| About Us | Contact | Donate | User Blogs | Login |
No Bailout Please - Part 3
Reports indicate that there is less confidence that the auto indusrty bailout will be passed. Many Republicans and some Democrats question whether the bailout bill will use taxpayer's dollars effectively. The Bloomberg article Democrats Back Off Prediction of Automaker Bailout Approval describes the latest version of the bill.
The Democratic proposal would let the president appoint a so-called car czar to oversee industry restructuring, and give taxpayers stock warrants equal to 20 percent of the loans. It would prohibit the automakers from paying dividends and owning or leasing corporate jets, and pay and bonuses would be limited.
This, however, does not address the inherent problems with these businesses. Preventing the "paying dividends and owning or leasing corporate jets, and pay and bonuses" addresses none of the major problems. A limit on excesses misses the basic fact that these are failed companies, who can't garner loans from anyone other than Congress. The only check or change that this bill implements is 'a car czar'; the powers of which Chairman Barney Frank tried to explain...
‘Head-Knocking’
Frank told reporters today the bill would give the car czar “a great deal of head-knocking ability” with “a lot of the powers that you would get in bankruptcy.”
The official would have the power to veto participating automakers’ plans to invest abroad, Frank said. Lawmakers want to ensure the companies don’t “take American taxpayer dollars and expand in other countries rather than here, or shut down a plant in America while expanding a plant elsewhere,” he said.
Because Bush and President-elect Barack Obama are unlikely to agree on a czar, Obama will likely replace Bush’s pick as soon as he takes office, Frank said. The Bush administration has said the official should come from the Commerce Department.
So this 'car czar' a likely member of the Commerce Department will be apparently appointed by President Bush then replaced by the future President Obama, and he shall be granted 'head knocking abilities'.
Chairman Frank went on to state that the auto industry will likely need to be granted more money in the future, something Speaker Pelosi has also stated. This does not instill confidence that this bailout will be anything but a waste of money.
A few basic questions for lawmakers...
How will this money fix the failed business policies of the auto industry?
How many bailouts and/or how much money will be paid to the automakers total?
What's wrong with bankruptcy?
What are the requirements for being granted a government bailout?
This is still not an rational soution. Ask your representatives not to support this bailout bill, and make them at least answer the basic question, 'how will this money fix the problems that the auto industry faces?'
Continued Problems with the Automaker Bailout


Comments
Some other questions
How are we going to have a viable auto industry if:
a) The UAW is protected from obtaining real world pay scales and work rules
b) Domestic auto makers are barred from making the high profit vehicles needed to pay back the loans, instead forced to sell unprofitable "green" cars.
Given the fact we are likely to end up with a commissar and not a Czar running Detroit, maybe we really shouldn't be investing in "American Leyland"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Leyland
Agreed
Particluarly agree that there are problems with pay scale. I'm sort of taking the dumbed down approach of saying that if lawmakers want to spend billions of dollars, at minimum they need to explain why that money will help these companies survive long term. - Doesn't seem to be a lot to ask, but have seen no real explanation as of yet.
why's that?
I think most economists favor a bankruptcy for the big 3... just not in the midst of the worst recession since the Great Depression.
This is "keep them afloat" money -- and MAYBE it ought to be used to get their butts in gear, but then again, maybe it's just better to let them be sticks in the mud.
Nobody can afford to buy them out.
I loathe the idea of bailing out Cerberus Financial. Can't we at least make the bank fail or get bought out?
I think there's a burgeoning market for green cars
people are more aware of efficiency.
Also, with proper road networks, the need for light trucks will decrease.
FAILED industry ain't the problem, dearie.
the Credit Crisis is the bigger problem. Nobody is getting loans, not even consumers, who are seeing their credit limits slashed.
A contraction in credit is natural, but this one is really extreme. Seen the rates on treasuries lately?
Why not just let them go bankrupt later? Keep the jobs now, when the economy can't and shouldn't be expected to absorb more plant closures.
When's a good time to fail?
The idea that we can't withstand their failure now, but will be able to in a year or so is sort of crystal ball economics. We don't don't know what the next year or two will bring, and assuming it's better to put off failure or bankruptcy only to deal with it later I don't see as wise policy.
If lawmakers want to say, this bailout is simply intended to delay the companies inevtiable failure then they should say that; otherwise they need to explain how this money will fix things.
I can give you a sound economic measure of when
we will have put the recession far enough behind us to allow the big 3 to go bankrupt. I won't give you a date, that's just as you say, inept.
No politician wants to explain economics. If they did, then there wouldn't be minimum wage increases. Therefore we get tons of bailouts, and no reasonable explanation as to why. (the fiscal bailout enabled us to have an election in November, and preserved our government from the threat of martial law).
I believe it is worth it to ask -- is this actually saving us money? If we let the big 3 go bankrupt (worst case, they shutter all factories and there are no more jobs in detroit. picture a cascade failure of that city's economy) and spend the money on unemployment, will that actually be better than a bailout? I doubt it. The cost in materiel and capital would be prohibitive (liek letting a house in florida be unowned for a while. goes bad in a hurry).
That's a bit dramatic...
Chapter 11 doesn't mean the companies shut down and the factories get boarded up. Barney Frank even said that the 'car czar' would have "a lot of the powers that you would get in bankruptcy". There are a lot of big companies that have reemerged from bankrupcy better off. Personally, I don't really care what politicians want to talk about; if they want to spend billions of taxpayer money then voters should insist that give a coherent reason as to how a bailout would work effectively.
so call your congressman.
in reality, we do elect these people so that we don't have to do all of the work. They assume that it's their tush on the line if things don't get better, and if they do (in all respects including the debt) then they get reelection, no matter how many dumb decisions they've done in the meantime. The hell of it is, it actually works. Just look at Diaper Vitter.
It's not as dramatic as you might think -- we're in the middle of a credit crisis. I'll admit it is extreme, but I wanted to choose that to look at the worst outcome. ;-)