Real_Trouble
Posts: 471
Joined: 2/25/2008 Status: offline
|
A couple of points: 1 - While I know things are frequently called "bail outs" by the media, one should look closely at what is happening with each company in question this year. Bear Stearns was bought out at $10 a share, down from over $100 the previous year; their employees held a huge amount of stock, and most of them took a 90% haircut on their retirement savings and net worth. If that's a bail out, then I am for bailing out GM, Ford, and Chrysler in a similar fashion, but I'll get to that. The equity injections in banks more recently is more of a bail out (as is what happened with Citi), but in cases like Bear, Lehman (left for dead), Merrill (forced to sell), or AIG (similar to Bear, the equity holders were almost totally wiped out as the gov't now owns 80% of the company), that kind of "bail out" is pretty brutal. 2 - The problem with the big 3, fundamentally, is that they build cars that suck. Ignoring the cost structure issues (which are there) or the retirement and pension issues (which are there), one should look at the quality of their cars (which, on average, is not there, with a few exceptions). The bottom line is that people don't buy their cars to the degree they used to. Bailing out failing businesses is usually a poor idea, at least not without restructuring them dramatically. 3 - To anyone who brings up the retirees of these companies, I have this to say: as an American taxpayer, fuck off. I have zero desire to subsidize retirees who are earning much more than social security would give them, and much more than the average retired person in this country will get from their company; if they get those kinds of benefits and it's going to come out of my tax dollars, I demand equal treatment, at a minimum. But we can't even do that for most people. Maybe the unions for these automakers shouldn't have shit the bed by either: - Offering more generous terms to the American big 3 in order to reduce their cost disadvantage decades ago when it would have helped. - Unionizing the plants of the Japanese carmakers producing in the US, where they pay workers less and enjoy a huge cost advantage as a result. I think it's criminal that the UAW barely represents half the auto workers in the US, if that; basically, they decided to screw Detroit and ignore the other automakers, and now they are paying for their idiot strategy (anyone with half a brain who had studied industries with unions could have seen this coming, and many did and wrote about it). I'm not for leaving the UAW workers destitute; they are among the first in line when the companies go bankrupt and their assets are sold off, and all of them should be backed up by social security. But if we're going to pay out government money to retirees of just auto companies, especially ones that have been run extremely poorly for thirty straight years, I have an issue with that. Yes, this mess is partially the union's fault. They made their bed, now they can lie in it, in the same way those who owned stock in Bear, Citi, and AIG in their portfolios and retirement plans should all be (and in some cases have been) wiped out. 4 - If we are going to bail them out, it should be by letting these companies go bankrupt, then having the government nationalize them, restructure them into a single company and cut the excess assets dramatically, then send them public again. The Scandinavian model for handling bank failures would actually be a good model for this kind of thing. 5 - If the government wants to create jobs and increase prosperity, there are more efficient ways to do this than by propping up dying and unprofitable companies making products people don't want to buy. I suggest, strongly, that they look elsewhere (and do support Keynesian spending in that regard, such as refurbishing our infrastructure - if you wonder why we need this, ask Minneapolis about their bridge).
_____________________________
Send lawyers, guns, and money.
|