Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

Chapter 11 Is the Right Road for US Carmakers

By Joseph Stiglitz, The Financial Times. Posted December 13, 2008.


If we bailout the Big 3 directly, much of the money will just support shareholders and bondholders.

Share and save this post:

      

      

Share on Facebook       

AlterNet Social Networks:
follow us on twitter
find us on Facebook

In Special Coverage

Belief:
Is Blind Faith in God and the Bible a Modern Invention?
Devilstower

Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace:
What Can the Morass of the 1970s Tell Us About the Current Economic Crisis?
Alejandro Reuss

DrugReporter:
Why Are We Locking Up Traumatized Veterans for Their Addictions Instead of Offering Them Treatment?
Penny Coleman

Environment:
Why Max Baucus' 'No' Vote on the Climate Bill May Really Help Its Passage
Jeff Mcmahon

Food:
Soda Helps Make Americans Unhealthy and Fat -- Will Soda Tax Prevail Despite Pushback by Beverage Industry?
Christine Spolar, Joseph Eaton

Health and Wellness:
Does the House Bill's Public Option Kill Off the Senate's?
Booman

Immigration:
Immigrants and Health-Care: What Part of LEGAL Doesn't Washington Understand?
Marielena Hincapié

Media and Technology:
Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh Stoking GOP Civil War
Eric Boehlert

Movie Mix:
The Yes Men: Pranksters Out to Fix the World
Mark Engler

Politics:
What Obama Is Up Against in His Own Branch of Government
Russ Baker

Reproductive Justice and Gender:
"Precious" Star Claims the Spotlight
Emily Wilson

Rights and Liberties:
Ugly Truth: Most U.S. Kids Sentenced to Die In Prison Are Black
Liliana Segura

Sex and Relationships:
9 Silly Things People Say When They Hear You Don't Want Kids (And Ways to Counter Them)
Liz Langley

Take Action:
G-20 Meetings: Nothing Much Happened in the Suites, and There Was Too Much Punch in the Streets
Laura Flanders

Water:
Radioactive Wastewater in New York Raises More Concerns About Oil Drilling
Abrahm Lustgarten

World:
Afghanistan Is Worse Off Than Ever, Thanks to the Sham Army We're Propping Up
Chris Hedges

More stories by Joseph Stiglitz

Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

The debate about whether or not to bail out the Big Three carmakers has been mischaracterised. It has been described as a package to help the undeserving dinosaurs of Detroit. In fact, a plan to bail out the carmakers would benefit shareholders and bondholders as much as anybody else. These are not the people that need help right now. In fact they contributed to the problem.

Financial markets are supposed to allocate capital and monitor that it is used to good effect. They are supposed to be rewarded when they do that job well, but bear the consequences when they fail. The markets failed. Wall Street's focus on quarterly returns encouraged the short-sighted behaviour that contributed to their own demise and that of America's manufacturing, including the automotive industry. Today, they are asking to escape accountability. We should not allow it.

What needs to be done is to help the automakers get a fresh start and allow them to focus on producing good cars rather than trying to juggle their books to meet past obligations.

The US car industry will not be shut down, but it does need to be restructured. That is what Chapter 11 of America's bankruptcy code is supposed to do. A variant of pre-packaged bankruptcy - where all the terms are set before going before the bankruptcy court - can allow them to produce better and more environmentally sound cars. It can also address legacy retiree obligations. The companies may need additional finance. Given the state of financial markets, the US government may have to provide that at terms that give the taxpayers a full return to compensate them for the risk. Government guarantees can provide assurances, as they did two decades ago when Chrysler faced its crisis.

With financial restructuring, the real assets do not disappear. Equity investors (who failed to fulfil their responsibility of oversight) lose everything; bondholders get converted into equity owners and may lose substantial amounts. Freed of the obligation to pay interest, the carmakers will be in a better position. Taxpayer dollars will go far further. Moral hazard - the undermining of incentives - will be averted: a strong message will be sent.

Some will talk of the pension funds and others that will suffer. Yes, but that is true of every investment that has diminished. The government may need to help some pension funds but it is better to do so directly, than via massive bail-outs hoping that a little of the money trickles down to the "widows and orphans". Some will say that bankruptcy will undermine confidence in America's cars. It is the cars and carmakers themselves - and the dismal performance of their executives - that have undermined confidence. With industry experts saying $125bn (94bn, 84bn) or more will be needed, with bail-out fatigue setting in, why should US consumers believe that a $15bn gift will do the trick of a turnround?

It is more plausible that confidence will be restored if the industry is freed of the burden of interest payments and is given a fresh start. Modern cars are complex technological products and the US has demonstrated its strength in advanced technology. US workers, working for Japanese carmakers, have shown their hard work can produce cars that are desirable. America's managers too have demonstrated their managerial skills in many other areas.

The failure lies with the managers of US carmakers and America's financial markets, which failed in their oversight and encouraged short-sighted behaviour. The "bridge loan to nowhere" - the down payment on what could be a sinkhole of enormous proportions - is another example of the short-sighted behaviour that got us into this mess.

As the bailouts continue, numbers that once looked huge are starting to seem almost normal. Hundreds of billons are being given to banks and insurance companies. AIG got $150bn. Compared with that $34bn, or even $125bn, for the automotive industry seems a modest request. Even so, we should not forget that a few months ago, President George W. Bush said there was not enough money for health insurance for poor children although it cost just a few billion dollars.


Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: detroit, shareholders, big 3, bondholders

Joseph Stiglitz was awarded the Nobel prize in economics in 2001. His latest book is the Three Trillion Dollar War,co-authored with Linda Bilmes (2008).

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
They Made Mistakes for Sure
Posted by: ron heringhauser on Dec 13, 2008 2:32 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There is no doubt that the automakers failed to forsee the collapsing economy and $4.50 a gallon gasoline. That being said, do we now make matters worse by putting the final nails in the coffin of an economy on the edge of a massive depression? The criminals on Wall Street with their derivates, leveringing, credit default swaps, the AIG'S, the massive bank failures, Fanny and Freddie etc. gambled away trillions and Paulson threatens Congress with martial law and doomsday if he isn't allowed to loot the Treasury with no oversight. Our government no longer is represented by our elected officials; it is controlled by the Central Bankers (Federal Reserve:Not Federal and No Reserves) backed up by the militery-industrial complex. This "Shadow Government" must be exposed for what it is, Corporate Fascism. This rush to a One World Government, controlled by the power-elite, will be stopped by the freedom loving people of the world. The civil unrest which is just begining in Greece, Iceland, Germany, France, and many third world countries, will surly escalate and topple many governments. The USA will not be immune to this firestorm.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Maybe not...
Posted by: bluepilgrim on Dec 13, 2008 4:12 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I don't know this area at all, but reading this (admittedly not an iron-clad source) is worrysome. It may the devil in the details, and that the UAW could get shafted.

http://en.wikipedia.org/
wiki/Chapter_11,_Title_11,_United_States_Code

"Some contracts, known as executory contracts, may be rejected if canceling them would be financially favorable to the company and its creditors. Such contracts include labor union contracts, supply or operating contracts (with both vendors and customers) and real estate leases."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The right road!
Posted by: 2thepoint on Dec 13, 2008 4:24 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As soon as the auto makers can get ride of those insane union contracts the faster workers jobs will be safe!

This was a perfect example how irresponsible union demands combined with questionable management skills could bring a giant down!

As for shareholders and bondholders - why shouldn't they benefit, they invested in the company - remember many workers are investors as well!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: The right road! Posted by: bluepilgrim
» Their time has come and gone! Posted by: 2thepoint
» RE: Their time has come and gone! Posted by: bluepilgrim
» RE: Those 'Insane' UAW contracts Posted by: Purple Girl
» Good job! Posted by: harpy
» RE: Good job! Posted by: 2thepoint
» RE: Good job! Posted by: bluepilgrim
» RE: Good job! Posted by: 2thepoint
» RE: Those 'Insane' UAW contracts Posted by: bluepilgrim
» insanity? must be you. Posted by: jon B
» RE: insanity? must be you. Posted by: bluepilgrim
» exactly! Posted by: jon B
» RE: exactly! Posted by: bluepilgrim
» RE: insanity? must be you. Posted by: 2thepoint
» RE: insanity? must be you. Posted by: 2thepoint
» RE: The right road! Posted by: Alice1rn
» RE: The right road! Posted by: 2thepoint
» RE: The right road! Posted by: newly informed
» RE: The right road! Posted by: 2thepoint
» RE: The right road! Posted by: mockingmylife
» RE: The right road! Posted by: 2thepoint
Head Hunting American Workers
Posted by: Purple Girl on Dec 13, 2008 4:33 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Funny I don't recall these other entities even being discussed as to the 'reason' the Repugs bailed on the Deal.
It was, and is solely, a matter of busting the unions and leaving retirees in the dirt.
Funny it has ONLY been the UAW who has made concessions, repeatedly, year after year, decade after decade.
I am Not, Nor are any of my family current auto workers or related to the industry. but we all will be directly adversely effected by the situation. Bankruptcy is Bullshit...You are only interested in freeing yourselves from contractual obligation made to American Workers. Once you break these Unions, I hav eno doubt you will be looking towards the other Autoworkers (note - theose foreign makers are asking THEIR gov'ts for loans Too!)
Granted I like to see the past & present CEO's Heads on a Stick for the assistance they gave to Big Oil. Amazing our 2 oil men may be going back in to save their fellow commrades, Probabaly the ONLY thing good DICK & W will do for the Average American (of course Workers are their least concern). And 'Drug Czars' should help their Pushers.
Let's be honest, regardless what you handed the assembly line worker, they would have assembled it. So this BS'Mismanagement' agruement is ONLY valid when going after the Decision makers....Yet it still remains the Line workers you are after. Your 'Logic' reveals your seething hatred of the working class.
Isn't also funny how our 'free market' system is now demanding that All Auto workers be forced out of this concept- Price Setting?
I have to give it to Cheney, he hit it right on the head...Hooverism. Who do Repugs think 'Joe Six pack' is? Who 'Joe the Plumber' relies on for work? Who are suck car fanatics they not only work the line, but watch Nascar every weekend? You might as well kiss those asses good bye boys...You are now fucking with etiher their livlihoods, their entertainment, or their Boyhood memories..Shelby's, Hemi's- or all of the above.
Also in regards to the 'Mismanagemetn' agruement- which party has consistently fought against emmission standards,alternative Fuel/energy research, Bribed the Foreign makers into the country and continue to pay their 'Cover charge'? I think there are about 31 Senators who's history undermining the american Economy should be Prosecuted for 'aiding' our Economic foes.
so blame the Management, But don't forget to thank your senators for the last 30 yrs of economic downfall and the future 'sucking sound' once again.
Oh by the Way as 'rust Belters' begin their Exodus (round 2) we will be heading to your regions, competing for your auto jobs, or supplier jobs, or waitressing jobs, or florist jobs...It's not that these companies we too big to fail, it's that they are so intrically embedded into our NATIONAL economy. Not to mention the number of Corps on the Stock market which are directly related and indirectly related to the 'health' of the Big 3...so ya think your hedge fund has taken a shit recently..Ya ain't seen nothing yet.
shake the Koolaid induced self righteousness which the right has indoctrinated you with and Think a little deeper and wider. Why would your Repug base which worked hand & hand with the Big 3 CEO's over the last few decades screwing the American Public with Gas Guzzlers abandon them now? to finally crush the Unions and hand their Foreign Leaders US on a Silver platter. You say bankruptcy.. funnny I hear Economic TREASON againast ALL Citizens of THIS country.Screw YOU!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

NOT AUTO MAKERS BUT BANKERS
Posted by: cashelboylo on Dec 13, 2008 4:40 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The simple truth is: GM Corp, Chrysler Corp and Ford Corp DO NOT MAKE CARS.
Never in history has one of these bloated mismanaged money juggling corporations ever made a car.
They are not Carmakers, they are simply moneymakers. They do not make anything other than money.
And they do not make their money by making cars.
They are not car makers, they are defacto BANKS -- and they make their money the same way all banks do – not by producing anything, but by BORROWING MONEY AND LENDING MONEY.
And these corporations do not employ one auto-worker.
The cars are made by their subsidiary companies, contractors and employees, providing the corporations with enormous cashflow that is in turn lent yet again – and again and again and again.
The subsidiaries of the corporations employ only a quarter-million workers. And these companies will not get one cent of any bailout. They will get only whatever may be left after the corporations have refilled all their deficient beg borrow steal and lend accounts.
Contractor companies employ three times as many as the corporation subsidiaries – around three-quarters of a million –
and these companies will NEVER see any sort of money from any sort of bailout.
The corporations borrow money at low interest – by selling stocks, raising debentures, issuing bonds and borrowing from other banks. They lend the borrowed money at high interest to their subsidiaries and to their contractors and to their consumers, making exorbitant profits in the process.
The enormous cash flow from multiple sources ebbs and flows. From time to time, there is some potentially idle money lying around – for a few seconds – then it is out in the short-term money market earning interest.
Sometimes this money is used to buy “securities” that look attractive and reasonably liquid – backed by, say, home mortgages. Maybe bundled securities.
The reason these corporations are in trouble is not their fifty years of gross stupidity in car design and manufacture.
The reason is that right now, these banks (aka corporations) cannot borrow money. Nothing whatsoever to do with making cars.
They cannot borrow money because there isn’t any money.
There never was any money.
The so-called “legal,” “licensed,” “authorised,” “regulated” whatever banks were allowed even pre-Dubya to lend ten times their capital.
Bush, Cheney, Wolfowitz (now comically running World Bank) held this to be unnecessary restraint and allowed them to lend any amount of money they cared to lend, regardless of their capitalization or legitimate borrowing capacity.
Money lender executives like Hank Paulson cheered enthusiastically and made many millions.
So they lent many times all the so-called “money” in existence – on security that was as non-existent as the money.
Non-banks were way outside of the “regulated” system and borrowed and lent as they wished, making up paper securites to “secure” the paper money.
Saving the flatulent, ridiculous anachronistic, nepotistic, feudal money-lending fiefdoms that own auto manufacturer subsidiaries will not save one of their subsidiaries or contractor companies or one employee job.
What it will do, all it will do, is save GM Bank, Ford Bank, Chrysler Bank, their inept management and their major stockholders.
The obvious alternative is to liquidate these corporations/banks by whatever means fits – and rescue intact the subsidiary companies and their line managements that actually do make cars.
These real carmakers can then be sensibly restructured under competent carmaker (not moneylender) management, and there just might be some future for American auto manufacture.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: NOT AUTO MAKERS BUT BANKERS Posted by: bluepilgrim
» RE: NOT AUTO MAKERS BUT BANKERS Posted by: Mike Turnauer, Vancouver,WA
Chapter 11 bankruptcy would save the automakers
Posted by: kahuna_2bears on Dec 13, 2008 5:30 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The problem with the big 3 GM, Ford, and Chrysler

Has two big problems.

1. The UAW demanding more and more benefits.

2. the U.S. Government forcing them to build cars that no one wants.

Allow me to borrow a bit of lingo from the CB radio days. Small cars like Volkswagens, and other sub conpact cars were called pregnant roller skates.

People do NOT feel safe in these tiny cars because they know that if they are in an accident with a regular size pickup or a Semi The chances of them coming from an accident with a big vehicle without being injured or killed is slim.

Back in the 1970s when the CAFE standards started they did a good thing. A friend of mine had a truck that only got 7 or 8 miles to the gallon. This caused the big 3 to remove carburetors and opt for fuel injection. That was a very good thing. The amount of mileage to a gallon of gas shot up to 15-20 miles a gallon. Now the Government is wanting to raise the CAFE standards to 30 miles per gallon. The only way to get that many miles out of each gallon of gas is to make the cars lighter and lighter, and this lightening the load makes the cars more and more unsafe.

The UAW need to be broughy into line. The UAW demanded higher pay with more and more benefits.

The big 3 going into Chapter 11 would force the UAW to come to the table, and renegotiate contracts, and then the big 3 could lighten the load somewhat. That would be the end of GM, Ford, and Chrysler's job bank paying workers who were laid off, and paying the health insurance of retired people that no longer work for the big 3

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Profit Sharing
Posted by: Last Chance on Dec 13, 2008 6:07 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If Ford, Chrysler and General Motors had each adopted a profit sharing system to give each employee an equal share of the real profits, and if a democratic board of directors had developed a plan to retool for green auto technology, they would not now be on the verge of bankruptcy, but instead would be busy designing and producing safe and environmentally harmless vehicles.

But the greed of debt madness has collapsed the market so there are no longer enough buyers to support the huge salaries, bonuses, retirement packages, $30 an hour wage scales and huge pensions. Thus, even if Congress approved the bailout, it would only delay by a few months the inevitable bankruptcy of a grossly mismanaged industry, and a fatal waste of tax payers money from an effectively bankrupt federal government that has to borrow everything it spends.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Why should we subsidize corrupt and incompetent
Posted by: sonofloud on Dec 13, 2008 6:25 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
corporations?
People argue about workers losing their jobs, well if you paid attention for the last 25 years the auto companies have been steadily reducing their work force and reducing their benefits.
These workers will be "let go" now or in the future.
What did the auto industry do with earlier bailouts??? Close plants in the US, open them in foreign countries, make suvs, and buy more corporate jets.
Why would they ever change their behavior when they get billions from the government to continue whenever their money runs out?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

we need changes to the economic structure
Posted by: jon B on Dec 13, 2008 6:42 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Consider Delphi as to Chapter 11. A top auto supplier they filed in 2005 AND ARE STILL IN BANKRUPTCY. Just recently they were turned down for a loan to try to finish up the case. The crapped out credit market said "NO!" The union got savaged during the bankruptcy and the top execs took home whopping severance packages or salary retainers. Not a good example to follow.

The UAW HAS been giving concessions in the latest several negotiations. The current contract will run out in 2010 and you can bet they were already expecting to give up some more.

Some answers, but not good ones necessarily, who knows?

How about a national health care plan as the Japanese and Germans and French and Koreans, all car making nations, have? Then American companies could work new health care packages at both the line worker, office level and retirees.

How about an end to all state subsidies for car makers? Places like Alabama and Mississippi have handed foreign car companies free land and no tax plans to help them build brand spanking new plants. Those Republican states are using socialism to entice Japan and Germany to build cars.

Maybe require workers have democracy within the auto corporations? Corporations are basically organizations set up as communist dictatorships, where only the top have any decision making power. Many decisions could be voted on with all workers having an equal vote. Imagine that, democracy in companies that operate in a democracy.

How about free and fair trade? Any nation that puts quotas on American cars being imported should be slapped with auto quotas on their exports to America until they open their markets equally. Japan and Korea would be shaken to the core to actually have to face fair trade.

Giving a loan or having chapter 11 will make little difference if we don't shake up the fundamentals of our system that makes it hard to compete. You could cut wages in half and foreign home nations would do the same or find some other competitive advantage that we give them (such as no national health care plan) and still out compete US firms. Having a wage race to the bottom isn't going to sell more cars in the long run, lower wages obviously makes selling a big ticket item harder to those making the new lower wage.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» The ruling class is insane. Posted by: Last Chance
Foreign Banksters DELIBERATELY Killed American Automakers by Raising Oil Prices
Posted by: salt-of-the-earth on Dec 13, 2008 6:52 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Below is an editorial written Dec. 4th. concerning the current situation in Washington, with regard to the Big Three domestic automakers. Please take the time to read this letter from a Ford dealer in Pittsburgh.

The end of the road for U.S. carmakers?
Posted in the Baltimore Sun Forum
http://tinyurl.com/5zovje

Editor:

As I watched the coverage of the fate of the U.S. auto industry, one alarming and frustrating fact hits me right between the eyes. The fate of our nation's economic survival is in the hands of some congressmen who are completely out of touch and act without knowledge of an industry that affects almost every person in our nation. The same lack of knowledge is shared with many journalists whom are irresponsible when influencing the opinion of millions of viewers.

Sen. Richard Shelby of Alabama has doomed the industry, calling it a dinosaur. No Mr. Shelby, you are the dinosaur, with ideas stuck in the '70s, '80s and '90s. You and the uninformed journalist and senators that hold onto myths that are not relevant in today's world. When you say that the Big Three build vehicles nobody wants to buy, you must have overlooked that GM outsold Toyota by about 1.2 million vehicles in the U.S. and Ford outsold Honda by 850,000 and Nissan by 1.2 million in the U.S. GM was the world's No. 1 automaker beating Toyota by 3,000
units.

When you claim inferior quality comes from the Big Three, did you realize that Chevy makes the Malibu and Ford makes the Fusion that were both rated over the Camry and Accord by J.D. Power independent survey on initial quality? Did you bother to read the Consumer Report that rated Ford on par with good Japanese automakers.

Did you realize Big Three's gas guzzlers include the 33 mpg Malibu that beats the Accord. And for '09 Ford introduces the Hybrid Fusion whose 39 mpg is the best midsize, beating the Camry Hybrid. Ford's Focus beats the Corolla and Chevy's Cobalt beats the Civic.

When you ask how many times are we going to bail them out you must be referring to 1980. The only Big Three bailout was Chrysler, who paid back $1 billion, plus interest. GM and Ford have never received government aid.

When you criticize the Big Three for building so many pickups, surely you've noticed the attempts Toyota and Nissan have made spending billions to try to get a piece of that pie. Perhaps it bothers you that for 31 straight years Ford's F-Series has been the best selling vehicle. Ford and GM have dominated this market and when you see the new '09 F-150 you'll agree this won't change soon.

Did you realize that both GM and Ford offer more hybrid models than Nissan or Honda. Between 2005 and 2007, Ford alone has invested more than $22 billion in research and development of technologies such as Eco Boost, flex fuel, clean diesel, hybrids, plug in hybrids and hydrogen cars.

It's 2008 and the quality of the vehicles coming out of Detroit are once again the best in the world.

Perhaps Sen. Shelby isn't really that blind. Maybe he realizes the quality shift to American. Maybe it's the fact that his state of Alabama has given so much to land factories from Honda, Hyundai and Mercedes Benz that he is more concerned about their continued growth than he is about the people of our country.


Jim Jackson Elkins

CONT. BELOW

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Instead of relying on the Big 3 or even foreign auto makers, why can't we
Posted by: maxpayne on Dec 13, 2008 7:54 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
find talented and eager young men and women who want to show their talent in car building and let them show us new and better ideas? And while at it, why not set up local small business auto manufacturing businesses for a change and get back to spreading around good ideas and healthy competition just like the good old days? It's high time we got rid of the RIGGED and unfettered-for-the-elites "capitalism" and had a real capitalism for a change. In a real capitalism, no one would be getting bailouts but would instead realize that maybe a timeout isn't such a bad idea.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It may be off topic but.....
Posted by: TREEGUY on Dec 13, 2008 8:06 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
coorporations I think are doomed for failure from the get go. They are designed to grow and make a profit in order to support the shareholders. If they don't they lose.

You can only grow so much then you have to get back to what's real.

I think that is what's happening. Corporations have grown to the point of being unrealistic in their value. Almost everything has gotten out of proportion.

The world is getting back to real value, real worth. The veil has been pulled back and everyone is running scared. Dial 9-whaaaa-whaaaa.

I feel for everyone that got sucked into this credit, debt, mess.

Lets take a look into the files of the big auto makers and take a look at all the great ideas the shelved so they could keep you glued to the gas pump. THen let's see how sympathetic we are.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Oh for some oversight
Posted by: doodles on Dec 13, 2008 8:13 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why did the Republican's reject the congressional bailout, knowing that Bush, et al, would bailout the Big 3? Because the Congressional bailout had real oversight and consequences for the fat cats that are responsible for the mess. The looting of the Treasury continues.

And as usual, you didn't get that it really is about union busting as well. It's the workers that are responsible for the problem? Sure, "blame the ultimate victim." That's like Phil Gramm's "predatory borrowers." The last time I checked, neither labor, nor borrowers were the bosses or had any real power.

And as for your attitude towards those people that "invested" in the auto industry, you might as well say "let them eat cake". Most of those people, including my 78 yr old uncle, who is a bond holder, are people who were just trying to earn something with their money, since banks no longer really pay interest. You can't even keep up with inflation with savings accounts or cd's.

It is Management that is the real problem and they that should pay the piper if anyone does. It is management that got multi-million dollar salaries, bonuses, and golden parachutes, not labor.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

And I might add this also
Posted by: TREEGUY on Dec 13, 2008 8:30 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
you used to be able to fix your own car.

Plastic was supposed to make replacement parts cheaper.

Deisel fuel used to be cheaper than gas until they made cars with deisel engines.

I own pre computer cars and won't have it any other way.

I don't care what they come up with I won't buy it if I can't fix it.

Stop making cars out of plastic and use sustainable material that can be reused.

My 1961 vehicle gets 26 miles per gallon stock. And I'm happy with that.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» That's you and me... Posted by: jmndodge
» RE: That's you and me... Posted by: TREEGUY
» RE: That's you and me... Posted by: bluepilgrim
» I hear ya. Posted by: TREEGUY
Barbara 49120
Posted by: avidAmerican on Dec 13, 2008 8:30 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Bankruptcy of any kind is not good for the American Auto Industry. 3 Million MORE jobs are at stake here, probably even yours. That's on top of the 2 Million jobs already lost THIS year.
The Southern Senators who killed the Bill (yes I watch the Senate daily & those days too); should hang their heads in shame. Are you aware that we, the AMERICAN TAXPAYERS paid for the FOREIGN Auto plants in their states? The FOREIGN Auto Industry is government subsidized. Every Taxpayer in America should be mad as hell that those hypocrites would support the FOREIGN AUTO INDUSTRY in their states, but not support our AMERICAN AUTO INDUSTRY. Yes, I got that information from a Speech on the Senate floor. How dare those two-faced Republican Bill-Killing Senators to even show their lying faces in public. Their whole stunt is to bust the unions. Unions that have done much to help the American workers. They don't care how many people will be punished in their selfish quest. They even had the gall in the Senate to try to get the American workers to lower their wages, give up their insurance and pension plans. They also wanted the retires to lose their pensions and insurance plans that they worked many years for. Well, we need MORE insured people in this country, not less. I did not hear them try to dictate work rules for the banks, AIG, or Wall St. Why the double-standard for the American workers who actually BUILT this country? Like I said every American Taxpayer should be mad as hell at these two-faced, self-serving Republicans in the Southern states taking care of their FOREIGN AUTO INDUSTRIES at the expense of our AMERICAN AUTO INDUSTRIES. Yes, it makes me mad as hell!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Barbara 49120 Posted by: tjg1984
Not All or Nothing
Posted by: curiousdwk on Dec 13, 2008 9:14 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This dilemma is not an all-or-nothing scenario. All three car mfgs will not go under at the same time. As soon as one goes under, the other two will get more business than they have lost and will be stronger than ever.

We should not penalize all of the auto workers their $50,000 to $70,000 (by half) just so the executives and shareholders can make a killing.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Not All or Nothing Posted by: tjg1984
» RE: Not All or Nothing Posted by: bluepilgrim
» RE: Not All or Nothing Posted by: tjg1984
» RE: Not All or Nothing Posted by: bluepilgrim
» RE: Not All or Nothing Posted by: tjg1984
The need for an industrial policy
Posted by: Hans B on Dec 13, 2008 10:14 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Where Thatcherism and its free-trade sisters reign, manufacturing declines and the services sector grows. That would be okay if services provided not-too-huge inequality and some economic stability. But they don't.

In the US, manufacturing jobs decreased from 34% of the workforce in 1950 to a little over 10% today - and that includes the huge subsidized military industry. Germany in the meantime managed to hang on to a 33% share of manufacturing in total employment, almost all of it civilian. The difference is not, I assure you, the presence of unions. It is that Germany has, and always has had, a strong industrial policy.

Now I'm no fan of industry, but it seems to me that any government always influences its economy in any case. The mere fact that capital crosses borders so much more easily than do goods, which in turn cross borders much more easily than do people, distorts economies. Leaving it at that is no less interventionist - but in an inequality-increasing way - than is a strong industrial policy.

Add to that the fact that climate change requires a rapid and non-market-driven change in what we produce and how we produce it.

If Walmart were to need cash, I'd agree with Prof. Stiglitz (who I much admire). But GM is not Walmart, industry is not services, and when your civilian industrial sector is already much too small, you don't run the risk of losing another huge chunk of it overnight. Not for a measly 5% of what the banks are getting, or a measly 1% of the total cost of a war fought for the president's amusement.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» same here Posted by: jon B
Automotive triage: We shouldn't amputate our manufacturing arm.
Posted by: monkeywrench on Dec 13, 2008 11:38 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
From the author:
"Some will say that bankruptcy will undermine confidence in America's cars. It is the cars and carmakers themselves - and the dismal performance of their executives - that have undermined confidence."

The author misses one essential point: that it is not just confidence in the cars that is important, but confidence that the company will still be around five or ten years down the road to support those cars. Unlike almost any other consumer purchase, buying a car is also buying into a long-term relationship with the seller – for service, for parts, etc.

The word "bankruptcy" linked to any automobile manufacturer puts a stake through the heart of this relationship, and so urging US auto makers to go into Chapter 11 is to urge these companies to commit industrial suicide.

Also, the final assembly of an automobile is only one part of the process; much larger is the manufacture of the parts that go into it. The same suppliers that provide parts to The Big Three also supply the american operations of Honda, Toyota, Nissan, etc. If these suppliers lose a huge percentage of their sales to bankrupt american auto makers, at least some will be forced into bankruptcy themselves, threatening the foreign manufacturers in America as well. Bankruptcy of The Big Three could ripple out to take out the ENTIRE auto industry in America, with foreign makers abandoning the unstable US for places like Canada, or even South America or Mexico.

And, by the way, if The Big Three fail, or even if their operations are drastically curtailed by Chapter 11 "reorganization," we'll STILL have to pay for up to 3.5 MILLION of those unfairly scapegoated auto industry workers, in unemployment insurance, falling real estate values due to more foreclosures, pressure on emergency rooms for the newly uninsured, etc.

(NOTE: Assembly line workers make up only 10% of the cost of a car; management is 40% – FOUR TIMES as much! Scapegoating line workers is looking in the wrong place for savings. And let's not forget that management is responsible for bad design and quality-cutting, not the workers.)

There is no free lunch here; but the only course of action is to give the Big Three the loans they need to bridge the economic morass made on Wall Street, and then rationally help them, or regulate them, into alignment with the new economic reality.

A tourniquet and a transfusion can save an arm; but amputating it will not – and might just kill the patient.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Stiglitz is persuasive but I still see Southern Republicans
Posted by: whealeydj on Dec 13, 2008 12:34 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
are trying to kill Detroit and American owned auto industry to benefit the foreign car makers to whom they gave big subsidies. anti-UAW and anti union ideology is more important to Republican ideologues than the economic crisis they cause with their past ideology.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

No Nobel for this offering!
Posted by: Dickinseattl on Dec 13, 2008 3:48 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Stiglitz doesn't know, or doesn't care, that consumers won't by a car (often their largest purchase) with a 5 year warrantee from a Chapter 11 company most likely heading into Chapter 7 and liquidation. This is our major manufacturing industry that until recent hard times, due to unfair free market Globalist labor competition and recently the high commodity speculated gas prices followed by the credit crash, was doing OK. It is nothing less then hypocriticly dishonest and galacticly stupid to throw this american company of middle class employment under the bus while it's foreign competitors rescue theirs, also in trouble, and we provide 50 times as much in a bailout, not a loan, to Wall street. Once again we are being bamboozled by our media and neo-con anti-Labor Republicans.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Who will buy a car from an automaker in bankruptcy
Posted by: Mike Turnauer, Vancouver,WA on Dec 13, 2008 3:57 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The author makes what looks like a solid case for forcing the Detroit 3 to reorganize via Chapter 11 but offers no evidence to counter equally strong arguments that there are enough consumers in the market to sustain any company while it goes through reorganization. Buying a car from a bankrupt (or impending) automaker is not like purchasing air travel from a distressed airline. The latter involves a much larger and longer term financial commitment. Is the author willing to risk thousands of dollars on a car for which within months the warranty may evaporate or the resale value may be greatly diminished? Even the speculation of a company's impending demise risks creating a self-fulling prophesy.

Please show me any evidence that suggests bankruptcy won't scare off potential customers then I'll believe. Even Senator Corker (R-TN) was eventually convinced otherwise.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

From a Horse's Mouth
Posted by: Alan C Donelson on Dec 13, 2008 4:35 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
My understanding of economics and auto industry finances is limited. So I asked someone who might know better: Robert Lange, who recently returned from GM to Exponent, Inc., where I knew and worked with him.

Jack Davis, San Jose Mercury News, recently described Mr. Lange's credentials as a GM employee.
linked text

Mr. Lange's comments:

As to Dr. Stiglitz, his analysis is dogmatic and not based on facts or good analysis, this is symptomatic of many pundits and most Republican senators who did not take the trouble to study the fact circumstances.

Some examples:

Stiglitz:

“….shareholders and bondholders as much as anybody else. These are not the people that need help right now. In fact they contributed to the problem.

Fact:

The immediate condition is resultant from three conditions; 1) the collapse of the economy, 2) the freezing of the credit market (so even those few people willing to purchase a durable consumer good can’t), and 3) the resultant collapse of the new vehicle market by a reduction in sales volume of about 45%, no manufacturer is making money. Non-Detroit manufacturers are not seeking assistance because they already have government support in their home markets and in some (Germany) more assistance is being supplied.

Stiglitz:

“…Wall Street's focus on quarterly returns encouraged the short-sighted behavior that contributed to their own demise and that of America's manufacturing, including the automotive industry….”

Facts:

US manufacturers have had long term plans that rely on non-US profits to support IUS operations until cost savings negotiated in 2005 – 2008 can take effect starting in 2010. Not quarterly focused behavior. If Markets here in the US and elsewhere had not collapsed in a great depression life fashion, the US makers would not need the type of assistance they now seek.

The freeze in credit precludes GM and Chrysler from obtaining access to credit. Ford mortgaged it’s entire asset base in 2006 and thus had more cash available before the credit crisis struck.

Stiglitz:

“…..What needs to be done is to help the automakers get a fresh start and allow them to focus on producing good cars rather than trying to juggle their books to meet past obligations….”

Facts:

The US makers have registered quality and reliability registration with third party assessments equal to Japanese makers.

Stiglitz:

“….The US car industry will not be shut down, but it does need to be restructured. That is what Chapter 11…..”

Facts: No one will purchase a car from a bankrupt company and there are enough non-bankrupt auto makers customers will not have to do so. Bankruptcy means Chapter 7, dissolution, not Chapter 11. The non-Us assets would no doubt be consolidated in some type of successor holding company and the US assets disposed to whomever should want them.

Stiglitz:

“…..It can also address legacy retiree obligations….”

Facts:

The manner in which Chapter 7 “addresses” these obligations is to absolve the company of the obligation. Tens of thousands of retirees who earned those benefits, amounting to 50 to 90- % of their likely GM pension, will lose that portion of the benefit. It will not be supplemented even partially from the US retirement Guarantee Corporation as there is no coverage for these non-qualified plans. Bankruptcy is a disaster for all of these people.

And so on. A Nobel does not confer wisdom nor does it ensure the winner actually has to know something about which they opine.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: From a Horse's Mouth Posted by: bluepilgrim
Goddamit. 700B for bankers. A cool trillion for a stupid war who's goals are now...
Posted by: ABetterFuture on Dec 13, 2008 5:05 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...to bring "freedom and dumbocracy" to the Middle East, where in our "liberated" Afghanistan a Muslim can be put to death for deciding to be anything but.

And not a bit of taxpayer help to an industry that employs or indirectly supports probably 50 million people in this country, without first declaring itself a failure, with all the additional luggage that carries? Really? Was Iraq and Wall Street that much more important than your GM lamp plant down the road, your "truckbed accessory" shop across the street?

What fools we are.

Are you prAggressives THAT bent out of shape over the failed Hummer, or THAT bent out of shape over unemployment legislation that the answer is to put 50M unemployed people on your side out of ideological arrogance?

I hate the abuse of the money I send my government. Giving the automobile industry a chance--even at my expense--after it has given us so much over the last few decades seems like a no-brainer to me. Yes they've done some dumb stuff, and my contribution would require my representatives oversight, but nothing unless they're bankrupt first? Is there truth in the assertion that you prAggressives are trying to promote a "welfare state"? I had dismissed that as right-wing non-sense until reading this vindictive, awful article.

I don't have a pony in this race--my folks will be on railroad retirement shortly, I work in the natural sciences, and my wife is an engineer. We'll all eat, stay warm in the winter, and pay our share of taxes, regardless. I can't help, however, but feel dread for what the bankruptcy of GM and Chrysler--and possibly Ford shortly after--would bring to our NATION. It's inconceivable to me what putting that many folks out on the street at once would mean. Americans stealing wood for heat/charcoal? American mud-pies? We can do so much better than that with what we have left!

With some appropriate oversight, I'd just much rather see my tax dollars going to support American industry than American unemployment. Why do the rest of you want to make failures out of American industry so readily, after our current investment in American failure--ME "nation-building"--rings so terribly. You cavalier bastards! You're penny pinching the livelihod of millions, after we've lavished billions on bankers and our foolhardy occupation! You short-sighted bastards!

It's so very weird to see prAggressives align themselves with "drown it in the bathtub" conservatives (David Vitter and gang) over such an important issue. What do I make of you and what I maintain is your terrible folly?

Quit focusing on "getting back" at people/policies/products you don't like. We'll have a new pres with a different majority in Congress than most of the last eight years; we can fix what's bad inside the context of what has made us the most prosperous nation on earth!

Be progressive, not prAggressive!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Why did Sweden bail out their auto industry
Posted by: wmm on Dec 13, 2008 5:44 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
just last week? And why is Canada providing 3.5 billion package to their auto industry. I guess we're just the smartest guy in the room this time.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Bail Good Guys in!
Posted by: PaulK on Dec 13, 2008 5:53 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Find great ideas and great people, then set up fledgling companies with the best products in fields where it's hard to break in to the market, and start them up. It's a far better investment!

Korea said, "We're going to break into the automobile market!" And they did. Most carmakers today got their start with a government-sponsored bail-in.

Pick energy-efficiency products. Bail in better cars, better transit, better wind turbines, better nonphotovoltaic solar electricity, better LEED-platinum builders and building product suppliers.

Spend more time on the top end of the class than on giving the reprobates a second, third and tenth chance.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Bankruptcy would cost taxpayers more than the bailout - no?
Posted by: Alternativepowerguy on Dec 13, 2008 7:50 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If the big three went belly up and 3 million lost their jobs, wouldn't it cost a lot more in unemployment insurance, job retraining, lost tax revenue, etc?

if the average weekly unemployment check is $300 for example, 6 months worth for 3 million workers is 23,400,000,000. That's 23B for unemployment alone.

I believe that employers are responsible for matching the payments. But if the went bankrupt and didn't have any money, who pays for this part? Would this double the taxpayer burden?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Missing The Most Important Part
Posted by: NoPCZone on Dec 13, 2008 9:32 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The line workers didn't decide what cars would be produced, what features to include, what price points they would be sold at, how they would be marketed or any of the rest. Those decisions were made by the executives and managers of these companies.

US autoworkers are the most productive in the world and are capable of producing a high quality product when given the opportunity to do so. Ford is currently in a dead heat with Toyota and Honda in the JD Power rankings. Many US produced autos, in both UAW represented and non-union plants, produce cars and trucks with world class fit and finish.

The problem is not the workers.

Those who have driven these companies into the ditch wear white collars, usually suits, have college degrees and have rarely, if ever, even seen an assembly line. It was their business decisions, management decisions, approvals, sign-offs and priorities that put Detroit where it is.

However, it seems that the workers are being scapegoated by the Neanderthal NeoCons from the Union- hostile South in all of this. Hiding behind "free markets" and "capitalism", they are essentially lobbying for foreign corporations in the Congress at the expense of American citizens- the workers, retirees and dependents represented by the UAW.

The US Auto industry is the largest consumer of steel, glass, plastic, rubber, copper, aluminum and other products in the country. They are also one of the biggest issuers of shipping contracts to railroads, and trucking lines. If their business gets heavily disrupted by bankruptcy, what trickle-down effects do you think will happen when those dominoes fall?

Finally, if GM, Ford and Chrysler go belly up, the pension liability will fall back upon a US Government agency. Otherwise, taxpayers are on the hook even if they walk away and let GM and Chrysler fail. The difference with a bridge loan would be to let these companies work their way out of the mess they are in- potentially saving taxpayers, investors and workers massive losses and disruption. If these workers go unemployed from bankrupt companies the massive expense will fall upon states that can ill-afford the extra expense.

I have not one drop of sympathy for the morons who ran Detroit into a ditch. I do however, feel empathy for uncounted tens of thousands of workers who did a good job in a poorly managed company and are now being held up a scapegoats instead of the people who caused this problem in the first place.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

ONly Attorneys Win with Bankruptcy
Posted by: bluesmanjohnson on Dec 14, 2008 6:22 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The idea that bankruptcy is the solution for the big 3 is idiotic. Everyone looses in bankruptcy, except for the attorneys, who are guaranteed a healthy cut off the top. I know. I am one. Further, one should not be so flippant about what will happen to all our retirement plans, our insurance premiums, the endowments of every charity and university, our local government coffers and many many others if GM cancelled its modest (but historically reliable) dividend.

This article is nothing more than union bashing propaganda. GM can't solve all its problems by getting rid of the unions. UAW jobs pay only slightly better than similar non union jobs - especially when the multi tier wage system is fully implemented. However, if the unions went away (and thus, the threat that a non-union shop could unionize also went away), you sandal wearin' Prius drivers will see the foreign manufacturers and the deep south manufacturing plants you love so much race to the bottom with their wages like the GM suppliers have.

Bankruptcy and three million jobless (many of those being uneducated and unskilled) will cost more than LOANING them money. These LOANS are the best jobs program we have right now.

Get over your bailout fatigue and urge your members of Congress to get behind GM. THen go start up your Toyota and run your own foot over with it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Nationalizing the auto industry would be fair.
Posted by: Sojourner on Dec 14, 2008 1:01 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
That way workers stay on the job and the folks who allowed the big three to morph from carmakers into international investors would get what they deserve.

No more "too big to fail." Never too big to nationalize.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

AlterNet: the secret hangout of capitalist swine
Posted by: peterjkraus on Dec 14, 2008 9:32 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is absolutely amazing to see all the factory owners, bankers and mega-employers posting on AlterNet. This conclusion is reached because people who work for other people would never suggest busting unions and making workers give up pay and benefits so incompetent managers can live. Workers, people who live on the economic knife's edge, simply cannot be stupid enough to demand that.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The auto industry NEEDS to lose some of its physical assets, anyway
Posted by: Kevin Carson on Dec 15, 2008 2:12 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
And so do the rest of the old-style, Sloanist industrial dinosaurs.

It's simple math. Just a few years ago, before the housing bubble burst, overbuilt American industry was barely able to dispose of its output at full capacity even when people maxed out their credit cards and tapped into home equity to replace every damned thing they owned every five years. We'll never see that level of demand again. And much of our existing industrial capacity will be rust in a few years.

The only thing that saved Sloanist industry from the crises of overproduction and overaccumulation in the last Depression was that Hitler, FDR and Truman helpfully blew up most of the plant and equipment outside the U.S. That earned "consensus capitalism" a generation or so of extra life, until around 1970 or so when the rest of the world had rebuilt its capital. Since then neoliberalism, globalization, the explosion of suburban sprawl, the creation of the tech sector, and the expansion of the FIRE economy have served as successive expedients to soak up surplus capital. We can see now how that's working out.

When we emerge on the other side of all these crises of state capitalism, the manufacturing infrastructure will look a lot different. The Sloan model of high capitalization, product-specific machinery, large-batch production and push distribution will be as dead as Elvis. Even the largest industry, for the most part, will look something like Emilia-Romagna: small-scale manufacturing, with general-purpose machinery integrated into craft production, and frequent switches between product lines in response to orders. Product design will be modular, and focused on easy repair and recycling. Small town and neighborhood repair and recycling shops, built on the backbone of existing small machine shops and "hobby" workshops, will spring up to custom machine parts to keep appliances running after Whirlpool implodes.

And a much larger share of production will take place in the household and informal economies, using spare capacity on the ordinary capital goods that households own anyway (micro-bakeries using ordinary household ovens and refrigerators, in defiance of local "safety regulations"; gypsy cabs whose only capital outlay is an old car and a cell phone; etc.).

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

P.S.
Posted by: Kevin Carson on Dec 15, 2008 2:51 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I totally disassociate myself, btw, from those who are motivated primarily by a desire to bust the unions. If you take into account the difference between union pay and benefits in Detroit, and pay and benefits in the Japanese transplants in the south, the total effect amounts to around 5% of the total price of the car. All this shit about privileged, bloated unions is just the "blue pill" narrative.

As some others here have pointed out, the main reason the Detroit legacy auto industry ran into the ground was the business models adopted by the guys in suits and ties.

That business model is the Sloanist accounting model of counting inventory as an asset and human capital as the only direct cost, and engaging in large-batch production to "sell to inventory" without regard to actual orders. Under this accounting model, anything sold to inventory counts on the plus side of the ledger, regardless of whether there's an order for it or not, or even whether the car works right. And GM is not a car manufacturer. It's a bank that manufactures cars on the side. GM's main source of profit is GMAC, and in any year where GM as a whole turned a profit, there's a good chance it did so by selling off another couple of plants.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

a smarter way to help detroit ( and america)
Posted by: JerseyGeoff on Dec 17, 2008 12:22 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A Better Bailout Plan
For years now, the Big Three automakers have been unable to produce cars competitively, largely because they have to buy their employees’ and retiree’s healthcare through private insurance whereas workers in all other industrialized nations are covered by cost-effective national healthcare plans. Even the foreign manufacturers who produce here undercut Detroit by recruiting a younger, healthier workforce.
Now that the bottom has dropped out of the market, the Big Three are facing certain bankruptcy and need a bailout, possibly for loans to fund the $51 billion they owe to the VEBAs they promised to set up for their retiree’s healthcare. However, the VEBAs will purchase health insurance through private, for-profit, higher cost providers as compared to Medicare, with only a 3% overhead.
Before dumping billions of taxpayer dollars onto Management and stockholders, wouldn’t it far better to nullify the VEBA’s and to allow the UAW workers and retirees to be the first to enroll in a program based on the Conyers-Kucinich Bill (H.R. 676), an expanded Medicare with no premiums, no deductibles, no co-pays, and no hassles. Like Social Security, the H.R. 676 program would be funded by a payroll tax of 4.5% from employers and 3.3% from employees.
Will this save money for Detroit? You bet. It will immediately cut thousands per car and truck off unit costs while requiring only incremental and smaller taxpayer assistance. If we’re going to bail out the Big Three, let’s do it in a way that solves a real problem that is strangling U.S. manufacturing; the burden of private health insurance

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Cashel Boylo
Posted by: cashelboylo on Dec 26, 2008 4:40 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
GM Corp, Chrysler Corp and Ford Corp DO NOT MAKE CARS.
They make nothing other than money. And they do not make their money making cars.
They are defacto BANKS. They make money as all banks do – not by producing anything, but by BORROWING MONEY AND LENDING MONEY.
And they do not employ one auto-worker.
The cars are made by subsidiary companies, contractors and employees, providing enormous cashflow that is lent over and over and over.
The subsidiaries of the corporations employ a quarter-million workers and will be lucky to get one cent out of a bailout. They will get only whatever may be left after the corporations have refilled all their deficient beg borrow steal and lend accounts.
Contractor companies employ three times as many as the corporation subsidiaries – around three-quarters of a million – and these companies, real auto manufacturers, will NEVER see any sort of money from any sort of bailout.
The corporations borrow money at low interest – selling stocks, raising debentures, issuing bonds, borrowing from other banks. They lend the borrowed money at high interest to subsidiaries and to their contractors and to their consumers, making exorbitant profits in the process.
The enormous cash flow from multiple sources ebbs and flows. From time to time, there is some potentially idle money lying around – for a few seconds – then it is out in the money market earning interest.
Sometimes this money is used to buy “securities” that look attractive and reasonably liquid – backed by, say, mortgages. Maybe bundled securities. The money is moved out of the real economy into the new Conomy, where it well may blunder into some of the $27 trillion worth of bundled, debt-backed securities that have swamped financial markets since 2001.
Guess who made the change in 2001.
The reason these corporations are in trouble is not their fifty years of gross stupidity in car design and manufacture.
The reason is that right now, these banks (aka corporations) cannot borrow money to repay the money that they have lost through lending other borrowed money at high interest on worthless securities.
Nothing whatsoever to do with making cars.
They cannot borrow money because there isn’t any money.
There never was any money.
The so-called “legal,” “licensed,” “authorised,” “regulated” whatever banks were allowed even pre-Bush to lend ten times their capital.
Bush, Cheney, Wolfowitz (now comically running World Bank) held this to be unnecessary restraint and allowed them to lend any amount of money they cared to lend, regardless of their capitalization or legitimate borrowing capacity.
Hank Paulson cheered and made many millions.
They lent many times all the so-called “money” in existence – on security as non-existent as the money.
Non-banks were way outside of the mock “regulated” system and borrowed and lent as they wished, making up paper securities to “secure” the paper money.
And then derivatives of derivatives, vapor money on vapor security.
Saving the flatulent, ridiculous, anachronistic, nepotistic, feudalistic money-lending fiefdoms that own auto manufacturer subsidiaries will not save one of their subsidiaries or contractor companies or one auto worker job. All it will do, is save GM Bank, Ford Bank, Chrysler Bank, their inept management and their major bondholders and stockholders who bought their holdings for peanuts.
The obvious alternative is to liquidate these corporations/banks by whatever means fits – and rescue intact the subsidiary companies and their line managements and the contractor companies that actually do make cars.
These real carmakers can then be sensibly restructured under competent carmaker (not moneylender) management, and there just might be some future for American auto manufacture.
Cashel Boylo

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement