Moreover, evaluating stimulus in terms of wealth is incorrect– see “liquidity trap” or more broadly “depression economics.”

It’s roughly analogous to the decision to go to war. You should think long and hard before you do it, but once you’re committed, you can’t get squeamish at the inevitable atrocities.

These press inquiries are fine, and I’m all for accountability. OTOH, if every 80 years or so we blow a few million on the way to saving the free world, I’m ok with that.

I guess then another way to describe the exact same statistics would be to say:

“Cash-for-clunkers has had a tremendously positive effect on energy consumption. Stats show that over 98% of the trades have resulted in improved fuel efficiency.”

I guess it just depends on whether you are a glass-is-2%-empty, or glass-is-98%-full type of person.

In any event, the program can hardly be called a success as either stimulus or for its environemntal benefits.

On the stimulus side, the feds paid people to destroy valuable assets (presumably most of these cars were worth more than nothing). No matter how you look at it, this results in a net destruction of wealth.

On the environmental side, it is unlikely that even the 9 mpg improvement cited above has much net marginal impact.
Many of the people who purchased would have bought soon (let’s say within a couple of years) anyways; they were largely middle class+ people replacing cars worth less than $4,500. If the average improvement was actaully 9 mpg (far beyond the requirements for the program), it is impossible to suggest that it was CARS that convinced most of these people to choose more efficient cars. They could have purchased much less efficient cars and still gotten the credit, so the program can hardly be credited with shifting people’s decisions much on average. The “carbon savings” would on average be due to the few hundred thousand more efficient cars being on the road for a couple of extra years. This doesn’t account for the carbon that was emitted producing all those new cars (i.e., would it have been better for those less efficient cars to keep running for their useful remaining lives than to emit carbon producing replacements early?).

I am very confused as to why he chooses to argue from anecdote when there are actual statistics available.

I’m measuring cash for clunkers as a stimulus, not as a carbon reduction plan. The money spent was far more stimulative in the case of clunkers than the new home credit.

The 1998 Neon would have never gotten below 25mpg even with an automatic and it was not on the CARS list of approved trade ins. The 2008 Hyundai Accent actually WAS on the CARS website of approved trade ins yet the EPA.GOV website showed it as getting 28mpg with an automatic transmission. And who would trade in a 2008 car anyhow as it would be worth at least $4500 on the market unless it was totally trashed out…