Life on the other side of cash for clunkers
From Zeit Online (clunky translation mine):
In Germany the government-promoted auto boom is gradually coming to an end. Thanks to cash for clunkers (Abwrackprämie) the number of new-car sales in July was, at 340,000 vehicles, still 30% higher than the previous year's level, reported the Federal Motor Vehicle Office (Kraftfahrt-Bundesamt) Tuesday in Flensburg. In June, however, the increase amounted to 40%.
Experts project that the politically engineered demand peak has passed, and in 2010 a collapse will follow. Altogether the government set aside 5 billion euros ($7 billion) to promote the purchase of new cars. According to researchers in Regensburg, that money-pot will empty not long before the Bundestag election (Sept. 27). At the moment there's enough money left for about 300,000 clunkers—in all, two million buyers are expected to profit from the program. For the year 2009, cash for clunkers may drive auto turnover in Germany to a 10-year high of 3.5 million new vehicles.
The first thing that strikes me about this is how large the German cash for clunkers effort is in comparison with the American one. The U.S. program, if the Senate okays an additional $2 billion in funding, will cost $3 billion—or about half as much as the German one. But Germany's GDP and its car sales in a normal year are less than a quarter that of the U.S. So Germany's cash for clunkers spending is equivalent to about $30 billion here.
Then again, the purpose of the two programs is different. In Germany, the animating idea is to help a crucial, export-oriented domestic industry weather a collapse in global demand. So it's okay if German car demand falls sharply next year, as long as global demand picks up. But if demand from abroad never returns to pre-2009 levels, and it turns out that what the German auto industry really needed to do was shrink, then the Abwrackprämie will have been a gigantic waste of euros.
The smaller U.S. cash for clunkers program is intended more as a kick start for an industry and an economy just beginning to emerge from a brutal recession. The idea is to get animal spirits flowing again, and money moving through the economy again. So while there will surely be some fall-off in demand once all the cash for clunkers money runs out, the size of that fall-off will be crucial in gauging the program's success. If we go all the way back to the pre-July level of auto sales, then cash for clunkers will have been a (less gigantic) waste of dollars.
-
1
[...] The first thing that strikes me about this is how large the German cash for clunkers effort is in co.... The U.S. program, if the Senate okays an additional $2 billion in funding, will cost $3 billion-or about half as much as the German one. But Germany’s GDP and its car sales in a normal year are less than a quarter that of the U.S. So Germany’s cash for clunkers spending is equivalent to about $30 billion here. [...]
-
2
"But if demand from abroad never returns ... then the Abwrackprämie will have been a gigantic waste of euros."
Spoken like a true disbeliever in the Keynesian approach. So you don't believe in any fiscal stimulus, huh? There certainly was little enough done by other approaches to reignite Germany's sagging demand.
-
3
"So you don't believe in any fiscal stimulus, huh? There certainly was little enough done by other approaches to reignite Germany's sagging demand."
Keynesian approaches (pumping money into the system) works in inventory lead recessions (too much/too fast production/growth). We're in a CREDIT recession (like the Great D). This is when there's too much CREDIT flying around, and thus, you're trying to resuscitate a victim that's lost a gallon of blood (it's not possible). Identifying which recession we're in is important. Guess what the "medicine" is for a credit led recession? Pain. Nothing else.
In a credit led recession, that demand is NEVER coming back anytime soon, and hopes of trying to "restart" things are impossible, as everyone is broke. In an inventory led recession, you can actually help things by tying over the economy with money, because consumers aren't heavily indebted, and there's merely a temporary oversupply. Just to note: Keynes said we ought to run surpluses in the growth periods and deficits in the contraction fazes. Funny how everyone ignores half the equation when talking about Keynesian economics. We didn't/don't follow the first condition, so why the second?? lol
Most Popular »
- Tennessee Mayor Accuses Barack Obama Of Hating On Charlie Brown, Peanuts
- Wii Fit Plus Review
- Obama Shifts Date of Copenhagen Visit
- NV Sen Poll: Reid In Trouble
- The PlayStation Turns 15, We Reminisce
- 'Forgotten Man' II: Two-Thirds of Jobless Blue-Collar
- 135 Money-Saving Resources and Tips, Special Holiday Season Edition
- Twitter App Showdown: Echofon Pro vs Tweetie 2
- False Economy: Think You're Saving Money? Think Again
- Loving The Joke
- How Strong Is the Evidence Against Amanda Knox?
- Will Federal Spending Mistrust Mean the End of Obama's Audacity
- Hate Your Job? Here's How to Reshape It
- Amanda Knox, Convicted of Murder in Italy
- India, Pakistan and the Battle for Afghanistan
- Nicolas Sarkozy: A French Paradox
- Amanda Knox Testifies: The Murder Trial That Has Gripped Italy
- Helicopter Parents: The Backlash Against Overparenting
- Astronomers Spot Planet-Like Object GJ 758 B in Orbit
- Foxy Knoxy Case Still Roils Italy













RSS