The financial crisis that began last year has been persistently marked by muddled thinking and haphazard policymaking. Now, the US Treasury is headed for a mistake of historic and catastrophic proportions by refusing to bail out the country’s Big Three automakers.
Make no mistake. If Detroit’s Big Three go bankrupt, the perfect storm really will have arrived with a collapse in both the real economy and the financial sector. This threat means that the financial bailout funds authorized by Congress can legitimately be used to support the automakers. Treasury’s refusal to do so is a monumental blunder that risks a general meltdown, the consequences of which will extend far beyond US shores.
Proponents of a bailout for the Big Three have emphasized the enormous job losses associated with a bankruptcy scenario, including not only jobs directly provided by the automakers, but also jobs with parts suppliers, auto dealers and in the transport and advertising industries.
These job losses will then be multiplied locally and nationally. Lost wages will reduce consumption, causing additional job cuts, while factory closures will reduce investment, hitting employment in capital goods industries. Lost incomes will also drive down tax revenues, resulting in public-sector employment cutbacks.
Moreover, the automakers are essential for closing the trade deficit and their demise could bring another surge in imports.
The automakers are also the backbone of US manufacturing, driving advances in manufacturing technology that will be needed if the US is to be a world leader in the coming “green” transportation revolution. Additionally, the Big Three are vital to national security, supplying important military transportation assets. Lastly, bankruptcy will impose massive costs on the government’s Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp (PBGC), further worsening the fiscal outlook.
Missing from this array of arguments is the damage a bankruptcy of the Big Three would do to financial markets. In one fell swoop, the hard-won gains in stabilizing the financial system would be blown away.
The Big Three and their auto finance associates (such as GMAC) are huge debtors whose liabilities are held throughout the financial system. If they go bankrupt, the insurance industry, which is likely a large holder of these debts, would quickly enter a spiral of collapse. Pension funds would also be hit, imposing further costs on the PBGC.
But the greatest damage may come from the credit default swaps (CDS) market that brought down American Insurance Group. Huge bets have undoubtedly been placed on the bonds of GM, Ford, Chrysler and GMAC, and bankruptcy will be a CDS triggering event requiring repayment of these bonds.
Moreover, a Big Three bankruptcy will bankrupt other companies, risking a cascade of financial damage as their bonds and equities fall in value and further CDS events are triggered. This is the nightmare outcome that risks replicating the crash of 1929.
Opposition to the bailout is bringing back to the surface the worst of the conservative economic thought that got the US and the world into this mess in the first place.
The opposition of the Federal Reserve and Treasury to hands-on intervention meant that they were slow to understand that merely ring-fencing the commercial banks could not save the financial system. Now, they are failing to understand the financial significance of the Big Three.
Conservative animus toward trade unions is also once again on display. But it is union weakness that has caused wages to stagnate and forced the US to rely on debt and asset price inflation as the engines of growth.
Another conservative accusation is that a bailout would infringe free-trade rules. But it is these rules that have fostered the trade deficits that have destabilized and undermined the US economy. The reality is that world trade would suffer far greater damage from the global economic fallout of a Big Three bankruptcy.
Lastly, conservatives have trotted out the old moral hazard story in order to argue that a bailout would turn US manufacturing into a permanent beggar of government funds. In fact, business has always lobbied Congress for favors and tax breaks, and the Lehman Brothers experience proved the foolishness of confusing parables about moral hazard with crisis management.
There are undoubtedly colossal problems in Detroit, and the bosses of the Big Three automakers could never be convicted of an excess of imagination. Economic policy has also contributed to their current condition as trade agreements and an over-valued dollar promoted auto imports, and incoherent energy and environmental policy stifled innovation.
All of this must be fixed. But sacrificing the Big Three automakers will accomplish nothing while risking a tragic economic depression.
Thomas Palley was chief economist with the US-China Economic and Security Review Commission.
COPYRIGHT: PROJECT SYNDICATE
As Taiwan’s domestic political crisis deepens, the opposition Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) have proposed gutting the country’s national spending, with steep cuts to the critical foreign and defense ministries. While the blue-white coalition alleges that it is merely responding to voters’ concerns about corruption and mismanagement, of which there certainly has been plenty under Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) and KMT-led governments, the rationales for their proposed spending cuts lay bare the incoherent foreign policy of the KMT-led coalition. Introduced on the eve of US President Donald Trump’s inauguration, the KMT’s proposed budget is a terrible opening
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus in the Legislative Yuan has made an internal decision to freeze NT$1.8 billion (US$54.7 million) of the indigenous submarine project’s NT$2 billion budget. This means that up to 90 percent of the budget cannot be utilized. It would only be accessible if the legislature agrees to lift the freeze sometime in the future. However, for Taiwan to construct its own submarines, it must rely on foreign support for several key pieces of equipment and technology. These foreign supporters would also be forced to endure significant pressure, infiltration and influence from Beijing. In other words,
“I compare the Communist Party to my mother,” sings a student at a boarding school in a Tibetan region of China’s Qinghai province. “If faith has a color,” others at a different school sing, “it would surely be Chinese red.” In a major story for the New York Times this month, Chris Buckley wrote about the forced placement of hundreds of thousands of Tibetan children in boarding schools, where many suffer physical and psychological abuse. Separating these children from their families, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) aims to substitute itself for their parents and for their religion. Buckley’s reporting is
Last week, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), together holding more than half of the legislative seats, cut about NT$94 billion (US$2.85 billion) from the yearly budget. The cuts include 60 percent of the government’s advertising budget, 10 percent of administrative expenses, 3 percent of the military budget, and 60 percent of the international travel, overseas education and training allowances. In addition, the two parties have proposed freezing the budgets of many ministries and departments, including NT$1.8 billion from the Ministry of National Defense’s Indigenous Defense Submarine program — 90 percent of the program’s proposed
RSS