Michael Moore weighs in on the Senate's failure to pass the auto loan

For once, I agree with Michael Moore. His take on the auto industry loan is worth reading, only if to the see the truth through one of America’s great storytellers.

Question for Richard Shelby: Can we call you Dick?

Richard Shelby: Can we call you Dick? If we may, then why, Dick, on Fox News recently, why would you lie—and then let people know you just lied—about your interest in helping foreign companies at the expense (via neglect) of the U.S. automanufacturers?

Wallace: Do you have as Sen Levin has said an agenda to help your local foreign auto makers?

Shelby: I don't have an agenda, but I'll tell you this, in the South, from South Carolina to Kentucky, Georgia, Tennessee, Mississippi, Texas, we have about 124,000 people employed in the automobile industry. They are competing. They are competing. GM, Ford, Chrysler can compete, but not under the model that they have now [Ed: that part is true]

124,000 is very specific number. Where did you get it if you don't have an agenda?

You know, Dick, the Hyundais and Toyotas and Hondas and Mercedes of the world come from countries where their Federal governments pay for workers healthcare. For better or worse, the U.S. largely does not. So when the Big Three could, they paid for their workers healthcare.

Wasn’t that terrible? U.S. citizens . . .or let me put this another way . . . voters, had their healthcare provide for if they got a job working for the Big Three.
And these same companies paid into large pension funds to help fund their retirements. I know Alabama workers would have like that, wouldn’t they?

Two points: one, the playing field isn’t level and GM, Ford and Chyrsler are very much trying to shed these legacy costs (lower standards of living for American blue collar guys, isn’t that awesome? I frankly do not want the guy next to me at the gas pump to make Chinese or Mexican wages; yes, the entitlement mentality must go, but I wish poverty on no one).

But you can’t just turn the spigot off, Dick; two mega forces (the formerly Big Three and the UAW) regrettably have to work at at rate I’ll call “hastened incrementalism.”

As Wagoner testified, the margin of labor costs between Toyota and GM will be essentially nothing come 2010. It’s happening. We all wish (except those UAW families) that it had happened sooner.

Point two: even though you’ve got some 100K plus employed by foreign interests in the South, the vast majority of the vehicles goes back to Korea, Japan and Deutschland AG. Dick, they’re foreign. That means the money, too, is mostly shipped back to foreign interests--that is non-American interests, Dick.

Yet you sit wobbly on your throne of sorgum on C-SPAN talking about the purity of capitalism, and how the beauty of it is that some companies rise and succeed and others fail.

But you didn’t point out that you interferred with the market by supporting millions in subsidies to these foreign interests by way of tax abatements(remember, if you believe the UAW, labor is only 10% of the cost of a new car, which means most of the money flows out of the U.S.).

To better understand the gross hypocrisy of Dick Shelby, undoubtedly ghost written for Compuware Chief Peter Karmanos by my former boss, read on. Jason knows how to make a point (and if you somehow see this Pella, Iowa, let me know what you're up to these days).

Today's Hero on Capital Hill: Jeffrey Sachs

Today’s superhero in the bridge loan debate on Capital Hill is Jeffrey Sachs of Columbia’s Earth Institute. This guy laid down such incredible smack not only some of the idiocy and hypocrisy on the Hill on the current crisis, but put the perspective on Citi Group and other financial giveaways that ballooned into the hundreds of billions of dollars with no strings attached with no calls for bankruptcy. I’m going to find his opening statement when it’s up and post it, it’s phenomenal.

Sachs pointed out something not yet heard that deserves attention: the auto industry is the largest industry in the U.S., and that governments globally are injecting billions into their own country’s auto industry. This guy just kicked ass (sorry Mom). Lucid, forceful, zero pretense . . . Professor Sachs, you Sir, were a surprise and delight of the first order. This guy salutes you.

Mark Zandi: New Detroit Superhero

This guy should be on everyone’s radar in Detroit, the Midwest and taxpayers in general.

Dr. Zandi broke it down in simplist terms: the bailout loan will be pricey, and could be even as much as $75M to $125M . . . but letting GM, Ford and Chysler slide into oblivion will cost taxpayers much, much more.

It’s that simple.

Detroit Goes to Washington, Take Two

This is how they should have gone to DC. Why didn't I/we think of this.

Mr. Scott has a bright career in automotive PR should he ever want to leave The Detroit News. I don’t think this would have changed the outcome ulimately, but if would have changed the tenor and welcome from Congress.

So Why Is Chyrsler in Trouble?

So why is Chrysler really in trouble? Gas prices, credit crunches and the lack of cash to buy their cars outright (some people still do this; I for one have never had a car payment aside from the $2,900 Tom Terry loaned me in February 1989 for my ’68 Camaro) have hurt plenty.

The bigger reason, aside from Jeep and the (mini)vans: their cars are just not good. How are they not good? In the 1990s, at least they looked good, even if they weren’t terribly reliable and depreciated faster than the stick of gum you put in your mouth. Ok, the 300 was a hit. But if ever a car was a total ripoff of another design, the 300C is it (of a Bentley).

I don’t feel good saying so. I grew up near Auburn Hills, and I want no harm to come to even more people of Southeastern Michigan. But the subject that just gets danced around here in Motown, but is taken for granted essentially everywhere in the country, is that Chrysler doesn’t make great product. Sorry.

Take a look at this article and accompanying list. I show it to illustrate not any particular model of the “Ten Cars Nobody Would Miss if they Vanished”, but the number of Chrysler products on it (interestingly, the Lucerne which is mentioned as a car that should go away was purchased recently by my parents who drive back and forth from Boyne country to Sun City and back every year—they love it. Yeah, they’re in their mid 60s, but guess what, so are tens of millions of other Americans too, and if you look at the list, you’ll see Lucerne isn’t down that much this year).

Among the domestics, Ford and Chevy have developed some extremely competitive products lately. You can shop a Fusion, a Camry, an Accord and a Malibu and personal preference and aesthetics will inform your decision as much as presumed reliability, etc.

But can you really put the Avenger in that category? It’s like looking a three-legged dog: you could love it and give it a home, but you’d always be feel sad for it. And for the owner.

So here's one way out: the Michigan Ecomomic Development Corporation works with State funds to turn Auburn Hills into the lithium-ion Capitol of the world.
How? No clue, but there's a lot of smart guys up there, we have a ton of research universities within one hundred miles that could join forces to supply brain power, and unlike products like the Avenger, the entire world will be clamouring for high-energy, high-power batteries in huge numbers within a decade. Jennifer Granholm, how about you do that with my tax increase?

Will GM Buy Chrysler?

GM absorbs Chrysler? Desperate times call for desperate measures, and with the Cerberus gang looking to make some money from their acquisition of Chrysler from Daimler a year ago, Cerberus certainly has an incentive to cut their losses.

But what about GM? The Detroit News’ Daniel Howes does a good job of going into why this might not be a crazy as it sounds in the story above.

My brother and I were talking yesterday about this, and asked if it was true that Chrysler's Auburn Hills HQ was designed in the 1990s so that it could turned into a should Chrysler vacate the premises. I assured him that it could . . . but Oakland County would be devastated by such a loss, so what retailers would sign leases there, especially with Somerset five minutes away?http://www.thesomersetcollection.com/

Kill CAFE Rules and Save Taxpayers $25 billlion

In a thought-provoking opinion piece yesterday, this Wall Street Journal article by Holman Jenkins offers a novel—and to my mind theoretically (but not politically) practical way of saving taxpayers $25 billion+ dollars in Federal loan guarantees:

"For a sum small compared to their revenues but large in relation to their market caps, the Detroit auto makers were all over the two conventions. Their lobbyists had something to sell -- a plea for $50 billion in federal loans. Congress practically owes us this money, Ford, GM and Chrysler argue -- because Congress slammed us with new fuel mileage mandates that will cost us $100 billion to meet.

John McCain caved. The White House is in the process of caving. Barack Obama didn't need to cave. But before rushing to pass the legislation, there's an easy way to save $50 billion or whatever part of these loans wouldn't be paid back: Just repeal the fuel economy rules."

To note: I say in my title here that it's $25 billion, the Journal quotes $50 billion. Smart $ is on the former.

The corollary, according to this classic by my favorite contemporary economist, Greg Mankiw from Harvard, is that rather than burden the OEMs and consumers with CAFE rules that just don’t work, is to permenently raise fuel taxes above where they are now. The following from Mankiw is a must read:

Raise the Gas Tax

Autoextremist: PR Won't Work for Detroit?

http://www.autoextremist.com/current/

The ever delicate and nuanced Peter DeLorenzo essentially says to Detroit OEMs: Give up on your PR efforts . . . you lost the image war. As usual, his reasoning is on very solid ground, the idea being that amazing products will help cure what ails GM, Ford and Chrysler. That's right. But he's wrong (sorry Peter).

But to say that communications and marketing just don't/won't work is folly. I offer as Exhibit A a brand that makes high-quality, reliable, intrinsically good products, but doesn't communicate its value very effectively as measured by sales . . . Acura.

Mercedes-Benz, on the other hand, outsold Acura in August, as they do most months/years, but hasn't remotely approached Acura's reliability in recent years. I'm aware the reliability is but one reason people buy cars (especially luxury cars that no one needs); design, performance, resale, et al. all count too. But when you ask most real people what is meant by a "good" car, they'll say "high quality" or "reliable."

Sorry to say this Peter, but the brand still counts for something, and Mercedes proves the point. And brand is another word for the intangibles. Some of those intangibles are not consciously communicated, and not all can be helped by PR and marketing, no argument.

But I fully appreciate and mostly agree with the spirit and direction of Delorenzo's rant. Autoextremist has always been a provocative, thoughtful read and product, product, product is still the automotive equavalent of location, location, location.