My understanding is that’s essentially what they did for cars, i.e., the “cash for clunkers” program was a way to wipe out (as much as possible) the used car market so people would buy new, thus supporting the auto industry.
i had forgotten about that car-swap craziness, but just yesterday was pondering the fact that i never see true ‘beaters’ on the road anymore… thanks for reminding me why that is.
The cash for clunkers not only impacted the used car market, but it also eliminated those vehicles from being available in the used parts market also. The engines were destroyed. The cars were then taken and crushed.
For those who can afford to buy new parts at the store, that’s fine. But for the numerous people who can’t afford that, it eliminated those parts from showing up in the used market. That used market spans from the junk yard, to Craigslist and eBay.
There is another group that it impacted also. If new parts are no longer being manufactured for a vehicle, it reduces the pool of available parts significantly.
I had an example of this. I a 1998 car with a cracked right tail light. I couldn’t find any being sold new. I also couldn’t find any aftermarket lights. In talking with used parts sellers, the left lights are generally available, but the right lights are sold as soon as they’re pulled from a wrecked vehicle. I’m sure there’s some statistical/behavioral reason for it. If I didn’t find a replacement tail light, that vehicle would be illegal to drive in my state.
What option was I left with? Buy a new car. Well, not really. I purchased smoked tail light covers, and hoped no one would notice the crack. That worked fine until I sold it.
This home proposition is completely insane. I suppose the “they” purchasing the low cost housing is the government. So the government will bail out the owners of these low value homes, assuming they will purchase higher value homes.
There are significant flaws. First, a decent percentage of the “low value” homes on the market are owned by the banks who foreclosed on them. So the government would simply be funneling money to the banks again.
Second, there are people who need those homes. There has not been a significant period in US history where the population dropped significantly. Yes, I know, WWII, but the population jumped shortly after the war. Reducing the number of available homes pushes people into homelessness, living with friends/family, or apartment dwelling.
With the current economic state, wouldn’t it be far more intelligent for the government to buy homes, and give them to low income citizens?
I know someone who lives in Europe. The government does exactly that. They will buy abandon and/or unsellable properties (too low value to interest most buyers). They are given to low income families who go through a vetting process. The “low income” isn’t what we consider though. It is, people with jobs, but do not make enough to be able to afford their own homes. There are only a few requirements. They must live in the home. They must make any necessary improvements on their own. After residing in the home for 3 years, they are given the option to purchase the home for a very small amount.
So rather than destroying something that would be useful to someone, they give it to the people who need it.
Defense.gov News Photo 110426-A-7597S-183: U.S. Special Operations service members with Special Operations Task Force South board two UH-60 Black Hawk helicopters following a clearing operation in Panjwa'i district in Kandahar province, Afghanistan, on April 25, 2011. Source: Wikimedia.
My understanding is that’s essentially what they did for cars, i.e., the “cash for clunkers” program was a way to wipe out (as much as possible) the used car market so people would buy new, thus supporting the auto industry.
More consumerism insanity.
@anothernut
i had forgotten about that car-swap craziness, but just yesterday was pondering the fact that i never see true ‘beaters’ on the road anymore… thanks for reminding me why that is.
anothernut, you’re right, it is insanity.
The cash for clunkers not only impacted the used car market, but it also eliminated those vehicles from being available in the used parts market also. The engines were destroyed. The cars were then taken and crushed.
For those who can afford to buy new parts at the store, that’s fine. But for the numerous people who can’t afford that, it eliminated those parts from showing up in the used market. That used market spans from the junk yard, to Craigslist and eBay.
There is another group that it impacted also. If new parts are no longer being manufactured for a vehicle, it reduces the pool of available parts significantly.
I had an example of this. I a 1998 car with a cracked right tail light. I couldn’t find any being sold new. I also couldn’t find any aftermarket lights. In talking with used parts sellers, the left lights are generally available, but the right lights are sold as soon as they’re pulled from a wrecked vehicle. I’m sure there’s some statistical/behavioral reason for it. If I didn’t find a replacement tail light, that vehicle would be illegal to drive in my state.
What option was I left with? Buy a new car. Well, not really. I purchased smoked tail light covers, and hoped no one would notice the crack. That worked fine until I sold it.
This home proposition is completely insane. I suppose the “they” purchasing the low cost housing is the government. So the government will bail out the owners of these low value homes, assuming they will purchase higher value homes.
There are significant flaws. First, a decent percentage of the “low value” homes on the market are owned by the banks who foreclosed on them. So the government would simply be funneling money to the banks again.
Second, there are people who need those homes. There has not been a significant period in US history where the population dropped significantly. Yes, I know, WWII, but the population jumped shortly after the war. Reducing the number of available homes pushes people into homelessness, living with friends/family, or apartment dwelling.
With the current economic state, wouldn’t it be far more intelligent for the government to buy homes, and give them to low income citizens?
I know someone who lives in Europe. The government does exactly that. They will buy abandon and/or unsellable properties (too low value to interest most buyers). They are given to low income families who go through a vetting process. The “low income” isn’t what we consider though. It is, people with jobs, but do not make enough to be able to afford their own homes. There are only a few requirements. They must live in the home. They must make any necessary improvements on their own. After residing in the home for 3 years, they are given the option to purchase the home for a very small amount.
So rather than destroying something that would be useful to someone, they give it to the people who need it.
Nah, that’d never happen.