The good folks at Power Line have come to the obvious conclusion that if we accept the current market capitization of the US auto Big Three, we could buy the whole batch for about $7 billion, thus, they imply, obviating the need for a $25 billion or so rescue. Really?
Why can’t Congress see the obvious brilliance of this observation?
Well, perhaps it’s because if the US actually bought three near-bankrupt (or worse) auto companies for $7 billion, then the US would now own . . . three near-bankrupt (or worse) auto companies. Now what, Power Thinkers?
The decision whether to provide an additional $25 billion or so to Detroit’s automakers has less to do with the current market capitalization than with the strategic question of whether the United States would like to maintain a domestically-owned and located manufacturing base. A long time ago, a wiser Administration asked Detroit to build hundreds of thousands of airplanes, tanks, APCs etc. to stop Hitler, Mussolini and Tojo — and they did, because everyone back then understood this national security fundamental.
Of course, given what the Bush Administration has done to US strategic interests and the condition of our armed forces, it’s a lesson some on the other side would prefer to sweep under the rug. They don’t seem to mind the likely result of the Chinese owning the heart of our industrial base.
But let’s follow through with this Power Investment strategy and buy Detroit’s trio for $7 billion. Are we done? Nope. If we actually care about sustaining this strategic manufacturing asset in US hands, we’d still have to spend $25 billion or so now as a necessary bridge to help that industrial capacity survive George Bush’s "Best Recession Ever." We’d have to cover the financing of all the parts suppliers and dealers, pay the workers, cover their health care (or fund the system the unions agreed to, to get GM et al off the hook).
If we didn’t do that through decent paying jobs, we’d have to pay for the same ex-workers’ unemployment, while covering their health care, retirement, retraining, etc, along with the costs of all of the other secondary adverse impacts on the rest of the auto-related industry. Price: How about $200 billion in government costs for starters.
So, if Power Line wants to push the economic brilliance of just buying Detroit, and washing the union’s blood off their hands, ’cause maybe they think that’s the easiest way to get rid of GM management and the union, let them explain next how well the US would perform as the new owners of three auto companies whose survival was deemed vital to national and economic security.
I’m really curious about that one, because I thought these Power guys were convinced that the government couldn’t manage squat, that it was best to leave management oversight to boards of directors and shareholders, but I guess I just don’t understand the logic of drowning American’s industrial base in the bathtub just to prove that your side really does deserve 40 years in the wilderness.





40 Comments
Spotlight
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About The Seminal
Advanced search
John Hinderaker’s the same genius who says that Bush is a better public speaker than Obama.
Scarecrow, I can’t believe that you expect these guys to think beyond the two dimensional surfaces onto which they spew their shallow minds.
Now Scarecrow, you know that in reality, the Powerline folks have no complaints about GM’s management. After all, they’re most likely good Republicans because they’ve been making all these bonuses for years for running companies into the ground.
The Unions though – yeah, they’re all bad people who didn’t go to the proper schools or anything so screw them. /s
It never fails to amaze me how so-called “conservatives” and libertarians fail to understand the basic premises of modern accountancy and business practice.
Now, if China’s demanding a pound of flesh, why not keep Michigan and the auto industry, troubled as it may be, and give them Texas? That’s my modest proposal for today.
So Detroit goes bankrupt and by it cheap ok. Nobody will be buying the cars.
Sure fuel efficient cars are one thing , getting quality up is another, bur just how many 30%ers buy because its American made?
How many buy because Detroit pays good and they feel its patriotic to buy American?
Detroit goes under and all those union workers come back to work at $8 a hour loosing their homes in the process?
Well lets imagine Detroit does not go up in flames and troops come in.
Who would buy a American car after that?
Homeless auto workers should set up a tent city on the Bush Brush Ranch.
I say buy the Big Three, take a dominant equity position and control of the board of directors, and launch a mega green technology program. Not just autos. Not even all transportation. Use that machine-tool base and all that skilled human capital to retro-fit the northern half of the USA for residential energy efficiency.
I actually have no problem with the US getting a stake in the US automakers in exchange for the money it will likely be putting up for them. In particular, it would give the US the power to can top management if they underperform and eliminate stock dividends and golden parachutes. It would also make it easier to force them into making greener more fuel efficient cars. Of course I would still raise CAFE standards but also change taxing to penalize buyers of gas guzzlers. At this point in the economic collapse, I have no problem with throwing some money at workers to keep them employed. It will be workers spending money that will eventually get us out of this mess, a relatively simple economic truth that like so many others Paulson and Bernanke never learned.
like that. But how do they get there?
say anything to keep the blame away from ummmm – Bush!! new repug TPs are to let the auto industry die a quick death… nevermind the massive loss of jobs…
Aren’t these the same guys who have a hit list on their own?
This isn’t (necessarily) a complaint, but I get tired of having to wrap every social proposal in the (military) flag: global warming is a national security problem, so it’s OK to do something about it; the US can’t get back to being the leader of the world so long as we insist on torturing our purported enemies; and now, we need to save industrial companies in the US so we can continue to make our own destructive weapons.
Where is Karl Rove and the adults in the GOP? You cannot say crazy stuff on the Net without someone finding it. This is a PR disaster! The Michigan Militia kiss their votes good bye the have homes in the state.
They have jobs in Michigan that depend on customers in Michigan having money the workers don’t have money they grow broke.
Trickle up economics the roots of a plant die the plant dies.
Cars? Trucks? Tanks? Military vehicles? Buses and trains? What do we need to manufacture those for? We can buy ‘em from China or Korea or Japan, right?
Don’t disagree with the need for general conditions about what we’d like to see in strategic direction in exchange for the bridge funding. I’m less adamant about insisting we do (or don’t) need to replace management, because I’m not convinced those who would decide this have a demonstrably better track record of picking superior management. Compare our Treasury’s handling of $700 billion, so far.
Fair point. Wars do happen, even when you don’t start them, but it’s fine with me if you want to define the next strategic threat in terms of global climate change or energy security, etc. Either way, I think the nation would want to have some control over the industrial capacity needed to deal with it.
I think it is worth noting that the notional value of credit default swaps with GM as the reference entity is $65,188,000, according to this chart. The chart is provided by DTCC, which has all sorts of restrictions on its use. It only includes CDSs registered with DTCC, so it may be low. Ford is the reference entity on $53,695,000. GM has $33.4 bn in long-term debt. Ford has $140 bn in long term debt. This suggests that a lot of people have bet against the survival of GM without actually owning the debt. Sounds like AIG, doesn’t it, kind of like this diary.
The following was sent to my congressional representatives today:
Dear Senator:
Having given thought to whether we should bail out the auto industry, I believe the arguments for and against can be summed up thusly:
1) there are a few “let-it-fail” advocates that come from states with vested interests in other (foreign owned ) auto companies: Alabama, Tennessee, etc;
2) there are an abundance of “let-it fail” advocates who believe that bankruptcy in the form of Chapter 11 reorganization is the best course because the companies can shed non-productive contracts, excessive pensions, etc;
3) there are a considerable number of pragmatists who counsel an immediate bailout because the truth is that Debtor in Possession financing has dried up (GE, for example, the biggest provider of such financing, has gotten out of the business), and so a Chapter 11 would surely become a Chapter 7, with unsavory elements able to buy up American technology and assets at fire sale values, losing needed industry and military capability in the process;
4) there are a considerable number of bail-them-out-now-but-with-conditions proponents, but it seems obvious to me that such conditions would quickly become needlessly political, with fights over trivial union or contractual minutia, and not much bailout to be had.
I think we should consider whether the GOVERNMENT could or should provide DIP financing in Chapter 11 Bankruptcy for the auto industry (or guarantees to those lending entities willing to take on the debt). In that way, Chapter 11, which is after all the premier tool for rehabilitating and restructuring ailing firms can be employed, while keeping politics to a minimum.
Why not nationalize them? It would require capital injections and/or massive loans, but since we’re already thrown $3.8 Trillion down the rabbit hole, what’s a few billion more – and we’d actually be getting something for a change.
Doesn’t look like any money is coming from the lame duck session.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/200…..ss_returns
haven’t read the comments yet – but i do think it’s a brilliant idea to buy the auto companies. please let’s. if we’re going to bail out the auto companies – which i think we must. why not do it a way that ought to, at least in theory (yeah, i know that theory is more than a little frayed around the edges) will give us a say in how they are run?
better yet. as part of the reorganization we don’t buy out that part of the businesses. let them eat paper.
However, the Poerline folks are probably not capable of the poser lifting needed to dump Detroit in Lake michigan and would schlep to nearer Lake St. Clair. In its currently decimated state, a good shove into the Detroit River might suffice.
btw, great link. thanks.
Of course, after these workers lose the homes, the banks get stuck with them, nessesitating another bailout of the sector we really care about.
Brilliant
CNN Dana Bash reporting Lie-berman expected to keep key position. Likely to remain DHS chair.
Democrats: shame on you.
Their line of reasoning is simple:
1) They don’t CARE about sustaining this ’strategic manufacturing asset’. If it don’t make things go boom it ain’t a ’strategic asset’.
2) Parts suppliers, dealers, workers etc, can go bleep themselves, those PowerLine guys got theirs .
No, truly. this is what happens when impressionable young adolescent men read Ayn Rand, then never leave mommy’s basement.
I wish to steal a line from Naomi Klein, as heard on “Real Time” a couple weeks ago: “Please, if we’re going to be nationalizing industries, lets for once nationalize PROFITABLE ones…Let’s Nationalize Exxon!”
from amy goodman’s interview with naomi klein this morning:
the whole program this morning was exceptional.
I don’t think we are taking into account the extent of the ripple effects of a bankruptcy. Anyone remember the YUGO. What about all of the dealerships. would those jobs go bye bye. What would the value of a uaed vehicle be for all of those who own one. Upside down loans anyone. You need a new starter? Those finance companies that did leases? What would happen to the car rental cos when they tried to roll over their inventory?
New Eli up over at the Mothership
Sounds like a whole new kind of Shock Doctrine, one for the Shockers.
Obama, change you can’t believe in.
Thanks for the commentary, Scarecrow, as well as the dialogue it evoked. It is all a help for looking at that blackbird, which I’d not done before
As always you get down to the bottom line with wisdom.
Blessings to all,
M
That is the way it feels
We should keep Texas. Austin alone hosts and houses in the region the best Americana Outlaws in the land.
And besides, I know someone who lives in Texas and she’s a nice lady. Heck, I know TWO people in Texas, and they are BOTH nice ladies. *G*
Let’s give China Alabama and Georgia.
Look at all the money and jobs to be created relocating whackaloon (as opposed to ok fundie’s) fundies and neocon’s to the south! *G*
Take YOUR thoughts, match it up with what Neil Young proposed (keep building some small shells without motors) and invest into the technology Young is now spokesperson for to fit those cars.
I say nationalize all transportation and energy and invest that bailout money and take it as green as you can, while investing in R & D as a national emergency. And retake the money already gone to CEO’s and benefits and bonuses for industry leaders.
Neil Young spelt it out pretty well . . see Huffpo for his article.
Emptywheel addresses a couple of shortcoming’s of Mr. Young’s ideas in HER brilliant piece today (great comments there, also), but I’m sure it all can be worked around one way or another, we just lack the will and the leader to say, this is how it’s gonna be . . . .
SOMEONE has to be the adult, and lay down how it’s gonna be, and that means our present industry leaders in failed efforts gotta go . . . . they have been nothing more than shills to enable the ripoff of the masses under this admin, and others.
Yea and verily!!! Nicely put, hoss.
It ain’t over. No official announcements. Only unnamed sources.
Like Prez Elect Obama’s Cabinet, much intrigue abounds, but very little FINALITY has come to rest.
Patience, PS, patience. Let it play out, then we hold feets to fires. *G*
I want to post on this “bailout” of the auto industry. I’m of two minds about it. Our leaders here in Canada are also considering it. GM of Canada currently employs about 12000 people in my region, not to mention all the parts “feeder” plants located here too. I live in Oshawa Ontario which is home to GM Canada. We make Chevy Impalas and Monte Carlos, Buick Lacrosse and bolt together Chevy and GMC trucks like Silverados. Many of my friends and neighbours have been or are employed by “the motors” and it has brought great prosperity to our little corner of the world.
So while it directly affects where I live and people I know, I still cannot support the bailout. Ignoring the politics of it all, I just don’t think that there is any reason to prop up an industry that has mis-read the public and buying trends, missed indicators of the “perfect storm” of high gas prices, the credit crunch and the housing slump, and put out products for years that are perceived to be substandard compared to foreign products.
I blame the CEOs and management in Michigan for so misreading the buying public. For years people have wanted smaller, more fuel efficient cars that are put together well. I blame them for chasing the larger profit margins on big gas guzzlers instead of figuring out a way to make fuel efficient cars profitable. I blame them for not adapting their business models to $5/gallon gasoline even though all the signs have been pointing at that for years. I blame the decision makers in the 70s and 80s who put out some truly bad vehicles. Corners were cut to reduce cost and as a result the cars were not as good. Complacent in their market domination, they scoffed at the idea of quality design and workmanship. I blame them for not getting tougher with the unions.
I blame the unions for asking for things that were untenable in the long run like huge wages and health care provisions. I know a guy who gets paid $48/hour regular wages to drive a car off the line to the shipping yards 1.5 km down the road. His job is not dangerous, nor does it require “blood, sweat and tears” – he has 17 years in the union. Think of what he gets for working Thanksgiving or Christmas – double time and a half!!!
In Canada the CAW does not have to bargain for health care, so our workers had a competitive advantage over their UAW brethren for years, but now with the deal of the UAW taking on health care, and the rising Canadian dollar their advantage has disappeared. The guys who work at Toyota in Cambridge (making Corollas, Matrixes and Lexus ES450) or the guys at Honda in Alliston (making Civics) earn an average of $25/hour – that is comfortable enough to live on and as a result Hondas and Toyotas are profitable (even the Civics and Corollas). In fact Toyota is building a new plant in nearby Woodstock to build RAV4s. Anyways, the unions deserve their share of the blame – without their demands for higher salaries etc the big 3 might yet be profitable and could afford to build smaller cars which people would buy in times like these.
I blame the consumer for not buying domestic vehicles (but not too much). It’s hard nowadays to find a truly domestic vehicles – Chevy is pumping out vehicles in Korea, that Impala that you’re driving was made right down the street from where I live, that Saturn that you’re driving is a rebadged Opel designed and built in Germany. However, given the choice between buying a domestic vehicle and an import, we have gone about 40 – 60 over the years. I have owned domestics and they have been OK, but I’ve also owned Hondas, Toyotas and Kias and they have been excellent. (Try driving around in a Kia in Canada’s motor city?!?) I get better fuel economy and they last longer.
I blame governments for not making the automakers start their green shift years ago. The Canadian and Ontario governments have given billions already to GM Canada over the years, but have not required their contribtuions to be tied to environmental progress or job guarantees. They have tacitly agreed that it is still OK to be producing only 6 and 8 cylinder cars and trucks here. I think that if CAFE and other standards had been toughened years ago, this crisis would not be as deep as it is. I also blame the US government for not allowing Americans to have universal health care. In one of the other posts it said that GM loses $700 per car it produces in health care costs. Imagine if health care were universal, that could be going to profit or reducing the car’s price. Obviously as well the government is partly to blame for the current financial crisis.
In summation I think that the automakers, unions, consumers and governments can all share some degree of blame for the current woes in the automotive industry. So I say forget the bailouts – if they survive great, if they don’t hopefully lessons will be learned and the automobile industry will bounce back stronger than ever. I’m currently trying to convince Nissan, Mitsubishi, Volkswagen and Mazda to buy up our soon to be vacated plants and get to work building good vehicles with award winning workers.
I think we should save them, for all of our sakes. but how do we prevent them from drowning in lake wobegon?