selling
> us on "Global Warming" all these years (and have now changed the name to
> "Climate Change" because even they can't lie to themselves any longer
> that the earth is on a warming cycle)? How long does Obama figure he
> has to *not* mention Global Warming™ so that he can introduce a plan on
> Climate Change™, figuring that enough people will have forgotten that
> the claim was for the earth warming over that period of time?
>


You can propose whatever outliers you choose, and you can study them.

The topic has been widely studied, understood and is settled. Google
"economic resilience" and "disaster".

News wrote:

> You can propose whatever outliers you choose, and you can study them.
>
> The topic has been widely studied, understood and is settled. Google
> "economic resilience" and "disaster".

OK - so you're on record as believing in the "broken window" theory of
economics, and that when it comes to fixing an economy, governments
should operate on the broken window philosophy.

--
Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with the letter 'x')

Bill Putney wrote:
> News wrote:
>
>> You can propose whatever outliers you choose, and you can study them.
>>
>> The topic has been widely studied, understood and is settled. Google
>> "economic resilience" and "disaster".
>
> OK - so you're on record as believing in the "broken window" theory of
> economics, and that when it comes to fixing an economy, governments
> should operate on the broken window philosophy.
>


And you're a wingnut. There, it's settled.

Ashton Crusher wrote:

> The problem with your analysis is that it's just one of many possible
> theories and there is no more proof for your's then for any of the
> others. The total economy is too large and interconnected to be sure
> of much of anything being the result of anything else...

Exactly. The reason the government should be hands off if they don't
know the results of major things they are about to do with my money.
Unintented consequences. That's why free market, with all its warts,
works better than any economy micromanaged by a government.

> Many people
> believe one of the biggest factors in having a good or bad economy is
> the mental state of the players. If everyone things the world is
> ending and stops buying stuff it slows down the economy...

Certainly true. So, did all the "stimulus" money to the banking
industry get new projects and construction going again? Are they
lending money? Or was it money wasted? My point about government
micromanaging having the worst effect.

> The point of
> the C4C as far as I'm concerned was to get some money circulating and
> improve the mental state. Does it impact other markets? Sure. Will
> the repair shops have a problem? Maybe, but maybe not since just a
> few weeks ago the "experts" were saying how much more business they
> would have due to people keeping their old cars and fixing them. Since
> there are many many millions of old cars in the country, it's unlikely
> that the C4C is eliminating ALL that new work.

I understand the reasoning behind it. But it's just wrong to transfer
my money to someone else on that basis. It's all payback to unions.

--
Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with the letter 'x')

On Mon, 07 Sep 2009 07:40:17 GMT, who > wrote:

>In article
>,
> "Pete E. Kruzer" > wrote:
>
>> The second unintended consequence is ironical. The program essentially
>> deprives workers in nonautomotive industries of work in order to
>> employ more people in the automotive industry,
>
>It also reduces employment in the oil/gasoline business.
>The crushed vehicles burned more fuel than those that replaced them.
>
>Those who resisted this deal and kept their oldie gas guzzling vehicle,
>may find it's value has slightly increased, due to a shortage of the
>bigger vehicles crushed.


There's something like 300 million vehicles on the road, maybe twice
that. Do you really think taking several hundred thousand of them off
the road (and replacing them with an equal number of new ones) is
going to have any meaningful effect on used vehicle prices?? At most,
it might add $100 to the average cost of an old vehicle. Big deal.

The Katrina exception is a manifestation of the prior administration's
incompetence.

I don't believe it was a manifestation of the prior administration's
incompetence is entirely true despite the fact that; Having seen and
witness first hand Hurricane Katrina I know first hand what the problem
were. Money was pouring in left and right from both the Government and
private sector. There were two many officials from the state, local and
federal government and no one was coordinating because they all want to be
in charge. Our babbling Governor Blanco at the time could not lead a horse
to water prior to Katrina and surely could not handle the pressures of this
disaster.

The biggest issue I see with the recovery is the residence in the New
Orleans area want the government to give them everything. Many other areas
besides New Orleans was destroyed and many have recovered over 90 percent
without the governments help. There is still sections of New Orleans where
houses have been left abandoned because the owners want someone else to
rebuild it for them for free.

On Mon, 7 Sep 2009 16:21:33 -0500, "Licker" >
wrote:

>The Katrina exception is a manifestation of the prior administration's
>incompetence.
>
>I don't believe it was a manifestation of the prior administration's
>incompetence is entirely true despite the fact that; Having seen and
>witness first hand Hurricane Katrina I know first hand what the problem
>were. Money was pouring in left and right from both the Government and
>private sector. There were two many officials from the state, local and
>federal government and no one was coordinating because they all want to be
>in charge. Our babbling Governor Blanco at the time could not lead a horse
>to water prior to Katrina and surely could not handle the pressures of this
>disaster.
>
>The biggest issue I see with the recovery is the residence in the New
>Orleans area want the government to give them everything. Many other areas
>besides New Orleans was destroyed and many have recovered over 90 percent
>without the governments help. There is still sections of New Orleans where
>houses have been left abandoned because the owners want someone else to
>rebuild it for them for free.
>


Now that's not PC !! Some people won't be able to handle the truth.

who wrote:
> In article
> >,
> "Pete E. Kruzer" > wrote:
>
>> The second unintended consequence is ironical. The program essentially
>> deprives workers in nonautomotive industries of work in order to
>> employ more people in the automotive industry,
>
> It also reduces employment in the oil/gasoline business.
> The crushed vehicles burned more fuel than those that replaced them.
>
> Those who resisted this deal and kept their oldie gas guzzling vehicle,
> may find it's value has slightly increased, due to a shortage of the
> bigger vehicles crushed.
I can just see a huge amount of Buick Electra 225's, 455 V-8's running
around on the road. Maybe we will see people bringing their old 70's
cars out of hiding and driving them again!

News wrote:
> Bill Putney wrote:
>> News wrote:
>>> Pete E. Kruzer wrote:
>>>>
>>>> The idea that we can stimulate an economy by destroying things (and
>>>> thereby creating work repairing or rebuilding them) is a fallacy
>>>> common and antique enough to deserve a name.
>>>
>>>
>>> Though economic growth in excess of losses is exactly what occurs
>>> after most natural and man-made disasters.
>>
>> A few thousand people in New Orleans might disagree with you on that.
>> Politics aside, seriously (I know we have our differences) - how can
>> you really believe that destruction increases overall wealth and
>> quality of life? Yes - some are certainly enriched by any disaster,
>> but overall, wealth has to be decreased. And certainly to base a
>> political philosophy for improving people's lives on such theories is
>> just wrong.
>>
>
> It's widely studied and understood. Google "economic resilience" and
> "disaster".
>
> The Katrina exception is a manifestation of the prior administration's
> incompetence.

Note to self.... new peak in .net stupidity achieved, 9/6/09, 8:40PM.

who wrote:
> In article
> >,
> "Pete E. Kruzer" > wrote:
>
>> The second unintended consequence is ironical. The program essentially
>> deprives workers in nonautomotive industries of work in order to
>> employ more people in the automotive industry,
>
> It also reduces employment in the oil/gasoline business.
> The crushed vehicles burned more fuel than those that replaced them.

No it doesn't. It just reduces (so negligibly as to be un-quantifiable)
their sales to consumers, and shifts more sales to mining, raw materials
transportation, ore refining, and other production processes.

>
> Those who resisted this deal and kept their oldie gas guzzling vehicle,
> may find it's value has slightly increased, due to a shortage of the
> bigger vehicles crushed.

Have you actually READ the list of "most clunkered" vehicles? Nothing
collectible there. Some very good inexpensive, reliable, basic
transportation, but nothing collectible.

NOTHING good came of that program. Not one iota.