A Clunker of a Program

Have you gotten your $4500 Cash for Clunkers rebate from the government yet? I bet you haven't.

Why?

Because you probably didn't buy a gas guzzler that qualifies. So how does it make you feel to know that you and the rest of your fellow taxpayers are subsidizing people who made the bad decision to buy one of those Clunkers. If you're like me, you think it's a blatant rip off.

Some of the defenders of this program tout the improved national fleet mileage and resulting reduction in gasoline and green house gas emissions. But even under the most optimistic assumptions, the impact is truly negligible, about the same as what the U.S. burns every 22 seconds. And this is at a cost to the taxpayers that is about seven times what "Cap and Trade" carbon permits trade for in Europe.

Proponents of this giveaway also cite the great public response to the program which is jump-starting the sales of new cars.

Sure. People will gladly accept a $4500 gift.

Auto sales that were postponed while this program was being debated and those which were planned for the future are being consummated now, making it pretty likely that sales will drop once the program expires. Additionally, there are a bunch of negative effects. One, for example, is the impact it's having on the car repair and aftermarket parts industries, which are being badly hurt by the decision to scrap the clunker cars instead of repairing them.

This program is just one more example of the government picking winners and losers. While advocates of more government intervention tout how programs like this and other "stimulants" are enhancing the economy, to me it's just the government distorting the free enterprise system.

Whether it's Cash for Clunkers, subsidies for underwater mortgage holders or any of the other government interventions implemented recently, the negative impacts often outweigh the positives.

Also, let's be real. There's no free lunch. Somebody has to pay for all this massive spending. That somebody is us, our grandchildren, or even better, now that I think about it, China.

Psst...Wanna Buy Some Stock?

If I wanted to buy some stock in an auto company, I could have easily done it. However, my government has decided that they should do it on my behalf.

 

Where in the Constitution does it say that this is the role of government?

 

The US auto industry is composed of domestic and foreign controlled companies. All of the auto companies, whether foreign or domestic controlled, have public stockholders located all over the world. So what difference does it really make to the average citizen (who is not a member of the United Auto Workers union) whether Chrysler or GM survives in its pre-2009 form? As long as it is profitable, cars will be designed and manufactured in the US, employing US workers. Whether the paycheck comes from Toyota, GM or some new startup really is of little consequence.

 

This seems to be OK for other industries, but not the auto industry. I just don't get it.

 

I wrote some time ago (November, 2008 and December, 2008) that the solution for the ailing US car companies was a pre-packaged bankruptcy. This is exactly what is happening with Chrysler. The ironic upshot of the present plan is that the company is actually being kept alive by the government's infusion of billions of our dollars so that it can be taken over by Fiat. Didn't someone notice that the headquarters of Fiat was located in Italy?

 

By the way, it really irked me when I heard President Obama rail about the private entities that did not go along with the government's plan in which the private entities get pennies on the dollar for their secured Chrysler debt. It seems to me that they have every right under our system to plead their case in court if they think this will result in a better outcome.

 

The bottom line is that the government is not interested in the bottom line. It is a political institution that responds to political pressures. It should exit itself from this mess as quickly as it can.

Money For Nothing - Part 3

I've ranted about "money for nothing" several times before. If, by chance, you missed it, or you just want the sheer joy of experiencing it again, you can read it here, here and here. But last week, it actually was literally true: The U.S. government auctioned $32 billion in four-week T-bills at 0% interest Tuesday, the lowest auction rate ever. In the after-market, the price rose, and people bought T-bills at a negative rate of interest, apparently extraordinarily gleeful to lock in their losses.

 

This insanity is a result of the fear that investors have of taking any risk at all. For nothing is seen to be safer than T-bills, which will be repaid in their entirety with new, crisp, freshly printed, dollar bills. If the government needs some more dollar bills, it simply prints more of them. No limit. No questions.  Pretty clever, eh? (as our Northern neighbors might say).

 

Well, all this leaves me completely baffled. Normally when a government runs its currency printing presses overtime, the inflation rate soars and suddenly wheelbarrows are required to haul around all the paper needed to purchase a loaf of bread. But it seems that every country in the world is hyperactively churning out paper money. Nobody's money is worth more than the next. You don't bail out of the dollar for Yen, Euros or Pounds because they're devaluing too. Even the Chinese are printing and spending like mad.

 

So, what does this all mean? Apparently, that there's no limit to the size of the government stimulus (sounds erotic, doesn't it?) programs that suddenly are now possible. Both namby-pamby Democrats and hard-hearted Republicans can hardly contain their excitement.

 

The U.S. has made commitments so far of upwards of $8 trillion in an attempt to halt the economic slide. Is there an upper limit? Beats me. Even the Bush Administration is now saying they are ready to pump untold billions into the moribund US Big Three auto companies before the Obama Administration gets their wack at doling out more of the cash.

 

By the way, Detroit seem to be pretty scared of using the word "bankruptcy". What's all this nonsense about getting the government to negotiate with the "stakeholders to share the pain" so they can avoid bankruptcy? Sharing the pain is just what a bankruptcy judge does in a chapter 11 filing. The difference is that the judge is doing the pain sharing pursuant to the current law, while the government actions being proposed don't pass my smell test for legality at all. They're more akin to simple extortion that's probably unconstitutional anyway (The Fifth Amendment). 

Anyway, back to the topic, in bankruptcy the auto companies continue their day to day operations. They, along with all their employees, don't disappear overnight. It's pure hogwash to say that people won't buy cars if the manufacturer is in bankruptcy. Anyone who has been paying any attention at all to the pleading on bended knee in Washington knows by now that the Big Three are in serious financial doo-doo. 

And, if you'll allow me just one more "by the way," I heard a great line which referred to the $8 billion General Motors paid last year for retirees' and current workers' medical bills. The talking head on CNBC said: "General Motors is a health care company that just happens to make cars."

 

I also recently read an  economist's apparently serious proposal to revive the housing market (remember, this is what the whole mess is about) that struck me as something Lenin would adore. He proposed that the government just buy everyone's existing mortgage and refinance it at a 1% interest rate. The government would also offer new mortgages to new buyers at the same rate. 

While we're at it, how about if the government solved the auto companies' problems by offering auto loans at 1% interest to anyone who had or could obtain a driver's license? Why stop there? How about 1% loans to buy computers and networking gear so Silicon Valley doesn't implode? You get the idea. Since the money is for nothing, nothing is off limits. Just propose it and it happens...money is no object.

 

Palin's Victory Tour

I was all set to write about the wretched economic situation and Detroit's plea for a bailout. Then, out of the blue (or is it red?), up pops Sarah Palin and suddenly I'm right back in Palinmania.

 

Did you catch any of her "victory tour" this week? It seems to have started in her kitchen in beautiful Wasilla. There she was, being  televised to the world, orating in her peculiar vernacular, while simultaneously whipping up a batch of moose stew ( do you "whip up" moose stew?). I bet you thought it would be hard for her to walk and chew gum. Not for our hockey mom. She was as smooth as a fresh sheet of ice. 

Her week continued with interviews on CNN, NBC and Fox, among others. The tour culminated with a rousing speech to the gathered Republican governors in Miami, eager to learn from Palin just how the party would be reassembled into anything that might have any chance of winning a national election again in their lifetimes.

 

Wait a minute! Did I just say that the Republican party didn't win the last election? Oops, yes, that's what happened all right. Obama did win both the popular vote and the electoral college vote. That means McCain and, I assume, Palin, must have lost.

 

Well, then how do you explain Palin taking a victory tour?

 

You can't. Unless your logic flows like Sarah's syntax.

 

Just to remind you, here's an example of "Sarah Speech", as reported by Maureen Dowd last week in the New York Times:

 

"My concern has been the atrocities there in Darfur and the relevance to me with that issue as we spoke about Africa and some of the countries there that were kind of the people succumbing to the dictators and the corruption of some collapsed governments on the continent, the relevance was Alaska’s investment in Darfur with some of our permanent fund dollars."

 

I guess that's clear enough. Even George W. would be proud to have uttered that particular string of words.

 

Re-reading that little ditty, it's easy to see why she has garnered a 98% name recognition among the great unwashed masses. Yes, of course, they like the fact that she's a hard working super-mom; and her looks, ideas and logic are simply captivating. But, most of all, they can't get enough of her folksy way of speaking. Her fans say that they would feel comfortable with her in the White House because she's just like them.

 

As Sarah herself would say, "this should result in a loud shout-out to the country's educators that they'd better get on the ball and plow through those glass doors that may be open just a crack". 

So therein lies the lesson for today:  there's a new day dawning, and it's all about teaching our children to speak with a clarity that every "Real American" (not those wussy Northeastern and West Coast elitists) can understand.

 

Oh, and one more thing. The government would be crazy to throw any money into the coffers of the big three automakers unless it's part of a pre-packaged bankruptcy proceeding in which: the management is replaced; the labor contracts are renegotiated; critical suppliers are paid so they don't go bankrupt; the common shareholders are wiped out; outstanding bonds are converted to common equity; and the government money is injected as preferred stock or senior bonds.

Money For Nothing - Part 2

Counting the $700 billion the congress and the president just authorized the Treasury department to use, almost $2 trillion has now been committed by the federal government to get the financial system functioning again. Several of our friends are also pitching in. The combined commitments announced by the US, Europe and Japan exceed $4 trillion.

The government politicos say "trillion" like it's an everyday number that just slips right off your lips. I can't really get my mind around such a staggering number. $4,000,000,000,000. I don't know about you, but all those digits look really scary to me.

Where does all this money come from?

I admitted in a previous post that I really don't understand money very well, but here goes. I assume that the Chinese and friendly OPEC nations will continue to lend a bunch of it to us by buying treasury bills and bonds. The rest will be created magically by just printing more of the paper variety we're used to seeing and by making some entries in an exotic "grand ledger in the sky".

This will increase our national debt to over $10 trillion. Some people think that this is really bad because our kids and grandkids will have to pay this back. But that never seems to happen. They may just pass the debt on to their kids and grandkids. In economic theory, I think this strategy is called "kicking it down the road".

Another possibility is that we'll experience a case of serious inflation (kind of like serious indigestion, but on a national scale). Thus, while we pay back the stated amount, it will not be worth very much in real money (whatever that is).

Just where does this leave us? In dire straits, where the money is for nothing (and the chicks for free). Hmm... I seem to remember something similar to that a while ago on MTV .

Perils of Paulson

I bet that most Americans know that Henry Paulson is the Secretary of the Treasury. I also bet that they had no clue who he was two weeks ago. I also guess that most Americans have no idea what the Treasury's role is in our system of government, but I'm pretty sure that they know that Paulson is the man behind the $700 billion government bailout. This is one heck of an expensive cram course in civics for Mr. Average Taxpayer. Even Stanford wouldn't have the cajones to charge this much.

Something like 90% of the population consider Paulson's plan to be a bailout of Wall Street. But, as discussed in the previous post, the cause of the crisis that is gripping the financial system is not just Wall Street's doing. There's plenty of blame to go around. It's now Paulson's job (along with all the political leaders) to sell the plan that has emerged this weekend as a bailout of the nation's economy, not just a bailout for the fat cats on Wall Street. This will not be easy. It's far simpler to scapegoat the unpopular rich guys. Both Obama and McCain did just that in their first debate two days ago.

Paulson's plan was two and one half pages long when he presented it to the President and Congress. After a week of work, the Washington politicos have renamed it the ‘‘Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008’’. It has grown just a bit (by Washington standards) to over 100 pages of legalese gibberish. And it doesn't even cover the details of how the government will determine the price of the toxic assets it will be buying from the private sector.

Congress is set to vote on this bill this week. It appears that both political parties have come to understand the risk of inaction and are likely to pass the proposed legislation on to the White House. I wonder if they'll have the usual signing ceremony. Will Bush sign it using a bunch of pens which he will then hand to the smiling politicians who will be in the signing photo, or will it be done in the dead of night, with no one wanting any part of the whole mess? It should be fun to see which one happens.

As a free market guy, I'm pretty dismayed that the government is doing this. Sure, I like French food, but I don't sure don't like French economics. However, when I see Bush and both political parties agreeing on something smack in the middle of an election campaign, it must be darn necessary. So you can reluctantly count me in. Although it's not like anyone asked you or me.

Bailouts, Bankruptcies and Bloated Blather

Well, it's been quite a week in the money world. Bailouts, bankruptcies and bloated blather dominated the news. The talking heads on cable went wild on the subject, while each of the presidential candidates were especially inane in their varying pronouncements during the week.

Even though the seeds of today's crisis may have been sown well before they took over the reigns of government, who would have thought that a Republican administration would turn our financial system into one that emulates France? The details are still being worked out, but the rough estimate is that the overall government commitment to staunch the bleeding for awhile is approximately $1 Trillion (yup, that's Trillion with a capital T). And I say for "awhile" because no one really knows the full extent of the cost that will ultimately be incurred. History suggests that the amount the government will commit will probably rise substantially.

The basic cause of the financial meltdown that almost occurred this week was a lack of trust. Namely, trust that if I did a transaction with you, you would be around to honor your part of the bargain. In this environment, sane people (and organizations) simply stop doing business with the untrusted party. If nobody trusts anyone, all transactions cease. In the financial world, that's called Armageddon.

The lack of trust all fundamentally stems from the home mortgage debacle, in which scads of money was loaned to people who, put simply and crudely, just couldn't pay it back. Whether it's the creative capitalists on Wall Street who packaged the mortgages into ever more arcane securities sold around the world to organizations stretching for higher yields; or the unscrupulous mortgage banks and brokers who pushed money on hapless people who suddenly and unquestioning were able to live in homes valued at more than their wildest dreams; or the crazy accountants who demanded that the banks holding the mortgage-backed securities value them at unreasonably low prices; or the credit rating agencies who suddenly woke up to discover that their AAA ratings were just a tad overblown; or the government regulators who had no clue what to regulate; or lobbyists who somehow forced the government to bend over in an unseemly manner; or any other organization I've neglected to mention who had the slightest participation in creating the real estate bubble, the problem is real and darn serious.

So, at this point, it seems to me that Treasury Secretary Paulson and Fed Chairman Bernake, flying blind and having properly scared the pants off of the President and the leaders of Congress, are proposing some sensible actions selected from a steaming pile of rather unsavory options. Where and how it will end, no one knows. In this environment, the conventional wisdom still applies: just stay diversified. It's likely, given the strength of the US economy, that this will work out the best through the various ups and downs that are sure to follow.

By the way, it's really interesting that, even in today's highly sophisticated society, most financial transactions still take place based on just trusting the other person's voice (or mouse click) in the transaction. That's the way business has been done since money was invented (except for the mouse click part).