I have a 1983 full-sized A-Team van. OK, it’s a Dodge model, not the black GMC of TV fame. But still. If you’re gonna own a repo, it’s awesome when you’re in the mood. Playing card table. Custom fridge. Plenty of classic interior fur. 1980s glazed silver with the custom striping. Happily (and sadly) I haven’t used it yet. So it stays put. Vans like this are public enemy #1 these days, as they suck gas like twenty-seven 1973 vans. In theory. (Remember: it’s parked.) Oh, and my ’83 Dodge stops me from buying a new, cleaner vehicle from new GM or new Chrysler. And so the government will offer me something like $4500 for my ancient, arthritic van. Apparently that kind of cash for this kind of clunker is a fine idea if you’re a politician using other people’s money (the living and the unborn) to curtail American oil imports and save the planet. As a guy on the sharp end, I’m not feeling it. Not that anyone asked me, but here’s what I would do instead. For a LOT less.
Lifetime warranty for catalytic converters. Replacing a defective cat would improve fuel economy between 15 and 30 percent and net a far more substantial improvement in emissions over the long run (more than 500 percent in some cases). Most folks get screwed over big time when it comes to replacing this part. Especially if a universal version can’t fit. The cost of this would be anywhere from $200 to maybe, absolute tops, $500.
Then again, do I trust the government to administrate the cat-for-clunkers program? Nope. Not in this lifetime. Just pass the buck to the automakers, mandate it, and let them find a way to get their money back through a competitive marketplace. Perhaps some of them will stop intentionally under-engineering this part.
Trip computer. To say that I’m a gonzo fan of this particular technology would be an understatement. Those who are bored with their commute (a.k.a. virtually all of us) are given the immediate feedback needed to immediately become more aware of the gas and brake pedals. Great idea. Many will use them. Some don’t even realize they have a trip computer.
But let’s talk awareness here. Offering an aftermarket kit for free (for certain vehicles) and publicizing it would do wonders for public interest in this matter. Hey, offering free digital converters for free enabled folks to eliminate cable TV altogether. This step can save about 20 to 30 percent on fuel economy as well.
But then we have the real issue behind this legislation. Sales are in the shitter because creative financing was used to create a froth of excess demand. Is that a problem? Nope. It’s a correction. As it stands right now, most cars don’t offer the gas saving technologies that will really put a dent on the consumption front in the future. So why buy them? Some cars are also just truly terrible. So again, why buy them? If Joe Consumer wants a PT Cruiser or an Aveo, fine. They can have them both.
But please let the loser shareholders and bondholders foot the bill and let the free market liquidate these vehicles at the market place. Shutter Chrysler’s doors. Sell off parts of GM and realize that we’re only doing now what the Europeans are going to have to do in a few years. In the end, the marketplace is really the far better alternative to “management by government Fiat.”
sounds like a good idea;
too bad that cash for clunkers will ‘most-likely’ happen
You forgot one thing. Politicians use dead people’s money, too. It’s called an “estate tax” or an “inheritance tax.”
I have a radical idea. Let’s pursue an economic policy that will improve people’s condition across the board. Then they can use their improved condition for what they need/want the most. Many of them will buy new cars. But for crying out loud let’s stop this central planning nonsense because there are ALWAYS unintended adverse consequences. I am getting tired of being manipulated by my government.
Rod:
Please correct me if I’m wrong, but by definition, a dead person (corpse) does not have any possessions, especially once a death certificate is signed…
Improvement_needed… their estate does, which gets taxed upon the person’s death. So same thing.
Anyway… good article. As it has been said before, bad companies should be allowed to go out of business. But that is not how unions and politicians think.
Here’s one idea on the cats that I have never understood… why not mandate standard sizing and compatibility with universal replacements?
Sure you could have a few different sizes and flow rates to match engine displacement, but otherwise it must have standard flanges and standard external dimensions, kind of like tires or light bulbs. This would allow the replacement part makers to produce and stock the standard sizes and allow cometition to bring the prices down.
Offering an aftermarket [trip computer] kit . Simplest I know of is the Scan Gauge, plugs into the OBDII socket costs about $150, cheapest I know of is through group buys through cleanmpg.com
what is begining to piss me off is that the rebate might be only for cars that get truely lously mileage, like 18 mpg. My old VW gets about 25, i think, therefore i would not be eligable.
I live in the city. The only people who have these old clunkers are those who were too poor to upgrade years ago. It seems that the rebate would benefit those people who couldn’t afford a new car even with a $4500 break.
Not to mention penelizing people like me who did the right thing and bought a fuel efficient car in the first place.
And i am sure that dealer and manufacturers rebates would mysteriously disappear, making the final price in some cases more then the same car could purchased for now.
I originally thought this was a good idea, but now i think it sucks all around.
“In the end, the marketplace is really the far better alternative to “management by government Fiat.””
Whew! Boy am I sure glad that this question is settled and done. Nope, no counter argument here, and it’s certainly true that government involvement in private industry has always led to heartache. Right?
I actually agree with your criticism of the cash for clunkers deal, but I remain seriously puzzled by any article of faith statement that a purer free market is always in the interest of the greater good. It’s the easy, low effort answer, made mainstream by partisan interests. Sometimes it’s true, sometimes not, but it’s never a simple argument to make.
I’d say we need to assume that the cash for clunkers deal is really just a political effort to ensure that the restructured American companies have an actual chance of survival. It’s dishonest of the government to claim that the main intent is lower fleet milage. It will have that effect, but that’s just make it palatable to Democratic voters.
I actually do like the idea of instantaneous (and average) fuel economy/consumption. I have an analog gage in the cluster of my BMW (an ’01) that can’t be shut down/turned off/etc, which is instantly noticed by anyone that drives my car – in my rather limited experience it actually generally does cause people to try to drive more frugally.
Unfortunately it also causes my wife to lean over and ask me to stop wasting gas every time I get on the highway, but that’s another story.
@Stewart – a Canadian retailer (Princess Auto) occasionally has OBDII gauges on sale for $40! Cheap non-brand name version, but for simple fuel read-outs it seems to perform as well as my ScanGauge II unit….
Don’t forget that it takes two dollars of stolen money for the government to give out one dollar to those it deems “more worthy”. If we eliminate the ‘middleman’- the parasitic government, our economy would instantly grow, and the public would have more money to spend AS IT WISHES, getting us out of this mess. Giving trillions to the bankers will only cause hyperinflation and depression. Just watch.
If we eliminate the ‘middleman’- the parasitic government, our economy would instantly grow, and the public would have more money to spend AS IT WISHES, getting us out of this mess
Yes. Right up until the point someone decides to buy a lot of grim men and equip them with guns.
See the problem?
”. If we eliminate the ‘middleman’- the parasitic government, our economy would instantly grow, and the public would have more money to spend AS IT WISHES, getting us out of this mess.
So, Somalia has the strongest economy in the world then, right? Followed by Afghanistan? The former has no government at all, the latter has only a government in name outside the capital city. Must be paradise.
Both the estate tax and the inheritance tax are excises on the transfer of property. The difference is that a decedent’s estate (that is, the person who is managing settlement of the estate) is responsible for paying the estate tax (like a merchant that adds sales tax), while an heir is responsible for paying the inheritance tax (like a use tax). Governments prefer estate taxes for easier administration and enforcement. But in the end, either approach rests on the same concept: someone is getting too much. The super-rich avoid most of the impact by funding private foundations (e.g., Henry Ford; Bill Gates) or sophisticated legal devices (e.g., Kennedy family). I knew a man who married his mistress when he learned how much he’d save in estate tax.
tedward, the “totally free market” is an ideal, like the frictionless engine. Government intrusions into the marketplace, such as banning traffic in illegal substances, may be justified as social policy but they don’t serve the interests of sellers and buyers.
tedward, the “totally free market” is an ideal, like the frictionless engine.
Or Communism, for that matter.
Well, both can exist in their “true” form under very local and limited circumstances (stone age tribes or the Paris Commune for Communism, the colonial frontier for the “free market”) but they can’t exist for long.
50merc
“is an ideal, like the frictionless engine”
The free market is great (minimal gov. effort and involvement can be a good thing) when it works, but the solution to every problem isn’t necessarily more of it. In those instances (cough…medical insurance…cough) a free market isn’t an ideal to be realized at all, more like a convenient measuring post, kind of like an ideal gas. If that’s what you meant then I agree with you.
“Government intrusions into the marketplace, such as banning traffic in illegal substances, may be justified as social policy but they don’t serve the interests of sellers and buyers.”
Government regulation is always justified as serving the interests of the buyers or sellers, they just might not agree is all. Or I guess you could say the government has the point of view that it’s status as seller of social policy and ours as buyer ultimately umbrellas all other transactions within that framework.
“in the end, either approach rests on the same concept: someone is getting too much.” re: estate taxes
I kind of disagree, although this is an entirely accurate description of the populist rhetoric deployed in support of such taxes (which I find obnoxious). I think the government simply wants money to fund operations and estate taxes usually represent a transfer of funds which are not crucial to maintenance of sound living conditions. Taxing essentials it is not, and inheritance is therefore politicially vulnerable. I agree that the idea of it is odious, but if it’s put up against raising taxes on low income households or essential goods then I would support it. What I would hope for are limits that prevent inheritors from having to sell (family homes for instance) if they don’t have the funds on hand to pay the percentage. This tax is made kind of evil (imo) by the asset freeze that follows the death of a family member, which in some instances (joint accounts, insurance company claim denial) can leave people with few good choices.
BDB :
May 12th, 2009 at 12:05 pm
Well, both can exist in their “true” form under very local and limited circumstances (stone age tribes or the Paris Commune for Communism, the colonial frontier for the “free market”) but they can’t exist for long.
——————————————–
“Market economy” is the ideal in it’s true form. It’s like saying “low mass” is a desirable trait in a car.
But of course, in the real world there are some unwanted associations. For example, some people blame the financial crisis on market economy, which is totally false. Same with cars, some people blame “low mass” for lack of safety.
We know it’s true that many “low mass” cars are not crash worthy. But “low mass” and “[lack of] safety” are still not the same thing. And that “low mass” is still a goal to be pursued. Just like “market economy” a goal to be pursued. Got my point?
To no one in particular
I liked 50merc’s “frictionless engine” as an ideal. I would say that any type of economic system that delivers goods and services over the long term with perfect efficiency would qualify. If the “frictionless engine” is going to be the pragmatic ideal then you could bracket it with ideal collectivism and ideal capitalism as extreme’s of measurement. Or you could propose other models and have the whole shebang go 3-D. I’ve neither read nor seen any convincing evidence that the “fricitonless engine” will lie closer to one extreme or the other (although it doubtlessly will if anyone ever figures it out to satisfaction).
My original point was simply that we (myself included sometimes) put too much faith in a freer market economy as a solution to social ills, when really it’s the “frictionless engine” that we should be aiming for, whichever direction is takes us. It’s how we were brought up, and it’s little different from a religious article of faith to a lot of people.
There’s a huge difference between “sellers and buyers” and “sellers or buyers.” Government intrusions into the marketplace inevitably serve the interests of one to the detriment of the other. Patents and copyrights, for example, help sellers more than buyers, at least in the short term. Requiring full and prior disclosure of prices, as with funeral services, helps buyers more than sellers.
Periodic testing to determine whether a catalytic converter is still functioning is an intrusion I can support. It would be a boon to sellers, but a burden to people who’d happily drive with a worn out converter. But then, some folks would happily drive without brake lights.
Health insurance isn’t a good example for purposes of debating free markets, because to a great extent health insurance has come to be used as a purchasing agent (to get lower prices or influence transactions) and, unlike the sale of potato chips or gasoline, there are huge adverse selection and free rider problems.
Well, all this is off thread. Back to cars.
“Well, all this is off thread. Back to cars.”
Agreed, total highjack.
I think I want this van you speak of.
In fact, I have always had a weird love affair with old full-size vans.
Well, if you’re in Atlanta.. you’re in luck.
Otherwise there is a great deal on Ebay for a California conversion van. Of course it’s got no AC and the roof makes a ‘woosh’ sound.