Hacker News Reader

Comment by SilasX | Hacker News Reader

And let me guess: it’s somehow not going to translate into lower new car prices because automakers are entitled to previous levels and will get government aid to prop up demand (cf “cash for clunkers”)?

View on HN

A lot of people bemoan cash for clunkers but it does a lot of the general level of safety and pollution on the road. A voluntary culling of select cars/trucks is generally good for the world.

Cash for clunkers mostly hurt the working class as it resulted in higher used car prices (and higher financing costs due to compound interest effect on higher prices + higher interest rates for used cars).

Unfortunately, in the USA, you can't get to work (or even purchase groceries) without a vehicle with the exception of a few places.

I feel like cash for clunkers destroyed a lot of value, prices went up, and consumers got little out of it.

Most economists agree with you.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Car_Allowance_Rebate_System#Ec...

True, but then, lots of programs look good if you only look at benefits and ignore costs.

The problem is that culling destroyed a lot of vehicles which were in very good condition, while leaving plenty of other unsafe ones.

It was agonisingly painful to hear stories of freshly restored classic cars getting destroyed because of that, while countless others in much worse condition remained on the roads.

What? Nobody was trading in a freshly restored classic car for a $3500 rebate on a Ford Focus (or other similarly boring fuel efficient vehicle).

If someone wanted to improve the environment, buying an old car and junking it is a great way to do it.

The emissions levels of cars from the 70s and 80s are just off-the-charts, compared to modern cars.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com