Big Three Bail-out: Betting on Losers

authordefault
on

โ€œFree-marketโ€ capitalists seem to be an endangered species in this bruising era of economic accountability. As the Big Three automakers loiter in the lobbies of the U.S. Congress and the Canadian Parliament, begging for handouts, everyone seems to be avoiding the question of why the taxpayer should have to prop up theseย losers.

The Detroit auto industry has spent the last decade lying to its audience and, apparently, to itself. People like GMโ€™s Bob (climate change is a โ€œtotal crock of shitโ€) Lutz have told auto dealers and auto buyers across the continent that oil would remain forever cheap, that climate change was an unproven theory of no concern, and that trucks and SUVs were the only safe conveyance for Americanย families.

Ford backed think tanks like the Competitive Enterprise Institute, which were busy misleading the public about the nature and danger of climate change. And having paid the think tanks to say stupid, self-serving things, the automakers apparently bought into their blather, making no plans for a world in which the F150 truck was recognized as an environmental pariah and a hugely and unnecessarily wasteful version of the personalย automobile.

In payment for this shortsightedness, these auto execs got a smack upside the face from the Invisible Hand. Consumers flocked to automakers that were exercising a tiny amount of environmental responsibility and offering cars that were comfortable, safe and economical toย run.

And now we are asked to bail these losers out, on the basis of a lame and overstated argument that the economy will collapse if we donโ€™t. Why on earth wouldย we?

If Ford, GM and Chrysler executives were showing up with letters of resignation – if they were offering apologies rather than excuses – it might be tempting to try to help protect their employees, their dealers and their customers from whatever nasty bumps the market may have in store. But they seem instead to be promising to save their own jobs as a first order of business and then to grind down their union employees, downsize their operations and, belatedly, to start thinking about competing against European and Asian automakers who are miles ahead in creating popular, well-made, fuel efficientย vehicles.

The Big Three are looking – this week – for $25 billion from the U.S. government and 10 per cent as much again from Canada. Thatโ€™s an amount of money that could easily secure the pensions and health care plans of auto employees, leaving enough to soften the transitional bumps. And those would be appropriate priorities for government. Propping up businesses that have been incompetent and disingenuous – that have endangered themselves, their shareholders, their employees and the world environment; well, that seems like a fabulously badย idea.

P.S.

Just as I finished writing this, my brother-in-law sent me this New York Times op-ed: Mitt Romney saying โ€œLet Detroit Go Bankrupt.โ€ I rest myย case.

Related Posts

Analysis
on

The celebrity investor pitched โ€˜Wonder Valleyโ€™ with no committed investors, no Indigenous partnership, and about 27 megatonnes of projected annual emissions.

The celebrity investor pitched โ€˜Wonder Valleyโ€™ with no committed investors, no Indigenous partnership, and about 27 megatonnes of projected annual emissions.
on

City Council OKs private equity firmโ€™s purchase of Entergy gas utility, undermining climate goals and jacking up prices for the cityโ€™s poorest.

City Council OKs private equity firmโ€™s purchase of Entergy gas utility, undermining climate goals and jacking up prices for the cityโ€™s poorest.
on

With LNG export terminals already authorized to ship nearly half of U.S. natural gas abroad, DOE warns build-out would inflate utility bills nationwide.

With LNG export terminals already authorized to ship nearly half of U.S. natural gas abroad, DOE warns build-out would inflate utility bills nationwide.
Analysis
on

We reflect on a year of agenda-setting stories that charted the political influence of fossil fuel interests in the UK and beyond.

We reflect on a year of agenda-setting stories that charted the political influence of fossil fuel interests in the UK and beyond.