I guess I'd agree but we're taking apples and apple here. The vehicles that are getting traded in are gasoline powered with internal combustion engines. It's not like it's "trade in your S-10 Blazer for a hoverboard." You get money to trade something in that gets slightly better mileage. And one thing no one mentions...once people get more fuel efficient cars, they tend to drive more. Ooops! "Hey, that $60 of gas can now get me farther north!" Oh well!
If this was for domestics only, I'd say it's another way to "help" (albeit another I don't agree with) them. But since every brand is pumping this hard, I hardly see how this will help "save" Detroit.
Great quote in the WSJ yesterday:"On the other hand, this is crackpot economics. The subsidy won’t add to net national wealth, since it merely transfers money to one taxpayer’s pocket from someone else’s, and merely pays that taxpayer to destroy a perfectly serviceable asset in return for something he might have bought anyway. By this logic, everyone should burn the sofa and dining room set and refurnish the homestead every couple of years."
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204313604574326531645819464.html
I don't think anyone is arguing it's good economics. It's feel-good economics that may give a slight bump in the fuel economy of the overall fleet and bail out the car manufacturers. Although I don't agree that it's merely a transfer of money. If it preserves jobs, those are folks who are still out there spending money in the economy.