SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Lane3 who wrote (92245)10/28/2008 11:06:44 AM
From: Lane3  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 541598
 
Coming to Detroit's Rescue?
Ford, GM, Chrysler Eligible for Aid Under Bailout Law, Treasury Says

By Kendra Marr and David Cho
Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, October 28, 2008; D01

The Bush administration is in negotiations to broaden its $700 billion financial rescue plan to include U.S. auto companies, potentially opening the door to an array of industries to seek federal aid.

Detroit's Big Three are eligible for aid under a broad interpretation of the law that authorized the $700 billion financial rescue, Treasury Department officials said yesterday. But they declined to discuss the details of any assistance.

"The law grants the secretary broad authority to purchase troubled assets that he deems important to improving financial stability," said Treasury spokeswoman Jennifer Zuccarelli.

Ford and General Motors are eligible because they are both chartered as thrift holding companies, so they can establish banks to make car loans nationwide. Other businesses, such as General Electric, Nordstrom, John Deere and Macy's, are chartered in the same way to issue credit cards or make loans to their customers. Chrysler would also be eligible, Treasury officials said.

Helping such businesses could put the Treasury in the tricky situation of picking winners and losers within the economy, a far cry from restoring the free flow of credit in the financial system, which was the original intention of the rescue package, some analysts said. It could lead to a long line of companies heading to the Treasury for aid, especially if the holiday shopping season is as disastrous as retailers are forecasting.

Automakers are among the most troubled of the bunch. Their financing arms make more money than the cars themselves. Yet the credit crisis has all but frozen this part of the business, making it difficult for shoppers to get the loans to buy cars and even for dealers to finance their inventory.

Auto sales for GM, Ford and Chrysler are all down by double-digit percentages. Last week, the companies cut a variety of employee benefits and thousands of jobs to preserve cash. In a sign of further problems ahead, credit-rating agencies are considering downgrading GM's financing arm, which would make it more expensive to raise money.

In a year, Detroit's Big Three might shrink to the Big Two as manufacturers burn through cash, according to some analysts. Chrysler is in talks to merge with GM or partner with a combination of Nissan and Renault.

Detroit has turned to the government for help. Though Congress rushed to pass a $25 billion loan package aimed at boosting production of energy-efficient vehicles, the money could come too late and could not be used freely by automakers.

An industry source, who spoke on condition of anonymity because this person was not authorized to speak for the companies, said the Energy Department was accelerating the first $5 billion installment to assist a merger of GM and Chrysler. But Healy E. Baumgardner, an Energy Department spokeswoman, said it was accelerating the process to get the money to Detroit but dismissed speculation that a check could be cut imminently.

"To talk about a timetable or any monetary amount is premature," she said.

Last week, the Michigan congressional delegation, headed by Rep. John D. Dingell (D), implored Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr. and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke to use their "broad regulatory authority" to "promote liquidity in the U.S. auto industry."

But Daniel Mitchell, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute, said the government bailouts did not offer deteriorating companies the right incentives to improve business.

"When you have taxpayers come in and bail out Detroit, you in effect are sending a message: You don't need to make yourself more efficient to meet the challenge of foreign competition. You just need to hire the right lobbyists and influence-peddlers in Washington to get money for you," he said.

Over the past few weeks, auto companies have been meeting with Treasury officials. In recent days, GM chairman and chief executive G. Richard Wagoner Jr. has been lobbying officials from the Energy and Treasury departments for quick relief.

"Automakers do have financing arms, many of them do," White House press secretary Dana Perino said yesterday. "And it's possible that some of those financing arms could be a part of the rescue package . . . That's one of the reasons Treasury has been in contact with them."

The Treasury confirmed that statement but noted that such companies are ineligible for the capital purchase program, in which the government has been providing investments in exchange for ownership stakes in banks.

"Basically, they're not banks," said an official familiar with the Treasury's policy who spoke on condition of anonymity because the person was not authorized to speak.

It is unclear how the Treasury would directly aid automakers. But the department could buy troubled auto loans from them, freeing much-needed capital.

Scott Talbott, vice president of the Financial Services Roundtable, said automakers finance so many loans that they are just as important as banks.

"The goal of the Treasury program is not to save companies but to restore liquidity," he said. "We think [rescue package] money should be distributed to those financial service companies that have a direct lending relationship with consumers, such as Ford and GM, their auto-finance arms."

Analysts said any relief would be good news for Cerberus Capital Management, which owns 51 percent of GMAC and all of Chrysler Financial. Last year, Cerberus purchased a majority stake in Chrysler, and now it's looking to unload the ailing automaker. The government's help means Cerberus would be free to funnel money into a GM-Chrysler merger.

Michigan officials said the federal government had to step in. Too much is at stake.

"Look at the footprint the auto industry has on our economy," said Liz Boyd, spokeswoman for Michigan Gov. Jennifer M. Granholm (D). "It is critical the federal government help this industry in a time of transition."

Staff writers Peter Whoriskey, Binyamin Appelbaum and Dan Eggen and staff researcher Julie Tate contributed to this report.



To: Lane3 who wrote (92245)10/28/2008 11:24:46 AM
From: Sam  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 541598
 
I didn't say that providing a safety net would do that. I said that creating a RIGHT to a share of the output of the collective in lieu of a right to the product of one's own efforts would. I try hard to be definitive and clear. I can't believe that distinction, upon which I have pounded, is not evident.

Here is the problem I have with what you are saying. You seem to think that one's wealth can be seen simply as "the product of one's own efforts." I think that that is an illusion, and that one's wealth is the product of one's own efforts plus the efforts of a multitude of other people and institutions and simple historical chance/individual luck. Disentangling what part belongs to "one's own efforts" and what part to other factors is well nigh impossible in our complex, interdependent world. Your view may have been right in a world of subsistence farming (although the factor of chance is very evident to them), but in our world matters are different. That creates all sorts of problems, because it is obvious that even if my view is true, individuals still have to take responsibility for their own lives. But consider the following paragraph taken from an article that you just posted:

The Bush administration is in negotiations to broaden its $700 billion financial rescue plan to include U.S. auto companies, potentially opening the door to an array of industries to seek federal aid.

Where does responsibility lie? Should the executives/management of these companies that are now eligible to receive federal aid be considered to have "earned" their money by "their own efforts"? Should they be fined for having jeopardized the livelihoods of their employees and the returns of their shareholders? Our methods of compensation have always been dicey, but they seem to me to have become completely absurd over the past few decades, making the very notion of what one "deserves" itself meaningless.

I've spent far too much time on the web today, have to go, will look forward to resuming the conversation later, though.