Posted by Todd Zywicki:
The Detroit Bailout:
http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2008_12_14-2008_12_20.shtml#1229725746


   It looks like President Bush eschewed [1]my advice to allow the
   automakers to file bankruptcy. Not surprising at this point, but
   disheartening nonetheless (at least to me).

   The best case scenario is that the strong accountability measures that
   have been announced will actually work to either promote reform or
   pave the way for an eventual bankruptcy.

   Logically, the plan seems to be primarily to give the automakers an
   opportunity to get their ducks in a row for a prepackaged bankruptcy
   filing sometime in the spring. In which case, this truly was just an
   effort to make sure that any bankruptcy will turn out to be "orderly,"
   although it seems like Detroit only has itself to blame for not being
   better-prepared for a bankruptcy filing right now.

   Realistically, however, I'm afraid that isn't going to happen. Sure,
   President Bush talked a tough game today. But do we really think that
   come March the Obama Adminstration is going to stick to its guns and
   enforce the accountability provisions in the bailout? It seems hard to
   believe that two months into his administration, Obama will let these
   guys go down, even into a prepackaged bankruptcy.

   So what seems most likely is that come March, Detroit will be no
   better off, and Washington will roll over the loans and provide still
   more cash for another six months or so. If that is so, then this
   action--although purportedly short-term and qualified with numerous
   conditions--is a huge victory for the UAW and incumbent management,
   who have likely bought themselves time well into 2009 before they have
   to deal with a reckoning.

   Does this really help them beyond that? It is hard to see how. A lot
   of people object that consumers won't buy a car from a company in
   Chapter 11. But do we seriously think that many of those consumers
   will be a car from a company on bailout life-support? If not--and I
   haven't talked to anyone who thinks it makes a difference whether they
   are in Chapter 11 or on life-support--then it is hard to see what this
   action does to fundamentally transform the prospects of the
   automakers. In other words, bankruptcy still looks inevitable, and it
   is just a matter of how many billions of taxpayer dollars we're going
   to throw away before we get there.

   But there is a more fundamental issue here. The President faced a
   fundamental decision whether the fate of the automakers would be
   decided by the well-established economic process of Chapter 11
   reorganization or the ad hoc political process. He opted for the
   latter. And once he did, he triggered a new political dynamic. Now
   that the government has extended money with strings, politicians are
   likely to insist on the power to impose further strings. For instance,
   if GM wants to close a plant in a given community or discontinue
   orders from a given parts plant, what's to stop politicians from
   intervening to try to prevent that from happening?

   Consider the issue of the dealers, which may prove the toughest nut to
   crack without bankruptcy. General consensus holds that GM has too many
   nameplates and too many dealers. And dealerships are hard and
   expensive to close because of state dealer-protection laws. But
   dealers are often among the most important and politically-connected
   businesses in a given town. After forking over all this cash, will
   politicians stand by and allow GM to close those dealerships?

   It is hard to see how taking this out of the economic process and
   putting it into the political process is going to improve Detroit's
   long-term prospects.

   All of the micromanaging provisions (like the prohibition on issuance
   of dividends, wage adjustments, managerial compensation, etc.) are
   just artificial efforts to replicate the natural processes that occur
   within a Chapter 11 case. (Amazingly, GM was still [2]issuing
   dividends as of June of this year). Hayekians will recognize this as
   constructivist attempts to replicate the knowledge of time and place,
   with all the problems that implies.

   Andrew Grossman has more on [3]"Bush's Awful Auto Bailout" here.
   Andrew has had several good posts on this issue over the past week or
   two.

References

   1. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122939117718809261.html
   2. http://www.gm.com/corporate/investor_information/div_history/
   3. http://blog.heritage.org/2008/12/19/bushs-awful-auto-bailout/

_______________________________________________
Volokh mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.powerblogs.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/volokh

Reply via email to