![]() |
|
||
|
Sooner or Later, They’ll Bail Out DetroitPosted on Nov 20, 2008The truth is that the chief executives of the Big Three automakers could have hitchhiked to Washington to beg for alms and still would have been raked over the coals. But the fact that they came in their corporate jets was a bit much. What, they couldn’t have piled into a tricked-out Malibu and taken turns at the wheel? Richard Wagoner of General Motors, Robert Nardelli of Chrysler and Alan Mulally of Ford should begin the inevitable cost-cutting by firing their public relations consultants. They left Capitol Hill empty-handed, but they’re bound to get some kind of federal help, however grudging. In the end, I don’t think either George W. Bush or Barack Obama wants to be remembered as the president who lost the auto industry. Strings will be attached, solemn promises extracted, oaths signed in blood. At some point—I’m an eternal optimist—the wizards of Detroit might even come up with a car or two that Americans actually want to buy. If not, well, the Big Three execs can always come back to town—by more modest means of transport, one hopes. If there’s anything beneficial in this predictable melodrama, it’s that contemplating a taxpayer-funded rescue of the auto industry might make Americans realize the extent to which our government already puts its big fat thumb on the scales of free enterprise. The idea that the U.S. economy is based on unfettered free markets is, and has long been, a cruel joke. Advertisement But even before the current crisis, the United States government had an industrial policy. We just couldn’t be honest and call it what it really is—which meant that we couldn’t be serious about its design and implementation. Instead of openly “picking winners and losers,” which is anathema to the pure-of-heart free-marketeers, we hide our industrial policy in the tax code. One example was unearthed earlier this month by The Washington Post. The Bush administration changed the way it interprets a provision of the tax code known as “Section 382”—it has to do with corporate mergers, tax shelters and the way losses suffered by an acquired company can be used to offset profits made by the acquirer. The details are less important than the bottom line: Because of the change in interpretation, banks will get a windfall of as much as $140 billion. The tax code is littered with that kind of targeted largesse. This is a large part of what lobbyists do—get tax breaks for their clients. In agriculture, we just write checks. Ethanol subsidies were an issue in the presidential campaign—Obama supported them, John McCain wanted to kill them. The truth is that it’s a lot easier and more efficient to make ethanol out of sugar cane than out of corn, but they grow sugar cane in Brazil and corn in Iowa, and citizens of Brazil don’t get to vote in U.S. elections. We’d be less energy-dependent on the Middle East if we just imported a lot of cheap ethanol from Brazil—but there would be a lot of angry farmers in the Midwest, and the regional economy would suffer. The law about all politics being local has not been repealed. Detroit blames its situation on the financial and economic crisis. It’s true that demand for cars has fallen off a cliff, largely because many would-be buyers are unable to get financing. It’s true that the auto industry claims to have seen the light about making energy-efficient cars. But it’s also true that these newly enlightened executives spent years defending the industry’s obsession with SUVs—and pooh-poohing the idea that times, and tastes, would ever change. They should be given the money—then shown the door to make way for management that can see past the hood. Eugene Robinson’s e-mail address is eugenerobinson(at)washpost.com. © 2008, Washington Post Writers Group Elsewhere: . CommentsAre you a Truthdig member yet? Login now, or register with Truthdig. Add Your Comment
|
A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion. Editor, Robert Scheer. Publisher, Zuade Kaufman.
Copyright © 2009 Truthdig, L.L.C. All rights reserved. |
By Marshall, November 30, 2008 at 4:07 pm #
Foreign auto manufacturers are actually building more plants in the U.S. (insourcing), employing thousands. They continue to make cars the world wants to buy. They are the only companies selling actual alternative fuel autos. And they are totally and completely non-union.
Washington needs to let the antiquated U.S. manufacturers suffer so they institute true change (removal of current leadership, dissolution of unions). Only then can they be competitive with the rest of the world.
Report thisBy FCBarca, November 24, 2008 at 3:53 pm #
I have absolutely zero sympathy for an industry that has actually gone backwards in the last few decades…Instead of working on alternative fueled vehichles (Like Honda & Toyota), the U.S. automakers in their infinite wisdom and greed (Coupled with Big Oil) decided to make bigger, more inefficient and polluting automobiles…Nevermind still unreliable.
Now we’re going to reward that arrogance?...Rich get richer why the rest of America pays for it…I sense a theme here, wealth dictates everything in America
Report thisBy P. T., November 23, 2008 at 3:05 pm #
“All we need is a government with vision to help us build the future.”
Report thisDon’t hold your breath. And mass transit is no relic: Europe and Japan are cases in point.
By dihey, November 23, 2008 at 12:46 pm #
Jezus Eugene, you are outstandingly naive. Bushama cannot continue to wage wars without the tanks and other military hardware made by US automakers. After some palaver and faux feints they will be “saved” by hook or by crook or by both, or else by Golly.
Report thisBy sugarsnap88, November 23, 2008 at 5:44 am #
Mass rapid transit is a relic that was discarded mid-century when freeways were built. Automobiles will soon become relics because they are inefficient and unfair to a disenfranchised 50% of the population. Their replacement will be Personal Rapid Transit. All we need is a government with vision to help us build the future. Check out this website:
Report thisskytran.net
By P. T., November 23, 2008 at 2:18 am #
Economist Dean Baker has pointed out: The story is that the big three automakers are struggling with record sales declines. This collapse in car sales in turn is the fallout from the collapse of the Greenspan-Bernanke housing bubble. While the domestic automakers have been hit hardest, all manufacturers have seen sharp drops in sales. Toyota’s sales were down 23.0 percent compared with its year ago levels. Honda’s sales were down 25.2 percent, and Nissan’s sales fell 33.0 percent.
These huge plunges in year over year sales by the world’s top auto manufacturers can’t be blamed on the industry. Responsibility for this plunge lies with Henry Paulson and other economic policy makers and their Wall Street friends.
Report thisBy P. T., November 23, 2008 at 2:13 am #
Ultimately, they are going to get bailed out. Michigan, Ohio, and Indiana would be wiped out without the American auto companies. Those states are where the auto companies and their suppliers mostly are located.
Backruptcy won’t work because people won’t buy from a bankrupt auto company. They would fear there might be no service departments or parts available in the future.
In addition, bankruptcy would mean the auto companies wouldn’t have to pay their suppliers all the money they’re owed. That would force suppliers into backruptcy.
So, there’s going to be a bailout.
Report thisBy Vadernooooo, November 22, 2008 at 10:00 pm #
There comes a point where…we have to do something. Its the potential of 3 million jobs being lost if the “Big Three” go under. As awful and reluctantly anyone may want to do this, we can’t let so many people all of a sudden lose their jobs.
Report thisBy M Henri Day, November 22, 2008 at 6:16 am #
My guess is that, as Mr Robinson opines, Detroit - i e, management - will indeed get its bail-out, but only after the crisis is allowed to proceed so far that the UAW has been forced to agree to significant cutbacks in wages and benefits. When this objective - the completion of the process of the destruction of industrial unionism in the USA - has been attained, the money will be rolled out in an attempt to maintain some sort of industrial base, this time unencumbered by any responsibilities for the welfare of its worker, in the country. Why maintain an industrial base at all, given that profits roll in just as easily from factories in outsourced subsidiaries in other countries in which worker protection is (also) a joke ? Well, a power the foreign policy of which is based almost entirely on military dominance of the rest of the globe is well advised to maintain a certain industrial capacity at home….
Henri
Report thisBy bandz, November 21, 2008 at 7:45 pm #
The so-called bail out of Wall Street recently passed by Congress is like trying to bail out the sinking Titanic. The problem is too big and too top-heavy to bail out. It won’t work. A REAL bail out for the short term should be geared to those in financial need, not to those who have far more than they need and who have created the current problem. Instead of undertaking a hopeless task of bailing out a sinking ship, give the passengers a life jacket.
Here’s a formula for the life jacket instead of bail-out approach that would really help in the short term: Have the government give $1 million dollars to every U.S. registered voter (or taxpayer)* whose income is less than $100,000* per year. No strings attached. It would help those who need it most. They would spend much of that money, which would give the economy a needed boost. Most of it would be spent in this country rather than overseas. (*Details of eligibility and amount are negotiable - within reason.)
Of course, it would not solve the long term problem. That would require legislation imposing stringent regulation of Wall Street and the whole banking, financial and corporate-industrial system. It would also require legislation to bring about a greater financial equality of the population, including higher taxes on wealthy corporations and individuals, leveling of the inequalities of compensation, limits on corporate bonuses and retirement packages, and surcharges on incomes (individual and corporate) of over, say $1 or $2 million per year. Finally, we need to call a halt to our country’s political and military adventurism and attempts to impose a pax Americana on the rest of the world, and to implement a national, universal, comprehensive, not-for-profit, single-payer healthcare system in the U.S.
Those steps would give us a START at reducing the national debt and assisting those among our population who NEED help. Unfortunately, the addiction of the American population to long outdated ideological positions and notions regarding economic and political issues make those goals ALMOST as difficult as bailing out the Titanic. They would, however, offer a HOPE of success in which our present efforts are totally lacking.
Bryce Babcock
Cottonwood, AZ 86326
.(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)
**********
Report this“In principle there is no difference between welfare for the poor and tax breaks for the rich. Both consist of government aid to groups of people and are designed to ‘spread the wealth around.’ It is only the recipient groups that are different.” — Bryce Babcock
By Big B, November 21, 2008 at 7:28 pm #
The capitalists have had their chance. They had unregulated control of the market place for nearly 30 years. They have received huge tax breaks, and financial assistance any time they cried out for it.
So how’s that working out for ya?
The theory behind this corporate utopia was that unregulated business would prosper, and all of society would benefit from this creation of wealth. Everyone from the CEO to the guy that sweeps the floors would make a good living wage and enjoy health and retirement benefits second to none.
But one huge problem queered this whole trip towards this conservative Shangri-La.
Human nature. Well that and the uniquely american attitude of “Fuck my neihbor, I got mine”!
The auto industry is dying because of capitalism, pure and simple. When you produce a product that your own impoverished work force cannot afford, you will not be long for this earth. When you cannot sell you product in the new “world marketplace” because it does not match consumer needs, you’re screwed. When a business is unregulated and mismanaged, Capitalism suggests that it can and should change or die.
Nothing we do now will save the auto industry. Besides the other shoe has not even dropped yet. They all have underfunded retirement and healthcare plans whose debt runs into the tens of billions of dollars. Once Ford GM, and Chrysler get out from underneath those debts, it will cost the taxpayers even more, because those unfortunate retirees will now be on the government dole.
Capitalism has once again failed america. The time for radical change has arrived.
Report thisBut do we have the stomach for it?
By howard read, November 21, 2008 at 6:00 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
it looks like the big three should gp to the big oil companies to borrow money.they have made more money than ever bodyelse put to gather.the two of them are tied togather,so why not take care of each other.the oil companies have the money so why not lend to daddy.this would make the auto folks have to preform.
Report thisBy bestpix, November 21, 2008 at 5:04 pm #
These guys are so out of touch they believe that they are worth $500k/week!
Do NOT bail out Detroit . . .
Report thisin fact; get our money back from the banks NOW! give them back their monopoly-money stock. Am I the only one who sees that the hundreds of millions we have given the execs of these banks has done NOTHING! Except line the pockets of ceo’s
By Jim, November 21, 2008 at 2:48 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
Why not get the Oil Companies to bail out the Big 3?
Report thisBy nino, November 21, 2008 at 1:55 pm #
Let the fat cows stagger and die. They’ve had their day. Why should the taxpayers pay out more to corporate America than we already have.
Besides, most Americans have already bought their last car. The age of personal transportation is drawing to an end. Wake up and smell the end of the fossil fuel era.
Report thisBy Naz, November 21, 2008 at 5:26 am #
The auto industry produced and, through advertising, shoved vans and SUVs down the throats of Americans so that the oil companies could sell more gasoline, as if there were a never ending supply of oil. If the auto industry needs money now, they should get it from the subsidies the government, we taxpayers, provide to the oil industry even as they make record breaking profits.
Report this