Skip navigation.

First Things First

...But not necessarily in that order.

Posts tagged with "GM"

GM and DC: a two-way street

, ,

There's a lot of speculation about just how much Obama and Congress will meddle in GM's operations (my prediction: quite a bit). David Brooks, writing in the NY Times, points out that meddling is a two-way street:

G.M.'s executives and unions now have an incentive to see Washington as a prime revenue center. Already, the union has successfully lobbied to move production centers back from overseas. Already, the company has successfully sought to restrict the import of cars that might compete with G.M. brands. In the years ahead, G.M.'s management will have a strong incentive to spend time in Washington, urging the company’s owner, the federal government, to issue laws to help it against Ford and Honda. (Emphasis added)



Brooks also echoes my fear that GM will be a ward of the state pretty much forever:

The U.S. government will own most of G.M. It would be politically suicidal for the Democrats, or whoever is in power, to pull the plug on the company — now or ever. Therefore, the current managers can rest assured that they never need to fear liquidation again. There will always be federal subsidies for their own mediocrity.



I disagree that "whoever is in power" won't be brave enough to take GM off of taxpayer-funded life support. This deal is pretty unpopular with everyone except his base, and will smell worse as the company passes $50 billion in bailouts and heads toward $60 billion, if not more. (Go ahead, bookmark this. I'm prepared to put offer 3-to-1 odds -- my GM stock against yours.) We'll need a Republican Congress (but one with considerably more spine than we have now) to try to undo this deal.

Brooks makes a series of points about this unholy mess. Again we agree:

Instead of thinking obsessively about profitability and quality, G.M. will also have to meet the administration’s environmental goals. There is no evidence G.M. is good at building the sort of small cars the administration demands. There is no evidence that there is a large American market for these cars. But G.M. now has to serve two masters, the market and the administration’s policy goals.


Read the whole thing.

The government will not run GM? In a pork's eye.

, ,

Fish gotta swim, birds gotta fly, and Congress will treat the now-thoroughly-nationalized General Government Motors as its personal jobs slush fund. Sure, Obama said yesterday that Uncle Sam won't run the show:

But Obama insisted that the federal government will not be involved in GM’s day-to-day operations.

"What I am not doing, what I have no interest in doing, is running GM," he said.

"They, and not the government, will call the shots and make the decisions about how to turn this company around," he noted. "In short, our goal is to get GM back on its feet, take a hands-off approach and get out quickly."


Do you believe him? I don't. This entire $50-billion exercise amounts to the biggest political payback to unionized labor in this country's history. How else to explain abrogating contract law in order to
award a disproportional share of the company to the UAW -- and screwing bondholders? And how else to explain the decision to ban the import of GM cars built in China -- the one country where GM is profitable?

The automaker had said in documents submitted to Congress that it planned to produce up to 51,000 subcompacts per year in China and ship them to the U.S. starting in 2011, when GM plans to start selling the Chevrolet Spark here. The three-door hatchback with a 1.2-liter turbocharged engine is about the size of a Honda Fit or Toyota Yaris and is set to go on sale in Europe next year.

But in an interview with The Associated Press on Thursday, United Auto Workers President Ron Gettelfinger said GM will not import the cars from China and had agreed as part of a concession deal to build them in the U.S.


But regardless of whether you believe Obama's "hands off" stance, Congress won't be so timid:

The Obama administration has said repeatedly that it won't use its majority stake in General Motors Corp. to meddle in the company's daily affairs. Lawmakers on Capitol Hill aren't being so shy.

The areas of potential concern to lawmakers range from proposed plant and dealership closings to longer-term plans for more fuel-efficient cars. And key elected officials are already promising to weigh in even as President Barack Obama and his aides say they will shield GM from outside pressure.

"I think members will express themselves for sure. We should do that," said Rep. Sandy Levin, a Michigan Democrat whose district lies just north of Detroit. "We should express the interests of our constituents." ...

"I think where GM builds its next plant is going to be more of a political decision than a business decision," said Rep. Pete Hoekstra, a Republican from western Michigan. "For the foreseeable future, these car companies will be run by the Obama administration, and it will not be arm's length."


Oh hell yes. GM is going to be another huge pork-barrel opportunity for Congress. Which plants will be built or closed -- and particularly where -- and what kinds of cars will be made, is just the beginning. Obama's going to "shield GM from outside pressure"? That would require him to take a stand and generate controversy, but as we've seen on every issue, Obama doesn't like to do that. He won't get involved if it means spending political capital on the Hill.

And when, not if, GM continues to lose money because it's making government-mandated crapboxes that Americans don't want to buy, "we" will have to continue to pump more money into GM. Get out quickly? I predict that we won't get out for years -- until the Democrats lose Congress. At least this naked power-grab should hasten that.

Chrysler and political convenience

, , ,

Megan McArdle asks inconvenient questions regarding Obama's decision to push Chrysler into bankruptcy on terms more favorable to the UAW than to the shareholders who actually have their money invested in the firm:

[W]hen did it become the government's job to intervene in the bankruptcy process to move junior creditors who belong to favored political constituencies to the front of the line? Leave aside the moral point that these people lent money under a given set of rules, and now the government wants to intervene in our extremely well-functioning (and generous) bankruptcy regime solely in order to save a favored Democratic interest group.

No, leave that aside for the nonce, and let's pretend that the most important thing in the world, far more interesting than stupid concepts like the rule of law, is saving unions. What do you think this is going to do to the supply of credit for industries with powerful unions?

I think we'll find out. It is highly unlikely, as Megan points out, that Chrysler can get by without another massive infusion of capital. And The One has just made it clearer than ever before -- with his snide comments about how "a small group of speculators" is standing in the way of automaker nirvana -- how hostile this administration is to private capital. Note how Obama has now defined investors as morally reprehensive because they "refused to bend to the Obama administration and accept steep losses on their investments while more junior investors, including the United Automobile Workers union, were offered favorable terms."

The evil investors' defense?

OppenheimerFunds, in a statement, said: "Our holdings in secured Chrysler debt are entitled to priority in long-established U.S. bankruptcy law, and we are obligated to our fund shareholders to support agreements that respect these laws."

Law, schmaw. So what if shareholders -- which includes teachers' unions and pension funds which, undoubtedly, include a chunk of the middle class -- take another bath? Obama needs the unions, and this is a naked political move. He doesn't need and private investors and capitalists (or so he's arrogant enough to believe, for now). He'll just continue to plow more government taxpayer money into Chrysler and General Motors. The nationalization has begun, and as we've already seen with the strong-arming of the banks, "government" money justifies giving automakers their marching orders:

"I don't want to run auto companies," President Obama said last week. "I'm not an auto engineer. I don't know how to create an affordable, well-designed plug-in hybrid." To those of us who still quaintly believe in the power of private enterprise and free markets, that was a reassuring answer from the leader of a country heading toward owning 8 percent of Chrysler and 50 percent of General Motors. It suggested the president understands that, even with their lousy track records, business professionals are better equipped than government bureaucrats to decide what cars to make, what prices to set and how many people to employ.

Seconds after that promising, if relatively vague, opening, though, Obama took much of it back. He couldn't help himself. "But I know that, if the Japanese can design an affordable, well-designed hybrid, then, doggone it, the American people should be able to do the same," he said. "So my job is to ask the auto industry: Why is it you guys can't do this?"

So much for hands-off. George W. Bush may have been this country's first MBA president, but Obama is on the brink of becoming its first CEO in chief -- and that would not bode well for Chrysler, GM or taxpayers.

Green cars? You betcha. Whether anyone will want to buy them is another story. Subsidies? And/or higher gas prices to incentivize ya? You betcha! Getting our money back from the "loans" to the automakers? You be-- hey, look over there, it's Elvis!

The GM bankruptcy and a test for American socialism

, , , ...

The title's not mine -- I shamelessly stole it from Tigerhawk -- but he makes a point that is well worth considering:

The federal government and the workers will own one of our largest and most storied industrial companies. That has never really happened before. In other words, the governmental restructuring of General Motors is a social experiment that will shortly teach us two things: Whether businesses can be managed to a profit when in the hands of bureaucrats and union officials, and whether American consumers will trust such people to stand by the products that they make. I, for one, am eager to learn the answer, because it will tell us what we should and should not do about health care.



(Hat tip: Instapundit)