In Tentative Support of the GM Bailout
Nov 17
I am not generally in favor of bailing out businesses. In general, businesses should be allowed to live or die as the market dictates. But I was in favor of some kind of bailout for the financial sectors, largely because I believed that the credit market really was in a dangerous place, dangerous enough to take down the rest of the economy. I think we are probably in the same place with GM.
First, it seems pretty clear that the automakers would not be ale to reorganize under Chapter 11 and would have to go to Chapter 7 — meaning liquidation. Not only would that kill those companies, it would kill all of the suppliers who depend on their business. And that would kill all of the companies that depend on those suppliers, and so on and so on down the line. Anywhere from one to three million people could lose their jobs from those effects. And that doesn’t even include the effects from the loss of millions of pensions or the fact that this would be the first major economic downturn with the new, draconian personal bankruptcy laws in place. It would now be harder for unemployed people to get back on their feet, increasing the economic damage. Some studies suggest that it could cost state, local, and federal governments up to 200 billion dollars just to mitigate the damage a collapse would cause. And that number doesn’t even include the cost in lost tax revenues, estimated to be in the neighborhood of 10 billion dollars over the next three years.
That all would be bad enough by itself, but we are already looking at the deregulation recession and it is looking to be a bad one. If the economy cannot survive without a functioning credit market, it can also not survive without consumers who are capable of spending and willing to do so. Unfortunately, consumers have not shared in the productivity gains of the last eight years and are, at best, making as much today as they were eight years ago. They are generally carrying too much debt and will see no increase in their income for quite some time. Consumer sentiment, already at record lows, could very well be crushed by the sight of such a sudden collapse. It could very will be the mental straw that causes consumers to tip the recession into a deep economic stagnation.
There is also no reason to believe that the bailout would be an act of charity. In addition to the savings in government outlays and increased tax revenues, a properly constructed bailout could and even should be a long term benefit to the country. First, any bailout would be an opportunity to force the Big Three to finally address the reality of energy independence and global climate change. That, and the breathing room to finish the management changes they have already undertaken that promise to turn them into better competitors, should make the Big Three much better job producers and tax sources in the years ahead. The last auto bailout actually made the government money, and there is no reason to believe that, eventually, this bailout could not do the same.
In ordinary times, for ordinary businesses, a bailout would not be the correct decision. But these aren’t ordinary businesses, and these certainly aren’t ordinary times.
#1 by ACR at November 17th, 2008
| Quote
It looks like the folks in DC are hell-bent to give the stimulus package another try seeing as the first one didn’t have any real effect.
This time it’s the car industry.
While the sanity of blowing cash around and running the national debt up even further is questionable; it seems inevitable - so this time let’s target unemployment, create AMERICAN jobs and pump up the economy all at one time.
Consider the following:
Manufacturing costs of motor vehicles are 65% labor (i.e.: W-2 income), that’s not all direct but due to suppliers. GM alone has over 1300 suppliers. (That’s a lot of jobs!)
1 in 10 Americans makes all or part of their income due to the automobile industry.
Money turns over 5 times in a year.
Thus a vehicle with a manufacturing cost of 20K produces 13,500 in W-2 income which in turn becomes a total of 65K in 12 months due to the 5 turnovers.
(This isn’t magic, it’s simply how the economy works.)
Our domestic car makers are saddled with legacy costs, most of which will reduce dramatically in 2010 due to contract changes. They need to survive to get there.
Our own over-zealous government with a virtual alphabet soup of regulatory agencies has been no help either.
Foreign competitors have worked off-shore collectively to meet various US gov’t. imposed emission and safety standards, thus dramatically reducing those R&D costs. American car companies are prohibited from that by our FTC.
Make no mistake; it’s no surprise that once again government has been a major part of the problem.
Here’s the solution.
Instead of either shipping cases of cash off to car makers; or sending us all another check:
Send out a voucher for say $1,000 good on a motor vehicle for the percentage of the vehicle that’s domestic. (Civic = 70% Ford Explorer=80%)
Let those not interested in a new car sell or give away their vouchers (Ebay would be loaded with them in no time flat) and those that are so inclined can use as many as they can get their hands on up to the full MSRP of the vehicle.
This would bail out the car industry without giving them a dime directly
Further it would reduce the overall age of the nation’s cars which would in turn;
increase overall fuel economy & decrease pollution.
Strengthen the dollar!
Since vehicles with a higher domestic content would be moving better this would reduce our imports, strengthening our dollar which would in turn further reduce what we pay for anything imported …like gas!
Jobs
Instead of simply bailing out a few big companies, this would cause such a run that it would create employment throughout the industry affecting over 1300 suppliers and their workers.
That would give the economy good swift kick right where it needs one!
Pays for itself!
Since money turns over 5 times, and the vouchers are only good for the domestic content of the vehicle, every dime would be spent in the United States creating taxable income.
What is the income tax on 65,000 anyway?
(Remember? 20K manufacturing cost = $13,500 W-2 income x 5 = $65,000)
Another Stimulus Package?
I’m sure you’ll agree that this makes more sense than simply sending out checks; many of which will be used to buy new flat screen TV’s usually made in Malaysia or some such place.
#2 by Dan M. at November 17th, 2008
| Quote
Silly question: Why can’t we just make it a buyout instead of a bailout. Admit that the gov’t is entering an industry that’s broken by buying the companies that are failing. We’ll get at least 8 years to make them workable before some Republican (or whatever the pro-business, non-theocratic party is that the Repubicans split into) privatizes it. (At which point, it’ll be a handout, just like the right will complain now.)
#3 by Ben at November 17th, 2008
| Quote
Let the company fail, but insure the pensions and health plans.
#4 by Kevin at November 17th, 2008
| Quote
Dan M.
I thought about that, but they would still need the extra money, so we would either be buying at a huge premium, or we would spend more money on top of the bridge loans.
#5 by Tom at November 17th, 2008
| Quote
There is nothing positive that a bailout will do for Detroit that Chapter 11 won’t, and bankruptcy court and the industry’s long line of creditors will be far more likely to reorganize the industry into profitability and responsible management than some big handout to the UAW, shareholders, management, the Michigan congressional delegation, and everyone else except taxpayers and consumers.
The US auto industry has been selling the same old spin since the early 80s. They’re always “just around the corner” from “turning it all around” and being “#1 again”. They’ve been far more successful and profitable at selling bull over the last 30 years than they ever were at selling vehicles. It’s all garbage and if the Obama administration does a bailout, it’s a guarantee that the same cast of characters will chew away at any sort of reform from the start and we’ll be right back where we are within 10 years.
President Obama, this is your moment of truth. Let them go!
#6 by Jason at November 18th, 2008
| Quote
Today GM suffers a loss of about $2,000 per vehicle sold. On the other hand Toyota whose employees are not part of the UAW earns a profit of about $1,200 per vehicle sold.
No Bailout until the UAW sees the light.
http://nomedals.blogspot.com
#7 by gattsuru at November 18th, 2008
| Quote
For the love of Pete…
Not only would that kill those companies, it would kill all of the suppliers who depend on their business. And that would kill all of the companies that depend on those suppliers, and so on and so on down the line.
You fail economics forever. If there is any demand for these products, the suppliers and most of the workers related to GM will be rehired. Almost certainly at a decrease in value for GM employees (average GM employee pay and benefits are nearly twice that of a Toyota worker), but work that needs to be done isn’t going to disappear. On the contrawise, work that no one is going to pay for will not be done, and thus little guarantee that the bailout will do anything but slow the bleed of jobs from GM’s closing plants.
#8 by Kevin at November 18th, 2008
| Quote
“You fail economics forever. If there is any demand for these products, the suppliers and most of the workers related to GM will be rehired”
That has to be the most uninformed thing I have read about the current mess. GM and the like are currently in trouble not because no one is buying GM cars but becasue the credit crisis and econoic donwturn has created a sitution where no one is buying any cars. Toyotay, Honda, etc are all getting creamed. So once the Big Three close, those jobs are not coming back for ytears, if at all.
Because of past mistakes and the steps taken to correct past mistakes, the Big Three do not have the same cash on hand situation that Toyota et. al. do. Normally, this could be finessed by borrowing money, but, again, the credit crisis has made that very difficult for the auto makers to do at a rate they can reasonably afford. hence the bailout is reasonable to undertake, if you believe, as I do, that the big three can survive medium term and that the loss of jobs would be a crushing blow to the economy at this time. But those jobs will go, because the bad economy and credit crisis have made the car business crap for everybody.
However, since the demand for cars will rebound once the credit crisis is passed and really rebound when the economy picks up, there is little sense in driving the country deeper into recession and gut our industrial base as a solution to what appears to be a temporary problem.
Your Econ 101 textbook, by the way, does not model the actual economy all that well.
#9 by Kevin at November 18th, 2008
| Quote
Jason
Cite, please, and show your work: how is the UAW the problem here? Show that the UAW contracts are the cause and not, say the fact that the government pays for the health care of Toyota workers or Toyota execs are paid at a much lower rate or pretty much anything else that could be the cause of the alleged problem.
#10 by gattsuru at November 18th, 2008
| Quote
Kevin, the government does not pay the health care of American Toyota workers, which are still more profitable (usually to a tune of ~40-60 USD+benefits/hour). The numbers do speak for themselves, if you actually bother to look for and read them, rather than spout what Al Franken can pass out.
If you actually believe it’s a worthwhile use of American taxpayer money to keep afloat a trio of companies that, by your own admission, no one is going to buy from (an attribute I listed but quickly dismissed as a meaningless option), I think we have what might be considered a fundamental conflict of underlying understandings. I tend to assume the point of a company is to make products or provide services, as would be the point of having employees.
#11 by PHILLIP at November 19th, 2008
| Quote
Auto Industry, come to congress with a plan! Survival should come at a price for all involved in your industry. Give congress a plan on survival. Everyone tighten your belt! Tell congress I want a loan and in return for that, we have come together with this proposal. We will ask Management and Labor to take an across the table reduction in salary and benefits… Get your landlords, attorneys, suppliers, advertising agencies, to participate in your pain. Make it equitable across the board. They are all going to get
alot more by you staying in business then going out of business, or filing chapter 11. Entrepreneurs are nimble and quick your company was started by entrepreneurs. Put out a simple letter to all involved to be signed, if everyone comes to the table your stock has value and you become a good loan risk to tax payers. Make a public chart who is your partner and who is not. If not chapter 11 will do it for you at a much higher cost.
#12 by Jacob Pendo at November 19th, 2008
| Quote
Let them eat cake…
This dude named Marx once said that Capitalism will be its own demise and that it will eventually replaced with communism.
#13 by ooopinionsss at December 3rd, 2008
| Quote
How you think when the economic crisis will end? I wish to make statistics of independent opinions!