Friday, November 07, 2008

The Real Cost of the Bailout


As I've written here on this blog before, our public policy has come closer and closer to engendering moral hazards. Now, this statement has come to a sick and twisted fruition. The cause of this putried flowering is the confluence of two individual factors. The first, is President-elect Barack Obama's pledge to help the ailinig auto industry. Already bleeding money like it needs a tournequet and considering passing another series of economic stimulus packages, the deficit is already such a theoretical number that adding to it won't make much of a difference. The second is another set of behaviors that, besides the aforementioned moral hazard, are morally questionable in other ways. General Motors is burning cash like it's needed to power plant machinery lost $7.35 per share in its latest report. Furthermore, this cash crunch is putting the company in the position where it will no longer be able to fund regular operations. However, instead of consider options like marginal spending decreases, or bankruptcy, the consequences of which CEO Rick Wagoner says would be "dire", he is waiting for President Obama to pull out the checkbook and write a check to the auto industry. After all, the financial industry is in the process of receiving checks without any strings attached, so why shouldn't the Big Three, also? I'm sure Rick is also already beginning to plan how he is going to spend the bonus that he no doubt will feel he earned because he drove the company into the ground so hard and fast that the government needed to bail it out or face political consequences.  Herein lies the moral hazard and the real cost of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act. Instead of engaging in normal business practices that would help shore up the bottom line, such as closing additional plants and laying off hourly workers, or even declaring bankruptcy and arresting the further deterioration in its credit rating, a company that is potentially too big to fail, is probably going to be able to get a handout from the federal government. So, instead of receiving the punishment of the markets for not balancing its liabilities and assets properly, and for not developing products that the public is willing to purchase, a company is instead able to receive the public's money in the form of a handout, probably without any strings attached.  

No comments: