Cash for clunkers trouble

"Cash for Clunkers," the program is a symbol of everything wrong with our political leadership. This clearly demonstrates that the Obama administration and Congress are incompetent on economic issues. It 'hard not to feel bad for Obama. Every decision is the wrong one. Any misstep proposal. It is painfully clear that Obama does not understand the Keynesian policy that set the chief priests, and its explanation is acting childish Teleprompter seems so complicated that by the end of a press conference that someone would want one just relax.

The objective is stated in cash for Clunkers program is to encourage new car purchases and to promote eco-friendly car, but it's just the wage subsidy for workers of the car. This is not very used to tell other benefits. Dealerships, shareholders car, car dealer, new cars, so buyers disappear a few pieces. So what is the big challenge capitalist hero? It 'only a few billion dollars. I think it's a widespread myth that the destruction of capital leads to prosperity, which really irritates me.

One of the criteria for obtaining "cash", requires the seller to destroy the clunker is "the engine and components for transmission, through the vessel" is the income-producing property. If it was not good, then the owner would have discarded long ago. clunker schleps Maybe the gardening tools for different jobs.
Maybe
it's the Wal-Mart, where they earn wages. Or you can use to help their friends move to a new location. Apart from the function which performs its function is to give value to the economy.
If it had a value, then the owner has discarded. The idea that the destruction of capital leads to prosperity because it creates economic activity, while the replacement the city in ruins, which is empirically false. "clunker" that is destroyed, can not be sold to poor families. Poor families could afford $ 1000 clunker, but it certainly can not afford a new car. Moreover, the economic resources ( labor, energy, metals, etc.) is diverted from the active pursuit of this government subsidized projects.

Provided that "money for Clunkers" is a pro-environment, it is equally absurd. The idea is that trade in my old jeep with a combined 18 mpg for SUVs with 22 mpg combined. This increase in fuel efficiency has led to the independence of oil and reduce CO2 emissions. Of course, if you consider all the energy that is needed to destroy the Junker and all the energy that the new vehicle (including energy, transport workers for the plant, thermal plant, run the factory, the mine raw materials for the conversion of raw materials into finished pieces, etc.) net effect is the dependence on oil and more CO2.


"Money for Clunkers" is not able to grant both of his goals. Harm the environment, because the energy needed to destroy the Junker and produce a new car is larger than the energy stored in fuel economy of new vehicles.
It is used to increase their purchases, as car buyers are simply moving the purchases, would in any case, in front, and it is unclear future demand and future buyers to wait for the next trick.

My problem with the "Cash for Clunkers" is that it is patently unfair. It 'only a transfer of wealth. So now I'm expected to subsidize the purchase of my neighbor's stupid of the Hummer H3, while the Hummer H2 (purchased with Heliocare, which is now the default), is destroyed by the seller.