4 thoughts on “UC Davis Econ in the News”

  1. Well, I was going to say that it’s suspicious that you didn’t mention Clark’s article but then I thought to myself… “Don’t be an a-hole.”

    Just in case it’s worth saying, I do disagree with several of the unstated assumptions implicit in that argument.

  2. Well, even if it was a redistributional policy, it was pretty crappy. Lump sum transfers to unemployed auto workers would be much better. I like my old pickup but I’m seriously considering using the subsidy to buy a new car. However, if you just gave me $4500, I wouldn’t be buying a new car with it… Plus, lots of those subsidies are going to dealerships and stock holders, not auto workers.

    If we have to hide our redistributionist policies behind tenuous environmental or efficiency arguments, then maybe it ain’t a good policy.

  3. It was redistributional policy, expenditure policy and environmental policy together as proposed by Blinder.

    “However, if you just gave me $4500, I wouldn’t be buying a new car with it” That’s why CFC works better as an expenditure policy.

    “Plus, lots of those subsidies are going to dealerships and stock holders, not auto workers.” Sure, no program will only go to low skilled workers. How much is “a lot” though? I can’t find numbers on it.

    The CFC program should reduce smog more than gas mileage, as old cars are smoggy. I can’t find an analysis yet, maybe later they’ll have some.

    How much is the expenditure stimulus worth? If you have a $4500 subsidy that can create $9000 in new expenditure, that’s a multiplier of 2 which is pretty good. We’ll see once the program is over what can be said about it on that front.

Comments are closed.