

Congress Just Buying People Cars Now - colins_pride
http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2009/07/congress_just_buying_people_ca.cfm

======
jrockway
Can I have a $4500 voucher for a new bicycle? It uses no fossil fuel at all.
(I estimate that an 18-pound bike will cause me to consume one less banana per
week, compared to my current 21-pound bike. This will save hundreds of bananas
per decade.)

~~~
josefresco
I wasn't aware that banana consumption was a problem or that America depends
on a healthy bike industry to thrive. News to me!

~~~
jrockway
I wasn't aware that having a slightly-old car was a problem.

~~~
jzachary
It isn't a problem. You car is probably perfectly fine and may get great gas
mileage. The problem is that you are not consuming. Bad American!

------
andreyf
Cars? People still buy those things?

I wonder how much non-drivers' taxpayer money goes to subsidizing others'
choices of transportation like this...

~~~
jamiequint
Easy to say that if you live in a densely populated city with good public
transit. Not everyone has the luxury of living close to public transportation
or within walking distance of all necessary services they need.

~~~
jrockway
It is not a luxury, it is a conscious decision that many people make
sacrifices to obtain.

~~~
bmj
True, but what about people who live in small towns or rural areas. I'm not
talking about suburbia--many of those people made conscious decisions to live
far away from their work and amenities. Or do we just tell those people they
really need to make a sacrifice and move to the city?

I appreciate this perspective, though. I've ridden my bike to work for the
last eight years. My family lives in the city (I live not far from where I
grew up) and we use public transportation. And I agree with the Economist--
this program is really about getting people to buy new cars.

 _Cars? People still buy those things?_

Yes. Why not? They're a tool, just like everything else. My family really
enjoys traveling, so we (four of us) own one car. More often than not, it's
parked in front of our house. We walk, bike, and bus ourselves around when we
can. But it's also nice to be able to leave the city on the weekend and go
camping and climbing. Or visit family. Acting as if you are on a higher moral
plain because you can't comprehend why people still buy cars doesn't do much
to advance the conversation and convince people to rethink some of their
lifestyle choices.

That said, as I mentioned, I think this subsidy is a terrible idea.

~~~
jrockway
A car doesn't sound like a very good investment if you never use it. Better to
use a car sharing service... although I guess those don't exist in the
suburbs.

~~~
mmt
There's a very good reason for that.. it would cost too much to have a car
available everywhere it would need to be.

------
marze
What we have here is a wasted opportunity.

This program could have required a 10 mpg improvement and could have been set
up to require at least 28 mpg on the new vehicle, by using two different
numbers, and it would still be very successful and have made the US less
dependent on foreign oil imports. Oops.

Too much influence have the firms that make "campaign contributions".

~~~
josefresco
This isn't about the environment, it's about the economy. The enviro-aspects
are simply a bonus and helped get this stimulus plan passed. If it was too
restrictive less people would have qualified thereby killing any economic
benefit.

~~~
marze
That's all good, but if you read carefully you'll see I made no mention of the
environment in my post, which was focused on the national security benefits to
being less reliant on foreign oil.

------
jzachary
This program is about keeping consumerism alive to benefit the economy, not
about fuel efficiency, The idea of trading in clunkers for fuel efficient
vehicles is a thin veil to the real goal of getting people to buy things from
an industry who lobbied the government to give them a handout. Instead of
Goldman Sachs and Bank of America, the robbers this time are car dealers.

------
scythe
I can't imagine it does _any_ good for the environment, at least not until
>five years from now. Producing a car isn't exactly easy on the environment,
and requiring people to buy _new_ cars isn't going to help.

~~~
bmj
Producing _anything_ isn't easy on the environment.

~~~
pbhjpbhj
How about locally hand-built wooden furniture from sustainably managed forest
- it sequesters carbon and provides often beautiful goods is relatively labour
intensive (good for employment figures) and preserves traditional skills. Well
managed forest will preserve the natural living environment of many species.

Bonus points if the carpenter eats a low animal-protein diet.

~~~
bmj
Likely will still require some metal production for tools.

I'm not advocating that we don't produce things--I just think we often
overlook the costs of production when we look at environmental factors.

------
tybris
Congress... *siiiiiiiigh

