’)The Heritage Foundation is touting a negative opinion of the cash-for-clunkers program by Alan Greenspan. Heritage seems to not realize that it isn’t 1999 and Alan Greenspan isn’t exactly seen as the ubergenius he once was.
Greenspan, 82, who was chairman of the Federal Reserve central bank from 1987 to 2006, was a leading cheerleader for deregulating Wall Street and presided over the longest economic boom in American history.
After the housing bubble burst, splattering the toxic remnants of bad mortgage loans everywhere and sending the entire economy into free fall, Greenspan said he reexamined his free-market ideology.
“I found a flaw,” he confessed. “I was shocked because I had been going for 40 years or more with very considerable evidence that it was working exceptionally well.”
To be charitable, going to Alan Greenspan for input on an economic issue nowadays is a little like asking Donald Rumsfeld the best way forward for the U.S. military.
Greenspan is no Rumsfeld. He’s still one of the smartest minds in modern capitalism, and he had a long track record of success, respected by both parties, until this bubble burst. It’s worth listening to what he says – as long as you don’t take it as gospel. What annoys me about the cash for clunkers thing is the environmental aspect – we’re really just giving people a couple of grand to throw away their current car.
http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2009/07/congress_just_buying_people_ca.cfm
Not unlike Bush taking credit for “keeping America safe” after allowing 9/11 to happen, you can’t separate Greenspan’s legacy from the disastrous Bush Recession.
I’m not saying the guy’s a complete idiot, but his Randian free-market principles were castigated by the US economy ca. 2007-2008.
Dicey re-packaging of shitty credit was the ultimate act of free market hubris. Markets need regulation to work.
Straight to ad hominem, eh? Well at least it was quick.
Buzz, I don’t think “ad hominem” means what you think it means.
Everything about the blog post is ad hominem, Bruce, including the title. How is it not?
There isn’t one sentence that refutes Greenspan’s argument against the Cash for Clunkers program, and there isn’t a counterargument that says anything positive in favor of it, either. It’s just solely an attack on Greenspan. We assume Oliver disagrees with his argument, but he doesn’t tell us why there’s a flaw in his reasoning, other than to remind us of his past economic record.
Pretty much classic ad hominem. Attack the person who is referred to who proposes the argument in an attempt to discredit the argument.
Until very recently, the government’s incentives were tilted toward SUVs, to the tune of 1000s of dollars. This program is a HUGE step in the right direction.
What a load that article is. People will wait for government rebates before making a purchase? Please. People (if they have any sense) realize you can’t wait for once-in-a-blue-moon deals.
Bruce, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
Greenspan was big enough to admit his model was flawed, basically the same model being employed in the Cash for Clunkers program of rewarding bad behavior. Or if not bad behavior, certainly not the most prudent. At least he’s someone who learned something from the painful lesson we all just got, unlike the comedian Jon Stewart.
The Clunkers Program incentivizes people to trade in a slowly depreciating, paid-up asset, to take on more debt to buy the shinier, newer, more rapidly depreciating asset that gets a little better gas mileage. Their net worth takes a hit even though they don’t see it, they have a new check to write every month to finance it, and the government completely junks the old cars.
Maybe it’s not pushing on a string, but it’s little more than moving the string up a little. People buy cars now, but in the end, they don’t buy more cars.
“We have found that killing Arabs is a good use of tax money”-Heritage Foundation
Their net worth takes a hit even though they don’t see it, they have a new check to write every month to finance it,
Yeah, and? That’s kind of how capitalism in this country works.
The Cash for clunkers program was a test ride and was wildly successful. It was what FDR would have done to try anything to a) spur the economy, b) help out the auto industry and c) get more fuel efficiency on the road.
People who are quoting Steve Douchy and saying it was all a massive Fail are liars.
The housing bubble was due to the inaction of Congress, they were warned several times from 2001 to 2008.
I stand corrected as to the meaning of “ad hominem.” It seems to me that the Heritage Foundation was using kind of an “ad-hominem-in reverse” kind of thing. “Cash for Clunkers must be bad, because Greenspan says so!” And OW was pointing out that it’s kinda obvious that Greenspan isn’t as smart as people used to think, so who gives a shit what he thinks about it?