NP: Genius playlist from "Perpetual Change" by Yes

I've seen a bit of hand-wringing from the left -- most notably Rachel Maddow -- about the ending of the "Cash for Clunkers" program today. The premise is that it's been very successful in a myriad of ways, helping car manufacturers, parts and aftermarket companies, and consumer spending and sentiment. It seems a curiously liberal reaction to then argue it should go on indefinitely.

The easy analogy is that, just because a defibrillator works, it doesn't mean you should keep the current running through the heart of a patient whose heart has stopped. The whole idea here was a targeted burst that would help kickstart a bunch of different things. If you just leave it there, it becomes a big government handout -- basically a permanent bribe to consumers and the auto industry. That seems a bit dubious, even as someone who leans a bit to the left.

To me, one of the compelling reasons to keep the program brief is so that the car companies don't go and do something stupid, like assume they can maintain this momentum over a long period, overbuilding and ending up with another glut of cars they can't sell. This was the first thing that came to mind when I saw that production was being increased to meet the demand generated by the program.

Yes, it would be great if the jobs and hours required to meet the additional demand could be permanent, but I don't think continuing the program is a good way to do it. It's a false sense of security, and to state the obvious, it's got to end sometime unless it's going to be made permanent. And the longer it goes on, the more likely we are to take it for granted and change our behavior in ways that are not sustainable once those conditions change. In essence, keeping the program in place could create a "car bubble," and we sort of know what happens when those economic bubbles break, don't we?

That being said -- and here's where this becomes more of a stream of consciousness exploration of the idea rather than a specific argument -- it might be a worthwhile idea to install some sort of smaller rebate for trade-ins that result in more fuel-efficient cars on the road on an ongoing basis.

So, to sum up (I think) -- Cash for Clunkers needed to expire before we came to expect it, both as consumers and manufacturers, but that's not to say something can't take its place in order to incentivize fuel-efficient behavior.