With growing frenzy about one of the Detroit Big Three automakers going under, the rush is on to fund a new bailout.
What has not been given the attention that it, perhaps, deserves is how much the Detroit automakers have been spending over the years to “win friends and influence” Congressmen and Presidents.
In the last ten years they have spent almost $250 million in lobbying activities, and over the last five presidential election cycles another $20 million in campaign contributions.
It’s not surprising they expect a bailout — they’ve paid for it!
In a new article on the AIER website, I discuss all of these spendings in more detail.
{ 12 comments }
Mattel, the maker of toy cars now has a bigger market cap than GM. But then so does Toyota, Honda and Nissan by several hundred orders of magnitude.
If “The Big? Three” had made products that people actually wanted they might have survived a bit longer. That would have meant understanding resource economics. GM ridiculously claimed no-one foresaw the rise in oil prices. Rubbish! The current situation was predicted by Marion King Hubbert, a Shell geologist in the 1950′s.
They should be nationalized (a dirty word and revolting concept – I know) and their civilian operations be closed down. They should be retained under a Pentagon budget line to manufacture military vehicles only utilizing what little IP remains.
Frankly, saildog, I would rather we let the Big Three go under and “outsourced” military vehicles to Asia. It would make us and them less interested in going to war with each other. Let Tata and Beijing Automobile Works build our hummers and tanks.
If a war would no longer “rescue” Detroit, and might actually benefit our “enemies” economically (by selling us more tanks), then our “leaders” would have much less incentive to start one.
If GM, FORD and CHRYSLER were producing this car, they would not be in Washington asking for our tax money.
First legitimate ELECTRIC CAR coming to the market. $15,9995-$17,995
Safe, reliable and affordable.
Check it out…………
Article:
http://planetgreen.discovery.com/tech-transport/electric-c100-vehicle.html
Video-You Tube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hog9wpZCg8U
BeGreen Advocate
If GM, FORD and CHRYSLER were producing this car, they would not be in Washington asking for our tax money.
First legitimate ELECTRIC CAR coming to the market. $15,9995-$17,995
Safe, reliable and affordable.
Check it out…………
Article:
http://planetgreen.discovery.com/tech-transport/electric-c100-vehicle.html
Video-You Tube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hog9wpZCg8U
BeGreen Advocate
The Detroit three deserve to be in the position that they are in. Their cars suck, they have too much overhead, and they think its everyone else’s fault. I live in metro Detroit, and I say let them go. Although I feel bad for my family members and friends that will have to face market wages instead of union wages, it is the only long term solution
There are two views: Let market forces finish what they started years ago or same these jobs. If we bailout GM then where will it stop? Why is Ford not having the same problems in magnitude? The market is telling us something; let them go under. GM has been having problems for years. How come no one is going after the management, where has been the oversight on the boards? If bailing out GM means saving the jobs, then I say what happened to the other 1.2 million people who have lost their job already this year?
Imagine one solution that would revitalize Detroit and the larger economy, create
thousands of new jobs, largely eliminate the need for foreign oil, drastically reduce
green house gases, and greatly improve the U.S. transportation infrastructure. This
sounds too good to be true, but all that’s lacking is political willpower. We have
the ability to solve many of our problems in one fell swoop, what we need is the
political leadership to make it happen.
How can such progress be achieved? It can by realized by constructing networks of
Personal Rapid Transit (PRT) systems in major cities in the U.S. PRT is a public
transportation concept that offers on-demand, non-stop transportation, using small,
independent vehicles on a network of specially-built guideways (source Wikipedia).
The guideways would be built throughout a city, and are sufficiently small to have
stations within office buildings. A passenger would walk to a PRT station and enter
a waiting vehicle. The passenger would select the destination (much like using a
GPS in current autos) and sit down for a relaxing trip. The vehicle would be automatically
driven and routed to the passenger’s destination. The electric vehicles use no oil,
have no pollution. PRT systems have been studied in the U.S. and throughout the
world for decades. A pilot project (ULTra) is currently under construction at London
Heathrow Airport and will be operational in 2009. Two other PRT systems have been
planned: one in Masdar City, Abu Dhabi, UAE with a completion date of 2011; another
in Daventry, Northamptonshire, UK with a completion date of 2012.
Instead of bailing out Detroit with millions of dollars to produce products that
fail to be competitive, Detroit would be retooled to build vehicles for PRT systems.
They would be building vehicles for the future. The construction of the guideways
throughout the U.S. would create thousands of new jobs. The operation and maintenance
of the PRT systems would likewise create many new jobs. Electric power for the PRT
systems would be provided by new wind, solar, nuclear, or clean-coal power plants
– more jobs. The dependence on foreign oil would be drastically reduced as millions
of cars would be removed from the roadways. The savings in foreign oil expenditures
would be billions of dollars per year. Pollution would also be greatly reduced by
removing the cars. Of course the transportation infrastructure would be significantly
upgraded.
All that’s needed is for a major political leader to enthusiastically champion the
building of PRT. Imagine defining a mission statement as JFK did for the moon landing.
A statement such as “Our goal is to transport most employees in a clean, safe, personal
vehicle to and from work in half the current traveling time and at one-tenth the
current cost, and to do so by our country’s 250 birthday.â€
Imagine one solution that would revitalize Detroit and the larger economy, create
thousands of new jobs, largely eliminate the need for foreign oil, drastically reduce
green house gases, and greatly improve the U.S. transportation infrastructure. This
sounds too good to be true, but all that’s lacking is political willpower. We have
the ability to solve many of our problems in one fell swoop, what we need is the
political leadership to make it happen.
How can such progress be achieved? It can by realized by constructing networks of
Personal Rapid Transit (PRT) systems in major cities in the U.S. PRT is a public
transportation concept that offers on-demand, non-stop transportation, using small,
independent vehicles on a network of specially-built guideways (source Wikipedia).
The guideways would be built throughout a city, and are sufficiently small to have
stations within office buildings. A passenger would walk to a PRT station and enter
a waiting vehicle. The passenger would select the destination (much like using a
GPS in current autos) and sit down for a relaxing trip. The vehicle would be automatically
driven and routed to the passenger’s destination. The electric vehicles use no oil,
have no pollution. PRT systems have been studied in the U.S. and throughout the
world for decades. A pilot project (ULTra) is currently under construction at London
Heathrow Airport and will be operational in 2009. Two other PRT systems have been
planned: one in Masdar City, Abu Dhabi, UAE with a completion date of 2011; another
in Daventry, Northamptonshire, UK with a completion date of 2012.
Instead of bailing out Detroit with millions of dollars to produce products that
fail to be competitive, Detroit would be retooled to build vehicles for PRT systems.
They would be building vehicles for the future. The construction of the guideways
throughout the U.S. would create thousands of new jobs. The operation and maintenance
of the PRT systems would likewise create many new jobs. Electric power for the PRT
systems would be provided by new wind, solar, nuclear, or clean-coal power plants
– more jobs. The dependence on foreign oil would be drastically reduced as millions
of cars would be removed from the roadways. The savings in foreign oil expenditures
would be billions of dollars per year. Pollution would also be greatly reduced by
removing the cars. Of course the transportation infrastructure would be significantly
upgraded.
All that’s needed is for a major political leader to enthusiastically champion the
building of PRT. Imagine defining a mission statement as JFK did for the moon landing.
A statement such as “Our goal is to transport most employees in a clean, safe, personal
vehicle to and from work in half the current traveling time and at one-tenth the
current cost, and to do so by our country’s 250 birthday.â€
Mr. Webb,
You clearly are clueless about what this website discusses, if you would advocate a govt project to create jobs and save the world “at one-tenth the current cost.”
Please read Hazlitt’s One Lesson!
You are even more of a dreamer than the man who sang “Imagine.”
“You clearly are clueless….” Quite a peculiar and disappointing response to Harry Webb. Unless I am too gullible to recognize a troll, seems that the call for a new public transportation system would offer a great opportunity for libertarians to ponder the means to implement more privatization, consider the pitfalls of another govenrment program, and provide alternatives that enhance liberty. Although I’m not libertarian because of utilitarian rationales, the free market will only be sold to others by demonstrating not only ethics, but efficiency.
The bailout is coming, whether you like it or not. Passage is typically seen as a positive right, or at least a privilege that most citizens expect. Air travel regulation is often justified because it’s recognized as a public service and it also bemoans a proximate risk. (You fly over my house and blow up, you kill me, not just your passengers.)
Someday, there will be flying cars or individual space craft that can be parked in your garage and then driven to orbiting satellite stations. The bureaucrats and government watchdogs will be watching you even more closely than the State troopers do on Route 95. These are the great challenges for liberty.
Harry Webb’s proposal is coming alive as we speak, so there are at least a couple of options:
(a) Keep screaming into a windbag that big government is bad, ignoring the fact that the Charles Schumer types already have their busy-body minions finding ways to impose their control over any new means of passage.
(b) Fight the good fight with an alternative argument and proposal to enhance liberty, while these new technologies are implemented. (That’s not just for the Reason Foundation to do.)
As I said, these new fangled things are a comin’, like it or not. And your response is to say, Go away and read some Hazlitt??
Regards,
F.
I say no to a bail out and yes to a buy out. The Government should run their companies till they pay back all of the principle plus a generous percentage of all profits, say for 15 years. The Big Three have done this to us before and they will keep on doing it till we finally do something about it. The Big Three want a large amount of money with a small interest rate for a very high risk loan, they should have to pay a lot more for the risk.
When I started working back in the 1970s my paychecks were devastated by taxes and these companies were a lot of the reason why. Heafty cuts of their future profits into the Treasury will ensure that the Tax Payer will not suffer and surely inflict enough discomfort for them to learn a lesson that will last a 100 years.
Our cars are the best, we have small 2 : PEUGEOT & RENAULT. small is beautiful. But if they were to go to banckruptcy, Sarcozy would never intervene, he is very busy with personal matters ….
Comments on this entry are closed.