I just wanted to revisit a point that my good friend Logtar raised a
couple of weeks ago when GM bit the bullet and filed for bankruptcy.
True to his form, Logtar is optimistic about the prospects of a restructured GM coming out of bankruptcy and competing on a global stage.
And true to my form, I'm a bit cynical. I worry that our government's decision to pour $50 billion in to a failed auto company will have unintended consequences.
Let me be clear here. I don't
want GM to go bankrupt. Nobody does. Having such a large company suffer through bankruptcy is not good for America whether I like the cars or not.
But the rationale for pumping $50 billion into GM was that they were "too big to fail." That if the auto companies failed, our economy would be devastated with 9 percent unemployment.
Well, now we have a failed GM and 9 percent unemployment. Plus we're out $50 billion.
And let's face it, there's no way that a restructured GM will ever turn into a good investment for the American taxpayer. I don't even think anyone seriously believes we'll even get our original $50 billion investment back -- let alone a return on that investment.
That's all in the past. It is what it is. What worries me now is the ongoing trend this represents and the opportunities we've lost in following this approach.
For one thing there's a pretty good chance that the $50 billion investment in GM was mainly politically motivated. Nobody gets elected president if you don't win in Michigan and Pennsylvania. Allow auto companies to fail due to poor management decisions and you can pretty much kiss your re-election goodbye.
This political reality is present in many countries -- Germany, Japan, Korea. So there's a global trend of keeping automobile output artificially high. As a global system, we're allowing the automobile market to be inefficient. Too many resources are being dedicated to a product for which there is already a glut.
Again, I don't want to see the pain of a failed GM. But if we have to go through the pain anyway, shouldn't we invest our money in areas that are more deserving?
Tesla Motors, for example, has proven that it is innovative and forward thinking. Just imagine the technological leaps they could make with a $50 billion infusion. We would probably all be driving 100% electric cars within 10 years.
What's more, is this going to be a precedent for future corporate failures? What will we do when (not if, when) the big American petroleum companies are on the verge of failure because all of the oil has been pumped. Will we continue to invest billions of dollars of good money into bad companies? Shouldn't we instead seek a transition into more efficient and innovative endeavors?
Of course, all of this is academic. The bets have been placed and the dice have been cast. Nothing left to do but hope we don't lose even more.
Ah, now I know what Obama meant by "hope."
tagged: economy, auto, GM, General Motors, Tesla, Obama, bankruptcy
.jpg)
Aside from that, let's face it, he was only famous for being a pedophile cosmetic surgery train wreck adored by -- if anyone -- a legion of 12-year-old girls and overly effeminate medical interns.
'The O.C.', the U.N., recycling, getting Punk'd, Danny Gans, the Latin Grammys, the real Grammys. Jeff, that Wiggle who sleeps too darn much! The Yankees payroll, all the red states, all the blue states, every hybrid car, every talk show host! Everything on the planet, everything in the solar system, everything everything everything everything everything everything - eve - everything that exists - past, present and future, in all discovered and undiscovered dimensions... Oh! And Hugh Jackman.
