GM, Ford, Chrysler… Does the end justify the means?

Have you heard?  People everywhere (except Europe) are buying cars again.  Automotive News reports that June’s U.S. auto sales are up for six consecutive years. They project 16 million for the full year.  Further, they report that each of the Detroit Big 3 gained market share in the first six months of 2013. 

That’s a far cry from the reports out of Detroit a few years ago.

More interesting is that foreign manufacturers are locating more factories here in the U.S.  Is that a good thing?  You bet.  When companies from another country invest here it creates jobs no matter what the nameplate on the car.  Indeed, Nissan, Mercedes, Toyota, Honda, BMW and the rest are exporting cars from their U.S. factories to the rest of the world.

Bloomberg recently ranked the U.S. as the third most attractive country to locate a business behind Hong Kong and the Netherlands.  China? They’re number 19. 

How can that be?  Here’s how.  While it’s true that the weaker dollar has caused the effective labor cost to drop, what’s more important is that the U.S. is well integrated into the global economy through its transportation and communications systems, has the wealthiest consumer base and is a rules-based economy. 

Global investors – business owners, corporate executives, shareholders -- are more likely to put their money into a venture governed by a reliable set of regulations, taxes, policies, etc.  “The rule of law” is very important to them.

Rule of law is a confusing term and, used in other than economic contexts, can be construed as “rule according to law” or “rule under the law”.  Dictionary.com provides a concise definition thusly:  “the principle that all people and institutions are subject to and accountable to law that is fairly applied and enforced; the principle of government by law.”

Was the rule of law abandoned a few years ago when the automakers were circling the toilet for the third time?  Fearful that hundreds of thousands of jobs would be flushed along with the shareholders money, the government intervened, first under the Bush administration, to loan TARP money the automakers and, then under the Obama administration, to engineer a restructuring of both GM and Chrysler through bankruptcy proceedings.

Critics howled but fear ruled the day.  So, what would have happened if the government hadn’t stepped in?  Many of my friends and colleagues have speculated that private investors would have acquired the assets through a Section 363 sale in bankruptcy court.  GM could probably have been had for about $10 billion, chump change for the private equity industry. 

But, I am not so sure.  We were all in a panic in the first half of 2009.  No one was quite sure what would happen next.  Investors like a stable environment in which they can place their bets.  2009 was anything but stable.   Mike Jackson, CEO of AutoNation (NYSE:AN) the nation’s largest auto dealer, has often said, “it’s pains me as a conservative Republican to say this…” but the U.S automakers would not have survived if the government hadn’t taken action.  He goes on to support the oft-reported view that the a GM liquidation would have unraveled the supply chain and brought down many other companies in the industry, causing not only job losses but also disruption of the global economy.  And, this was at a time when the U.S. Federal Reserve was still putting the Humpty-Dumpty financial services industry together again.

Principles are important.  Our leaders, both Republicans and Democrats, violated so many sound principles of capitalism during the nine-month span between the Lehman bankruptcy and the GM bankruptcy that it’s hard to keep track.  The most prolific of the Austrian school of economics, Friedrich Hayek, in his most important work The Road to Serfdom, said, “nothing distinguishes more clearly conditions in a free country from those in a country under arbitrary government than the observance in the former of the great principles known as the Rule of Law”.

But, there is no line in the sand that can distinguish between actions that satisfy the principles of the rule of law.  Both the President and the Chair of the Federal Reserve are given a great deal of discretion.  Here’s what George W. Bush told CNN in December 2008, a month before he turned the reins of government over to his successor.  "I've abandoned free-market principles to save the free-market system, to make sure the economy doesn't collapse."

We’ll never know what might have happened if the government hadn’t exercised its discretion.  But, no President wants to preside over the collapse of the economy.

WHO WILL LEAD?

Hey, We Had a Deal… Didn’t We?

George Friedman

While shopping for a car last weekend, we met TJ.  He is one of those guys who really should be a salesman.  He is always happy to see you and always has a smile on his face.  He’s the kind of guy everyone wants to be around.  TJ has been selling cars for 30 years.  “What did you do before that?” I asked.  “I was an air traffic controller,” came the reply with a chuckle. 

Remembering my late 20^th Century history, I observed he must have been one of those guys put out of work by the PATCO strike.  He was.  “I bet you didn’t vote for Ronald Reagan in 84,” I said.  Laughing again, he admitted I was right. 

TJ didn’t know it at the time but his plight was at the leading edge of a strategic shift.  Stratfor founder, George Friedman, has observed that there have been four such shifts in our history.  Each was brought about by a paradigm that had run its course and a crisis that brought about a failed presidency that was followed by a seminal presidency.  These shifts have occurred approximately every 50 years.  The failed presidency of John Quincy Adams was followed by Andrew Jackson.  A half century later, Grant was followed by Hayes.  Then came Hoover and FDR and, one that many of us remember, Carter followed by Reagan. 

The conditions of the Great Depression made it politically feasible for FDR to create programs that supported the poor, the elderly and the working class.  The term "social safety net" was coined by one of the most conservative economists of that time, Friedrich Hayek.  Social Security, unemployment insurance and the Civilian Conservation Corps were seen by many as a way of placating a wave of immigrants who were accustomed to socialist or social-democratic governments.  By offering the safety net, the lower economic classes were less likely to join truly socialist movements.

Friedrich Hayek

During this half century phase, government was designed to plan, regulate and control economic and social outcomes.  The extremely high tax rates of the Truman and Eisenhower years were necessary not only to pay off the debt accumulated by WW II but also to support the regulatory state. 

For two generations following the war, business, government and organized labor worked in concert to create a domestic economy that served our needs.  Our schools and universities turned out students who were well equipped for the economy of that time.   Those who were fortunate enough to go to college joined the management of big companies like AT&T, GM and IBM.  The rest joined unions and worked in the factories.  Everyone expected to be employed for life by the same company and many, if not most, were. 

But, high tax rates took their toll on capital investment; and, by the 1970’s, foreign competition was taking its toll on the union model.  Globalization meant American companies needed to update their factories and had to compete with low labor cost nations like Japan.   

The Reagan revolution would not have happened if the economy were not in shambles.  He sold us on a vision that undermined the model on which the populace had come to rely.  He used the PATCO strike as a public demonstration that the unions could be broken.  In the 30 years since, union membership has dropped from 30% of the workforce to 7%. 

I don’t remember Reagan ever announcing that he was changing the social contract.  But, it certainly changed during his administration.  Fixed benefit pensions were replaced by 401K’s.  To compensate for rising healthcare costs, corporations introduced HMO’s to replace traditional health insurance.  American corporations needed to become more nimble to compete on a global stage.  Lifetime unemployment was out; flexible workforces were in. 

Under this new paradigm, the American economy boomed for three decades on the strength of the wealth effect from the establishment of two income households, the stock market boom of the 1990’s and the rise of home values in the 2000’s.  But, just as FDR’s model of government had started to fray by the 1970’s, the Reagan revolution has started taking its toll on the middle class.  Globalization has flattened incomes, corporations pass on more of the cost of health and pension benefits to their employees and the cost of a college education is skyrocketing. 

The national political debate seems to be a continuation of FDR vs. Reagan.  But, would either of those models work today?

The booming economy of the 1950’s was coincident with the highest tax rates in our history.  But, anyone who has ever taken a course in logic knows that correlation is not causation.  Perhaps if you could create all the other factors at play in the 1950’s – lack of foreign competition, a balanced federal budget, population growth – you could replicate the economic outcomes. 

Similarly, the 1990’s boomed with improvements in corporate efficiency, technological innovation, low tax rates and a balanced budget.  Can we replicate those conditions again? 

At their core, Americans want the same things no matter their political beliefs.  We want security at a national and local level for our families and property.  We want the opportunity to improve our standard of living.  And, we want to fulfill our role on the global stage – international leadership. 

There is an underlying need for financial stability that will provide a platform for achieving our goals in these areas.  And, there are significant challenges to providing that stability. 

Politicians at the local and state level are taking on those challenges.  Republicans like Scott Walker of Wisconsin and the “love-him-or-hate-him” governor of NJ, Chris Christie, make headlines because the media likes conflict.  But, there are significant reforms being made to pensions by Democratic governors in Rhode Island and New York and at the local level in San Jose and San Diego, CA. 

Beneficiaries have a moral right to say “hey, we had a deal, didn’t we?”  But, the hard reality is that they will have to make a sacrifice in order to get something or run the risk of getting nothing. 

We have the same risk at a national level.  Baby boomers will drain the coffers of Social Security and Medicare.  Rising healthcare and education costs are undermining middle class standards of living.  Our infrastructure needs a serious overhaul and modernization.  And, we are competing with the rising economies of Brazil, China, India and others. 

So, why are we still debating 1932 vs. 1982?  Do we really think either of those solutions sets would work today?  The issues of today are structural and strategic.  Compromise and sacrifice are called for.  The leaders who will get us out of this quagmire are those with the vision to craft a solution, the charisma to get the public to embrace it and the political skill to overcome the momentum of special interests.

So, I ask you…  Who will that person be?  WHO WILL LEAD?

Adam Smith: Communitarian

It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own self-interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities but of their advantages.



 Adam Smith, Scottish philosopher, economist and author



A colleague of mine – a college professor – describes herself as a Communitarian. She quickly quips that her husband says that’s the same as a Communist. But, while some Communists might be Communitarians and some Communitarians might be Communists, they are not the same. Wikipedia defines the term this way: “Communitarianism emphasizes the need to balance individual rights and interests with that of the community as a whole, and argues that individual people (or citizens) are shaped by the cultures and values of their communities”. Sounds pretty far from the common perception of Adam Smith. However, I think it’s fair to say that Smith might buy into that philosophy.

Conservative politicians have promoted the “invisible hand” of the markets quoting Adam Smith from his treatise, the Wealth of Nations. I doubt that many of them have actually read the 1000 page tome. If they had, they would know that Smith believed that efficient markets and general welfare resulted from local business owners bearing the cost of their enterprise and sharing the values of their communities.

Smith strongly disliked both governments and corporations. He viewed government primarily as an instrument for extracting taxes to subsidize elites and for intervening in the market to protect corporate monopolies. In his words, "Civil government, so far as it is instituted for the security of property, is in reality instituted for the defense of the rich against the poor, or of those who have some property against those who have none at all.” Certainly, that was an accurate description of 18th Century colonial America ruled by the British throne.

But, Adam Smith was a Scottish philosopher whose theories were not supported by data. A century and a half later, Friedrich Hayek developed the data to take Adam Smith’s philosophy to a new level. He advanced what would later be called Austrian Economics, a theory of monetarism that was embraced by his colleagues (including Milton Friedman) while he was part of the faculty at the University of Chicago in the 1950’s. Hayek believed that manipulation of interest rates distorted the price of capital leading to the boom and bust cycles we have seen throughout our history. In other words, the way to prevent the bust is to avoid the boom.

Like most students of economics of my generation, I lean toward the supply side theories that have been espoused by conservative economists, Hayek and Friedman. Their progeny like Arthur Laffer influenced Ronald Reagan whose response to an economic crisis was to return control of capital to those that earned the money. Lower taxes meant more money in your pockets, lower capital costs (without monetary distortions) and through the “multiplier effect” an expansion of the economy. He also coined the term “trickle-down economics” to describe the benefit to lower income families.

The expansion of our economy these last 30 years has been extraordinary. However, the promised trickle-down effect isn’t trickling. Over the last decade we have seen global corporations earning more money while the average real income for families has remained flat. Adam Smith would be appalled. Not only is the central government co-opting a significant share of our personal incomes but also it is reallocating our income to corporate interests in the form of subsidies and tax breaks. And, it has done so to the ill effect of the people who have elected that government.

Indeed, I know of no economic theory called trickle-down economics nor of any data to support its promise. It’s a political phrase. That’s all.

So, what would Smith and Hayek have to say about that?

Rarely do we hear of the other views expressed in The Wealth of Nations captured here: “It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.” Nor, do we hear much from his seminal work, The Theory of Moral Sentiments, where he explored the nature of mankind in civil society. How’s this for an Adam Smith quote: “This disposition to admire, and almost to worship, the rich and the powerful, and to despise, or, at least, to neglect persons of poor and mean condition, though necessary both to establish and to maintain the distinction of ranks and the order of society, is, at the same time, the great and most universal cause of the corruption of our moral sentiments.”

Hayek, who had the advantage of observing governments in action in the 20th Century (Smith lived his entire life in the 18th), also espoused the creation of a “safety net”. In his most read work, The Road to Serfdom, he said: "There is no reason why, in a society which has reached the general level of wealth ours has, the first kind of security should not be guaranteed to all without endangering general freedom; that is: some minimum of food, shelter and clothing, sufficient to preserve health. Nor is there any reason why the state should not help to organize a comprehensive system of social insurance in providing for those common hazards of life against which few can make adequate provision."

So, where do we go from here? The threat posed by our national debt and its evil twin, the budget deficit, are real. If current trends continue, 100% of our tax revenue will go to paying interest on the debt within 10 years. That can’t happen. And, when something can’t happen, it won’t.

It is often said that governing is about choosing. We have rarely faced choices as difficult as those we face today.

Tuesday’s State of the Union Address will be interesting on many levels, political and otherwise. The President’s public pronouncements have recently focused on helping business in the name of lowering unemployment. He even took the extraordinary step of authoring an Op Ed piece in the Wall Street Journal. Will he announce that he will introduce the recommendations of his Fiscal Commission to Congress and ask that they make them law? Will he acknowledge the work of Rep. Paul Ryan who is carrying the Republican flag, toward a compromise that will balance our budget within a decade?

Will the next two years be marked by more partisan bickering? Or, to paraphrase my usual closing question, WILL HE LEAD?