Blog Archive
Subscribe in a reader
Pondering the Big Three bailout
Posted: November 24, 2008 at 11:14 AM CST
Now that the 2008 election is behind us, the 24-hour news cycle chiefly revolves around the lagging economy. The depressing nature of the situation sure takes the momentum out of the Christmas creep that started in mid-May…
Leading several recent newscasts was the meetings between the leaders of the Big Three automakers and Congressional leaders. The meetings were part of efforts by the automakers to land needed financial assistance. As my international economics professor from college would likely tell you, I wasn’t an ace on economic issues. However, that doesn’t prohibit me from throwing ideas at the wall and seeing what sticks. For instance, why should the government (or taxpayers) give $25 billion to the Big Three automakers? If Congress is going to directly support those companies, would it make sense to give $25 billion to U.S. citizens for the sole purpose of purchasing Big Three automobiles?
It could be sort of a play on the economic stimulus checks most of us received this year. However, this time the money would be required to be spent on purchasing a new Big Three vehicle. That way auto companies get money, people help the economy by getting their own money back, and an entire fleet of older, less efficient vehicles gets taken off the road, resulting in less emissions.
Would this impact the ethanol industry? Perhaps, since the Big Three are offering quite a few flexible-fuel vehicle options. However, what fuels the Big Three’s vehicles isn’t as important right now as what goes into making the vehicles—people and the jobs associated with them.
I’m guessing I’ve already found the fatal flaw to my theory, and it’s a problem that I think even a $25 billion bailout wouldn’t solve. It wouldn’t be enough to help the automakers become more flexible and efficient in production. That’s also likely one of the reasons members of Congress weren’t ready to cut a check after the first round of meetings. After all, it wasn’t overly clear how the $25 billion figure was reached, or how it would specifically help the companies.
Do you have any suggestions? Feel free to poke holes in my theory, or add solutions of your own. After all, that $25 billion is your money, right?
-Dave Nilles
Comments
[Comment removed by moderator]
Posted by: chess obermeier | November 24, 2008 at 06:38 PM CST [Report Abuse]
[Comment removed by moderator]
Posted by: chess obermeier | November 24, 2008 at 06:38 PM CST [Report Abuse]
sorting out the carnage left in the wake of the economic meltdown.....what a mess! unfortunately i think we're in about the 3rd inning. heaping more money on a burned out economy won't help the people, just the direct reciepients. the trickle down theory will not apply.
as for the ethanol industry, they have their own mess. i'm a floor broker at the chicago board of trade and have been executing orders since the pit opened in 1985. never in my history did i witness anything like i saw this past summer. the upstairs brokers who directed the option stradegies certainly got the best of these companies. talk about churn and burn! there was not an option position put on that did not have at least three legs, and probably, three commissions. how stupid! as a farm boy from ne south dakota, i couldn't believe what was happening. these positions made no money on the way up and basically locked the end user in at the top of a bloated market. a bit of advice: next time, use the options as they were intended! also get a new broker!
sincerely,
chess obermeier, member
chicago board of trade
Posted by: chess obermeier | November 24, 2008 at 06:38 PM CST [Report Abuse]