Bailout Watch 159: WSJ: Just Say No. Or Yes.

Robert Farago
by Robert Farago
We’re committed to finding, researching, and recommending the best products. We earn commissions from purchases you make using links in our articles. Learn more here
bailout watch 159 wsj just say no or yes

Unbelievable, The Wall Street Journal has an editorial that positions the paper four-square against a federal bailout for Detroit’s beleaguered automakers– and then wimps out. First, the “not with our money you don’t” bit. “A bailout might avoid any near-term bankruptcy filing, but it won’t address Detroit’s fundamental problems of making cars that Americans won’t buy and labor contracts that are too rich and inflexible to make them competitive… In fact, the main point of any taxpayer rescue seems to be to postpone a day of reckoning on those contracts. That includes even the notorious UAW Jobs Bank that continues to pay workers not to work. A Detroit bailout would also be unfair to other companies that make cars in the U.S. Yes, those are “foreign” companies in the narrow sense that they are headquartered overseas. But then so was Chrysler before Daimler sold most of the car maker to Cerberus, the private equity fund. Honda, Toyota and the rest employ about 113,000 American auto workers who make nearly four million cars a year in states like Alabama and Tennessee. Unlike Michigan, these states didn’t vote for Mr. Obama.” Hey! Place nice! Anyway, you get the picture– if only because we’ve been painting it for the last three years. But there’s a sting in the tail…

To review and conclude: “If Uncle Sam buys into Detroit, $50 billion would only be the start of the outlays as taxpayers were obliged to protect their earlier investment in uncompetitive companies.” True dat. So what’s with the asterick separated coda? “If our politicians can’t avoid throwing taxpayer cash at Detroit, then they should at least do so in a way that really protects taxpayers. That means handing a receiver the power to replace current management, zero out current shareholders, and especially to rewrite labor and other contracts. Anything less is merely a payoff to Michigan politicians and their union allies.” Sounds to me like there’s some internal wrangling behind the scenes as Mr. Murdoch’s media property. We’ll keep an eye on it. Or two.

Robert Farago
Robert Farago

More by Robert Farago

Join the conversation
2 of 7 comments
  • Crackers Crackers on Nov 10, 2008

    The editorial sounds reasonable to me. The last part about appointing a receiver sounds exactly like C11 without calling it C11. This could work PROVIDED they choose a receiver that is free to make choices based upon the best interests of all taxpayers, not just a select few in the UAW. Of course, what are the chances of that really happening?

  • Rtr Rtr on Nov 10, 2008

    I don't understand the bail-out. It seems to me that US automakers find themselves in difficulty largely because of UAW contracts which make it impossible to compete with foreign makers except in certain select areas such as trucks and big SUVs. Some accuse GM et al of mismanagement. That's harder to say from my perspective. When GM has to spend something like $1,300 more per vehicle than Honda or Toyota, how the heck can they compete? On the weekend I caught an interview on Fox, apparently, somoething like half of the bail-out will go to pensions and benefits for UAW members. How will that help? I also wonder if a Chapter 11 would allow GM, Ford and Chrysler to get out from under their UAW agreements? I don't doubt that GM and Ford have the talent but they are saddled with a legacy problem which no bail-out is likely to cure. Rgds,

  • Ernesto Perez There's a line in the movie Armageddon where Bruce Willis says " is this the best idea NASA came up with?". Don't quote me. I'm asking is this the best idea NY came up with? What's next? Charging pedestrians to walk in certain parts of the city? Every year the price for everything gets more expensive and most of the services we pay for gets worse. Obviously more money is not the solution. What we need are better ideas, strategies and inventions. You want to charge drivers in the city - then put tolls on the free bridges like the Brooklyn, Manhattan and Williamsburg bridges. There's always a better way or product. It's just the idiots on top think they know best.
  • Carsofchaos The bike lanes aren't even close to carrying "more than the car lanes replaced". You clearly don't drive in Midtown Manhattan on a daily like I do.
  • Carsofchaos The problem with congestion, dear friends, is not the cars per se. I drive into the city daily and the problem is this:Your average street in the area used to be 4 lanes. Now it is a bus lane, a bike lane (now you're down to two lanes), then you have delivery trucks double parking, along with the Uber and Lyft drivers also double parking. So your 4 lane avenue is now a 1.5 lane avenue. Do you now see the problem? Congestion pricing will fix none of these things....what it WILL do is fund persion plans.
  • FreedMike Many F150s I encounter are autonomously driven...and by that I mean they're driving themselves because the dips**ts at the wheel are paying attention to everything else but the road.
  • Tassos A "small car", TIM????????????This is the GLE. Have you even ever SEEN the huge thing at a dealer's??? NOT even the GLC,and Merc has TWO classes even SMALLER than the C (The A and the B, you guessed it? You must be a GENIUS!).THe E is a "MIDSIZED" crossover, NOT A SMALL ONE BY ANY STRETCH OF THE IMAGINATION, oh CLUELESS one.I AM SICK AND TIRED OF THE NONSENSE you post here every god damned day.And I BET you will never even CORRECT your NONSENSE, much less APOLOGIZE for your cluelessness and unprofessionalism.