Stop being such a fearmonger, throwing around words you probably don't even understand. Socialism, communism, marxism, Macarthyism. It's all about creating a polarising climate insteed of thinking like normal human beings.

Soon Americans will run out of -ism's to express their Fox News/Rush Limbaugh inspired hate-talk, aimed at people they don't agree with.

Let me tell you something, what you have is as far away from 'distribution of wealth' as you can have in a developed country. It's not even close to what you believe it means, let me tell you. So stop using big words until you've given it some thought.

↓↑report

It's a better plan than handing an automaker 30 billion dollars free and clear as they circle the drain. Hopefully they don't just hand them the cash, but a voucher for €2,500 off a new car. Sort of like food stamps for cars.

↓↑report

Wow, EU_reader, wtf are you talking about?

↓↑report

Unfortunately, it's how our economy works. The economy grinds to a halt if people aren't creating debt.

↓↑report

You miss a few important facts. Getting these pieces of crap off the road doesn't hurt people, it saves them.

If a car is worth less than €2,500 it's not going to automatically go to the crusher unless the owner can afford a new car to replace it, that car is still going to be bought and sold on the used market until it reaches someone who wants to cash it in for the €2,500 credit, which is not likely to happen while it's still serviceable. New cars are still going to age as usual. More used cars will become available.

Honestly I find it fascinating that so many people here are pissing on a plan that has been proven to work.

↓↑report

You're missing that it's an free market so if any one person is willing to pay more for an item, the government included, it raises the price of that item. This is a subsidy for newer cars, but it doesn't have to be a new car in the bills proposed by various people, it's usually just a newer and more fuel efficient car. So if you scrap your 88 Civic to buy a 98 Civic you'll get $3000 to buy this car, and a 98 Civic might only be worth that much right now but because it too can have this policy apply to it the 98 Civic has now gone up in value as well. So the guy pays $2000 over book value for a car and uses his subsidy to pay the rest off. The guy that before may have been able to buy the 98 Civic but didn't have a clunker to scrap now has no chance and would have to pay a similar amount to try and find something like the 88 Civic to keep it from going to the scrap yard. A lot of people won't see any difference because the subsidy will compensate for the increase in market value of the cars they would be buying anyways, the wealthier people who buy newer cars get a boost, the poor get fewer cars at a higher price, and overall we spend a lot of money and energy for little results. These things are always billed as an environmental or economic solution and always show to be neither. Throwing away something that takes so much energy to make so that more people can take on more debt seems pretty retarded. It's not a proven program, it works in a socialist society of smaller countries with more congested urban areas and better public transportation. All these factors contribute to the success and without these factors it's a failure for the US.

↓↑report

I'd like to see that article since I've read that the energy needed to crush and dispose of these vehicles combined with the energy needed to produce a new vehicle more than offsets the improved fuel economy and reduced pollution the newer cars would have.

↓↑report

Quoted from Autoblog Green:

"Here's the thing. In America, 84 percent of cars (by weight) are recycled and 95 percent of vehicles go through the recycling process. So, while taking old cars off the road does increase the amount of stuff in landfills and also demands that more resources be taken out of the ground to build the new vehicles, it's not like all these old cars will instantly end up in a junk yard. Plus, there is no way to reduce the overall amount of oil we burn in our cars without one of two things happening: we drive less or we get more efficient cars."

A good friend of mine had drafted up a proposal and started a lobby to get the Canadian government involved in a "Green Vehicle Exchange" program for years. When he started his project, he did a LOT of research on this and the potential environmental impact. The fact is that not all clunkers are tiny VW Beetles, or early Accords. MANY clunkers are V8's and a huge portion of them are older SUV's from the post minivan/SUV craze era. He had given me the proposal to proof read for him before taking it to the powers that be, however I was not allowed to retain a copy due to a non-disclosure agreement. His sources were legit, many of them coming from scholarly papers. Now that the cat's out of the bag and this program is likely to come to fruition, I will likely try to contact him to acquire a copy of his proposal.

Vehicle manufacturers today are more efficient at manufacturing new cars than ever. My friends proposal even outlined the amount of resources used when manufacturing new vehicles. With cleaner energy sources starting to expand, the net impact on the environment per vehicle produced continues to decrease. And in this program, the goal is to sell fuel efficient sub-compact and compact vehicles, NOT SUV's.

What you have read was a vague appeal by the Automotive Aftermarket Industry Association which represents thousands of independent mechanics shops who naturally look after their own interests.

I have a feeling that those who want this program to go into effect will release a VERY compelling argument in favor of it, and in the end, it'll be a no brainer.

↓↑report

Because sometimes it is worth evaluation first. Critical thinking, it can save a lot of headaches from just throwing stuff at the wall, and seeing what sticks.

Different does not always equal better.

Government involvement almost always equals WORSE.

Things work the way they work for a reason, and "outside the box" thinking about something that already is established, usually means more added complexity and inefficiency, in terms of energy, or economics. Creativity is a good thing, when it creates improvements that are borne out by critical evaluation, but that isn't automatically the case.

↓↑report