Tuesday, September 11, 2012

The General Motors Lie

From National Review Online: The Democrats have decided to run in 2012 as the bailout party. It is an odd choice — the 2008–09 bailouts were deeply unpopular among the general public, and even their backers were notably conflicted about the precedent being set and the ensuing moral hazard. But Democrats have nonetheless made one of the most abusive episodes in the entire bailout era their economic cornerstone: the government takeover of General Motors.....
 The Democrats cling to the ridiculous claim that the bailout of GM and its now-Italian competitor, Chrysler, saved 1.5 million U.S. jobs. This preposterous figure is based on the assumption that if GM and Chrysler had gone into normal bankruptcy proceedings, the entire enterprise of automobile manufacturing in the United States would have collapsed — not only at GM and Chrysler but at Ford and foreign transplants such as Toyota and Honda. Not only that, the Democrats’ argument goes, but practically every parts maker, supplier, warehousing agency, and services firm dedicated to the car industry would have collapsed, too. In fact, it is unlikely that even GM or Chrysler would have stopped production during bankruptcy: The assembly lines would have continued rolling, interest and debt payments would have been cut, and — here’s the problem — union contracts would have been renegotiated. Far from having saved 1.5 million jobs, it is not clear that the GM bailout saved any — only that it preserved the UAW’s unsustainable arrangement.
Bill Clinton bizarrely tried to claim that the bailout has been responsible for the addition of 250,000 jobs to the automobile industry since the nadir of the financial crisis. Auto manufacturers and dealerships have indeed added about 236,000 jobs since then, but almost none are at GM, which has added only about 4,500 workers, a number not even close to offsetting the 63,000 workers that its dealerships had to let go when the terms of the bailout unilaterally shut them down....
 At their convention, Democrats swore that GM is “thriving,” but the market doesn’t think so: GM shares have lost half their value since January 2011. And while the passing of the Great Recession has meant growing sales for all automakers, GM is seriously lagging behind its competitors: Its sales are up 10 percent, a fraction of the increases at Kia, Toyota, Volkswagen, and Porsche. With its sales weak, its share price crashing, and its business model still a mess, some analysts already are predicting that GM will return to bankruptcy — but not until after the election.  http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/316379/democrats-gm-fiction-editors#
Bring on the lies, Democrats, that the auto bailouts were such a great thing.
(and before anybody says anything, yes I know Paul Ryan voted for it, and he was wrong)
If this is the best the Democrats have, then bring it on.

1 comment:

  1. What evidence is there that GM and Chrysler would have survived bankruptcy without assistance? NOBODY was lending. It is more likely that parts of each would have been purchased (by others, maybe entirely foreign) to pay off debts (Jeep, Chevrolet, Cadillac), other parts liquidated (can you imagine them saving Buick, GMC, Dodge?). There may have been some semlance of what went before, but do you really think it would be the roaring success it is today? I think it would have been disaster, as do many economists. I don't think this issue is really right-left, it's fantasy-reality.

    ReplyDelete