A fallacy (one of many) of Keynesian economics is that it incorrectly assumes that consumption is the cause of economic growth rather than the result of economic growth. This leads advocates of this misguided theory to adopt policies designed to get people to spend more – even though economic growth (by definition) is the result of people earning more income. This absurd logical mistake is evident in the cash-for-clunkers debacle, as I explain to Foxnews.com:
…critics have a different view. “This is not good for economic growth,” said Dan Mitchell, a senior fellow in economics at the Cato Institute. “You’re simply getting people to use existing income to spend on cars. Getting people to spend more of their money on cars mean they will have less money to spend on other things.” Economic growth, Mitchell argued, is not getting people to spend more money on products, it’s getting them to have more income. Mitchell also believes the program is counterproductive for the auto industry down the road because the acceleration in car purchases will precede a “big downturn in the future.” “Giving someone a shot of heroin is not good for their long term health,” he told FOXNews.com. The program, Mitchell added, shows that the government is “incompetent.”
What the clunker policy really proves is that Americans aren’t stupid and will let some other taxpayer buy them a free lunch if given the chance. The buying spree is good for the car companies, if only for the short term and for certain car models. It’s good, too, for folks who’ve been sitting on an older car or truck but weren’t sure they had the cash to trade it in for something new. Now they get a taxpayer subsidy of up to $4,500, which on some models can be 25% of the purchase price. It’s hardly surprising that Peter is willing to use a donation from his neighbor Paul, midwifed by Uncle Sugar, to class up his driveway. On the other hand, this is crackpot economics. The subsidy won’t add to net national wealth, since it merely transfers money to one taxpayer’s pocket from someone else’s, and merely pays that taxpayer to destroy a perfectly serviceable asset in return for something he might have bought anyway. By this logic, everyone should burn the sofa and dining room set and refurnish the homestead every couple of years.
[…] is remarkable. At the time, the most obvious criticism of the scheme was that it would simply alter the timing of […]
[…] is remarkable. At the time, the most obvious criticism of the scheme was that it would simply alter the timing of […]
[…] is remarkable. At the time, the most obvious criticism of the scheme was that it would simply alter the timing of […]
[…] is remarkable. At the time, the most obvious criticism of the scheme was that it would simply alter the timing of […]
[…] is remarkable. At the time, the most obvious criticism of the scheme was that it would simply alter the timing of […]
[…] is remarkable. At the time, the most obvious criticism of the scheme was that it would simply alter the timing of […]
[…] is remarkable. At the time, the most obvious criticism of the scheme was that it would simply alter the timing of […]
[…] is remarkable. At the time, the most obvious criticism of the scheme was that it would simply alter the timing of […]
Where do people think wealth comes from? Certainly most can recognize that scrapping a perfectly good vehicle destroys, rather than creates, wealth for our society. Yet that is exactly what the government is doing. Destroying an asset and replacing it with debt the government already cannot afford. Doesn’t make any sense at all UNLESS you have been indoctrinated by Keynesian logic and assume that spending (not work) is the source of wealth creation.