TNR BLOGS

July 04, 2009 | 8:16 AM
July 03, 2009 | 7:55 PM
July 03, 2009 | 7:37 PM

March 09, 2009 | 5:19 PM
March 09, 2009 | 5:16 PM
January 07, 2009 | 12:20 PM

July 01, 2009 | 10:33 PM
June 30, 2009 | 8:42 AM
June 29, 2009 | 9:09 AM

July 26, 2008 | 2:24 PM
July 23, 2008 | 1:55 PM
July 17, 2008 | 3:56 PM

July 03, 2009 | 10:13 PM
July 02, 2009 | 12:57 PM
July 01, 2009 | 7:02 PM
COLUMNISTS
TODAY'S STORIES
12.12.2008
Craven Senators Kill the Auto Deal

OK, let me get this straight. Tennessee Republican Senator Bob Corker, backed up by Alabama Senator Richard Shelby and South Carolina Senator Jim DeMint, made it a condition of the auto companies receiving help that the United Auto Workers agree to a reduction of wages and benefits to the level of those paid by the Japanese companies that have plants in those senators’ states. Desperate for the deal, the UAW and the Democrats agreed to a phased-in reduction, but the Republicans insisted on an immediate cut. The deal broke down, and Republicans--aided by a few Red State Democrats (e.g. Baucus, Lincoln, Tester)--used a filibuster to kill the bill, which would have passed on a majority vote.

Here’s what bothers me. Japanese companies, which for years have benefited from one-way deal by which they could sell cars in the U.S. while U.S. companies were stymied in selling cars and trucks in Japan, set up non-union plants in low-wage, low-education, right-to-work states where they can pay less wages and benefits to their workers. Of course, in Japan, these same companies recognize and work with unions, but not here, where they have a chance to undercut American firms that work with unions. Corker and these other great patriots want to allow these Japanese companies to dictate the wages and benefits that American companies pay their workers. It’s despicable. Imagine, for a moment, American companies being allow to operate in this manner in Japan or South Korea. It would not happen.

Of course, this is not just about automobile companies. If you look at the history of the Great Depression, what tipped that event from a global recession to depression was precisely a series of dumb, craven--or in Keynes’ word, “feather-brained”--moves by politicians blinded by ideology or by narrow self-interest. An interest rate hike here, a balanced budget there, a spending reduction or two, and we went from ten to twenty percent unemployment. Don’t imagine for a moment that the failure to bailout the auto companies isn’t one of those feather-brained moves.

Put it this way. What we have learned from the economics of the Great Depression is that in order to end the spiral of unemployment, government has to throw money at companies and consumers. It should be trying to raise wages, not lower them. The Wall Street bailout was a fiasco, but it was probably better than nothing. And the auto bailout was considerably better thought-out. Now there is a good prospect that two of the Big Three will fail, jeopardizing, perhaps, as many as a million jobs. That’s exactly the kind of thing that Americans should not be doing. But don’t tell that to those great patriots Corker, DeMint, or Shelby. They know better.

--John B. Judis

Posted: Friday, December 12, 2008 4:37 AM with 77 comment(s)

Comments

You must be logged-in to comment.

Not a subscriber? Click here to get a digital or print and digital subscription to The New Republic!

cthulhu2008 said:

The Great Depression was the first panic handled by the government shelling out money off the Federal Reserve press and fixing wages, and look how it turned out. Before the Great Depression if a bank lost its money it collapsed, when a company when bankrupt it went bankrupt. The government didn't bail out anyone. And somehow the panics before the great depression lasted shorter, resulted in less money lost, and created less unenemployment.

And don't tell me that just because Hoover was president you can pin the blame of laize faire, like Bush, Hoover was a free market man in name early, and his response to the panic was massive intervention at the both the government and Fed level.

People talk as if without bailouts we will have another great depression, but they dont realize that the Great Depression <i> invented </i> bailouts. The Great Depression was, in fact, the first grand experiment in interventionist economics and the results speak for themselves.

The reason for this discrepency is quite simply. If the Big Three go bankrupt for real the companies will be bought up by solvent businesses, and after a short but drastic adjustment period they will be up and running as sustainable enterprises. If the government buys the company's debt and freezes wages, the company will remain unprofitable and government will be on the hook for a permanent commitment to the companies. The result is both increased taxation and long term stagnation of output.

This combination of increased taxation and stagnated output leads to a prolonged recessionary period with long term unemployment created by the dirth of profitable industry that can pay non tax wages. This is why the Great Depression lasted longer with more unemployment than the previous panics, and why current crises last longer with more unemployment that the old panics where government respected the market cleansing process.

December 12, 2008 12:43 AM

mkayser0 said:

<i>What we have learned from the economics of the Great Depression is that in order to end the spiral of unemployment, government ... should be trying to raise wages, not lower them.</i>

Doesn't the labor demand curve slope downward?

<i>Japanese companies ... set up non-union plants in low-wage, low-education, right-to-work states where they can pay less wages and benefits to their workers. </i>

Are you suggesting that factories should be set up only in the higher-wage areas? Or put differently, that it is wrong to set up a factory in a lower-wage area? If they make better cars in a lower-wage area, is that morally wrong?

December 12, 2008 12:48 AM

iambiguous said:

Now hold on a minute, here.

Some of these Senators may well have been exhausted after shoveling all those hundreds of billions of dollars to the folks on Wall Street who probably caused the crisis because they were so exhausted from shoveling money back into the Senator's reeclection campaigns.

And let's not forget there are more than just a handful of Ellis Wyatts, Dagney Taggerts, Hank Readons and Francisco Domingo Carlos Andres Sebastián d'Anconias who would as soon fall on the sword than to tarnish the memory of even one single word from John Galt's capitalist manifesto!!

There are principles at stake here!!!

george walton

December 12, 2008 12:52 AM

roidubouloi said:

Oh its a fiasco alright, because everyone involved is playing a great big game of chicken rather than making the plans, including the government financing plans, for an orderly Chapter 11.  From the moment that Wagoner, with the support of his board, had the chutzpah to declare "Bankruptcy is not an option" and threatened corporate suicide unless the government bailed out GM, this has been nothing but.  Do you think maybe someone should have asked those Republicans whether they would support this deal?  No, better to dare them to stand in its way.

You wanna save the autos, do this:

Adopt special bankruptcy legislation that, in addition to normal bankruptcy court powers,

1.  Removes creditors from any role in management

2.  Declares that all of their claims will be settled solely from equity securities to be issued by the recapitalized company when it is discharged from reorganization

3.  Has the bankrupt assume all trade liabilities payable in the ordinary course according to their terms within 60 days of the date incurred

4.  Gives the court plenary power to reject ALL unfavorable contracts and hold on to collateral

5. Appoints a public/private board of trustees to replace the existing board and charges it to manage so as to achieve profitability as soon as possible at whatever scale of production and sales it can.

6. Provides for sufficient financing to bring all trade liabilities current and directs that they be brought current. and

7.  Guaranties the performance of manufacturers warranties.

If the management in bankruptcy then simply refuses to continue to pay for or purchase anything not necessary to produce at the current level of sales -- furloughing workerss, plants, dealers, suppliers, managers, as necessary -- the bankrupt will be saved as an operating business.  It has to be sharp and ruthless to work, but it will work.  Resources not needed to sustain the current level of sales will just have to find something else to do.  They have no value to the ongoing business.  Their claims will add to the pot.  All the legacy claims will at the end divvy up the post-bankruptcy pool of equity securities made available to satisfy claimants.  They can hold them, sell them, do whatever they want with them.

It's complicated.  It's not that complicated.  Consider it de facto nationalization and get on with it.  It worked for Sweden's banks.  It will work for GM and Chrysler and Ford if necessary.  

Oh, and have Senator McCain declare that he supports the "nuclear option" of busting a filibuster if necessary.  The Republicans were willing to do so over judicial nominations.  The Dems can do it to "save a million jobs."

December 12, 2008 12:55 AM

warfang said:

cthulhu2008 what "solvent business" is going to buy one of the Big Three when they go bankrupt? One of the reasons bailouts need to happen in industries like the auto industry is that it is nearly impossible to start a new company because of the tremendous initial costs. The market doesn't respond nearly quick enough in situations like this. Sure in the long run there might be a new company that could form and bring back all the jobs, but that is very very long term and remember in the long run we are all dead.

December 12, 2008 12:57 AM

ironyroad said:

I think one of two more substantial problems is that we have forgotten Keynes's insight that a countercyclical government investment policy can mitigate the devastation of economic downturns, putting money into the economy when private enterprise is unable or unwilling to do so. This means that federal intervention at this very moment would come at exactly the right time to support both key industrial plant and a bridge to transforming that industry.

The other, and related, problem is the failure to see that people -- despite the weirder fringe of conservative economic philosophy -- don't exist to support economies, but economies exist to support people.

More particularly, as Tennessee, for example, is a state in which you could fire up a passionate popular uprising to combat introducing a state income tax which would actually benefit ordinary people in some quite concrete ways, I'm not surprised at Corker feeling that his negative vote has no consequences.

December 12, 2008 1:02 AM

roidubouloi said:

The Big Three don't need to be bought.  They need to be recapitalized, which means you get rid of the old liabilities and create new ones appropriate for the current level of business.  Then you give the new ones to the old ones to satisfy their claims to the extent there is value there, in the new ones, to do it.  To the extent there is not enough value in the recapitalized company to satisfy old claims, too bad, they are wiped out and won't bother anyone any more.  In effect, you sell the company to itself.  

You would think that somewhere along the line the guys in charge of this mess for the government would find someone to explain elementary corporate finance to them.  Judis seems to be confused about this.  But, come to think of it, he was similarly confused by polls back during the Dem primaries.  I think maybe he just has trouble with numbers.

December 12, 2008 1:20 AM

cthulhu2008 said:

warfang,

Toyota, Nissan, Honda, and Hundai among others. The factories and dealership infrastructure is fine, its just that labor costs are to high and management is chronically incompetent. Those other firms have proven that they can operate car factories in America at a profit while paying good wages ($40 an hour isn't quite gruel and the lash).

The Big Three can survive as branches of competent companies, so long as all the leadership is eliminated, both executive and union. Both of them share equal parts in the destruction of the firms. They must go to rebuild them.

December 12, 2008 2:09 AM

CRS9TNR said:

The market will tank today if the Senate deal is not voted on.

Many folks have exposure to the Automakers and will be on the hook for big dollars.  Those losses will trickle through the economy.  The largest hits will be to the state governments, but there will be a lot of pain to go around.

The GOP Senators are really missing the boat on this one.  Do they really think they can screw the UAW and Detroit, then turn around and hide their requests?  These guys will be under a microscope.  And the Democrats can make trouble for them in the next session.

While it's not likely to pass, imagine if Debbie Stabenow introduced legislation next year to tax cars from nations that do not have substantial US Automaker sales at a 10% Import Fee to cover the costs associated with these failures?  Now the Japanese have another hurdle in addition to the yen @ 90/$.  Protectionist legislation may find it's way to the floor spooking a few companies.

The GOP better be careful here, the car makers know how the game is played.  Wht goes around, comes around.

December 12, 2008 6:49 AM

Wandreycer1 said:

This is nothing but mindless labor bashing because they vote D - it has about as much thought towards principles or the tax payers as Britney Spears latest interview, only not as intelligent.

Nothing has changed at all with Republicans, they do nothing but play the partisan gotcha game all day, this is all they know, all they are capable of knowing or care to know.  They remain a cancer.

December 12, 2008 7:19 AM

mpatrickhendri said:

The Republicans yawn at spending 15 billion in six weeks in Iraq, but balk at 14 billion in an attempt to save millions of American jobs? These are perhaps the dumbest sons of bitches I've ever seen. Retrench and yell NO. Just idiotic.

December 12, 2008 7:24 AM

raylward said:

That these commenters have never experienced deflation is, to put it mildly, the great achievement of Keynesian economics.  But personal experience can be a dangerous thing.  After years of hearing about the wonders of supply side economics, is it any wonder that these folks believe supply creates its own demand.  That markets are always self-correcting.  And that government intervention in the economy is always bad.  GWB famously said he doesn't pay much attention to history.  And neither do many of these commenters.

December 12, 2008 7:35 AM

mpatrickhendri said:

The Republicans are a pathetic bunch. Their only answer to these problems is to blame the working class. The subtext of this automaker debate boils to "the unions are to blame." For the housing market meltdown it's "the banks were forced to sell homes to crack heads." Bullshit. SC gave away everything to get BMW, and now we hear this is the model for recreating the auto industry. Fact free as usual.

December 12, 2008 7:37 AM

dbuck said:

From today's NYT story "Senate Abandons Automaker Bailout Bill," Republican Minority leader Mitch McConnell lays out his standard for solving a national crisis:

=====================================================

The Republican leader, Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, said: “We have had before us this whole question of the viability of the American automobile manufacturers. None of us want to see them go down, but very few of us had anything to do with the dilemma that they have created for themselves.”

=========================================================

We ain't going to help anyone unless the U.S. Senate had something to do with creating the problem.  Hmm, that would seem to include Katrina, the Mississippi River flooding, injured Iraq War veterans, the mortgage crisis, cancer research, just about anything that comes before the Senate.  Ain't our problem.

Dan

December 12, 2008 7:53 AM

roidubouloi said:

Oh, the drama is just killing me.  Political Sarah Bernhards to the left of us, Bella Lugosis to the right of us.

Here's a bet:  GM, furloughing workers as necessary, manages to survive until January 4.  It would be better off furloughing workers and cutting production any way given its sales, hence it will be more liquid on January 4.  No one amongst its creditors and suppliers files an involuntary bankruptcy petition in that time.  On January 4, after the new senators are sworn in, the bailout bill is reintroduced, is voted on, and passes without enough Republicans willing to filibuster.  The House quickly follows.  No conference is necessary as the bill is completely ready to go.  Bush signs it that afternoon.  Many smiles, much back-patting.

If GM has its suppliers stretched, as reported in the Times,  and is selling some cars, one has to wonder just who it is that it is paying that is running down its cash at $2 billion a month.  This is a farce, in the literal sense, a show meant to entertain and make a point through ridiculous behavior.

December 12, 2008 8:24 AM

lesserliz said:

"Are there no prisons? Are there no workhouses?" (Ebenezer Scrooge).

December 12, 2008 8:50 AM

kevincollins said:

Typo error in 2nd paragraph:

"It’s despicable. Imagine, for a moment, American companies being allow to..."

"allow" should be "allowed".

December 12, 2008 8:52 AM

Wandreycer1 said:

Mitch McConnel is full of it too - the Republicans have plenty pf blame in this - if not most.  

Who enabled the car companies to continue to make destructive, poor quality products?  Guess who the car company lobbyists have bought off for generations?  

Please try to find me a staff person around Bush who isn't directly attached to the car companies - helping them stave off MPG requirements, air quality considerations, economic viability in other words.  

The Republicans frigging created this problem.

December 12, 2008 9:05 AM

prnoonan said:

Maybe I just think about things too politically... but we had 10 R votes for this.  Which would mean 60 if we got everyone there.  What the fuck happened?  How did we lose 3 votes?  Why were quite a few people not there?

December 12, 2008 9:07 AM

Rhubarbs said:

I'll skip the obscenity of millionaire senators demanding that skilled laborers don't deserve to be paid enough to send their children to college. Because the bullshit being spouted by some commenters in this thread about the Great Depression requires rebuttal.

The most effective possible rebuttal is for anyone who isn't sure whether cthulhu2008's account is a complete fabrication simply to do some Google searches for historical rates of employment, GDP, and other economic indicators. A look at those numbers will tell the factual story of the Depression, which does not even remotely resemble the lie that conservatives tell and that cthulhu2008 (innocently, I assume) repeats.

Simply put, the interventionist policies of the late Hoover and first Roosevelt administrations worked. Economic conditions by 1936 generally were back to or slightly better than their pre-crash levels. A second (third, really) dip hit after 1936, bringing a second recession that would last until the pre-WWII military buildup. What triggered this second recession that would be linked in the public memory to the first, deeper recession as "the Great Depression"? After all, there was no triggering market panic in 1937, as there had been in 1929 and the winter of 1932-33. What changed was the the federal government tried to implement the policies today's conservatives (and cthulhu2008) recommend; it pulled back from the interventionist policies and focused on restoring a conservative budget approach and relying on fiscal policy to propel the recovery.

Which is pretty much the opposite of the lies that conservatives peddle, and sadly some ignorant commenters here repeat, about interventionism and the Great Depression. And anyone interested in comparative history, as cthulhu2008 claims to be, would do well to compare the courses of the Panics of 1819, 1837, and 1893 to that of the Great Depression. It's true that the Great Depression was the worst we've had, but its worst effects occurred while state and federal governments followed the non-interventionist policies conservatives recommend; recovery was very swift once Hoover embraced and then Roosevelt accelerated direct intervention. Whereas the previous major panics, while not as deep, tended to be longer-lasting and to produce more lasting poverty for those worst affected.

It's also worth comparing the Great Depression, during the first three years off which we followed conservative non-interventionist approaches, to all following recessions, during which we've followed some degree of swift interventionism. Because it turns out that for the century or more when we followed conservative approaches of government non-interventionism, financial collapses were regular, deep, and longlasting, whereas since we abandoned conservative approaches for sensible government activism at the start of panics, recessions have been comparatively mild, short, and few in number.

December 12, 2008 9:30 AM

poortomsacold said:

complete and total idiots who couldn't read the tea leaves if they were pasted to the inside of their eyelids.  if the republican party wasn't already completely obliterated, it is now.  because after the economy tanks FOR REAL this albatross is going to be around their necks for a very, very long time.  i used to live in mcconnell and corker territory.  now you see the reason i got the hell out 12 years ago.  God save us all from these mean-spirited, small-minded, short-sighted nasty, nasty people. they don't give a shit about the American people, not as long as they have the Japanese and the Koreans to line their coat pockets.  a complete and utter disgrace.

December 12, 2008 9:32 AM

PeteBeck said:

The bill that failed was the only one on the table.

When George Bush and Carl Levin agree on an economic policy, there was a lot of compromise.

The markets will tank and a million or so will be out of jobs -- and the smart guy commentators here will tell us why the bill wasn't as perfect as it should have been.

Meanwhile, as the saying goes, for want of a nail, etc.

There is no short term solution, of course, but longer term the solution is simple: destroy the Republican party.  Let every American know that regardless of class, race, religion or geographic location, it is in their interest to get rid of the GOP.  The $750 million that Obama raised in 2008 will be nothing compared to the billions that the Democrats will raise in 09 and 10 to smash Republican candidates, wherever and whenever.

December 12, 2008 9:35 AM

gwolfjr said:

I hope it's possible to think both (a) the New Deal was a good idea and (b) the auto bailout would be a bad idea.  Because I do.  I'm not inclined to defend the personal motives of whatever Senators were involved, but the auto bailout seemed like throwing good money after bad, wage cuts or no.  American cars suck, no matter what the price tag.

December 12, 2008 9:55 AM

roidubouloi said:

Well, rhubarbs,

You are of course correct about the real history of the Depression.  The hardcore "Austrian school" of economics continues to tell the fairytale that it is demand-side intervention that turned a recession into the Great Depression.  This is utter nonsense no matter how many times re-told.  As Krugman recently recounted, the real problem was that Keynes' General Theory was very new and no one really understood the magnitude of the intervention -- i.e. government spending -- necessary to replace the missing private demand.  Not until WWII and the massive government spending required to finance the war did the economy really shake off the Depression.  But if you had told anyone in the 30s the scale of spending that would be needed to do that, they would have locked you up.

That said, while millionaire senators lecturing autoworkers may be obscene as a political matter, and everyone deserves to make enough money to send their kids to college, that cannot be accomplished in a market system simply by demanding high wages from employers.  There is no right to have the public buy your product at the price you would like to sell it so that you can afford to send your kids to college.  I come from a union family -- 1199 -- but reality is reality.  A lot of our current "stye" of collective bargaining was forged in an era where our industry was substantially sheltered from competition, both domestic and foreign.  That world does not exist any longer.  Whether it should is a different question.  A lot of the left-wing free-traders seem to be utterly oblivious to the reality that global competition really does have an effect on workers, else management wouldn't be so keen on it.

The point I have been trying to make is that we need a piercing reexamination of our industrial, trade, tax, monetary, fiscal, and labor policies if we want worker incomes to rise.  I believe that can be achieved, but it isn't going to be achieved by insisting that individual companies shoulder burdens that they cannot shoulder and still make a profit in a competitive market place.  I simply don't buy the story that the auto meltdown is just the result of stupid and venal decisions by auto executives.  For the most part, they made sensible decisions given the labor and market environment facing them.  That environment is the creation of government policy.  If we want a different outcome, we need a different environment.

Apart from restructuring, one part of the solution to Detroit's immediate problem is to cut prices.  That in turn will require cutting its own costs and cutting the cost of the parts it buys.  Since ultimately most of the embodied cost is labor, direct or indirect, this will likely require workers up and down the chain to take pay cuts in order to have jobs.  The Republicans do have a point even though they are rather crude and heavy-handed:  "It is not up to the rest of us to pay you the salary you would like to earn by socializing the auto payroll.  Most people in the US have to accept the income that the market will give them in order to be employed and don't have their wages subsidized by government.  That needs to include you."  There is a difference between providing financing and providing operating subsidies that would likely never go away without the bankruptcy that we should not avoid but welcome.

December 12, 2008 10:13 AM

poortomsacold said:

gwolfjr:

perhaps American cars do suck.  that, however, is beyond the point of all this.  so far, the economy has teetered on the brink of ruin but it has yet to dive into Depression.  we still have the time and the resources to pull it back from the edge.  but if we continue to diddle around with our fingers up our collective asses then the consequences will be brutal and extreme.  i don't care about the present-day quality of American-made  cars.  i do care about the millions and millions of additional workers who will be thrown out of work (not just in the auto industry) if the car manufacturers are allowed to go under.  the results of such a phenomenon would be deep and long-lasting in terms of the pain and suffering caused.  the time is critical folks.  please make no mistake about it.  in any other less-critical time, i would say let them go under if they can't provide a competitive product.  but the American workforce is but one step away from becoming nothing more than a 3rd world cheap labor pool for companies in Korea, Japan and Germany.  that scares me far more than spending a little more of my tax money to save literally millions of good-paying, well-benefitted jobs.  the foreign firms must not be allowed to monopolize the market.

December 12, 2008 10:34 AM

PeteBeck said:

The notion that American cars suck, regardless of the price tag, is simply false.

Four of our last five cars have been American.  They've all done well and needed minimal maintenance.  One Ford SUV hit 300,000 miles and finally died because of body rust -- it was kept outside because it didn't fit into our low ceilinged garage.  The one foreign car, a Porsche, is a money pit, and it has only 75,000 miles.  

I've rented American cars frequently and found them to be fine.

Japanese cars may be marginally better in terms of cosmetics, but that is something that can be readily corrected.

The main problem that American cars have is style and image.  Bankruptcy won't help that.

December 12, 2008 10:40 AM

gwolfjr said:

Also, I can't resist a comment on the Great Depression, since there are so many experts on this thread.  Something that has long baffled me is the fact that Hoover was actually an early adopter of the idea of using government spending to even out the business cycle.  He was championing this as Commerce Secty, before becoming President.  Yet when faced with an actual crisis, he froze up, became totally recalcitrant.  What little his administration did was grudging and ineffective.  That might have been expected of Coolidge, but Hoover?  Up till then, the guy never sat still.  A Quaker and an engineer, he worked all over the world, was indispensable in Europe when WWI broke out.  A real go-to guy.  Baffling.  And tragic.  

December 12, 2008 10:51 AM

gwolfjr said:

Poortomsacold:

I can't say definitively we're not on the edge of a depression, but I don't think so.  (Hope not, anyway.)  But I'm not much bothered by the idea of Toyota "dominating" the US market.  Cars built in America, by American workers, for American buyers -- what's the big deal?  Now, if they were dominating the market with a lousy product (like, oh, say, Microsoft -- no wait they're American, it's ok) then there's an issue.  But they're not; Toyota's product is better.  Thus they're gaining market share while GM is collapsing, which is what my Principles of Econ textbook says should happen.  If we want a better solution than bankruptcy (and yeah, market dislocations are hell, I am personally aware), how about this: if the Fed can force banks to merge, how hard would it be to encourage GM to sell part of itself to Toyota?  (Not that they'd necessarily want it.)  

PeteBeck:

Not discounting your experience, but mine has been the opposite.  The last time we had to buy a car a few years ago (our family doubled in size in three years -- amazing how that happens) I insisted we at least go visit a Chevrolet dealership.  My wife rolled her eyes, but I insisted, out of some vague sense of patriotism/fairmindedness.  And while they didn't really suck (that was a bit flippant), the cars we test-drove were worse on all counts: interior space, gas mileage, style.  (They were substantially cheaper, but that's not what we were looking for.)  Okay, so we're basically your textbook coastal elites, but what the market seems to be telling us is that there aren't too many people who buy 80% American anymore.  

December 12, 2008 11:18 AM

JackR said:

Wandrey - "The Republicans frigging created this problem."

Not so fast.  Have you not heard of a gentleman named John Dingell, famous for successfully opposing the raising of CAFE standards?  Embarassing as it might be for dyed-in-the-wool Democrats like us to ponder, he is most definitely a fellow Democrat.  Ditto Carl Levin.  Someone once said: "All Congressmen come sincerely to believe in the economic interests of their constituents."  (Maybe we should now amend that to "short term economic interests" since holding down CAFE standards hasn't worked out to well.)  Inconveniently for our desire to blame and demonize, some of the most blatant enablers of auto industry myopia have been, I'm extremely sorry to say, our Democratic compatriots.

In the immortal words of Pogo: "We have met the enemy, and it is us."  Not just us, but still and all...

December 12, 2008 11:30 AM

Rhubarbs said:

gwolfjr, your comment on Hoover is astute. Before becoming president, Hoover was the most successful and experienced macroeconomic manager in human history, having led efforts to revive several national economies. He was by nature a greatly pragmatic man, and both his service as commerce secretary and the last year-plus of his presidency were characterized by energetic policy experimentation. Why then did he spend the first two-plus years of the Depression acting like Grover Cleveland's third term?

December 12, 2008 11:44 AM

roidubouloi said:

Up there I said, "There is a difference between providing financing and providing operating subsidies that would likely never go away without the bankruptcy that we should not avoid but welcome."

I do not mean to suggest that the failure of the industry should be welcomed.  Not a bit.  But, in my view, the failure has already occurred.  An orderly Chapter 11 reorganization ("bankruptcy" in colloquial usage) is a big part of the solution to that problem, hence to be welcomed, not avoided.  No one wants quadruple by-pass surgery  It is something to be avoided.  But when the alternative is worse, you welcome the fact that this life-saving procedure is available.  Right now, we are avoiding the cure, not solving the problem.

December 12, 2008 11:55 AM

poortomsacold said:

gwolf:

my concern is more with what happens to the American labor force (as far as wages and benefits) if the American auto manufacturers are allowed to go under and (as McConnell, Shelby, Corker, et al... seem to prefer) all the unions are busted.  like it or not, unions are often times the only recourse the American worker  has when it comes to living wages and health benefits.  and i'm no big union fan.  i believe they have become far too powerful but  UAW has shown willingness to compromise and i believe they should be taken up on that, not busted altogether.  if every state becomes a right-to-work state and foreign competitors continue to be given an inside track by "the patriots" McConnell, Shelby, DeMint and Corker, what happens is a slow downward spiral of wages and benefits for the American worker.  then, over time, we become nothing more than an exploited workforce for foreign companies paying us whatever the hell they please.  look at it as the reverse of what Nike and the Gap and other American companies do in the 3rd world.  to me, it is not a pleasant view of our future.  not at all.

December 12, 2008 11:57 AM

guyminuslife said:

If you're going to compare American cars to foreign cars, Pete, at least compare them to Toyotas and Hondas. Of course a Porshe is a money pit. It's conspicuous consumption. That's sort of the point.

When GM starts competing with the Prius, then I'll give them another look.

December 12, 2008 11:58 AM

Daily Intel said:

Now the industry's future lies in the hands of &#8230; President Bush.

December 12, 2008 12:20 PM

timteeter said:

Much of this discussion is interesting and informative, but misses the point.

The UAW had *already agreed* to wage and benefit reductions.  All they asked was that these be phased in as new hires came in under new conditions and contracts, while older workers who had negotiated in good faith were phased out when the current contract ran out in 2011.  What Corker and company were insisting on was that all UAW workers tear up the contract just negotiated and take a huge hit right now, based on wage and benefits comparisons that are dubious to start with.

I say dubious comparisons for all the reasons that have been listed elsewhere: the tax breaks southern non-union states give to foreign auto makers (i.e. a hidden subsidy that benefits the foreign auto makers but not the workers, paid for by the tax payers of rich states like Alabama); the unionized work force in countries like Japan, which in addition have national health care plans; etc.

And let's not forget why GM and Chrysler can't get a loan (not a "bailout") from anyone else but the government: credit markets remain frozen, and they froze because of the deregulation of the banking industry championed principally by the same GOP that wants to stiff Detroit, the same GOP that demanded no such wage or benefit concessions from Wall Street even as they extended money that was supposed to free up those very credit markets.

Corker, Shelby and company simply see an opportunity to break the back of organized labor even as their party has been repudiated at the polls.  No concessions would have satisfied them unless such concessions turned the UAW into little more than the Fraternal Order of Elks.  This is the lame duck Senate equivalent of midnight appointments and regulations from the Bush administration.  Let no one be fooled.  They are attempting to snatch victory from the jaws of massive defeat.  They must be crushed.

December 12, 2008 12:25 PM

waynejm said:

No one seems to have mentioned this, but are the woes of the Big 3 at least in part attributable to their status (former status in Chrysler's case) as publicly-traded corporations?  This problem is actually bigger than the auto industry and relates to much of American business.  Manufacturing is cyclical by nature.  Demand ebbs and flows with the business cycle.  In addition, it's prudent for successful manufacturers to build for the future by plowing a certain portion of profits back into R&D and infrastructure maintenance.  But so many American corporations are run by Harvard and Wharton MBA types well-versed in maximization of short-term shareholder return but absolutely clueless about their core businesses.

December 12, 2008 12:28 PM

poortomsacold said:

timteeter:

absolutely.  the GOP filibuster was about nothing more than union busting.  what reagan started with the air traffic controllers these guys are determined to finish with UAW.  and it's an absolute tragedy that these cretins retain such power even after having been massively repudiated at the polls.  i can only hope that they will have to pay the piper in 2010 and beyond.

December 12, 2008 12:41 PM

cthulhu2008 said:

roidubouloi,

The crash of 1929 and the Great Depression are two distinct events. Would you or any other Keynesian care to answer why the crash of 1929 and subsequent panics yielded sharper stock price drops, GDP stagnation and unemployments than the panics before?

I mean, if Keynesian policies work, shouldn't the recessions be shorter, the ouput drops be lower, and less jobs should be lost?

December 12, 2008 1:33 PM

jwl2672 said:

What a horseshit piece of crap article.  Judis might as well grab a placard and join the unions in shilling for bailout money.  This would be the equivalent of a headline like "Feather-brained Craven Democratic senators starve small Colombian boy (by rejecting Columbia free trade agreement). "

Bailing out Freddie was necessary to prevent a total collapse of mortgage lending.  Bailing out AIG was necessary so that the insurance wing of the company (which was being anchored to the horrid financial wing and which provides pensions, insurance for families, etc.) would not collapse.  Bailing out Bear was unnecessary but it was the first domino so the Gov't felt inclined to act, hence no Lehman bailout.

But bailing out 3 incompetent auto industries just to save jobs is utterly absurd.  None of the prior bailouts of the financial institutions was to "save jobs. " They were to prevent the entire financial market from collapsing.  That's the distinction lefty liberal jerks fail to see.  Since when did lefty liberal jerks love Corporations? Since wonder of wonders,  they realized that workers and unions would be unemployed if they disappeared?

December 12, 2008 3:30 PM

jwl2672 said:

"Blinded by ideology" is you Judas.  Bail out auto companies at any expense for their own incompetence.  Sorry dumbass, not even mainstream liberals are 100% behind it.  They're only behind it because Republicans are against it.

December 12, 2008 3:32 PM

cthulhu2008 said:

Hoover tried to fix wages and increased government spending by 50%. This was an unprecedented approach to a panic, massive government intervention.

And still waiting for an answer for why recessions have lasted longer, with deaper stock declines and higher unemployment since interventionist policies were initiated.

December 12, 2008 4:07 PM

The Ignorant Populist said:

Craven indeed. Driving down American wages and living standards and in the same process  supporting fully unionized foreign competitors. Extraordinary.

Traitors John B. A disgrace to the Senate.

Call it as you obviously feel it.

December 12, 2008 4:28 PM

Nari224 said:

Forget not learning (or understanding) what happened in the 20s and 30s.  Not 3 months ago, all the free marketeers were applauding not bailing out Lehman, and were tut-tutting supporting AIG.   Of course, by not protecting the rest of the system from the impact of letting Lehman fail, the commercial paper market froze after two money market funds "broke the buck" and from there the panic spread outwards from the mortgage crisis to the "real economy". Whether Lehman was bailed out or it's creditors protected, it would have been a lot cheaper than where we're at now.  The problem that we have all these firms that are "too big to fail" can't be fixed quickly at this point. That "only" a million jobs (and likely a lot more) being on the line doesn't give people pause is amazing.  

I imagine the  "this will make us better in the long run" point of view is attractive right up to the point where your job/savings/retirement vanishes.

December 12, 2008 4:43 PM

fougasseu said:

It seems that most of the people I know who went to "good" schools are, in general, grossly overpaid. And most of the people I know who have a high school education or less, in general, are underpaid.

It's blindingly complicated when you try to sort through the tens of thousands of jobs in America and then determine who should get paid what. But one way to simplify, to generalize, is to say that the clowns with the most money and the best educations don't give a damn about the rest of us.

The GOP has reduced a very complicated problem down to one of workers being too demanding. These are senators talking - look at their salaries, their backgrounds, their lifestyles, their healthcare and pensions. Despicable. Again, bloated rich white men screwing the rest of us.

Bring on the Visigoths.

December 12, 2008 4:49 PM

mmathog said:

Actually jwl, I'm one of those 'lefty liberal jerks,' except of course I know 10x more about economics than you.

I agreed by and large with the financial system bailout, no hypocrite here. As for widget makers like the Big 3, it's the timing of the thing. The ripple effects of a Big 3 collapse would be bad enough, but you actually think we should have such a collapse RIGHT NOW??!! Are you crazy?

If someone is having a heart attack, you save their life, THEN you complain about their diet and make the fix it.

Can your resentful little mind grasp that?

December 12, 2008 4:54 PM

mmathog said:

Here's my only question:

Why do southern republicans not actually represent the interests of their constituents? You really want to tell me that Tennessee auto workers prefer to LOWER Detroit wages/benefits rather than RAISE their own?

Is it what Michael Lind says? A combination of weak political parties and strong media culture gives rise to faux populism?

How long will it take post civil rights for the south to actually politically organize?

Just how powerful can 'culture' possibly be? You can be pro gun, pro war, anti abortion, and anti gay marriage and still want your job to pay a decent wage and have decent benefits (whether from the gov't. or from your employer).

December 12, 2008 4:57 PM

mmathog said:

jwl,

"But bailing out 3 incompetent auto industries just to save jobs is utterly absurd. "

That's not the reason why.

It's to smooth over the necessary transition.

Why do it hard and catastrophic when you can do it softly and smoothly? Just for kicks? Just to please your childish anger?

December 12, 2008 5:03 PM

satyendra said:

Nari, the CW, even as spouted by the Wall Street Journal, is that letting Lehman fail was a big mistake without which we would not have been in this current crisis.  It's simple and in a way comforting to hone in on that one fatal event, because that implies that one simple step could have headed off our near depression.  But really the fundamentals of our house of cards, Ponzi-scheme economy were not sound for years, and I think we're seeing the inevitable results.  This is why even with some hindsight Obama's horses and men will be challenged to build a better Humpty Dumpty.

December 12, 2008 5:07 PM

mmathog said:

I agree satyendra, with an unregulated credit default swap market, mis-valued mortgage backed securities, super low interest rates incentivizing lenders to never stop lending, and bought and paid for ratings agencies, something bad was gonna go down.

The Lehman thing was just the thing that happened to happen, but even with a Lehman bailout, something else would've very likely happened.

It was a bunch of bad public policy decisions, mostly Greenspan, Bush's and Cheney's, but more than a few pinned on Clinton, Rubin and Summers.

December 12, 2008 5:20 PM

ironyroad said:

"Just how powerful can 'culture' possibly be? You can be pro gun, pro war, anti abortion, and anti gay marriage and still want your job to pay a decent wage and have decent benefits (whether from the gov't. or from your employer)."

That's a fair point, mmathog -- but the answer may be "pretty damn powerful."  If your ideological inflexibility and hostility are such that you can't handle voting for the party that's likely to get decent wages and benefits . . . .?

December 12, 2008 5:33 PM

mmathog said:

It's not even about switching parties ironyroad, the GOP can probably represent middle class interests and hew to a lot of it's basic ideology, what's corker's message to his constituents? 'I went to Washington and fought like hell for Detroit workers to get paid as shitty as you do!'

December 12, 2008 5:51 PM

lsernoff said:

Greetings from the house Republican.

This string reflects the passions animating lots of Americans.  The lefties are convinced the Rs want to destroy the unions.  The righties are outraged the the unions are inveterate featherbedders.  The truth, as usual, probably lies in between.

I tend to agree with roiduboloi, though without quite as much assurance.  

I feel Gettlefinger's pain.  All he has to offer his members, present and retired is "blood, toil,  tears  and sweat".  BUT, he doesn't have to give much to bring the workforce of today and tomorrow into line with the imports' wage and benefit standards.  It's his retiree population that is the noose around his neck.  The same crowd that built the 70's and 80's cars that a lot of American consumers grew to despise.

I feel the dealers' pain...............up to a point.  They didn't get all those state protective laws passed because they loved laissez-faire.  The current disaster is forcing on the weakest of them the economic guillotine, an unhappy fate that Detroit couldn't impose.  I note that some R senators seem less inclined to bust dealers' nuts than union nuts.

I feel management's pain.  Geez, we give you what you want. How are we supposed to intuit that gas prices would double in a flash, followed immediately by a financing disaster.  BUT, they chose to have financial people, not marketing people, to run their companies for the past few decades.  The old American way was to design and market a car that consumers ached to own.  Does anyone remember the original Mustang, however vaguely?  

The ugly truth is that the roi's of the world have it mostly right.  The problems are too deep and too old for the "stakeholders" to resolve by themselves.  Some form of bankruptcy is necessary.  My preference is a unique, one-off, legislated bankruptcy.  To buy time to gather facts and reach a "reasoned" resolution, I'm in favor of a short term loan.

In a broader view, so much, so bad, so unexpected, so unique, has happened so fast that it is no wonder that people are "mad as hell and not gonna take it any more".  If we can only pause and take a breath, things just might get better.  A new administration is coming.  It will have the benefit of reacting to what has and has not been done right so far.  Paulson and Bernanke ain't been perfect, but they've been "dancing as fast as they can".  Very New Dealish!  Summers, Bernanke and Geithner  may yet get it closer to right.  Let's hope so.  As for FDR, he'd say have faith and keep trying till you get it right.

December 12, 2008 6:32 PM

esmense said:

As consumer markets the states these Senators represent are the weakest in the nation. They enjoy nowhere near the prosperity of those states with a long tradition of unionization. Although these Southern states are much better off than when their economies were primarily agricultural, if market conditions like those that prevail in these poor Southern states were all the US had to offer, there wouldn't be any foreign car makers in the region no matter how cheap the work force. The low wage strategy that has helped improve conditions for these state (compared to their even poorer past)  is only workable because it allows those foreign manufacturers easy access to more affluent, higher wage markets (to sell their products into.)  These idiots are working against the better interest of both their states' auto workers and the manufacturers who employ them.

December 12, 2008 9:13 PM

Nari224 said:

Satyendra: no argument re the ponzi scheme.  All of the current "crises" are symptoms of the main problem, which is simply that there is too much debt in the world.  That is the root cause of the mortgage crisis, the effect that had on the CDOs and then the CDS market.  It is also the reason Detroit (and contrary to some, all automakers) is that people bought their products with credit.

The point I was trying to make is that the Lehman experience shows that government inaction is sometimes much worse than action, even considering for encoraging moral hazard etc. In this case I don't know if not bailing out Lehman is actually suspicious "wall st CW", since there was a direct line between their collapse and the freezing of the commercial paper market. Yes, something else may have caused exactly the same thing, but then it may not. Impossible to know. What we do know is that the governent could have stepped in and things would be different.

In the case of the big3, in the absence of a goverment (as there is no-one else) plan to soften or avoid their collapse (whether that be a loan or a plan for surviving chapt 11) there are terribly predictable results and

unpredictable ones. Now would not seem to be the best time to risk even the predictable results.    

December 12, 2008 10:56 PM

roidubouloi said:

cthulhu2008,

rhubarbs explained it quite nicely for you.  Timidity about deficit spending, including a premature return to trying to balance the budget, allowed a recession precipitated by the collapse of a bubble to become a depression.  As well, there were recessions in the 19th century that were quite lengthy and devastating, not at all the tidy little affairs you claim.

Contrariwise, there is no coherent explanation for how government demand could have prolonged the depressed output, plus the clear evidence in the history that war spending finally lifted the economy out of the depression.  That is more than enough to make the Austrian school claim that intervention caused the depression ridiculous.  It is the economic equivalent of "flat-earth" and creationism, a pseudo-theory, like supply-side economics, driven by ideological opposition to government action -- radical libertarianism.  Sound familiar to you?

December 13, 2008 12:15 AM

roidubouloi said:

Also cthulhu2008, your claim that since the inception of Keynesian intervention recessions have been deeper and longer is flat out wrong.  Since the end of WWII and a program of managing the business cycle was widely instituted in western economies, recessions have been considerably shorter and milder than in the past.

December 13, 2008 12:18 AM

roidubouloi said:

Say isernoff, don't make it sound like I wish Chapter 11 on the autos as some form of punishment for bad behavior.  I am the one who keeps saying that the auto manufacturers have not been so stupid or venal but have generally made rational business decisions given the labor and competitive environment they were faced with.  My strong preference for a formal bankruptcy is that I know, with assurance, from experience, that it is actually the fastest, surest way to get rid of the bad legacies and start afresh.  Like you, I much prefer a one-off legislative bankruptcy, but the Congress has been so intimidated by the "bankruptcy is not an option" shtick that they don't have the nerve.  The idea that they are going to get everyone together in a few months and get them to agree on a plan that will successfully restructure the industry is a fantasy.  Unlikely they can get a plan and since any effective plan would be cutting whole body parts of of the industry, they cannot get a viable plan because no portion of the industry is going to agree to a deal that provides for its own demise.  That's why we have Chapter 11, to force the outcome upon the understandably unwilling.   Just look how well Corker's demands went with a UAW that would face far worse in a formal reorganization.

December 13, 2008 12:29 AM

johnalthousecohen said:

I could be more swayed by a post that didn't rely on loaded language like "craven," "despicable," "they knew better." For someone like me who's not already inclined to support an auto bailout, that's just convincing.

December 13, 2008 9:06 AM

lesserliz said:

To all you Keynesians who don't think FDR prolonged the Depression and that WWII ended it:

Dying in the trenches while great for the unemployment rate was not good for the soldiers' economy. During the war we had plenty of tanks but many consumer staples were in short supply.

Doesn't something intuitively say to you that things like burning crops and forbidding anyone from making over $25,000/yr impedes producing goods for the people. Sure we can have fulll employment under FDR-like central planning if we all go to FEMA work camps and dig ditches while having the seocnd shift fill them back in. But taken to its Keynesian conclusion such policies will result in cars like the Yugo and lines around the block to purchase bread and butter like in the former USSR.  So don't tell me that the errors were in not having enough government spending and control. Go buy yourselves a Che Guevera teeshirt and ponder the difference between North Korea and South Korea, East Germany and West Germany, Japan and Mao's China and life in Cuba.

December 13, 2008 9:58 AM

adsprung said:

I am intrigued by the tributes to Hoover in this string. Can anyone recommend a really good bio?

December 13, 2008 10:54 AM

lsernoff said:

roidubouloi:  No intention to suggest you were being a hard ass.  I agree with you.  If my comments connoted disapproval, you have my apology.  

December 13, 2008 12:36 PM

roidubouloi said:

It was tongue in cheek isernoff.

Liz, there is a difference between government spending and central planning.  And with all the weaknesses of central planning, there are occasions where it is more effective, indeed essential.  During WWII, there is not the slightest chance that the market would have figured out in a timely manner the quantities of inputs necessary for the demands of war production.  Would the market have adjusted eventually?  Sure, but without Leontieff's input/output analysis the chance of successfully ramping up war production as we did.  One ought not be dogmatic about these things.

Keynes was hardly an advocate of war as a solution to economic problems.  The story, perhaps apocryphal, was that, to the contrary, he commented that having the government hire enough people to dig ditches and fill them up again would do the job just fine.  It was the government spending that was necessary to kick-start demand which would in turn generate additional private demand ultimately restoring the economy to full output.  Is useful spending on necessary infrastructure and education better than digging ditches?  Of course, as there will be value there afterwards that will lift the output of the economy.  None-the-less, the Keynesian point has absolutely nothing to do with how the money should be spent -- your complaint -- only that it be spent.  Would the economy eventually right itself without intervention?  In the long-run, sure, which is what prompted Keynes to respond, "In the long-run, we're all dead."  It is hard to pick a fight with a genius.  Why bother?

December 13, 2008 1:22 PM

timteeter said:

Lesserlitz,

I don't think anyone here is advocating war for economic purposes.  That's the Republican approach.

Rather, what is being argued for is counter-cyclical spending *and saving.*  When there's a boom, Democrats pay down the debt (see Clinton, William Jefferson).  It's Republicans who run through surpluses through tax cuts for the wealthy, then complain when there's a bust that there's no money.

December 13, 2008 1:37 PM

Political Animal said:

'THE PARTY OF HERBERT HOOVER'.... On Wednesday, Dick Cheney met with Senate Republicans and emphasized the importance of keeping the American automotive industry afloat. "If we don't do this, we will be known as the party of Herbert Hoover forever,".

December 13, 2008 1:38 PM

lesserliz said:

Roid & Timeteeter. I didn't say Keynes was an advocate for war but the war certainly provided the tools he loved to play with and the happenstance of that war coming during the Depression should not be used as a legitimization for FDR's policies as having ended same. I'm not that dogmatic and can abide a little kick-starting and central planning but not the institutionalization of same which I believe leads eventuallly to USSR-like endings, the path I see us following(i.e. not caring "how the money should be spent only that it be spent").  As far as Keynes being a genius, I'll go with the guy that said "All tall economists are geniuses and all short ones are idiots, except for Keynes and Friedman."  As far as us "all being dead in the long run"  I read that as passing the consequences of excessive debt burdens onto a future time when the poiticians who unleashed the economy- destroying forces are dead or no longer in office-like what we are doing today with all these bailouts. The next generation will pay or, sooner we will pay with new capital-sapping government agencies that will never go away and with Weimar or Zimbabwe-type hyperinflation.

December 13, 2008 2:34 PM

roidubouloi said:

That the war finally lifted the US out of the Depression does not validate or invalidate Roosevelt's policies.  It provides evidence that Keynes was right upon the effect in a depression of using government spending to replace missing private demand.  That is all.  It doesn't "legitimize" anything in particular.  It is evidence that if you do A the result you will get is B, as Keynes claimed.   He was not claiming as you seem to think that we ought not care how the money is spent.  He was making the empirical claim that, if you spent it in a sufficient amount, no matter how you spent it, it would end the depression.  There is every reason to want the money to be well spent and not to be greater in amount than necessary to accomplish the goal.  

The goal of recapitalizing the financial sector is definitely not the same as adding demand.  One is a balance sheet problem to be solved because we need a healthy financial sector to have any economy at all.  The other is a flow problem.  Failing to recapitalize the financial sector would cost this generation and likely the next three generations an order of magnitude more than the cost.  The booga booga about Communism, Weimar, or Zimbabwe does not change that fact and there is zero inflationary impact from doing so.  There might be an interest rate impact, but that would be deflationary and right now, with T-bills at zero, there sure as hell is no evidence that that is happening any time soon.  Worrying about inflation is exactly how our government exacerbated the Depression.  Now is the time to be worried about deflation, not inflation.  The size of the debt is important only relative to the size of the economy.  Foregoing several years or a decade of growth would almost certainly have a far worse impact on the relative size of the national debt than would government spending today.  Indeed, it is more important that the government spend than that it use deficits to do it.  It could tax the rich, who don't consume their income and aren't likely to be investing any time soon to the same end.  But, either way, the growth is more important than the debt.

December 13, 2008 5:31 PM

lesserliz said:

If you admit that the war ended the Depression then you are admitting one of my claims that FDR's pollices did not end(and I say prolonged) the Depression. If you give Keynes credit for the notion that any spending ends a depression than you have to allow for the  the evil he did living after him in his disciples for all the damage they wreaked (Greenspan, LBJ, Nixon, Bush etc). Again full employment at non productive things does not equal prosperity.

Money printing(you call it recapitalizing) has invariably led to inflation throughout history and will do so again(BTW inflation in 1946 was 100%).  And the dollar has lost 95% of it's value since the Fed was born. For various technical reasons we have some deflation now but inflation will inevitably come roaring back. If the Fed so desired the US could have 100% inflation by the middle of 2009 as the US did in 1946. All that is needed is for Congress to borrow a few more trillion into existence to fund old and new liabilities(which seems in progress)and have the Fed print it because our government cannot borrow the money from overseas or raise taxes, or devalue the dollar, or both.

It’s just that simple. Wish it wasn’t so. Trust your government not to do it?

December 13, 2008 11:58 PM

lesserliz said:

P.S. Roid thanks for the discussion. I'm honored that you would spend so many words on me, a wretched former Bush Republican.

December 14, 2008 12:08 AM

timteeter said:

lesserlitz,

I obviously know a good deal less about these matters than roid, but two quick points:

1 - "If you admit that the war ended the Depression then you are admitting one of my claims that FDR's pollices did not end(and I say prolonged) the Depression."  Not so.  FDR's policies were on their way to ending, or at least greatly ameliorating, the Depression until he decided to balance the budget in '36, and things got worse.  In other words, he should have stuck to his original course.  It took the war to force the kind of spending necessary after that.

2 - Inflation may have been 100 percent in 1946, but that was after wartime price controls were lifted (although a quick search on the internet shows that the jump in the CPI for all of 1946 was in fact 18%).  In any case, so what?  Does anyone think that consumers were better off in, say, 1936 than they were in 1950?  High inflation is not generally a good thing, but the actual measure is not the value of the dollar relative to itself, but the value of the dollar relative to GDP, or the standard of living and economic growth.  

December 14, 2008 10:49 AM

roidubouloi said:

Well, liz, I consider it a solemn responsibility to bring all Bush Republicans to the One True Faith so that you can all be saved.

I am happy to second timteeter here with some additional commentary:

I think, liz, you are conflating issues of fiat money (paper currency), fractional reserve banking, deficit spending, and maybe a few other things.  For example, the whole point of government borrowing is to finance budget deficits without printing money and setting off inflation.  It was Milton Friedman, whom you so admire, who said something to the effect that, "Inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon," by which he meant that inflation is synonymous with growth in the money supply that exceeds the rate of growth of the economy.  In not very developed countries, where there is no government bond market, they do finance deficits by printing money.  

The monetarists typically have a profound distaste for fiat money (the are all secretly Goldbugs whether they admit it or not) and try hard to give a theoretical basis for their distaste that does not, in my opinion, succeed because it is constantly confounded by events.  Keynes certainly had his policy preferences, but his basic point was not a policy preference, it was an empirical observation about the function of demand.  His empirical observation strikes me as having been verified by reality (including the impact of war spending) to a far greater extent than the observations of the monetarists, of which you seem to be one.  Could the government start monetizing the debt willy-nilly by buying up Treasuries?  Yes, that possibility exists.  I don't see much evidence of an intention to do that.  The Fed is run by "monetarists," although they don't really believe in monetarism because they never actually follow Friedman's (Milton not Thomas) prescription of keeping money supply growing exactly in line with the economy.  Still, when inflation looks threatening, they generally raise interest rates to slacken demand and hence employment, indicating clearly that they give higher priority to stable money than they do to full employment, which is your preference.  The Left wants the emphasis the other way around.

I think they are both wrong about the relationship of inflation to employment and may just try to show that if I ever get far enough along to be able to write a dissertation (not an immediate threat).  

Hope the financial turmoil is not treating you too harshly.  

December 14, 2008 11:09 AM

lesserliz said:

Don't get carried away, I said FORMER Bush Republican. Former because  he acted FDRish. I don't think I'm conflating just expressing distaste for different manifestations of loose monetary policy. I don't worship Friedman but prefer him over Keynes. Again I don't prefer full employment if everybody is not employed productively, not an aspect of gov make-work ventures. We'll just have to see about inflation. The turmoil isn't treating me harshly although I took some losses as I saw what was coming and am debt-free and started buying gold several years ago . Hope this deflation stays around for awhile (but not for gold please). Regards.

December 14, 2008 12:21 PM

roidubouloi said:

Glad to hear it.  But, why am I not surprised that you like gold?

I bought some in the 80s because I am vaguely paranoid.  As an investment, the return has been pretty bad even at the peak price, but that isn't the reason I bought it so I can't complain.

Best

r

December 14, 2008 1:05 PM

Wandreycer1 said:

If you're still reading, terrific dialouge Roi and Less.

I do hope you finish that dissertation some day Roi.

December 14, 2008 2:15 PM

roidubouloi said:

Thanks, wandreycer, but I am going to have to get to the point of starting it before I can hope to finish it.  I have to say, and thank you Liz, that this discussion does give me some very good ideas about a starting point.

December 14, 2008 4:10 PM

stichmo said:

I understand that the southern Senators don’t want to transfer federal money to Big 3 automakers, whose major plants are in Michigan, Ohio, Illinois and Pennsylvania.  I agree.  Therefore, I propose equalizing federal spending by state, since it is the state governments in those southern states that have supported the foreign auto plants in their states.  As the chart below shows, we can fund the transfer of federal spending to Michigan and the other Big 3 states by taking federal funds from these southern states:

State              Federal Spending per Dollar of

                           Federal Taxes - FY 2005 Rank

Mississippi                    $2.02                       2

Louisiana                    $1.78                       4

Alabama                    $1.66                       7

Kentucky                    $1.51                       9

South Carolina                  $1.35                                   16

Tennessee                    $1.27                     19

Georgia                    $1.01                     32

Pennsylvania                    $1.07                     28

Ohio                    $1.05                     31

Michigan                    $0.92                     37

Illinois                    $0.75                     45

Source: Tax Foundation, Census Bureau

Hey Senators, what do you think?  We can just give Michigan a big chunk of money from the Feds and let the state subsidize the Big 3.  That’s the way they do it in the south.

Obviously, the Big 3 are going to have to restructure.  But the right way to do it was the plan that passed the House, which set general goals that had to be met by the end of March, not the Senate Republican plan which dictated specific steps that the automakers must take.  Perhaps a prepackaged bankruptcy is the best option.  But understand that the US taxpayer then inherits any unfunded pension benefits.  Let's get there because it makes sense for the company's survival, not because some southern Senators dictated that it should happen.

The Senate Republicans are the central planners in the automaker deal.  I know the Republicans warned us that we might be facing socialism after the election.  They just forgot to tell us that they would be leading that charge.

December 15, 2008 9:24 AM

beacho said:

It is absurd nonsense to state that the foreign automakers in Southern states are paying "low wages". In those states, getting a job with an automaker is a plum position. How many jobs pay $25/hr. for assembly line work? It is no wonder that workers in the South consistently vote down the unions. They like their jobs and benefits and want the company to succeed so those jobs and benefits continue.

By contrast, the Detroit automakers caved in to the UAW years ago, and have never escaped that mentality. The UAW holds a gun to their head, destroys the companies, and demands wages and benefits that are simply absurd for assembly line work. Indeed, we should be thankful the foreign companies are creating jobs here in the US, because otherwise the UAW would chase them all overseas.

It is true that recently the UAW has cut wages a bit to try to help Detroit compete, but the two-tier approach to average down is bad for morale and counter-productive. They should lower rates across the board. And the retiree benefits should be scaled back to something reasonable, rather than simply deferred.

Bankruptcy may be the only realistic option to save these companies. They have suffered from poor management and from the cancerous tactics that the UAW pursues.

If the UAW truly wants to help workers, they should focus on getting rid of absurd work rules, lower wages to reasonable levels, and measure their success by how profitable the companies become.

Profitable companies can pay good wages and benefits, losers can't. Start by helping them make a buck.

December 15, 2008 9:29 AM

basman said:

January 4, 2009 3:38 PM