# Well-intentioned ideas that won't work in real life: green grocer liberalism **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 10, 2012, 3:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/well-intentioned-ideas-that-wont-work-in-real-life-green-grocer-liberalism/624728 "2012-06-10T15:17:17Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 10
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2012, 10:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/well-intentioned-ideas-that-wont-work-in-real-life-green-grocer-liberalism/624728/181 "2012-06-11T22:48:51Z")
> [@Randvek](#): > > When you redefine “success” as “failure,” nothing can succeed. Cash for Clunkers sold a lot of cars, hombre, and you’re in denial to suggest otherwise. My gripe with Cash for Clunkers is not the claim that it failed to sell cars. Hombre. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2012, 10:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/well-intentioned-ideas-that-wont-work-in-real-life-green-grocer-liberalism/624728/182 "2012-06-11T22:53:38Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Liberal hypocrisy? Could that be it? Why, when **elucidator** shows up and drops one of these lines into the debate, does no one tell him what value his addition has? You all readily expect me to answer honestly, to concede points, to interact. And this happens, with no reaction. ---
**Author:** ![sleestak](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/919ad9/32.png) [@sleestak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sleestak)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2012, 10:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/well-intentioned-ideas-that-wont-work-in-real-life-green-grocer-liberalism/624728/183 "2012-06-11T22:54:30Z")
> [@sleestak](#): > > Cash for clunkers is the broken window fallicy writ large. > > Additonally, there are numerous studies out there that conclude cash for clunkers was a loser. All that it did was transfer some tax money to new car buyers who pushed up or pushed back their purchases. > > I will post cites when i am at a real computer, not on my phone. > > Slee Cites: > [@](#): > > The government’s “cash for clunkers” program boosted auto sales by 360,000 during the two months it was in place, according to a new study. > > But in the seven months that followed, sales were down by 360,000 compared with what they would have been without the program, the study found. > > The implication: The program didn’t bring new buyers into the market. But it encouraged people who would have bought a car anyway to make their purchase a few months sooner. > > Under the program, the government paid people about $4,000 to trade in old cars for newer, more fuel efficient ones. The idea was to both stimulate the economy by driving up auto purchases, and to improve the efficiency of all cars on the road. [Link](http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2010/09/02/129608251/cash-for-clunkers). > [@](#): > > 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. [Link](http://papers.nber.org/papers/w16351#fromrss). > [@](#): > > Using a difference-in-differences approach with Canada as the control group, we have examined program effects on vehicle sales for different time-horizons as well as its impacts on pollutant emissions and gasoline consumption. Our analysis offers rather bleak evidence on the overall performance of the program. We find that a large portion of vehicles sold under the program was a result of demand switching from months surrounding the program: although the program increased vehicle sales by 0.36 million during July and August, the net effect on sales became practically zero by end of 2009. Furthermore, if the program were to be judged as an environmental program, the implied costs of reducing gasoline consumption and CO2 emissions > are quite high: the best-case scenario suggests a cost of over $91 in government expenditure for each ton of CO2 avoided and almost 90 cents for each gallon of reduced gasoline consumption. [Link](http://www.rff.org/RFF/Documents/RFF-DP-10-39-REV.pdf). So, in the end no additional cars were sold. If you consider that effective, well, good for you. Additionally, the program hosed poor people looking for cars. A reasonable number of cars that they could afford got destroyed. Slee ---
**Author:** ![John\_Bredin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/96bed5/32.png) [@John\_Bredin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Bredin)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2012, 10:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/well-intentioned-ideas-that-wont-work-in-real-life-green-grocer-liberalism/624728/184 "2012-06-11T22:59:37Z")
> [@sleestak](#): > > Cash for clunkers is the broken window fallicy writ large. How do you figure? :dubious: Broken-window fallacy (BWF) involves breaking perfectly-good windows **just** so they can be replaced. Cash for clunkers involved taking higher-polluting, lower-gas-mileage vehicles off the road to be replaced with lower-polluting, higher-mileage vehicles. Or, to quote one of the links in your followup: > [@](#): > > The idea was to both stimulate the economy by driving up auto purchases, _and_ to improve the efficiency of all cars on the road. (emphasis added) If that’s BWF, then any and every program to fix, replace, or improve ailing infrastructure is also BWF. :rolleyes: Fixing a crappy road puts people to work, but, surprise, surprise, it also means the road isn’t (so) crappy anymore. :smack: ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2012, 11:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/well-intentioned-ideas-that-wont-work-in-real-life-green-grocer-liberalism/624728/185 "2012-06-11T23:06:21Z")
> [@Mosier](#): > > I remember cash for clunkers coinciding with a higher average fuel economy for cars on the road, and growth in the auto industry (although admittedly at a cost of lower market share for American manufacturers) for negligible cost. > > Did you oppose the program? If I had any serious problems with the program, it would be that foreign automakers weren’t excluded from the deal. They benefited more than American makers did, because they made cars more people wanted. It was a tough call to make, and I’ll concede that that particular decision (not to exclude foreign makers) was in error. But the program in general? No way. It got some of the worst polluting cars off the road and improved the average fuel economy of cars on the road by something like 2%, for less than 2billion net cost to the taxpayers. Big success, in terms liberals value. It’s another example of good intentions, not enough facts. People flocked to the deal. It was so popular that it ran out of money early. Which tells me that a much smaller rebate amount would have still attracted buyers, and been able to get even more cars sold and clunkers off the road. > [@](#): > > Do you agree in general with the concept of public efforts to reduce obesity rates? Do you see it as a public health burden, the cost of which is partially borne by society in general, not just individuals? No, I think it ought to be regarded as a cost – and goal – borne by individuals. ---
**Author:** ![MsWhatsit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/eb8c5e/32.png) [@MsWhatsit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MsWhatsit)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2012, 11:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/well-intentioned-ideas-that-wont-work-in-real-life-green-grocer-liberalism/624728/186 "2012-06-11T23:08:02Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Why, when **elucidator** shows up and drops one of these lines into the debate, does no one tell him what value his addition has? Because I skip over his posts without reading them. His brand of gotcha-style “humor” grates on my nerves and I quit paying attention to him some time ago. ---
**Author:** ![Farmer\_Jane](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Farmer\_Jane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Farmer_Jane)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2012, 11:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/well-intentioned-ideas-that-wont-work-in-real-life-green-grocer-liberalism/624728/187 "2012-06-11T23:08:50Z")
> [@Peremensoe](#): > > Again, we could start by _not subsidizing_ them. **Let the market set truer prices for hamburger and soda and corn chips,** and then spending these much smaller sums to boost vegetables might really make a difference. I wonder if they just wouldn’t change their ingredients. > [@Peremensoe](#): > > Believe what, exactly? That within a short period of time there will be an observable decrease in BMI in inner-city Philadelphia neighborhoods, because of this program? Probably not, but if as your cite says this effort is bigger and different from those before, why not? For a city the size of Philly, it may be worth $900K just to seed the _beginning_ of a shift in some folks’ relationships with food. I’m not necessarily making that argument, but it’s not a patently crazy one. The government wastes more money on schemes of less merit every day. This is a little droplet of funding, set against vastly larger streams of tax money routinely spent to improve the bottom line of mega-farms, food processors and fast-food chains profiting from unhealthy eating. Well, the state of PA has spent millions on health care and proper eating projects aimed at the poor. Well, fat people in general. This $900k grant was just part of it. That being said, Bricker’s objection seems to be that a) it’s not for the Federal government to do (or perhaps the government, period) and b) these programs don’t work. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2012, 11:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/well-intentioned-ideas-that-wont-work-in-real-life-green-grocer-liberalism/624728/188 "2012-06-11T23:53:03Z")
> [@MsWhatsit](#): > > Because I skip over his posts without reading them. His brand of gotcha-style “humor” grates on my nerves and I quit paying attention to him some time ago. He’s not the only one that employs this tactic. In Post #35 **Euphonious Polemic** counters **Bricker’s** complaint about the cost: > [@](#): > > Wow! That’s around the cost of one of the two engines for an AH -64 Apache attack helicopter. I can see why you’d be against that disgusting waste of money. Obama should be ashamed of himself. > > Yes, different governments have different spending priorities. ---
**Author:** ![Mosier](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7ea924/32.png) [@Mosier](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mosier)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2012, 12:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/well-intentioned-ideas-that-wont-work-in-real-life-green-grocer-liberalism/624728/189 "2012-06-12T00:22:41Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > No, I think it ought to be regarded as a cost – and goal – borne by individuals. If it can be demonstrated that society in general (and not just obese individuals) suffers as a result of the obesity epidemic, would you then agree that it is appropriate for the public sector to attempt to address the issue? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2012, 12:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/well-intentioned-ideas-that-wont-work-in-real-life-green-grocer-liberalism/624728/190 "2012-06-12T00:28:05Z")
> [@MsWhatsit](#): > > Because I skip over his posts without reading them. His brand of gotcha-style “humor” grates on my nerves and I quit paying attention to him some time ago. Bereft. Inconsolable. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2012, 1:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/well-intentioned-ideas-that-wont-work-in-real-life-green-grocer-liberalism/624728/191 "2012-06-12T01:33:17Z")
> [@Mosier](#): > > If it can be demonstrated that society in general (and not just obese individuals) suffers as a result of the obesity epidemic, would you then agree that it is appropriate for the public sector to attempt to address the issue? Tentatively, yes. By that I mean that if the “cost” borne by society is itself assumed in error – say, health care costs, which I counted are ALSO individual costs – then it’s not an argument for the public to tackle obesity costs. ---
**Author:** ![Mosier](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7ea924/32.png) [@Mosier](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mosier)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2012, 3:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/well-intentioned-ideas-that-wont-work-in-real-life-green-grocer-liberalism/624728/192 "2012-06-12T03:45:37Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Tentatively, yes. > > By that I mean that if the “cost” borne by society is itself assumed in error – say, health care costs, which I counted are ALSO individual costs – then it’s not an argument for the public to tackle obesity costs. [This article](http://www.naturalnews.com/030000_obesity_productivity.html) cites a study published in the _Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine_ which claims the cost of lost worker productivity due to obesity is around $73billion. Also, why discount the medical cost of obesity? Obesity is causing insurance premiums to rise, and increases the cost of social medical care programs like medicare, which is helping to push the cost of health care up for everyone. It’s not the only factor causing health care costs to rise, of course, but it is a significant one. Can you make a good argument that society doesn’t share the cost of obesity through higher health care costs? The argument that the cost of increased healthcare is also borne by the individual isn’t strong enough to just dismiss the negative effect it has on society through more expensive health care. That would be like arguing that driving recklessly is not a risk borne by society and shouldn’t be addressed by the government, because it’s also an individual risk. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2012, 2:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/well-intentioned-ideas-that-wont-work-in-real-life-green-grocer-liberalism/624728/193 "2012-06-12T14:43:47Z")
> [@Mosier](#): > > [This article](http://www.naturalnews.com/030000_obesity_productivity.html) cites a study published in the _Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine_ which claims the cost of lost worker productivity due to obesity is around $73billion. > > Also, why discount the medical cost of obesity? Obesity is causing insurance premiums to rise, and increases the cost of social medical care programs like medicare, which is helping to push the cost of health care up for everyone. It’s not the only factor causing health care costs to rise, of course, but it is a significant one. Can you make a good argument that society doesn’t share the cost of obesity through higher health care costs? The argument that the cost of increased healthcare is also borne by the individual isn’t strong enough to just dismiss the negative effect it has on society through more expensive health care. That would be like arguing that driving recklessly is not a risk borne by society and shouldn’t be addressed by the government, because it’s also an individual risk. Very weak analogy. A reckless driver directly injures other people, by crashing into them. Here, the impact is attentuated. The obese individual costs more health care, which causes his premiums to rise, which may affect others in his risk group, which may cause their costs to rise. Your argument rests on an assumption I don’t accept: that society has a responsibility for everyone’s health care costs, period, or everyone’s productivity. If an obese worker is unable to amass (ha!) sufficient productivity, fire 'em! For a proposition that seems rather obvious – the $900,000 Philadelphia throwaway of tax money – I find it interesting that there have been heartfelt attempts to tug this thread in various directions away from that admission, and, unless I have miscounted, only two posters have even come close to acknowledging that the $900,000 was wasted. Why is that, do you think? I mean, given how [Liberals’ brains](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=435983) readily accept scientific data while conservatives’ brains do not, and all. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2012, 3:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/well-intentioned-ideas-that-wont-work-in-real-life-green-grocer-liberalism/624728/194 "2012-06-12T15:08:56Z")
You would be on safe enough ground to criticize the program in question. But your effort to inflate this into a critique of liberal thought (or your caricature of it) is like trying to inflate a Japanese condom to the Hindenburg. By that reasoning, the disastrous clusterfuck of the Iraq War is definitive, dispositive, we need know nothing more about Republican “thought”. Comparatively speaking, this is a butterfly fart. Further, any effort to draw sweeping conclusions from one rather minor, rather obscure program is doomed to stupid. I would find such a prospect daunting, others are made of sterner stuff. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2012, 3:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/well-intentioned-ideas-that-wont-work-in-real-life-green-grocer-liberalism/624728/195 "2012-06-12T15:10:11Z")
I don’t really understand what you’re getting at, here. Your OP doesn’t say that the Philadelphia experiment was a failure, just that similar experiments have failed in the past. Even if it _did_ fail, I don’t see how the money is a “throwaway”. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2012, 3:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/well-intentioned-ideas-that-wont-work-in-real-life-green-grocer-liberalism/624728/196 "2012-06-12T15:20:27Z")
**Bricker** : I think you are vastly overstating our ability to predict how such programs will work based on the limited studies done in the past. Understanding complex patterns of human behavior is not like measuring the distance to the moon, where a few simple measurements gets us all we need. I certainly agree that, intuitively, such programs are fraught with problems and I would be very surprised if they worked. But that’s not how science works. And, even good science consists of repeating experiments to make sure the results are, well, repeatable. You cannot dismiss this study as a waste of money simply because some similar studies have been done elsewhere without positive results. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2012, 3:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/well-intentioned-ideas-that-wont-work-in-real-life-green-grocer-liberalism/624728/197 "2012-06-12T15:23:04Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > You would be on safe enough ground to criticize the program in question. But your effort to inflate this into a critique of liberal thought (or your caricature of it) is like trying to inflate a Japanese condom to the Hindenburg. > > By that reasoning, the disastrous clusterfuck of the Iraq War is definitive, dispositive, we need know nothing more about Republican “thought”. Comparatively speaking, this is a butterfly fart. > > Further, any effort to draw sweeping conclusions from one rather minor, rather obscure program is doomed to stupid. I would find such a prospect daunting, others are made of sterner stuff. Sweeping conclusions about the efficacy of similar programs? No – I cited multiple studies from similar programs and am arguing that this program, being similar, is doomed to produce similar results. So I am not resting my conclusions on one rather minor, obscure program. I am sure my tying this into a bigger picture of liberal though has something to do with the reaction, yes. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2012, 3:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/well-intentioned-ideas-that-wont-work-in-real-life-green-grocer-liberalism/624728/198 "2012-06-12T15:24:12Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > I don’t really understand what you’re getting at, here. Your OP doesn’t say that the Philadelphia experiment was a failure, just that similar experiments have failed in the past. Even if it _did_ fail, I don’t see how the money is a “throwaway”. > [@John\_Mace](#): > > **Bricker** : I think you are vastly overstating our ability to predict how such programs will work based on the limited studies done in the past. Understanding complex patterns of human behavior is not like measuring the distance to the moon, where a few simple measurements gets us all we need. I certainly agree that, intuitively, such programs are fraught with problems and I would be very surprised if they worked. But that’s not how science works. And, even good science consists of repeating experiments to make sure the results are, well, repeatable. You cannot dismiss this study as a waste of money simply because some similar studies have been done elsewhere without positive results. Really? At what point might we say with something approaching confidence that efforts like this don’t work? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2012, 3:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/well-intentioned-ideas-that-wont-work-in-real-life-green-grocer-liberalism/624728/199 "2012-06-12T15:24:30Z")
> [@](#): > > …I am sure my tying this into a bigger picture of liberal though has something to do with the reaction, yes. Oh, most assuredly! Its precisely where you are most wrong! Yes, I think you’ve put your finger in it. On it. Same difference. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2012, 3:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/well-intentioned-ideas-that-wont-work-in-real-life-green-grocer-liberalism/624728/200 "2012-06-12T15:26:28Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Oh, most assuredly! Its precisely where you are most wrong! Yes, I think you’ve put your finger in it. On it. Same difference. Then why aren’t people saying, “Yes, this program is flawed, but it means nothing about liberal thought as a whole?” Well, **Mosier** is, and someone else. I think I counted two or three. Most folks seem to be defending the program. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/well-intentioned-ideas-that-wont-work-in-real-life-green-grocer-liberalism/624728.md?page=9) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/well-intentioned-ideas-that-wont-work-in-real-life-green-grocer-liberalism/624728.md?page=11)