Do I really have a chance of winning a debate when my side is to continue meds when CA develops?
My Side of an LA Times Debate with Ed Leamer, Part II
-
Upload
james-delong -
Category
Documents
-
view
213 -
download
0
description
Transcript of My Side of an LA Times Debate with Ed Leamer, Part II
8/28/09 6:08 PMMy Side of an LA Times Debate with Ed Leamer, Part II
Page 1 of 4http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2009/08/my-side-of-an-la-times-debate-with-ed-leamer-part-ii.html
Grasping Reality with Both HandsThe Semi-Daily Journal of Economist Brad DeLong: A Fair, Balanced, Reality-Based, and More than
Two-Handed Look at the World
J. Bradford DeLong, Department of Economics, U.C. Berkeley #3880, Berkeley, CA 94720-3880;
925 708 0467; [email protected].
Weblog Home Page
Weblog Archives
Econ 115: 20th Century Economic History
Econ 211: Economic History Seminar
Economics Should-Reads
Political Economy Should-Reads
Politics and Elections Should-Reads
Hot on Google Blogsearch
Hot on Google
Brad DeLong's Egregious Moderation
August 21, 2009
My Side of an LA Times Debate with Ed Leamer, Part II
Part II:
Dust-Up: Cash for clunkers -- a clunker? -- latimes.com: Brad DeLong and Edward E. Leamer
agree that the program, though effective in the short term, represents a missed opportunity.
What good are we doing by destroying the clunkers? Point: Brad DeLong
I find it hard to imagine that you and I will find much to disagree on today, Ed. Yes, there are lots of
unemployed autoworkers who will be doing nothing if we don't boost auto demand. Yes, it would be
good if we had a set of policies that actually gave people the right incentives to buy the right kind of
car and drive the right amount -- policies that make people feel in their wallets the cost of global
warming and the cost of the fact that because their cars are on I-5, everybody else has to go slower.
I suspect that you and I could immediately get behind a plan to tax gasoline more, issue bonds now
to be amortized by the gasoline tax far into the future and return the money to consumers by using
the funds from the bonds to give cash back to people who buy high-mileage cars. That would provide
a good short-run Keynesian stimulus to get autoworkers back to work; it would also be a good long-
run environmental policy. Since it would be budget-neutral (or budget-positive), spend money now
and lock in the tax increases to pay off the bonds later, it would be a win-win-win.
But that's not what "cash for clunkers" is. We are destroying the clunkers, which could be very useful
things in Africa or the poorer parts of Latin America or Asia; it would be cheap to load the cars onto
some of the idle container ships off Long Beach and send them off. What we're doing instead is
simply a waste. John Maynard Keynes wrote that if you couldn't think of anything else to do, bury
money in holes in the ground so people have an incentive to hire the unemployed to dig it up. That's
much worse than having the government spend money on things that are useful. But it seems better
than "cash for clunkers," which looks to me like the equivalent of breaking windows so we can then
put people to work fixing them.
8/28/09 6:08 PMMy Side of an LA Times Debate with Ed Leamer, Part II
Page 2 of 4http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2009/08/my-side-of-an-la-times-debate-with-ed-leamer-part-ii.html
put people to work fixing them.
Here I do think that a genuine opportunity has been lost. I don't think that "cash for clunkers" is
positively harmful; the destruction of the clunkers isn't costing us very much, and that cost is
probably offset by the benefit of lowering unemployment a little bit. The program is certainly well-
targeted at Michigan, which needs all the help it can get. The blip in car sales is real, and it will serve
as a Keynesian stimulus: People will be rehired sooner to rebuild the auto inventories that have been
drawn down, and they will then have higher incomes and spend more. The places where they shop
will have more sales and hire people who will then have higher incomes, and so on.
But we could have done so much better, as far as environmentally friendly stimulus proposals are
concerned. It really does make me cry.
RECOMMENDED (4.86) by 3 people like you [How?]
2 more recommended posts »
Brad DeLong on August 21, 2009 at 04:53 PM in Economics, Economics: Fiscal Policy | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00e551f0800388340120a50e243d970b
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference My Side of an LA Times Debate with Ed Leamer, Part II:
Comments
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
No, Brad. Despite my lack of qualifications I'm going to disagree with you on this one. While better policy options
were available (as with most of what Obama has done IMHO), this is NOT "broken windows" because the asset
replacement has increased productive value over like-for-like replacement. Cash for clunkers is the (near-exact)
equivalent of taking out single-glazed windows to replace them with double-glazed. Not the best investment
available in terms of cost-benefit or energy efficiency, but better than nothing. Sending inefficient cars to the third
world is the policy equivalent of selling your used refrigerator so that the cost of externalities (like the reduced
generation margin in CA) continue to be borne by others because your share of those externalities is more than
offset by the $75 bucks some college sophomore will give you for it. Suggesting clever ways to disincentivize the
imposition of those externalities is only useful if implementation might actually happen and doesn't work against
other aims.
I ran some back of the envelope numbers (no doubt wrong), but I know you've got the tools to do it correctly in a
jiffy, and my numbers (looking at avoided fuel consumption and repair costs) suggest that direct costs (ignoring
externalities) of chopping off the last 60K miles of "productive" life for these low mpg clunkers is actually negative
(society saves resources without even considering externalities). We actually are pulling the majority of 5 years
worth of consumables forward into a single quarter.
Most clunkers appear to have negative utility from a societal standpoint. What you seem to be advocating is keeping
a machine in the bakery that will break a window (or throw a rod) on a regular basis. Of course, I have to agree that
there are larger inefficiencies in our real economy that could be invested in with a higher rate of return.
You might like:
Is Obama's stimulus working? (Chicago Tribune)
DeLong Smackdown Watch: Robert Greenstein on Think-Tank Effectiveness (this site)
8/28/09 6:08 PMMy Side of an LA Times Debate with Ed Leamer, Part II
Page 3 of 4http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2009/08/my-side-of-an-la-times-debate-with-ed-leamer-part-ii.html
Me: Economists: Juicebox
Mafia:
Moral
Philosophers:
there are larger inefficiencies in our real economy that could be invested in with a higher rate of return.
Posted by: benamery21 | August 21, 2009 at 08:49 PM
BTW, four for now is enough and I'll sit out.
Benamery21, Brad is basically right even though he didn't adequately address the resource savings. REM that it
takes lots of resources and energy to make a new care, so the savings takes a long time to square up if ever during a
reasonable car life. Also, Brad said "The program is certainly well-targeted at Michigan, which needs all the help it
can get." Well, somewhat but not enough. People can and do buy foreign cars! At least, they should have been
required to buy "US made/maker" cars to get the money.
Posted by: N e i l B | August 22, 2009 at 10:42 AM
> this is NOT "broken windows" because the asset replacement has
> increased productive value over like-for-like replacement.
> Cash for clunkers is the (near-exact) equivalent of taking
> out single-glazed windows to replace them with double-glazed.
While automobiles are not as recyclable as they _should_ be (until the EU directive on recyclability takes full effect
in 5 years or so), they are still highly recyclable compared to other large consumer purchases (particularly houses,
which are being scrapped by the megaton at the moment). Most of the parts from those clunkers will be stripped
and resold; the glass will be recycled, and the steel is of great value. So they are not being left to rust in a junkyard
lot, and that's a point that I haven't really seen taken up.
Similarly, I don't see the value to human society in dumping our low-mileage behemoths on Mexico and South
America. Personally I love cars, and I will say flatout that there is no excuse for the 450 horsepower, 17 mpg station
wagons that have proliferated since 2000. Peter Egan of "Road & Track" wrote an excellent essay where he
compared the stats of 20 models that have kept the same name for 30 years. Despite vast improvements in
technology over that time period only one of the 20 models improved on all stats: emissions, 0-60 time,
horsepower, AND fuel economy: the Corvette. In every other case the technology improvements that were starting
to create much more efficient (and potentially sustainable) cars in 1990-1995 have been dumped into more
horsepower, more inefficiently-used length, and more weight. I don't see any value to encouraging that trend much
less exporting our stupidity to other lands.
Cranky
Posted by: Cranky Observer | August 22, 2009 at 02:47 PM
Verify your Comment
Previewing your Comment
Posted by: |
This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.
Post Edit
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment
The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.
As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image
below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.
Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.
Continue
8/28/09 6:08 PMMy Side of an LA Times Debate with Ed Leamer, Part II
Page 4 of 4http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2009/08/my-side-of-an-la-times-debate-with-ed-leamer-part-ii.html
Paul Krugman
Mark Thoma
Cowen and
Tabarrok
Chinn and
Hamilton
Brad Setser
Mafia:
Ezra Klein
Matthew
Yglesias
Spencer
Ackerman
Dana
Goldstein
Dan Froomkin
Philosophers:
Hilzoy and
Friends
Crooked
Timber of
Humanity
Mark Kleiman
and Friends
Eric Rauchway
and Friends
John Holbo
and Friends
Is Your Car A Clunker?Use our Calculator, to See if Your Car is a Clunker - Kelley Blue Bookwww.KBB.com