I see this as yet another example of market failure. For decades now it has been heresy to criticize the wonderful automatic mechanism of free markets. In the last few months we have seen how the most able financial minds in the country had so overvalued the stock market that it all, quite inevitably, came crashing down. There has been no loss of value, only a correction from wrong valuations to real valuations.
The trouble with markets is that usually they just aren’t free (to adjust price so as to match supply and demand). They usually stick on something such as industrial relations, oligopolies, insider trading or cartels. Very strong and smart regulation is needed to force markets to be free – "lubrication" if you prefer to see it that way.
Well the market for cars is reasonably free, but the management of the old American brands is apparently simply not up to competing in a free market – so they cry for government assistance.
Sure, to let them fail will hurt a lot of good folk who did not cause this and don’t deserve to suffer. But if we bail out the management we are only applying a temporary unstable distortion on the free market. It will bounce back to its original shape soon and the same innocent workers will be in danger again.
The only hope would be to impose radical management reforms and use the bail-out funding to re-tool into sustainable production for the free market – quality, cheap, economical and environment-friendly vehicles. I don’t believe that the US Federal government could make this work. An all new coordinated industry management would be required and it would have to be not only highly talented, but also willing to follow the spirit of government directives while still applying excellent commercial judgement. Who ya gonna call?
Perhaps some sort of industry oversight committee? Or maybe a non-profit organization of some kind?
The trouble with markets is that usually they just aren’t free… Very strong and smart regulation is needed to force markets to be free – "lubrication" if you prefer to see it that way.
Funny—I said something similar on another blog and was called a thug—presumably because the market is supposed to take care of itself. Teach me to stray from Omninerd!
I am undecided on this bailout, but I disagree with the idea that this is a failure of the free market. If this were a truly free market, at least one of the Big Three would have gone under years ago. Chrysler, for one, owes its very existence to government intervention.
Two things that have brought us here:
1. The excessive demands of the auto unions, who along with government employees are the only people left in America with defined-benefit plans. Toyota and Honda have nearly all their US plants in "Right to Work" (non-union) states like Tennessee and thus don’t have the burdens of union demands. Ford, for example, has $1500 built into the price of each car it sells for "legacy costs."
I’m not saying it’s not unfair. A company promised you a retirement, then the world changed and they reneged on that promise. But the alternative is bankruptcy, so you’re left with two bad choices.
My dad works for a Japanese tractor company. About ten years ago, they sent him 20 years’ worth of his retirement contributions and told him "no more defined-benefit retirement." That sucks, but my dad has taken on responsibility for his own retirement. If he can do it, so can an auto worker.
2. The other source of the industry’s woes is free trade- specifically, the failure of the government to impose a tariff, or some form of protectionism. If it is truly in our nation’s best interest to have these companies, as those supporting this bailout argue, we could have imposed a tariff on all imported cars years ago. Protectionism is a bad word, but the fact is other countries are more protectionist than us, and that is one reason their domestic auto industries do well. When a former boss moved to Japan for a year, I was shocked to learn that Japan does not allow non-Japanese manufactured cars into their country. This is Japan, the country that sells the most cars in the US.
"Free trade" and "unions" are the culprits here, not the "free market." If you mean free trade, Occams, then I wholeheartedly agree with you, but I suspect you’re just trying to make this some indictment of capitalism. If America was a truly capitalist country, though, we wouldn’t have as many airlines, car manufacturers, telephone companies, or other businesses here that have depended on government largesse and over-regulation to keep them in business.
The price of infidelity by NomadSoul :: NR5 :: Show
Perhaps some sort of industry oversight committee? Or maybe a non-profit organization of some kind?
The trouble with markets is that usually they just aren’t free… Very strong and smart regulation is needed to force markets to be free – "lubrication" if you prefer to see it that way.
Funny—I said something similar on another blog and was called a thug—presumably because the market is supposed to take care of itself. Teach me to stray from Omninerd!
RE: Market Failure by jmarkdavison :: NR5 :: Show
I am undecided on this bailout, but I disagree with the idea that this is a failure of the free market. If this were a truly free market, at least one of the Big Three would have gone under years ago. Chrysler, for one, owes its very existence to government intervention.
Two things that have brought us here:
1. The excessive demands of the auto unions, who along with government employees are the only people left in America with defined-benefit plans. Toyota and Honda have nearly all their US plants in "Right to Work" (non-union) states like Tennessee and thus don’t have the burdens of union demands. Ford, for example, has $1500 built into the price of each car it sells for "legacy costs."
I’m not saying it’s not unfair. A company promised you a retirement, then the world changed and they reneged on that promise. But the alternative is bankruptcy, so you’re left with two bad choices.
My dad works for a Japanese tractor company. About ten years ago, they sent him 20 years’ worth of his retirement contributions and told him "no more defined-benefit retirement." That sucks, but my dad has taken on responsibility for his own retirement. If he can do it, so can an auto worker.
2. The other source of the industry’s woes is free trade- specifically, the failure of the government to impose a tariff, or some form of protectionism. If it is truly in our nation’s best interest to have these companies, as those supporting this bailout argue, we could have imposed a tariff on all imported cars years ago. Protectionism is a bad word, but the fact is other countries are more protectionist than us, and that is one reason their domestic auto industries do well. When a former boss moved to Japan for a year, I was shocked to learn that Japan does not allow non-Japanese manufactured cars into their country. This is Japan, the country that sells the most cars in the US.
"Free trade" and "unions" are the culprits here, not the "free market." If you mean free trade, Occams, then I wholeheartedly agree with you, but I suspect you’re just trying to make this some indictment of capitalism. If America was a truly capitalist country, though, we wouldn’t have as many airlines, car manufacturers, telephone companies, or other businesses here that have depended on government largesse and over-regulation to keep them in business.