Saving Jobs at $385,000 Each

So far, the cost to the US taxpayer of bailing out GM has been 15.4 billion dollars. With that kind of investment, one would think a lot of jobs would be saved. But this is not the case. According to the deal between GM, the UAW, and the government, GM is planning on keeping only 40,000 permanent hourly workers. The cost to the taxpayer is then $385,000 per job.

How long will these jobs last? Given the tremendous over-capacity in the world's automobile industry, GM will be faced with further drastic cutbacks, if not outright closure, in a few more years. Given that most of these jobs are essentially temporary, $385,000 per job is a waste of resources.

It is our opinion if vast sums of money are going to be used to create jobs at public expense, the jobs created should provide long-lasting public goods and services. This is also known as good government. Bailing out GM, a failed company creating private-sector goods unprofitably, is lemon socialism.

A Modest Proposal to Save the United States

We've been following the affairs of the United States' automobile manufacturers rather closely. It's an interesting situation, one that we think deserves more analysis that it seems to be getting. The moves to nationalise the companies, as we wrote about in an earlier article, seem to suggest that one of the most probable outcomes will be the foundation of 'AmeriCar'.

The notion of a nationalised automobile manufacturer is not outside of the realm of possibility, in this bailout-happy era of U.S. policy-making. It carries with it a guarantee of employing thousands of people, backstops what James Kunstler calls the "Happy Motoring fiesta," and more-or-less (mostly less) preserves the appearance of the status quo. All these appear to be the avowed goals of the Obama Administration, so the situation really is ripe for this particular flavour of Lemon Socialism. If the AmeriCar future is true, we have some thoughts as to how the Government can help make the continuation of the Happy Motoring fiesta more durable.

All that we suggest is the phasing in of a national speed limit of 35 miles per hour. Municipalities could, of course, have lower speed limits, but the highest legal speed in the United States would be 35 mph. Ignoring the indignant screams of rage from the Citizenry, this vastly lower limit would bring many positive changes:

The loss of life in automobile accidents would fall dramatically to near zero, reducing the cost of cleaning up the wreck, the medical bills, and fixing any damage done to public roadways. The repair cost of automobile collisions would be greatly reduced, since at 35 mph the force involved in any one collision is relatively low. The wear on public roadways and bridges would fall dramatically, allowing for more maintenance money to be diverted from maintenance to building more infrastructure.

Additionally, the reduced speed limit would force citizens to live closer to their places of work. By vastly cutting commutes, this would give citizens more time to spend with their families (or work more, according to preference). Also, the amount of energy burned daily by citizens going to work would be vastly reduced, thereby cutting the United States' dependence on 'foreign oil.' At the same time, this would automatically increase the density of American cities, which would both give a larger tax base to those cities, as well as make public services cheaper (i.e. more people are paying less).

We could go on, but we hope the point is made. A simple and elegant piece of legislation, like a vastly reduced national speed limit, could perform a world of change. Many of the apparent goals of the Obama Administration could be serviced by a lower speed limit. To be honest, we fully believe that this sort of legislation will never see the light of day. Such well-reasoned, functional mandates seem to be beyond the abilities of the Government.

Bailouts are the Ultimate Corruption

As we had suggested earlier in the month, a token bailout has been given to General Motors and Chrysler. $17.4 bullion may seem like a ton 'o cash, but its chump change for these sieve-like companies. The Big Three have hit the proverbial iceberg; it's only a matter of time until they go propellers-up. Unsurprisingly, six in ten Americans would prefer to see those propellers than have their tax-dollars go towards making more gas-sucking, barely-functional fashion excessories. And who could blame such sentiment?

Even more odious, in our opinion, is the use of TARP (i.e. taxpayer) money to fund bonuses on Wall Street. The complete hypocrisy of, say, AIG's Jay Wintrob getting $3 million in 'retention awards' is mind-numbing. We personally feel so disgusted that we look for the lynch mobs forming, hunting down Wall Street's finest and stringing them up in Central Park... but we instead see complacence. The American public seems content to whine vaguely about things, but do nothing to stop out-of-control lemon socialism.

These bailouts, besides unwise and reckless, are the signs of corruption so deep and pervasive it makes our head spin. For example, Mr. Henry Paulson, Jr. is a former Goldman Sachs CEO. As Secretary of Treasury and manager of TARP, Mr. Paulson has given his former employer $10 billion of unregulated cash. If this isn't a conflict of interest, we don't know what is. Mr. Paulson also helped remove Goldman Sachs from the old net-capital rule; last we checked, before its recent, cynical move to become a bank, this allowed Goldman to leverage their assets-to-capital to around 30:1 - a speculative foray which taxpayers are now expected to clean up the mess from.

Therein is the rotten core of the affair: public money has been usurped. Money which could have gone towards any number of productive things -- which would have given real, measurable benefits -- instead are going towards rewarding those who created the mess in the first place.

These people -- the bankers, the auto CEOs, Mr. Paulson, et al. -- are so obscenely greedy we feel ill sharing the same nationality. Even though the entire world is in the 2007 Depression, they will still try to milk the system for every last dollar they can get. The callous disregard for the misery and suffering they are helping to create is staggering, but yet it is apparently greeted with cheers and accolades.

Redistribution Worsens a Depression

A common theme of government attempts to 'turn this troubled economy around' is merely redistribution: taking money from taxpayers, and giving it to selected recipients; taking toxic assets, and replacing them with Treasury bills; taking private companies, and nationalising them (to some degree or other). In one way or the other, this process represents capital and income forcibly moved from one possessor to another.

For example: Ben Bernanke, Federal Reserve Chairman, recently announced that he is going to expand the Fed's balance sheet as much as necessary (scroll down to the speech's fifth paragraph from the bottom). He also said that the balance sheet would have to shrink in the future... but not to worry about such things now (same link, third paragraph from bottom).

This amounts to simply moving a problem hither and thither, rather than actually solving it. By definition, this is Lemon Socialism: taxpayer money reallocated by the government to support failed or failing enterprises. In essence, lemon socialism takes the bad decisions of a few, and forces the majority to pay for, and suffer the consequences of, those decisions.

As these enterprises have proven unsustainable, such 'zombie-ification' represents considerable misallocation of capital. This, in turn, means that incomes will be generally forced lower by the disruptive economic effects of the 'zombie' enterprises. Falling incomes are part and parcel of all depressions, and so such misguided government bailouts will only serve to worsen the 2007 Depression. Lemon socialism shenanigans are doomed to failure; however, Mr. Bernanke's Soviet-style speech makes clear he will try it anyway.

President-elect Barack Obama comes from a different bent. His economic recovery plan is redistributive from a populist perspective, meaning he will look to prop up the lifestyles of the broadest majority of people at the cost of a few. The simplest demonstration of this is by lowering taxes on 'the poor,' and simultaneously raising taxes on 'the rich;' one can throw in another tax rebate cheque or two for good measure. In a way, one can think of populist redistribution as the opposite of lemon socialism.

A more specific example, though, is the Hubbard-Mayer plan: if passed by Congress next year, this plan will make available to any house-buyer a 30-year mortgage of up to 95% of the house's value, all for a low, low 4.5% fixed interest rate. Estimates put the up front cost of this program at conservative $3 trillion.

Though the mortgage plan is certain to be broadly popular, it is a very, very bad idea: mortgage interest represents someone's income. It's not a fanciful thing, because the interest a bank charges does eventually become someone's means of living. By lowering the 30-year fixed rate mortgage from 6.1% (this year) to 4.5%, money is being pulled out of the economy, lowering income, and since falling income is the essence of a depression, this will exacerbate the 2007 Depression. The math: take 4.5% from 6.1%, and one gets a difference of 1.6%. Take 1.6% of $3 trillion, and one sees that this program alone will take away $48 billion of real income per year. Poof.

Enabling Destructive Economic Behaviour

Although we ourselves are not of the socialist persuasion, we agree with socialists that there are cases where government can actually provide useful services, and at a reasonable cost. So reasonable in fact, that the case for privatisation is not particularly compelling.

Unfortunately, at the national level, the USA seems incapable of delivering that sort of socialism (with the possible exception of the Post Office). Instead it engages in malignant lemon-socialism, where destructive enterprises are rewarded with life-prolonging capital infusions, or outright government ownership.

Take, for example, a number of large banks, Fannie, Freddie, and Wall Street firms. These outfits swindled the world's investors. All issues of criminal fraud aside, their activities were and continue to be enormously destructive economically.

Investors lost confidence in them. Any sane governing authority would simply shut them down. In any sort of free market economy, they would be done already. There are thousands of better run competitors out there to take up the slack. But yet, the Federal Government saw fit to step in and keep them going. Not because no one else was providing some useful service they are. In fact, they aren't producing any useful service at all. Quite the contrary.

Another example is the bailout of the 'Big Three' automobile manufacturers. As stated in a previous post, there are many good, sound business reasons for these companies to go out of business. It's not like there aren't lots of other companies which can make cars. If the USA has a glut of car making capacity, then a fair chunk of it needs to go away.

The core economic problem of the failed Soviet Union was that its central planners took valuable natural resources and turned them into useless waste. Ignoring issues of quality and desirability, they measured output strictly in tonnage. This was socialism at its worst.

Unfortunately, the USA is following in the footsteps of the Soviet Union. Its central planners are diverting ever larger portions of the nation's income into operations that produce little or no benefit. The litany is extensive, but includes bloated 'Defense' and 'Homeland Security', subsidies for airlines, automakers, banks, construction, insurance, mortgage companies, prisons, and real estate brokers.

Spending by Governments at all levels in the USA is about 40% of total national income. Also, about 50% of the population is dependent primarily on government for its income. This is a country fairly deep into some kind of socialism. Is it getting a good value for its commitment? Does the USA have enviable public education? a low rate of incarceration? free health care for all? a first-rate passenger rail system? The answer to these questions is a resounding "No!"

On top of that, Government in the USA is quite involved with the private sector. Does the USA have a healthy industrial base? a healthy balance of payments with the rest of the world? energy security? well-paid, content workers? No, again.

We are profiling a country at the verge of leaving the club of wealthy, advanced nations, if not heading for outright collapse. The response of the political leadership to the 2007 Depression is very telling: bailouts, handouts, and more pork. This will do nothing to make the nation more productive and increase its citizens' income. On the contrary, it will make the nation less productive and exacerbate the decline in income.