The debate about Detroit's desperate auto industry oscillates between two sterile extremes: bailout or bankruptcy. Both are bad alternatives, though bankruptcy has a better chance of forcing real change for these dinosaur companies. Problem is, the risk to the plummeting economy is too great.
Here's a better idea, and a paradigm for other bailouts and infrastructure spending. It comes from Tom Evslin's blog, Fractals of Change. The idea is to use government spending power to create new markets, in this case hybrid cars, much as the government created the computer and microchip industry by having Defense buy heavily at generous prices before there was a natural consumer market for these products.
Evslin's pitch:
The US government should order a complete replacement for its vehicle fleet to be delivered over the next four years. The new vehicles must be either plugin electric hybrid, pure electric, or possibly natural gas. Obviously retooling both at the manufacturers and suppliers is required to deliver this order so the government should be willing to prepay a significant part of it as it does for new weapons systems. That gets money into the system fast and creates/saves jobs almost immediately. It lets the suppliers retool as well as the final assemblers.
He would also spend infrastructure money on building charging and fueling stations. The result is more than preserving jobs and accelerating the shift to new vehicles. "The manufacturers and their suppliers that win the bids to supply the US government with a green, fuel-efficient fleet will then be well-positioned and retooled so that they can sell these products to the rest of us and the rest of the world once we start buying cars again."
Like what you just read? Support high quality local journalism by becoming a member of Crosscut.com today!

Print
Email





Twitter
Facebook
RSS Feeds
Comments:
Posted Sat, Nov 15, 4:11 p.m. Inappropriate
I was thinking the same thing yesterday.
Why give gm a bunch of money to keep making cars that are losers in the market. The SUV factories are not going to just come to life because gm was given money, and why would we want them to?
There are plenty of states that also buy in bulk, getting the Feds to supplement that purchase for local governments would spread the demand into smaller local communities that would normally be slow to adopt a change just because of the cost of investment.
Pull the product out the other side and the factories will align to support it.
Posted Sat, Nov 15, 4:48 p.m. Inappropriate
But do you really fix the underlying problems ? The unions grip on wages/workers and benefits = questionable product for the consumer.
Posted Sat, Nov 15, 5:28 p.m. Inappropriate
Nice idea but it doesn't stop the pension/compensation weight on their cost structure. The government can pay $40,000 for a natural gas car, but that doesn't mean the public will, or that GM will make a profit on it. Toyota has yet to make a profit on the Prius, and that is after 7 years on the market. The only way to solve the problem is bankruptcy. GM, etc can shed their pensions, we the tax payers will pick up part of the check, and the former employees will take a serious hit. GM can restructure its union contracts and cut back on the excessive medical and benefits. GM will have to cut back on executive compensation. Only with a complete restructuring of its cost structure can there be profits at the end of the day, and without profits it doesn't matter how many cars the feds buy.
Posted Sat, Nov 15, 7:03 p.m. Inappropriate
David, thanks; I think this is a no-brainer. Of course that's what should be done. And not just for cars - it's time for trucks and buses to get the same attention to reducing mileage and emissions.
Here's another related issue. A side effect of 25 years of getting rich from fantasizing that assets are more valuable than they really are has left us in the US thinking we can make our living from management and financial services, and let the rest of the world do manufacturing. But it seems now that we will need to take a break from bubble economies for awhile. And that means we will need to embrace manufacturing again - and fast. If you look at who has dragged the economy down over the last two decades, the "greedy unions" are way down the list behind the hordes of players who have gotten rich by taking risks with our money on faith that fake value will increase forever. It's time to get back to basics and start making things and adding value again. It's time to stop pretending that we can live off of financial game playing without any real economic underpinnings.
Posted Sat, Nov 15, 7:34 p.m. Inappropriate
As a small business person that has a much slower than normal business the last few weeks I might also suggest what I am doing. Earn less, spend less, and wait (hopefully) for better times. In other words if the unions and employees and car companies had any brains they would say do we want to be out of work or work less for awhile and maintain our job skills. In other words work 2 or 3 days a week and take a loss on retirement and medical for a while. You can bail them out all you want but if I am slow i can't buy a new vehicle so we need to go down to a maintenance level and work our way back up. We need some basic changes in thought and responses. Otherwise all the workers will be out totally and that is bad.
Posted Sat, Nov 15, 7:41 p.m. Inappropriate
Crosscut Editor
I reviewed my and other letters and they seem to say inappropriate in the posted line above the letters. What does that mean? You disagree with living with in your means or income? If you only get paid half your wages this month are you going to tell the boss that is inappropriate or you going to just be out of a job and income like GM employees will soon be. If you do not have a better job waiting down the street that is dumb and your wife and kids will quickly let you know.
Posted Sun, Nov 16, 10:43 a.m. Inappropriate
a buddy of mine has a well reasoned, thorough piece on the bailout topic, which I pretty much agree with:
http://fourwheeldrift.wordpress.com/
my only additional comment would be that since it was already done once in the 80s for Iacocca/Chrysler - to their credit, that time Chry paid off the loans several years early, it was done to get a new generation of 4-cylinder entry level cars to market (not bailout several years of bad decisionmaking and sand-head-hiding around milking SUV 'profits' and ignoring reality) and provide the basis for their next big play - minivans.
While I don't agree with a bailout this time around, two factors may play a role - a) 'why did Chrysler get one and we don't?' and b) AFAIK, the carmakers haven't been adequately funding their pension plans - so retirees and others may have to sit by and watch their earned pensions go down the tube too (of course, based on funding overpaid, idiot execs) - that factor may play a role if those retirees start calling Congress en masse. Note on this second point (underfunding pension plans) the info I have is a few years old - this may not be true anymore...? http://money.cnn.com/2003/01/09/news/companies/gm/index.htm
I realize also that the UAW does provide pension funding too - but the car companies are supposed to match it, correct?
candybowl
Posted Sun, Nov 16, 2:14 p.m. Inappropriate
Those "inappropriate" links appear on all comments and are simply a way for you to e-mail the editors, asking them to take a look at the comment in question.
Posted Mon, Nov 17, 11:04 a.m. Inappropriate
Nice idea -- if one is interested in symbolic value. Unfortunately, even our bloated federal government is not a major consumer of small vehicles. In 2007, according to the General Service Administration, all federal agencies owned just 230,000 passenger vehicles. This compares to about 10,000,000 produced by the Big 3. So if those 230,000 are retired and replaced with alternative-fuel vehicles (which the feds are already doing) over the next four years, this would create a demand for only about 60,000 annually. Compared to Detroit's production capacity, this is a drop in the bucket. Bottom line: the Blogosphere, unlike the print media, regularly gets away with dreamy notions that seem reasonable but are not subject to fact-checking.
Posted Mon, Nov 17, 12:15 p.m. Inappropriate
I still don't understand why so many people think bankruptcy is such a terrible alternative. It would allow them to restructure their business operations and labor contracts under the guidance of a court with an arms length distance from creditors. I cannot imagine how a federal program would effect the restructuring that is so necessary for these three companies. That's all we need 435 Representatives and 100 Senators deciding how the big three should reorganize.
Also if DN's numbers are correct. In order to provide $25 Billion to the car companies (and I still don't understand how Toyota, Honda, BMW, Daimler would be barred from any help, they manufacture here too) by way of replacing 230,000 government cars, we'd need to pay $108,696 a car. What a deal!
Contact Senators Murray and Cantwell, tell them what a bum deal an auto manufacturers bailout would be.