• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Let them fail!

Meanwhile, on our side of the border, from Canadian Press...
The federal and Ontario governments have agreed to provide up to $3.3 billion for the Canadian auto industry, but the bailout comes with the potential for thousands of job cuts.  Federal Industry Minister Tony Clement said late Friday the two Canadian governments have agreed to provide the equivalent of 20 per cent of the US$14 billion that the Bush administration is considering in emergency aid for General Motors, Ford and Chrysler.  Clement said the main restructuring will be done in the United States, but Canada is also prepared to provide help to save the troubled industry, which employs hundreds of thousands of people in direct and spinoff jobs in Ontario.  "What we are signalling here tonight, both the governments of Ontario and Canada, is that we want to be part of the solution as well and it will be commensurate with the production that takes place here in Canada . . . about 20 per cent." Clement told reporters.  That works out to about US$2.8 billion or C$3.3 billion at current exchange rates, of the proposed US$14 billion American bailout package.  The Detroit Three currently employ more than 30,000 people at car assembly and parts plants in Ontario. If the U.S. carmakers cut that number of jobs in North America as they restructure their huge operations, a 20 per cent proportional cut in Canada could mean the loss of 6,000 direct jobs and more in spinoff employment at suppliers and other businesses....
A bit more from the TorStar, National Post as well as Associated Press, the New York Times, Reuters and Agence France-Presse.


So far, Ford Canada seems pleased.....
The Canadian and Ontario governments have demonstrated strong leadership in the decision to support the country's auto sector. At Ford of Canada, we are well on our way to transforming our company and do not need immediate access to government loans. Instead, we have asked the government for a "stand-by" line of credit to be used only if the current economic crisis worsens.
....however....
we look forward to working with the government to create ways to stimulate the industry in Canada. For example, by providing support to the auto credit market, the government would help the more than 1 million Canadian vehicle buyers who rely on financing each year.  Other actions could include tax holidays for new vehicle purchases and incentives to encourage consumers to trade-in older vehicles and buy new, lower-emission vehicles. We are all working toward the same goal - a prosperous auto industry that can help fuel a strong Canadian economy."


And the CAW union?
This evening's announcement by Federal Industry Minister Tony Clement to jointly with the provincial government put $3.3 billion into the domestic auto industry is a positive indication that both levels of government are willing to take measures to support Canadian industry.  "These funds will go a long way in helping the domestic auto industry through the next few difficult months," said CAW President Ken Lewenza. "As has been suggested in the U.S., we fully expect that these funds will be tied to Canadian jobs and keeping Canadian facilities viable well into the future."  Lewenza said that the aid must be part of a longer term program to develop a strategy to bolster the automotive industry, as well as other industries currently in crisis....
 
The Other American Auto Industry
Plenty of car makers make a go of it in this country--they're just non-union and not headquartered in Detroit.
by Fred Barnes
12/22/2008, Volume 014, Issue 14

West Point, Georgia

Drew Ferguson IV is a 42-year-old dentist whose family has lived in this town, population 3,300, "since God put us here." To be precise, the family arrived eight generations ago. Ferguson went off to the University of Georgia, then on to dental school, after which he came back to West Point. He and his wife, whom he met in college, have four kids. A year ago, Ferguson was elected mayor. "There's a reason I live in West Point," he says. "I love it. There's a sense of place here." No doubt, but West Point is located in what might also be considered the middle of nowhere. It's pinched between I-85 and the Alabama border. Atlanta is a good hour's drive away.

West Point today isn't the same town Ferguson grew up in. Textile company executives used to live here. But when the textile industry collapsed in the 1980s, the victim of foreign competition, they moved away. Thousands of jobs were lost. A few small technology firms took up some of the slack. But the high-tech bust of the late 1990s proved to be another job killer. "We survived without a federal bailout," Ferguson says sarcastically. Now, while much of America wallows in the gloom of a recession, there's great joy in West Point. "West Point will have more economic growth in the next 24 months than anywhere else in the country," Ferguson boasts. And he may be right.

KIA has come to town. The Korean automobile manufacturer is building a 
huge assembly plant, which will employ 2,900 workers when it begins turning out cars a year from now. KIA suppliers will employ thousands more nearby. When KIA accepted applications last winter--only online, not in person--43,000 people applied. Just last week, a 2.5-mile, four-lane road that runs along the 2,200-acre plant site was completed. Naturally it's called KIA Parkway. A Korean barbecue restaurant opened a year ago, as Koreans began moving into West Point. It was formerly a Pizza Hut.
.....

Source

Without further comment.
 
FastEddy said:
But what the matter with getting proportionally paid for what you do and not who you know. Nobody has mentioned putting a Cap on payment for performance..

So, something like "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs."?

Where have I heard that before?
 
Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s Globe and Mail, is a fairly comprehensive report on what’s thought to be planned, as at Friday evening anyway:
--------------------
http://business.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081212.wrautos1213/BNStory/Business/home

Bailout to top $17-billion

GREG KEENAN , KAREN HOWLETT , SHAWN MCCARTHY and BARRIE MCKENNA

From Saturday's Globe and Mail
December 12, 2008 at 9:00 PM EST

TORONTO/OTTAWA/WASHINGTON — U.S. and Canadian governments say they will ride to the rescue of the beleaguered Detroit auto makers, hoping to head off a catastrophic collapse of Chrysler LLC or General Motors Corp. that would cascade throughout the North American economy.

Ottawa and Ontario will provide an estimated $3.4-billion to the Canadian units of the Detroit Three, while U.S. President George W. Bush will throw a $14-billion (U.S.) lifeline to their parent companies.

Federal Industry Minister Tony Clement called a hastily arranged news conference Friday night to announce the Canadian aid package.

“The seriousness of the situation dictates that we be here this evening,” Mr. Clement said.

The dire situation auto makers face was underlined Friday when GM announced massive cuts in production in January. Honda Motor Co. Ltd. also said it will trim output, but by a smaller amount than GM.

Mr. Clement would not provide a specific figure, but he said the amount of money in the Canadian bailout represents this country's one-fifth share of the Detroit Three's North American vehicle production and on Canada maintaining that percentage.

“Clearly, this amount of money is meant to be, as the U.S. is finding out, a way to keep the doors open for the domestic auto sector while they continue their long-term planning,” he said.

However, he stressed that the support package would reflect the interests of taxpayers and is contingent upon the auto makers working with their unions and parts suppliers on a long-term solution for the sector. It's also conditional on a U.S. deal coming together.

“This is an existential moment for the auto industry,” Mr. Clement added. “Is this industry going to exist in any capacity two years from now, five years from now?” Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty ironed out the details of the Canadian plan during a one-hour meeting Friday afternoon in Mr. Harper's office in traffic-choked downtown Ottawa.

Ontario will contribute a portion of the funding, one source said.

A senior Ottawa source noted the U.S. government must change the $700-billion (U.S.) Troubled Assets Relief Program to make it apply to auto makers. Ottawa expects the Americans to take several days to finalize a deal.

Just hours after Senate Republicans killed a $14-billion (U.S.) bailout late Thursday, Mr. Bush made it clear he considers GM, Chrysler and Ford Motor Co. too big and too vital to the economy, to be allowed to fail.

“The current weakened state of the economy is such that it could not withstand a body blow like a disorderly bankruptcy in the auto industry,” White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said.

Chrysler and GM are in the most serious straits, warning that they could run out of sufficient cash to operate their businesses by the end of this month or early in January.

A bankruptcy by one or both of them would create an auto industry cataclysm, likely taking down the healthiest Detroit company – Ford – and sending hundreds of suppliers into bankruptcy as well.

One think tank estimated 3 million jobs in the United States alone would be vaporized. About 110,000 Canadians, mainly in Ontario, work for the Canadian units of the Detroit Three and for parts companies. Mr. McGuinty has expressed concerns that the sector is facing further job losses because, as he said, no amount of aid to the companies can make up for the fact that Americans are buying fewer cars.

The Detroit companies have warned that protection under Chapter 11 of the U.S. bankruptcy code can't be a solution for them because consumers won't buy vehicles from companies they think are bankrupt. The auto makers argue that they would be forced to liquidate their operations.

Canadian dealers said Friday that some consumers are already balking.

Parts suppliers are also getting skittish, with some starting to demand that Chrysler and GM pay them in cash immediately, instead of waiting for the usual 45- to 60-day payment period.

The move by the Bush administration came after the Senate rejected a compromise bridge loan package that would carry the industry through to the new administration of Barack Obama in January.

Mr. Bush is exploring several options, including tapping cash from the $700-billion TARP fund – which was originally designed to bail out banks – something he had previously insisted he would not do.

He is just 40 days from handing over the keys to the White House to Mr. Obama while the country grapples with its worst economic crisis since the Great Depression.

Mr. Obama, backed by a larger Democratic majority in the Senate, will likely have the votes to push through a more expansive rescue package when he takes office.

But time isn't on the side of the auto makers. The precarious state of the Detroit Three, particularly Chrysler and GM, means they will almost certainly need a substantial amount of cash well before Mr. Obama's inauguration.

Friday's GM and Honda production cuts offered fresh evidence of how the credit crisis has frozen auto sales and affected all companies.

All GM passenger car plants in North America will be shut in January, as will some plants that make sport utility vehicles.

A Chrysler plant in Windsor, Ont., that makes minivans will also close for the entire month and one of the company's passenger-car factories in Brampton, Ont., will shut for the first two weeks of the new year.

One government source said Canadian parts suppliers and dealers will get some help when the official agreement is announced.

Mr. Clement said the government will also insist that the auto makers use the aid to keep paying their parts suppliers.

Different parts of the sector have asked for different types of assistance and the needs of parts makers are distinct from those of the three vehicle manufacturers.

For parts makers, Ottawa is likely to expand the ability of Export Development Corp. to insure accounts receivable, which is a major headache for suppliers in an economy where credit and financing are tight.

--------------------

This is a mistake, but for Prime Minister Stephen Harper, it is almost certainly a mistake he cannot afford not to make. The mainstream media have convinced a huge number of Americans and, I’m sure a substantial majority of Canadians that government handouts are good things. They are not – generally; of course there are exceptions.

It is wrong, just plain wrong, to bail out Chrysler when its private parent company, Cerberus will not invest further. Whay should taxpayers bail out Cerberus?

Chrysler is probably doomed – although its Jeep brand and its mini-van tooling/plants may survive under competent, likely Asian, management.. GM will likely survive, globally, – as a company on par with, say, Hyundai or Nissan. But Canadians demand that “someone do something” and spending wasting large amounts of public money to spice up the death march of great, lumbering industrial dinosaurs is probably what’s most likely to pacify the braying masses.

What Canada can and should use for stimulus is several tens of billions of federal, provincial and municipal dollars, borrowed if necessary, to build and, much more important, maintain infrastructure – but only where projects are already approved and where spending can start in 2009. New spending that starts after, say, mid 2010 and that extends too far beyond about end 2011 will, actually be harmful because it will fuel inflation during the recovery that will be well, maybe too well, underway by 2011.

 
Its possible that the wage/benefit issue isnt as much of a lodestone around the neck of the Big 3 as are the work rules/Job Bank ect. The work rules prevent efficiency and the Job Bank pays unemployed workers 95% of their wages/benefits. One work rule prevents a plant manager from taking workers off an idle line to help with a line that is slowed due to not enough workers to do assembly.Work rules also prevent the use of robots as are found in the Japanese plants for example.

I had an opportunity last year to visit a muffler plant which had robots doing the manufacturing.It just needed a worker to supply raw materials.It was a clean plant with no haze in the air.Floor was clean.It was quite an interesting operation.
 
Awesome - next time I'm wondering why a casualty in my unit isn't getting casevaced by a Canadian medical chopper (because we don't have any), I'll know it's because we threw billions at bailing out an inefficient auto sector that'll go tits up in a year anyways.

Score 1 point for reinforcing failure!
 
Infanteer said:
Awesome - next time I'm wondering why a casualty in my unit isn't getting casevaced by a Canadian medical chopper (because we don't have any), I'll know it's because we threw billions at bailing out an inefficient auto sector that'll go tits up in a year anyways.

Score 1 point for reinforcing failure!

Why do we think of the current or last concepts?

Score 1 point for the Politics that got you the C17s mon ami.

If we want, and I know we need, something like a big fleet of Blackhawks then the Centre of Gravity which I understand to be the Army, must get in bed with the Airforce and say we need 3 to 4 x worth of whatever we need to fly troops in Afghanistan. You'll need them in Darfur and points south.

Our mantra should be go big or go home.
 
tomahawk6 said:
Its possible that the wage/benefit issue isnt as much of a lodestone around the neck of the Big 3 as are the work rules/Job Bank ect. The work rules prevent efficiency and the Job Bank pays unemployed workers 95% of their wages/benefits. One work rule prevents a plant manager from taking workers off an idle line to help with a line that is slowed due to not enough workers to do assembly.Work rules also prevent the use of robots as are found in the Japanese plants for example.  I had an opportunity last year to visit a muffler plant which had robots doing the manufacturing.It just needed a worker to supply raw materials.It was a clean plant with no haze in the air.Floor was clean.It was quite an interesting operation. 

Do you mean 'work' rules or 'union' rules?  Because the problems you are mentioning are all union issues intended to preserve jobs and block change in the industry.  What next?  Burn the spinning jennies!
 
Infanteer said:
So, something like "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs."?

Where have I heard that before?


So what's that supposed to mean, try it in plain good old English.
 
Greymatters said:
Do you mean 'work' rules or 'union' rules?  Because the problems you are mentioning are all union issues intended to preserve jobs and block change in the industry.  What next?  Burn the spinning jennies!

Business and the unions need to be flexible to remain competitive. If the union is an obstruction then the business could fail and the workers would be out of work.
 
So lets put this in perspective; the $3.3 billion dollar Canadian bailout means a loss of 66,000 full time Canadian jobs.

Yes, that's correct, and you can do the math yourself:

An investment of $50,000 is required to create one full time job. Extracting $3.3 billion from Canadian taxpayers removes the resources to create 66,000 full time jobs. (Lets do a head count of the number of jobs being "saved" by this bailout).

Be sure to write your MP and MPP and thank them for this massive job loss and destruction of taxpayer wealth.
 
The Big Three are on their last legs, one or two of them will spend their dying days leaning against a pile of unearned taxpayers’ money, but, as this article, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from yesterday’s Globe and Mail, points out, one automaker is still profitable, even after its sales and profits and values fell:
--------------------
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081212.wrcoverberman1213/BNStory/Business

As car makers suffer, one may thrive

DAVID BERMAN

From Saturday's Globe and Mail
December 12, 2008 at 10:09 PM EST

Whatever happens to the Big Three U.S. auto makers in the near term, it's not hard to envisage a day in the not-too-distant future when they will either be gone from the landscape or reduced to niche players in the global automotive industry. That's not good news – but it certainly opens an investing opportunity in foreign competitors, such as Japan's Toyota Motor Corp.

To be sure, there isn't a car maker on the planet that isn't suffering from the effects of the global recession, which has sent car sales back a decade or more. Toyota is no exception: Sales are plunging, production is being cut and the stock, which trades as an American depositary receipt on the New York Stock Exchange, has fallen about 40 per cent this year.

But if there is a company in the world that is likely to emerge from the current mess in better shape than it went in, it's Toyota – and it is something of a mystery why investors who have given up on General Motors Corp. and Ford Motor Co. haven't run into the arms of the Japanese company.

If you think of the auto manufacturing market as a zero sum game – where the sales losses of one company translate into sales gains for another – then the Big Three's missteps over the past couple of decades have benefited Toyota in a big way.

You can see this in terms of market share, where Toyota has been growing at a furious pace. In the U.S., Toyota's market share has risen to 16 per cent in 2007 from just 7.5 per cent in 1990. Over the same period, GM's share has fallen to 24 per cent from 35 per cent.

Globally, Toyota tied GM for vehicle sales in 2007 and is set to become the world's largest manufacturer this year. If market share doesn't sound like a big deal, consider how vehicle sales translated into profits. In 2007, both Toyota and GM sold 9.37 million vehicles. However, Toyota earned $17.1-billion (U.S.) on those sales, while GM lost $38.7-billion.

Next, keep in mind that, however troubled Toyota might be in the current economic climate, its survival is not being called into question. It has the equivalent of $28-billion in cash reserves, which can help it cushion a longer-than-expected recession. It also pays out the equivalent of $1.54 a share in yearly dividends – which it could cut if the bad times persisted.

Finally, although profits are down at Toyota, the company is still making money. It expects it will earn the equivalent of more than $6-billion this fiscal year. Analysts estimate that next year's earnings will fall 60 per cent. But here's the important point: The company is still profitable in the most vicious downturn in modern memory.

In other words, Toyota will still be standing when the recession ends – an assumption that does not apply to GM, Ford and Chrysler LLC. Surviving this downturn will make Toyota a bigger global player, and its stock price will reflect this status.

--------------------

Toyota’s management (tactics), its product line (strategy), its quality control (strategy) and its labour practices (tactics) account for the facts that:

”In the U.S., Toyota's market share has risen to 16 per cent in 2007 from just 7.5 per cent in 1990. Over the same period, GM's share has fallen to 24 per cent from 35 per cent.” – Although T-6 tells us that Americans want Hummers and SUVs the sales of Corollas and Camrays tell a different story;

”Globally, Toyota tied GM for vehicle sales in 2007 and is set to become the world's largest manufacturer this year;

”In 2007, both Toyota and GM sold 9.37 million vehicles. However, Toyota earned $17.1-billion (U.S.) on those sales, while GM lost $38.7-billion.” and

”Although profits are down at Toyota, the company is still making money. It expects it will earn the equivalent of more than $6-billion this fiscal year. Analysts estimate that next year's earnings will fall 60 per cent. But here's the important point: The company is still profitable in the most vicious downturn in modern memory.”

Maybe we should be sending money to the Canadian subsidiaries of Toyota, Honda and Nissan - even though they aren't asking for any - to encourage them to buy up the Big Three's dying plants and rehire their soon to be laid off workers.
 
And here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from yesterday’s National Post, is more (mixed) commentary on the bailout:
--------------------
http://www.nationalpost.com/most_popular/story.html?id=1073285

Canadian taxpayers and auto union butt heads over bailout

Linda Nguyen, Canwest News Service

Published: Saturday, December 13, 2008

An estimated $3.5-billion Cdn bailout to North America's struggling auto industry is an unfair financial burden on the average Canadian and is just another excuse the Big Three automakers need to postpone much needed change, according to the Canadian Taxpayers Federation.

Ontario director Kevin Gaudet said Saturday that this plan is likely to do more harm than good.

"They (Big Three) just can't continue to operate the way they do. Executives get paid too well. Labour is overpaid," Mr. Gaudet said. "The whole supply chain is too expensive. They're building too many cars -- importantly, cars that people don't want to buy," he added. "When governments step in, all it does is keep the industry from making the changes it needs to make."

The bailout, announced late Friday by federal Industry Minister Tony Clement, will see the federal and Ontario government contribute 20 per cent of a proposed U.S. bailout package based on Canada's share of the North American auto sector.

That figure, pegged at $3.5-billion, is contingent on whether American politicians are able to draft a rescue plan for General Motors, Chrysler and Ford.

Mr. Gaudet said the collapse of the auto industry remains inevitable despite this latest surge of public cash.

"There is no evidence in the past that corporate welfare works," he said. "At the end of the day, you're going to see both the government of Ontario and the federal government push themselves into deficit and they're going to do it by having thrown money at an auto industry that's likely going to go belly-up anyhow."

This bailout will only lead other financially struggling companies and industries in this tough economic time to also expect a government shell-out, Mr. Gaudet warned.

"The government can't bail them all out," he said. "It's hard to justify to a laid-off Nortel worker why his or her tax dollars should go to support artificially inflated salaries in the auto industry."

Last week Mark Zandi, a chief economist with U.S.-based Moody's Corp., estimated that the Big Three may need as much as $75-billion to $125-billion US to stay in business. His prediction is based on the expectation that U. S. auto sales volumes will average only 11 million units in 2009 and 13.5 million units in 2010.

Mr. Gaudet says this shows that Canada's bailout will have little impact on the ailing auto industry.

It's estimated that the Canadian government has already spent $782-million in the past five years on the Big Three, the non-profit interest group reported.

"These have been a bottomless pit of requests for cash," Mr. Gaudet said. "It was $780-million in the last five years, and it's another $3.5 billion now . . . It is likely that they'll be back with their cap in hand soon."

But Ken Lewenza, president of the Canadian Auto Workers, said that this bailout should be seen by Canadians as a loan that will be paid back when the country's economy is prosperous again.

"The last time Chrysler corporation got an investment in their business, it was totally repaid back to the taxpayers with dividends. The domestic Three, providing the economy picks up -- that's the key -- and the market conditions improve, will repay the government's every dime that's paid as a result of this temporary burp in this temporary crisis," he said from Windsor, Ont. "Ilook at this as an investment in the economy and they (CTF) look at this as a waste, and that's two philosophical differences."

Mr. Lewenza said that the three automakers have made changes to their production line to produce more environmentally-friendly and technologically advanced vehicles, but the demand is not quite there.

Due to the fallout in the U.S. economy, sales of all vehicles have dropped by as much as six million within the year, he said.

All Big Three assembly plants will undergo production freezes in the next two months, officials for the Canadian Auto Workers union said Friday.

Mr. Lewenza said these temporary layoffs were "imminent" and cannot be saved by the bailout.

"The pain from day to day is pretty significant but this bailout sends out a pretty good signal that this industry is important," he said. "We should be in good shape. We're feeling good today."

The CAW is Canada's largest union and represents 250,000 members in a variety of industries, including the auto-sector.

--------------------

No one will be surprised to hear that I think Kevin Gaudet and I are on the side of the angels on this issue.

 
•  ”In the U.S., Toyota's market share has risen to 16 per cent in 2007 from just 7.5 per cent in 1990. Over the same period, GM's share has fallen to 24 per cent from 35 per cent.” – Although T-6 tells us that Americans want Hummers and SUVs the sales of Corollas and Camrays tell a different story;

One of the inherent contradictions of the Democrats, I believe.

I wouldn't be at all surprised to find that Red areas buy Pickups and SUVs from the Big Three (but the don't buy them often) while urbanites (Blue areas) buy imports.

One might expect city dwelling Democrats to support their Union brethren by buying American.  I don't believe that to be the case.
 
Of course the urban/rural (blue/red) split has some practical aspects, too:

• Many rural people actually need pickups and SUVs make good sense in some areas; and

• Most urban people find an Accord, Corolla or Sentra quite sufficient for their day-to-day needs; but

• I notice, here in Dallas/North Dallas (30th Congressional District that went Democrat by an 82%+ landslide, 32nd Congressional District that went Republican by 57% and the 3rd and 4th than went Republican by 59% and 68% respectively), that there is a very large number of SUVs and pickups that I am about 99% certain have never left a city street or interstate highway - noticeably more than I see in Ottawa or Toronto. But, not all the trucks are Ford and GM; there are a lot of Toyota Tundras, and the Japanese SUVs and crossovers (4Runner, CRV, Land Cruiser, Pilot and RAV4) are very popular.

There is no doubt that taste (informed by advertizing) and style (informed by what the neighbours just bought) rather than need direct many purchase decisions. Many, many commentators have noted that many (just some? maybe most?) Americans define themselves by their possessions and the automobile is one of the most ‘significant’ of those possessions.

I’m reading The Big Sort which, like Richard Florida’s Who's Your City? and The Rise of the Creative Class, attempts to grapple with the idea that people migrate to areas where like minded people already live and, once there, reinforce the regional stereotypes by e.g. buying either a Prius or a Hummer.

 
I must pick up The Big Sort.

It will be fascinating to overlay it on Fischer's "Albion's Seed" and Garreau's "Nine Nations of North America".
 
A slight hijack here:

Richard Florida's work does not stand up to analysis; in fact the "Bohemian Index" that he popularized is almost a negative indicator of what cities will attract new people, create new industries or have higher median incomes. See "The Curse of the Creative Class" by Steven Malanga for a first class debunking.

Of course the article also shows what does work in attracting new people, investment and jobs: low taxes and efficient (low cost) infrastructure. Lets focus on that (for example, forcing cities to divest themselves of the ownership and management of expensive and money losing propositions like convention centers and sports arenas) and local economies will see a quick(er) recovery without the costs and inflationary pressures of a "stimulus package" or "bailout".
 
Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s National Post, is a detailed explanation of the danger posed by too much stimulus or stimuli that are implemented after the crisis is over:
------------------
http://www.nationalpost.com/story-printer.html?id=005ae66f-b33e-47bf-ad85-ff571a924b2e

What if stimulus works too well?
Once downturn is tamed, inflation could rear its head

Jacqueline Thorpe,  Financial Post

Published: Monday, December 15, 2008

Things look dim now, but let us suppose Herculean efforts to reflate the global economy work. Rock bottom interest rates entice borrowing, hundreds of billions of dollars in government stimulus goose spending, and trillions of dollars in central bank liquidity unclog credit channels.

A potential deflationary spiral is averted.

So when do we have to start worrying about inflation? With economic activity falling off a cliff through much of the world, the answer would seem not for some time. History has shown, however, it is never too early to worry.

"Human nature tends to focus on the short term. And in the short term, the risk is deflation and it's a real risk," said Benjamin Tal, senior economist at CIBC World Markets. "But we are fighting it. We are fighting it much more aggressively than any time in history and there is a very high likelihood we will win. And if we win there will be inflation."

With this in mind, news reports that the U. S. Federal Reserve is considering issuing its own debt could be revealing, signalling perhaps the central bank itself is beginning to get antsy about all the liquidity in the system.

The Fed, according to a report in The Wall Street Journal, would issue bills or some form of debt, separate from the U. S. Treasury. Economists were still scratching their heads about it last week and could not even decide whether such a move would give the Fed a new tool to add further liquidity or drain it.

Goldman Sachs argued the Fed could issue debt and then use the proceeds to buy up longer-term risky assets, such as private-label mortgages and corporate bonds, an action authorities have been considering to push down yields and borrowing costs even further if deflation risks accelerate.

Merrill Lynch, however, saw it as a tool drain liquidity. The Fed could issue debt, get cash in return and then keep the cash rather than redeploy it.

Even Goldman Sachs, which has been hammering the deflation drum recently, admitted the Fed could be starting to get concerned about the speed with which the U. S. monetary base has been expanding. Bank reserves plus currency in circulation soared to US$1.47-trillion in the week ended Dec. 3, up from US$843-billion three months earlier, it notes.

Derek Holt, vice-president of economics at Scotia Capital, writes, however, that should not be alarming since it began to explode only once the Fed started paying interest on reserves left at the bank. The result was to suck liquidity out of money markets, and onto the Fed's balance sheet, which is then redirected out to U. S. financial institutions and other countries via currency swap lines.

It is clear, though, that the Fed is engaged in one giant brow-furrowing monetary policy experiment. Issuing its own debt seems absurd. It would open up bizarre arbitrage opportunities between central bank and treasury debt, allowing investors to trade directly on the credibility of the Fed.

Whether it goes ahead, there is no dispute the stimulus is piling up. Last week it was Europe's turn, with the European Union agreeing to a package of 1.5% of GDP, or around US$265-billion. U. S. president-elect Barack Obama's stimulus plan is rumoured to be anywhere from US$300-billion to US$1-trillion, while Canada is expected to announce a stimulus budget in January.

U. S. federal borrowing is likely to exceed US$4-trillion over the next three years and US$2-trillion next year --a whopping 16% of GDP.

All this fiscal and monetary stimulus is not seen as inflationary as it is merely replacing collapsed private-sector activity, but both central banks and governments always seem to miss the boat when they have to withdraw the stimulus.

The Fed missed it massively after the tech wreck, helping to create a housing bubble and the eventual bust. Governments missed it in the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s and deficits inevitably piled up.

This time around, central banks and governments are working so closely in tandem that Donald Coxe, global portfolio strategist at BMO Financial Group, worries neither will know when to take the punch bowl away.

"We will not get a response in time to head off inflation," he said.

Jeff Rubin, chief economist at CIBC World Markets, agrees.

"While politicians and financial markets fret about deflation risks, history has shown inflation to be a far more common dancing partner to massive government deficits," he said in a recent note.

Certainly Mr. Coxe and Mr. Rubin, both uber-commodity bulls, are undoubtedly hoping the Great Reflation will work.

The risk for the rest of us is it will work too well.

Copyright © 2007 CanWest Interactive, a division of CanWest MediaWorks Publications, Inc.. All rights reserved.

-------------------------

We need to remember that pretty well all members of the NDP (MPs and supporters) and most Liberals and quite a few Conservatives are economic illiterates, barely able to balance a bank book. Amongst the politicians, even the ones who do understand the perils of inflation are driven to buy our votes with our own money in order to secure their re-election prospects.

There is a time and place for stimulus: the time is right now (meaning projects that do not need e.g. long, drawn out environmental reviews) and the place is right here – our decaying infrastructure, especially in cities.

 
Thucydides said:
A slight hijack here:

Richard Florida's work does not stand up to analysis; in fact the "Bohemian Index" that he popularized is almost a negative indicator of what cities will attract new people, create new industries or have higher median incomes. See "The Curse of the Creative Class" by Steven Malanga for a first class debunking.

Of course the article also shows what does work in attracting new people, investment and jobs: low taxes and efficient (low cost) infrastructure. Lets focus on that (for example, forcing cities to divest themselves of the ownership and management of expensive and money losing propositions like convention centers and sports arenas) and local economies will see a quick(er) recovery without the costs and inflationary pressures of a "stimulus package" or "bailout".

At the risk of going further off topic ...

While it is true that Florida et al have made some ‘leaps of logic’ their critics fail to account for the fact that America (and the world) is being ‘sorted’ by, inter alia, education. It is also true, as Malanga says in the article referenced by Thucydides, that Las Vegas is (or, at least, very recently was) the fastest growing city in America, but  it has amongst the lowest rates of educated migrants – people flock to Las Vegas for glitzy McJobs. But, the people who are most likely to ‘grow’ an economy – those with post secondary educations – are moving to the cities/districts that Florida and Bishop and Cushing mark as ‘progressive.’

Now, it is even more true that “figures don’t lie but liars can figure” and data can be sorted and arranged to prove almost anything, but some of the data in “the Big Sort” – that related to church attendance, education, migration and voting patterns over the past 40 years – is pretty compelling.


 
Back
Top