Economists question how much mileage we got from Cash for Clunkers (Bob Travaglione/www.FoToEdge.com)
Cash for clunkers may have been a total wreck. Ever since the program, which offered consumers cash for a new car when they traded in an old, low-gas-mileage vehicle, rolled off Washington's policy lot last year there has been debate as to its effectiveness. Car sales shot up. But the program cost $2.8 billion. What's more, many of the vehicles that consumers bought with their government incentive were either not American made or all that fuel-efficient. Still, it has been generally assumed that the program, despite being expensive, helped car companies and boosted the economy and jobs. Now that assumption is under attack as well.
A new paper by two economists, one from Berkeley and one from Booth School of Business at the University of Chicago, argue that Cash for Clunkers might not have done as much for the economy as was originally thought. Here's the paper's summary paragraph:
We find that the program induced the purchase of an additional 360,000 cars in July and August of 2009. However, almost all of the additional purchases under the program were pulled forward from the very near future; the effect of the program on auto purchases is almost completely reversed by as early as March 2010 "“ only seven months after the program ended. The effect of the program on auto purchases was significantly more short-lived than previously suggested. We also find no evidence of an effect on employment, house prices, or household default rates in cities with higher exposure to the program.
So will this end the calls for targeted stimulus plans, like Cash for Clunkers or the homebuyer tax credit, or even Obama's recent proposal to give an immediate write off for corporation investments? Probably not. Here's why:
It is clear that cash for clunkers boosted auto sales. How much is under debate. The question is how many people bought cars that might have bought cars anyway had the program not been around. A March study by the Maritz Automotive Research group found that the program boosted auto sales by 542,000. That means tax payers spent a little over $5,000 to generate each additional car purchase. Not bad considering how many people had to be employed to produce a little over a half a million cars. Other studies have put the number of additional cars sold as low as 125,000. Based on that estimate the program cost tax payers $25,000 per car sold, and looks far less efficient. Either way, though, the program boosted sales, and likely, however limitedly, employment.
Not so fast says Atif Mian and Amir Sufi, the two authors of the new study. The authors do believe that the number of additional cars sold during the seven month program was a hefty 360,000. But they say those additional sales had little effect on jobs or the economy. How did they determine that? Mian and Sufi looked at the cities with the largest and lowest number of clunkers registered with the state's DMV before the program started in 2008. What they found was that cities with a lot of clunkers didn't seem to do any better economically during the time the program was enacted than cities that had a fewer number of clunkers. Mian and Sufi did find that employment in places with a lot of auto jobs did jump during the program, but they say that it is hard to identify whether that boost came from cars for clunkers or the general auto industry bailout by the US government.
How can that be? Miam and Sufi says that the sales gains from Cash for Clunkers were quickly reversed. After the program was over, auto sales slumped, compensating for the additional cars sold during the period. One could argue that auto makers and dealers knew that the short-lived program would only produce a short-lived boost to sales, and therefore never staffed up. Here's what the economists say:
Our results reveal a swift reversal in auto purchases at the expiration of CARS, which highlights a strong inter-temporal substitution that quickly "crowds out" the initial effect. Our evidence suggests that the "?cash for clunkers' program, a program that cost $2.85 billion, had no long run effect on auto purchases.
Does that mean Cash for Clunkers was a failure? No, says Alan Blinder, the economics professor at Princeton who first thought up the program. He hasn't seen the new paper, but he says anyone who criticizes Cash for Clunkers as having just pulled sales forward is missing the point. He says Cash for Clunkers was never meant to boost auto sales long-term. The whole point of the program was to assist the economy and auto manufactures when they needed help the most, which was in early and mid-2009. Blinder does wish the program had run longer, like say 18 months, instead of 7. He says any program that runs only seven months is not likely to have any measurable effect on the overall economy. Nonetheless, Blinder says Cash for Clunkers proved that the government is able to boost consumption when it wants, and therefore the economy, through targeted programs. And that is enough of a reason to call Cash for Clunkers a success. "With many government programs we look through the microscope to find out what change resulted," says Blinder. "People responded massively to Cash for Clunkers. The effects of the program could be seen in every neighborhood."
The stimulus wars continue.
" . . . tax payers spent a little over $5,000 to generate each additional car purchase."
Wrong. This is an old myth. Taxpayers spent nothing. In 1971, we became a monetarily sovereign nation. In a monetarily sovereign nation taxpayers do not pay for governjment spending. . By contrast, Portugal, Spain, Greece, Italy and Ireland are not monetarily sovereign. There, taxes do pay for governement spending. Similarly, Illinois, Cook County and Chicago are not monetarily sovereign, so their taxpayers pay for government spending. . It is rather discouraging to see Mr. Gandel repeatedly demonstrate he does not understand monetary sovereignty, which is the basis for American economics. . Mr. Gandel, before you write one more post, do find out the differences between monetary sovereignty and non-monetary sovereignty. Until you understand the difference, your posts will be utterly wrong. . Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Get e-mail updates from TIME's The Curious Capitalist in your inbox and never miss a day.
The Curious Capitalist Favorite Links Barry Ritholtz Brad DeLong Calculated Risk Econbrowser Econlog Ezra Klein Felix Salmon Floyd Norris Greg Mankiw Growthology James Pethokoukis John Gapper Justin Fox Marginal Revolution Mark Thoma Megan McArdle Nicholas Carr Paul Kedrosky Paul Krugman Philip Coggan Planet Money Roger Parloff Ryan Avent Swampland The Stash adFactory.getCmAd(300, 250, "global", "tout").write(); adFactory.getCmAd(300, 100, "article", "tout").write(); ArchiveSeptember 2010SMTWTFS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 More News from Our Partners CNN Nokia unveils revamped smartphones Kindle ad seeks to 'expose' the iPad University bans Facebook, Twitter for a week Huffington Post Ilene H. Lang: Context Is King David Isenberg: ABC J'accuse MEP: There is no there there Irena Medavoy: Botox Bullet DailyFinance.com Consumer Reports Still Isn't Recommending iPhone 4 FCC's Super WiFi Spectrum Plan Has Big Potential Samsung NX100 Unveiled: Lightweight Camera Features Clever Controls Rotten Tomato RT on DVD & Blu-Ray: Prince of Persia writes Letters to Juliet RT Honor Roll: The 25 Best School Movies of All Time Music Video Directors Who Made the Jump to the Big Screen Life Dumb Protest Signs Fashion Week: How Designs Are Born Imber: An English Ghost Town More on TIME.com » Are HIV Rates in Gay Men Really 'Out of Control'? Burma: Should Opposition Parties Boycott the Elections? French Director Claude Chabrol Quotes of the Day » "I said to a girl to look for a wealthy boyfriend. This suggestion is not unrealistic." SILVIO BERLUSCONI, Prime Minister of Italy, recalling a highly criticized TV interview he once gave; the premier also joked on Sunday that women line up for him because he's a "nice guy" and "loaded" More Quotes » var ad = adFactory.getAd(88, 31); ad.setPosition(13) ad.write(); Today in Pictures » Ritual Stay Connected with TIME.com Learn More » Subscribe to RSS Feeds Sign Up for Newsletters Add TIME Widgets Read TIME Mobile on Your Phone Become a Fan of TIME Get TIME Twitter Updates adFactory.getCmAd(115, 42, "homepage", "tout").write(); © 2010 Time Inc. All rights reserved | Privacy Policy | RSS | Newsletter | TIME For Kids | LIFE.com Subscribe | Contact Us | Terms of Use | Media Kit | Reprints & Permissions | Opinion Leaders Panel | Help | Site Map TiiAdTrackRevSci(); function tiQuantcast() { } _qoptions={ qacct:"p-5dyPa639IrgIw", labels:tiQuantcast() } var _sf_async_config={uid:3088,domain:"time.com",pingServer:"ptimeinc.chartbeat.net"}; (function(){ function loadChartbeat() { window._sf_endpt=(new Date()).getTime(); var e = document.createElement('script'); e.setAttribute('language', 'javascript'); e.setAttribute('type', 'text/javascript'); e.setAttribute('src', (("https:" == document.location.protocol) ? "https://s3.amazonaws.com/" : "http://") + "static.chartbeat.com/js/chartbeat.js"); document.body.appendChild(e); } var oldonload = window.onload; window.onload = (typeof window.onload != 'function') ? loadChartbeat : function() { oldonload(); loadChartbeat(); }; })(); Powered by WordPress.com VIP var gaJsHost = (("https:" == document.location.protocol) ? "https://ssl." : "http://www."); document.write(unescape("%3Cscript src='" + gaJsHost + "google-analytics.com/ga.js' type='text/javascript'%3E%3C/script%3E")); try { var pageTracker = _gat._getTracker("UA-10268691-1"); pageTracker._trackPageview(); } catch(err) {} var _sf_async_config={uid:3088,domain:"curiouscapitalist.blogs.time.com",pingServer:"ptimeinc.chartbeat.net"}; (function(){ function loadChartbeat() { window._sf_endpt=(new Date()).getTime(); var e = document.createElement('script'); e.setAttribute('language', 'javascript'); e.setAttribute('type', 'text/javascript'); e.setAttribute('src', (("https:" == document.location.protocol) ? "https://s3.amazonaws.com/" : "http://") + "static.chartbeat.com/js/chartbeat.js"); document.body.appendChild(e); } var oldonload = window.onload; window.onload = (typeof window.onload != 'function') ? loadChartbeat : function() { oldonload(); loadChartbeat(); }; })(); _qoptions={qacct:'p-18-mFEk4J448M',labels:'language.en,posttag.stimulus,posttag.cash-for-clunkers,vip.timecuriouscapitalist'}; try{COMSCORE.beacon({c1:2,c2:7518284});}catch(e){} st_go({'blog':'5320466','v':'wpcom','user_id':'0','post':'11772','subd':'timecuriouscapitalist'}); ex_go({'crypt':'RDZ8LFkxbXF2TVluJVFmT0xoZkVaUCVrM3R3cCU2Wi10dT9ta3VEZG89N3pwOFdMRVB3Rls4VHhUemlpOFY0W1V+X0prOW16LU5rfktuc29XPUtiMXlVUyY9aiszRzc2T3lKJnlXcEpSOTBkQVRYd3xWYVIvZEN+MV9fflpoNTlBSFk2aTRSUGRiUy1XWGFGK0pJU0xHUkFUX3BWWXFlWTBrOHF0My01ZkJxT1VYQm8ld01qQmZOZWxERm1TaDJaXSZ3NEpCfCZNR1ZxM2tkZiVJQldbZ05Xflc9REE='}); addLoadEvent(function(){linktracker_init('5320466',11772);}); Read Full Article »