We’ll pay for this bailout for years

GM workers: The cost of each job saved in Canada is $2 million

by Andrew Coyne on Tuesday, June 9, 2009 3:15pm - 118 Comments

We’ll pay for this bailout for yearsWhat is the cost of the federal and Ontario governments’ contribution to bailing out General Motors? We know what it is in dollar terms: $10.6 billion, or about one-fifth as much as the United States Treasury has kicked in. But how much is that?

Here’s one way to think about it. In exchange for their investment, the governments of Canada and Ontario will together receive 11.7 per cent of the equity in “New GM,” the slimmed-down company that, it is hoped, will emerge from Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection some months from now. On its last day of trading on the New York Stock Exchange, GM closed at US$0.75 a share, for a total market capitalization of about $494 million in Canadian funds. Subtract from that $10.6-billion price of the overall bailout package the roughly $1.6 billion in loans, and our governments paid $9 billion for an equity stake worth just under $58 million.

But it’s okay: over the next nine years, our governments have pledged to sell off their stake, a little bit at a time. So if the stock, say, quintuples in value in that period, we could get back as much as two cents on the dollar.

Here’s another way of looking at it. This year, GM and Chrysler, whose earlier bankruptcy filing was supported by another $3 billion from the Canadian taxpayer, will sell about 400,000 vehicles in this country. So you could say that every one of those vehicles was subsidized to the tune of about $32,000, or slightly more than the average price of a new car in Canada. Our governments could have bought every one of those cars—retail—for less than they have actually pledged.

Or here’s yet a third way. By the time GM has completed its restructuring, it will directly employ about 5,500 workers in Canada, just over half its present workforce, and down from 20,000 four years ago. Had our governments not forked over the cash, we are told, GM would have picked up all of its production and moved it to the U.S. But with the infusion of $10.6 billion in public funds, we have a reasonable prospect—no guarantees, mind you—of saving those remaining 5,500 jobs.

So, if we assume that those jobs will in fact still be there five years from now, and if we assume that GM would indeed have closed down its entire Canadian operation in the absence of such largesse, and if we assume that no additional infusions of public funds are forthcoming—each one highly debatable—then the cost of each job saved comes out to a little under $2 million.

Foul, cry the bailout’s defenders. What about all those suppliers that depend upon GM and Chrysler? And what about all the spinoffs beyond that? The Ontario premier, Dalton McGuinty, estimates 85,000 jobs would have been lost in the province had governments not stepped in to save GM. His federal counterpart, Stephen Harper, put the overall job loss had both companies closed their doors at “hundreds of thousands.”

We’ll never know, of course: it’s impossible to say how many jobs “would have” been lost had something not happened that in fact did. But two can play at that game. For there are spinoffs in both directions: the jobs that subsidy saves, and the jobs that subsidy just as surely destroys. Keeping GM and Chrysler in business means keeping capital invested in those two companies that might otherwise have been invested in other firms and other industries. It means diverting consumer dollars to purchasing their cars that might otherwise have been spent on other goods and services. As such, it means the jobs saved at GM and Chrysler come at the expense of other jobs, in other companies. We can’t know exactly how many, but we do know they would be at companies that could compete without the benefit of $13-odd-billion in public support.

And of course the total figure will come to more than that—much more. Because every single one of those dollars is borrowed. That shocking leap in the deficit Jim Flaherty announced the other day, from $34 billion in the budget to $50 billion? The greater part of it was due to Ottawa’s roughly $9 billion share of the bailout. Ontario’s deficit has likewise swelled nearly $4 billion, to $18.5 billion. So to that initial layout of $13 billion, add billions more in interest. Either spending will have to be cut on other programs to make room for this, or taxes will have to rise.

Let us suppose the latter. Is it to be doubted that a tax increase of $13 billion—roughly the cost of another two percentage points on the GST—would destroy many thousands of jobs? Would there not be a great hue and cry over this? Yet let the money be borrowed—that is, a delayed, but larger tax increase—and suddenly it’s free money. No one counts the jobs destroyed across the economy; only the jobs saved at GM and Chrysler.

And it was all so unnecessary. GM is in bankruptcy today; it could have been six months ago. Instead, it dithered, partly in hope that government aid would preserve it from this fate, which it presented as an unthinkable calamity. And all the while it went on losing money, at a rate of about $100 million a day. All the billions we are pouring in now do not even cover the losses incurred in the interim. All we will get for our money is the right to pour in more in the years to come.

Bookmark and Share
  • http://intensedebate.com/people/Jack_Mitchell Jack_Mitchell

    Andrew Coyne knows so little about economics it's amazing. I know nothing about economics and I can still tell he knows almost nothing.

    "Keeping GM and Chrysler in business means keeping capital invested in those two companies that might otherwise have been invested in other firms and other industries."

    Read the news recently, Andrew? Nobody's investing in other firms and other industries right now. There's a credit crunch. But that's not the main point: what's truly startling is that you seem to think that capital is finite. That is not how capitalism works! Capitalism is based on borrowing.

    The real question is whether Andrew Coyne is sincere or not. I can't tell anymore. I wonder if he can.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/JustinWordswrth JustinWordswrth

      Econoclast

      Capitalism is based on borrowing therefore capital is infinite?!?!?!?!

      Oh dear. The ludicrous logic of your syllogistic nightmare is actually quite relevant to our current economic condition. To put it simply, the most significant contributor to our poor economy is the fact that so few people understand economics.

      The fact that you would use such ignorant argumentation against another person's understanding of economics would be an amusing slice of irony if the consequences weren't so severe.

      Capital is infinite? No, the only infinite resource in Canada is dumb ideas.

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/Jack_Mitchell Jack_Mitchell

        Not infinite, dumbass, "not finite." Don't know the difference? Try taking an M.A. from the LSE.

        • http://intensedebate.com/people/JustinWordswrth JustinWordswrth

          If something is not finite it is infinite.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/Jack_Mitchell Jack_Mitchell

            Um, no.

            Something which is finite is defined and precisely limited; something which is infinite is both undefined and, by definition, unlimited. Between what is precisely limited and what is unlimited there is that lovely grey area where economics happens and things like credit are neither finite nor infinite, neither precisely defined and limited nor unlimited, namely "not finite." The point being that the government's ability to borrow gives it the (potentially dangerous) power to alter the amount of capital in the market by fiat. I don't think this is generally a good idea — we will have to pay it back at some point, after all, and pay to borrow it in the meantime — but where the government is concerned the economy really isn't a zero-sum game. That's the whole problem with allowing the government into the market!!

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/JustinWordswrth JustinWordswrth

            One thing cannot be at once not limited and not unlimited. You accuse people of not understanding words or terms. This is half true. People do not understand the words that you use in the way that you intend because you are making up what they mean.

            As long as you continue to use words in accordance with what you think they mean instead of what they actually mean, you are not making arguments, you are making noise.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/Jack_Mitchell Jack_Mitchell

            All I said was that capital is not finite. You're the one who interpreted that to mean "capital is infinite"! I wasn't making an argument, I was remarking the straightforward observation that the government can raise more capital than would otherwise be available. Having to spell it out for you has taken us on a needless tangent.

          • http://www.intensedebate.com/people/Jack_Mitchell Jack_Mitchell

            All I said was that capital is not finite. You're the one who interpreted that to mean "capital is infinite"! I wasn't making an argument, I was making the straightforward observation that the government can raise more capital than would otherwise be available. Having to spell it out for you has taken us on a needless tangent.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/JustinWordswrth JustinWordswrth

            No one, citizen or government, can raise more capital than is available. Any capital beyond what is available is not "raised", it is created.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/Jack_Mitchell Jack_Mitchell

            Quite true — but we are talking about world capitalism. There is a lot of money out there and we couldn't borrow it all if we tried.

    • Mike Jr

      Jack's right about his own knowledge of economics at least.

    • Brian

      Lol. I guess Andrew's master's degree from the London School of Economics is worthless? Maybe he should take up poetry like Jack "Death Before Dishonour".

      Read the news recently, Andrew? Nobody's investing in other firms and other industries right now. There's a credit crunch. But that's not the main point: what's truly startling is that you seem to think that capital is finite. That is not how capitalism works! Capitalism is based on borrowing.

      Its true Jack. You don't know a lot about economics or capitalisim. Andrew wasn't suggesting that money is finite, he was suggesting that taking the fruits of productive labour and giving it to unproductive labour is a bad idea.

      Moreoever, the government doesn't make "investments" – it takes money by force and gives it those people / causes / groups which tend to provide the best electoral return rather than financial return.

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/Jack_Mitchell Jack_Mitchell

        Ooooh, a M.A. from the LSE. Now I'm scared. Wow, you really must have to understand economics to get one of those, eh? Not. It's a middling M.A. (1 or 2-year degree, probably the former) he earned decades ago.

        Coyne ("Andrew" to you, since apparently you're sleeping together) was saying that money invested / sunk into GM is money taken out of the productive economy. It isn't. We're borrowing it. It would not be available to give to non-loser businesses otherwise (and anyway Coyne would hit the roof if it were!). This is not a zero-sum game!

        Honestly, you guys apparently think that economics is like home finance, and you have a certain number of pennies in your piggy bank and no more. Jesus.

        • http://intensedebate.com/people/JustinWordswrth JustinWordswrth

          Borrowing it from whom?

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/Jack_Mitchell Jack_Mitchell

            From capitalists who will lend the government the money that they won't lend failed companies, since the government can't go bankrupt.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/JustinWordswrth JustinWordswrth

            Governments can go bankrupt.

            However, governments are unlikely to go bankrupt because governments print the money they owe. For evidence that this is a bad thing, see Zimbabwe, see the Weimar Republic, see the Contintenal dollar.

            When governments "borrow" money, it is the citizens that have to pay it back, many of whom do not approve of the bail-out of bad auto companies. I ask you, is it "borrowing" if the lender does not consent to it?

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/Jack_Mitchell Jack_Mitchell

            In a democracy, citizens by definition consent to a government's actions, since they are represented by the government.

            You're right that bankruptcy is a possibility — and between you and me I'd be a bit worried about that if I were Irish or English — but the point is that the government can raise capital much more easily than private companies can; so it can have a very distortive effect on the market, but it can also get away with things like this GM bailout.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/JustinWordswrth JustinWordswrth

            In a democracy, the majority of citizens consent to a government's action, not all.

            However, democracies come in many different flavours. In a pure democracy, every citizen (except for children) would have a vote on every government action – like a bail-out. It is not inconceivable that the majority of Canadians do disapprove of the bail-out, but that their representation is letting them down. But enough of this, I do not want to make this a debate about the democratic system.

            What I do want to debate is the government's ability to raise capital. If by "raise capital" you mean even further increasing the tax burden on Canadians, then, yes, it can raise capital much, much more easily than private companies… and to much, much more vitiating consequences.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/Jack_Mitchell Jack_Mitchell

            No, in a democracy all citizens consent to the government's action, i.e. admit the legitimacy of the government; if they don't, and they do something about it, they go to jail. Try it and see.

            I don't disagree with you that the government should avoid borrowing. I'm a simple-ol' balanced books guy. But it's misleading to pretend that increased borrowing means increased taxation in the short or medium term, such that you could honestly say (with Andrew Coyne, MA) that government borrowing / investment is a straight dip into the profitable private sector's and citizens' pockets. It is borrowing against the future and the main expense accrued is the short-term interest payment.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/madeyoulook madeyoulook

            But it's misleading to pretend that increased borrowing means increased taxation in the short or medium term, such that you could honestly say (with Andrew Coyne, MA) that government borrowing / investment is a straight dip into the profitable private sector's and citizens' pockets. It is borrowing against the future and the main expense accrued is the short-term interest payment.

            Is that s'posed to somehow justify this present insanity?

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/Jack_Mitchell Jack_Mitchell

            No, it's meant to justify my initial charge of sophistry against AC, for which I was roundly mocked for my ignorance of economics.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/JustinWordswrth JustinWordswrth

            To say that all citizens in a democracy consent to the actions of the government because if they don't they will go to jail, is a statement that is so logically tortured that one would think you must have composed it at Guantanamo Bay. The most galling error is your egregiously incorrect use of the word "consent".

            George Orwell would not be proud.

            Furthermore, your statement can be demonstrably false. I am a citizen of a democracy. I do not approve of or consent to the government's actions vis-a-vis the auto-bailout. Thus, it is proved that not all citizens in a democracy consent to the government's actions.

            To the next point…

            The Canadian Government spends on behalf of Canadian citizens. All government spending is a straight dip into the – not just profitable, but unprofitable – private sector's and citizens' pockets – this is, it is a dip into all taxpayers pockets. Government borrowing is a debt to all taxpayers.

            Now, debt can be good or bad, depending what one is going into debt for. Taking a loan in order to build a factory that will end up being profitable is good debt. Taking a loan in order to slow the terminal fall of an unprofitable company is bad debt.

            Assuming the government is not just going to print the money to pay away this debt (always a bad assumption), the debt will be paid with capital, capital that, despite arguments or "observations" to the contrary, is finite!

            The capital that will be used to pay off the wasted debt will be capital that could have gone to much better businesses. It is sort of like taking out an immense loan in order to buy an exotic piece of machinery that will keep an ailing grandparent alive for a few extra weeks. The grandparent gets a few weeks more of life, the grandkids will be paying off the debt for the rest of their lives – at the expense of the much more useful things they could buy.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/Jack_Mitchell Jack_Mitchell

            If you think that democratic governments don't govern by consent, there is nothing worth discussing with you, Justin.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/JustinWordswrth JustinWordswrth

            Not all actions of a democratic governments are consented to by all citizens. Democracy, by definition, is the tyranny of the majority.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/Jack_Mitchell Jack_Mitchell

            Not in Canada. We swear allegiance to the CROWN.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/sea_n_mountains sea_n_mountains

            "Now, debt can be good or bad, depending what one is going into debt for. Taking a loan in order to build a factory that will end up being profitable is good debt. Taking a loan in order to slow the terminal fall of an unprofitable company is bad debt."

            This is a normative oversimplification. There are many other considerations beyond ROI that determine good and bad debt.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/JustinWordswrth JustinWordswrth

            Such as?

          • Right Winger

            So you're saying that capitalists won't lend to failed companies….so they lend to the government instead…and the government then turns around and lends the money to failed companies…do I have this right?

            Rule # 1 – If investing in GM and Chrysler was a good value, the private sector would've done it already and no gov't money would be required.

            Let's face facts, Canadians paid $10 billion so Obama can win Michigan in the next election.

        • http://www.intensedebate.com/people/Jack_Mitchell Jack_Mitchell

          F*ck you, Brian. I can guarantee you that poets do better on the reproductive side than Andrew Coyne's bootlickers do.

          Anyway, it's you who are wrong because the money would not be available because we are not raising taxes. Noticed that, eh? Noticed that we are borrowing the money?

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/Jack_Mitchell Jack_Mitchell

        I can't help noting that Coyne and his pets enjoy mocking the motto "Death Before Dishonour." It goes to show what a miserable bunch of flabby little gringos these libertarian-ulilitarian ideologues are that this is the motto of, among other organisations, the US Marine Corps (well, it has several). For these 135-pound weaklings, physical courage and personal honour are to be equated with Dungeons and Dragons! It goes to show how amazingly isolated from actual manhood these people are.

      • http://www.intensedebate.com/people/Jack_Mitchell Jack_Mitchell

        I can't help noting that Coyne and his pets enjoy mocking the motto "Death Before Dishonour." It goes to show what a miserable bunch of flabby little gringos these libertarian-ulilitarian ideologues are that this is the motto of, among other organisations, the US Marine Corps (well, it has several). For these 135-pound weaklings, physical courage and personal honour are to be equated with Dungeons and Dragons! It goes to show how amazingly isolated from actual manhood these fellows are.

        • Brian

          That Dungeons and Dragons line sure had an effect on you, hey Jack? I guess its ok for you to openly mock anyone and everyone, but when someone points out the high probability that you are a dragon master virgin, you take offense. what a shame.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/Jack_Mitchell Jack_Mitchell

            I was mocking Coyne for his ideas and for his public persona. You apparently decided that because I'm a poet who believes in honour you would mock poetry and honour. Obviously I can't mock you back personally, Brian, because you're such an incredible coward that you post personal insults while hiding behind your anonymity. Well, you are typical of the Coyne crowd, and there is no more severe insult in my deck than that. As to your scurrility, I've posted my fucking website and you can see that I've lived all over the world and, I can tell you, lived a better life than you have, Brian, in all departments (from available evidence, that is).

          • scf

            How do you define "better", oh godly one, and is that infinitely better or finitely better? Moving around a lot? Feel free to use your usual tactic of making up false definitions for known words.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/Jack_Mitchell Jack_Mitchell

            Oh dear, another game of sf 0, dictionary 5. Swept at home, too, the fans are sad.

    • Bill Simpson

      Jack – I am afraid you are very wide of the mark. In fact, investment is going on very well right now(there are a lot of bargains for the discerning investor) and Ford just raised a bundle of money on the open markets.

      Most of the major banks in the US have recapitalized (read the news?) and the markets are returning to normal.

      The very fact of government investment in this wildly uneconomic fashion heavily distorts all the normal controls. Since the bond-holders have all been screwed over by the US government, no-one in their right mind will invest in GM again, so we really are on the hook for it. Forever.

      Two words: British Leyland.

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/Jack_Mitchell Jack_Mitchell

        I'm not in favour of the GM bailout, Bill, and I don't dispute your take on what a bad investment it is. I'm in favour of attacking it with economic and policy arguments that are not ideologically driven and which do not pretend that grand cosmic concepts can be applied to particular policy.

        "The markets are returning to normal" . . . I will believe that in a couple of months.

      • Mulletaur

        The markets are returning to normal-ish because of government intervention in the banking system and the economy in general, not in spite of it. If we had followed the laissez faire economic philosophy of those who think like Coyne in government policy at the time it was happening, we would have a full scale Great Depression II on our hands. The whole ABCP mess has not been totally sorted out yet, nor, as you point out, have all the major banks been recapitalized yet. The danger of a systemic failure is still there, although things are certainly improving.

        • http://intensedebate.com/people/madeyoulook madeyoulook

          Too bad this increasing debt is leaving future generations so little wiggle room. They might have liked a little prosperity, too. Ah, well, they can always steal from their kids, and so on, and so on…

          • Mulletaur

            5 years of putting the books back in balance or 20 years of mass unemployment and possible social and political unrest – or worse, a change from capitalism to socialism, total disaster. Ya pays your money and ya takes your chances.

            Sometimes people forget that Keynes was trying to save capitalism, not bury it.

        • ABarlow

          Actually, the histroy of the Great Depression is littered with government bailout schemes for various industries. Whether or not these bailouts provided any relief or exacerbated the downturn is still hotly debated.

          In terms of Canada itself, I think it is hard to argue that we would be any worse off had the government done nothing. Only, what, 3%? of the stimulus money that the government has created has actually been dispersed into the economy, and already the indicators are suggesting that the worst is over. The stimulus package was effectively a $50 billion economic placebo.

          • Mulletaur

            By the time the bailouts took place, the whole financial and banking system had collapsed, taking economic production with it. Policy makers learned their lesson – they supported the financial and banking system while ensuring that no big corporate collapses were capable of bringing down the same.

            It seems that we are all rationalists here, nobody talks about maintaining that elusive metaphysical factor in the economy known as 'confidence'. It was governments showing that they would do whatever it takes to stop the financial and economic system from collapsing like an overdone soufflé that contributed in great part to the prevention of the financial and economic system collapsing. A bit more economic post-modernism, please.

    • Dieter Sprockets

      good points.

    • http://www.geoffcosteloe.com Geoff Costeloe

      Jack,
      Its opinions such as yours that got us into a credit crunch in the first place. True borrowing and loans are an essential part of capitalism but at the end of the day the brilliance of a market economy is its ability to actually get tangible deliverables into consumers hands. To think that the money you borrowed comes from nowhere is naive. When a bank loans money out they are inheriting a risk that they believe will pay off for them. If you default the bank doesn't just loose dreams and rainbows they lose the ability to pay back their investors. Look at various South American economies. A sudden surge of insecurity and everyone rushes to get cash out of the bank, causing a run.

      The reason that the credit crunch has occurred is exactly the opposite of what you are saying. The reality of limited capital hit the investment sector like a ton of bricks and they couldn't balance the books with 'real' money.

      If you need another reason why capital is finite, think of this: there are a limited number of resources on the planet. We can find and increase the amount that is available through technologies but there are a limited number of cards in the deck. That is what creates demand in the first place.

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/Jack_Mitchell Jack_Mitchell

        The crazy leveraging of the investment banks over the last five years is not really analogous to the government's ability to raise capital; and we are hardly in a South American situation, ie. the Canadian government will never default. For one thing, compared to the vast sums of money tied up in SIV's etc. this $30B buy-in on the part of the government is literally chump change.

  • Mulletaur

    By your calculation, what would the cost of a total economic collapse like happened in the 1930's cost ? Two major car companies going under could set off a cascade of company failures just as dangerous as the bank failures in the United States. Are you saying that GM and Chrysler can be allowed to fail without systemic risk to the economy ? Policy makers are clearly not willing to take this risk. Perhaps they are being too risk averse for you – not 'entrepreneurial' enough ?

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/Jack_Mitchell Jack_Mitchell

      Coyne would happily see us hit 20% unemployment if it conformed to his idée fixe. After all, there's always a demand for carping from the sidelines, so his job is secure.

  • knick

    "All we will get for our money is the right to pour in more in the years to come."
    It would be cheaper and a whole lot more productive to bail out the auto workers by helping them retrain so they can continue to make a contribution to the country's economy.
    If there had been some stipulations for GM in order to get our hard-earned money, it would seem a little less like we're being had. The government could have, for instance, required that a percentage of GM's production, advertising, and sales be for electric or hybrid vehicles. They had the technology over 20 years ago, but trashed it for some strange reason.

    • ltr

      I do not know if you can retrain an auto worker. What type of employment is available for a high school drop out that pays over $80,000 per year?

  • Darren

    ok this isnt complicated. money IS a finite resource, its just lended from one to another, thats how credit works, credit isnt just someone prints money and gives it to someone else because then y would they care if they get paid back. the fact weve spent 10 billion means theres ten billion less for other things like gee…paying down debt, novel concept that is

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/robert_mccl6309 Robert McClelland

    It would be cheaper and a whole lot more productive to bail out the auto workers by helping them retrain

    Help them retrain for what?

    • knick

      A job.
      I know that's a stretch right now, but there actually are employers looking for workers. Health care comes to mind, and there will be even more demand for workers as the population continues to age.

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/robert_mccl6309 Robert McClelland

        Do you really believe there are lots of guys working on the auto assembly lines that could be retrained to become healthcare providers.

        • knick

          I have no idea if there are lots. I would guess there would be some guys as well as a few gals who might consider that kind of retraining. However, if you mean by 'could' that auto workers aren't intellectually capable of learning a skill in health care, that's a different matter.

  • Bill Simpson

    I can't get my head around why Harper did this. He knows that this bailout is economic nonsense (he has laid out the reasons a hundred times in the past), so either there is some huge pressure from the States he can't resist (which I doubt), or he simply can't face the possibility of losing a few seats in Ontario. Neither of the reasons is defensible.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/madeyoulook madeyoulook

      What Bill said.

      • scf

        The stigma of GM packing up and leaving Canada. And the fact that most people cannot do math, let alone balance a cheque-book. Most voters would wake up and say "GM's gone? What happened? There goes my vote."

        • http://intensedebate.com/people/keith_c keith_c

          my theory is that Harper wants to drag the pain out over a few years rather than take some massive hit now. once the oilpatch is red-hot again thru 2010-12 then more of GM can be let go and Alberta will start sucking in workers again. Meanwhile the non-dysfunctional auto parts companies in southern ontario get a few years to adjust to the tough new reality.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/DerekPearce DerekPearce

      Harper wouldn't simply have lost "a few seats in Ontario." If GM/Chrysler had collapsed, the federal Conservatives would have been totally wiped out in Ontario a la 1993, and for years to come.

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/keith_c keith_c

        um .. that's ludicrous. hard tory base in Ontario is eastern Ontario – Cheryl Gallant country – suburban ottawa. those people don't have much to do with Big Auto Plenty of the Toronto suburban voters aren't keen on bailouts of CAW land either. Would the Tories hurt bad from oakville thru windsor? yes. but not 1993 level

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/JustinWordswrth JustinWordswrth

    Paper Cuts

    Actually credit is created, not literally printed but effectively done so with accounting transactions, but it shouldn't be. Canadians have not been saving. The savings rate has been at, around, and possibly even less than, zero. Credit comes from savings, and savings rates like these would dictate exorbitant interest rates. While people complain about the 18 per cent they pay on their credit cards, it is actually far too low.

    The reason credit card companies can charge such low interest rates is because the money they lend out isn't real. Here is an example, if I borrow 10 gold coins from Mark, I can then lend 10 coins to Joe, then I will have no more coins to lend. Credit card companies do not operate this way. They can lend indenfinitely because they do not lend real money, just add or subtract a number on a piece of paper or on a hard drive.

    This system will work for a while, but only a while. The inflation (increase in the money supply, not rising prices) it creates leads to malinvestment, that is, people paying too much for assets. This is a bubble, and bubbles burst. When the bubble bursts, the market adjusts asset prices to their real values, and people realise that they have assets are not worth what they have paid for them (see Housing Bubble). The result is that people default on their loans and the minimum payments on credit required to keep the system running, stop.

    • scf

      They can lend indefinitely because they do not lend real money

      There is no truth to that statement. There is no such thing as "real" money, vs some other kind of money. When you make a purchase on a credit card, the vendor is paid by the credit card company. The vendor goes to the supermarket and puts food on the table with that "real" money. Some businesses take in all their money through credit card companies. They cannot lend indefinitely because too many defaults will prevent them from paying the vendors.

      For instance, suppose 5 guys buy $10 each on their card from a vendor. The credit card company charges a small fee, and owes the vendor 5 times 9$. Suppose 1 of those guys goes bankrupt and never pays off the card. Then the card company took in $40 needs to pay out $45. Where is that money gonna come from? A credit card company is a business like any other. It takes a cut (from vendors and also interest from debtors) for being the intermediary in transactions. But if it does not get paid the money it is owed, then it will go bankrupt just like any other business. Card companies also have labour and infrastructure costs just like any other company, which further erodes their ability to earn a profit.

      The rest of your comments are somewhat correct, though.

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/JustinWordswrth JustinWordswrth

        The vendor is paid by the credit card company by having the value of the purchase added to his bank account. The point remains that these are just transactions on paper.

        If I have a business lending out bikes, I obviously can't lend out the same bike to two people at the same time.

        If banks and credit card companies dealt with money that was minted of gold coins, their lending would be restricted in exactly the same way I was with my bikes. This is what I mean by real money.

        But credit card companies are not thus restricted, they can just write down a number and, poof!, here's your credit balance.

        Of course, once this money enters the economy it becomes real money, and we have just witnessed the process of inflation.

  • LB_

    Andrew Coyne for Finance Minister Anyone?

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/Jack_Mitchell Jack_Mitchell

      That's a laugh.

    • http://www.intensedebate.com/people/Jack_Mitchell Jack_Mitchell

      He's already Columnist Anyone, why not Finance Minister Anyone?

      • Barbara Frum

        Yes, Anyone for Finance Minister other than the current toady.

  • Stephen

    5.8% increase in GDP at the current tax rate pays back the 13 billion. Given that the economy rarely increases at that rate then the statement that we will be paying for it for years (more than 1) is an accurate one.

    That being said I am quite torn. I am more ticked off about the initial bailout money. It was clear that GM had to go to into Bankruptcy…but the handout turned out to be the money down the hole that it was.

    In normal times, a normal functioning credit system, then there would have been DIP financing available for GM to go through its restructuring. Unfortunatley this isnt the case at this stage, and that is my justification for what the government has done. I just wish the US and Canada had pushed for this solution day one. We would have saved a few billion!

  • http://www.intensedebate.com/people/Crit_Reasoning Crit_Reasoning

    The fact is that we have a large number of Tier I, II and III auto parts suppliers in Canada whose very existence depends on the presence of GM and Chrysler manufacturing facilities. These suppliers employ tens of thousands of Canadians and generate millions in spinoff benefits to southern Ontario. So the calculation that Canada spent $2 million per job saved is very, very wrong.

    I'm not really a fan of the auto bailout, but Andrew, you should read some industry research reports or at least give DesRosiers a call.

  • Craig O.

    There is nothing wrong with bailouts in general, but I think Andrew Coyne has hit the nail on the head in saying that this particular one is too expensive. The opportunities to profit from this investment are small and long-term, the jobs saved are going to be ones that are either unnecessary (and going to be lost anyway) or easily replaced by investing in other companies for significantly less money. Worse, these bailouts are self-destructive, as consumer demand for GM and Chrysler vehicles drops with each dollar that they receive in government funding. Investment was needed to stabilize the manufacturing industry, especially in Ontario, but the Ontario and Federal governments have likely picked the wrong investment.

    However, I will take exception to Coyne's assertion that a rise in GST would cause significant job losses. The cut in GST didn't cause significant job gains – unemployment just continued its already downward trend when the GST was cut, compounded by the local natural resource booms in Alberta and Saskatchewan. Why would a GST rise of the same amount have a greater effect?

  • http://www.intensedebate.com/people/Crit_Reasoning Crit_Reasoning

    The fact is that we have a large number of Tier I, II and III auto parts suppliers in Canada whose very existence depends on the presence of GM and Chrysler assembly facilities. These suppliers employ tens of thousands of Canadians and generate millions in spinoff benefits to southern Ontario. So the calculation that Canada spent $2 million per job saved is very, very wrong.

    I'm not really a fan of the auto bailout, but Andrew, you should read some industry research reports or at least give DesRosiers a call.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/Jack_Mitchell Jack_Mitchell

      Are you suggesting that Mr. Coyne should actually do some work?

      • scf

        Go back to boot-licking Wells and Wherry and leave poor ol' Coyne alone.

        • http://www.intensedebate.com/people/Jack_Mitchell Jack_Mitchell

          I love it when you learn a new word, sf, it's so cute.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/madeyoulook madeyoulook

      Are you suggesting that North Americans would stop buying automobiles made in North America if GM and Chrysler died off?

      If no: Look around: Lots of non-Big-3 cars are being made here, with parts made here. If we end up buying still more Hondas and Toyotas, Magna's getting even more orders.

      If yes: all the more reason we'd better kill off these industries with no customers and let the market find something productive for these people to do.

      • Mulletaur

        And soon, Frank Stronach will be producing Opel cars here in Canada. Which I would be very tempted to buy if I were not a loyal Ford customer.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/andrewcoyne Andrew Coyne

      I thought I dealt with this in the next several paragraphs. Beginning with "Foul, cry the bailout’s defenders. What about all those suppliers that depend upon GM and Chrysler? And what about all the spinoffs beyond that?"

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/Crit_Reasoning Crit_Reasoning

        Yes, but I found your rebuttal of this point unconvincing. "We’ll never know, of course: it’s impossible to say how many jobs “would have” been lost had something not happened that in fact did." Based on this reasoning, you decided to tally the supplier job losses at zero for purposes of your "money spent per job saved" calculation.

        Obviously we'll never "know", in an ontological sense, but it is indeed possible to guess how many jobs could be lost by consulting independent research reports on the sector and tallying the number of Canadian suppliers who rely on these companies for most of their business.

      • http://www.intensedebate.com/people/Crit_Reasoning Crit_Reasoning

        Yes, but I found your rebuttal of this point unconvincing. "We’ll never know, of course: it’s impossible to say how many jobs “would have” been lost had something not happened that in fact did." Based on this reasoning, you decided to count the supplier job losses as "zero" for purposes of your "money spent per job saved" calculation.

        Obviously we'll never "know", in an ontological sense, but it is indeed possible to guess how many jobs could be lost by consulting independent research reports on the sector and tallying the number of Canadian suppliers who rely on these companies for most of their business.

        • http://www.intensedebate.com/people/JustinWordswrth JustinWordswrth

          If jobs are lost, it is because they are unnecessary.

          What is the point of paying GM to make cars that nobody wants, just so that its suppliers are kept in business, even if the cars just end up sitting in a lot?

          We would be better keeping the lot empty so that somebody can build a factory on it and produce a product that people actually want.

          In these environmentally crazed times, everyone seems obsessed with reducing waste – except when it comes to money. And remember, our money is pure paper.

          So don't think of it as killing jobs, think of it as saving trees.

    • http://www.intensedebate.com/people/Crit_Reasoning Crit_Reasoning

      Coyne's reply, my reply, and Wordsworth's reply all seem to have disappeared. Very strange.

  • hosertohoosier

    I'm not wild about the auto bailout (I don't think government ownership will fix anything, particularly since Obama isn't going to overturn the ridiculous US legacy costs), but I am okay with the principal of it, and recognize that Canada doesn't really have much of a choice – without government money Canadian plants would go to the US.

    What Mr. Coyne doesn't seem to get is that Canada is directly responding to foreign subsidization. Ontario's comparative advantage is most definitely in automobile production – we have the lowest production costs in North America. However, the United States is committed to locating as much of North American production as possible in its own backyard. Not subsidizing would cost Canada both its plants, the downstream firms connected to those plants, positive externalities from automobile production and the service sector jobs generated by the economic activity in the auto industry. After only a short period of time, moreover, Canada's viability as an auto producer would disappear as the accumulated know-how of the past 50 years withered away.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/JustinWordswrth JustinWordswrth

      If Ontario has a comparative advantage in automobile production, why would companies move their plants to the U.S.?

      If your answer is: subsidies – I ask you, what good is a job that you have to pay for? Jobs should bring you a profit, not cost you your profit.

      If the United States wants to subsidise its auto industry, good! We will buy their cars and they will effectively be subsidising our imports. We can then use the money we save to invest in building better industries, ones that we don't have to buy our jobs from.

      • Mulletaur

        The same argument could apply to agriculture. I challenge you make the case for it.

        • http://intensedebate.com/people/JustinWordswrth JustinWordswrth

          I make the case for all industries.

          • Mulletaur

            No, I mean, actually make the case. Prove, using facts and arguments, that Canada would be better off by having a totally free and unfettered market in agricultural products using the same reasoning. You can't, and you know it, as does everybody else.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/JustinWordswrth JustinWordswrth

            To make the same argument for agriculture could you not just take the original statement and replace every instance of auto/car to agriculture?

            I really do think that the example is relevant to any and all industries. Is one in a better economic position if he subsidises his own agricultural purchases (no savings), or if his agricultural purchases are subsidised by someone else?

            If you are a producer of anything and your product cannot bring you a profit unless you receive subsidies, then the market is sending you a message that you should be producing something else.

          • Mulletaur

            "To make the same argument for agriculture could you not just take the original statement and replace every instance of auto/car to agriculture?"

            Nope, otherwise governments of all political stripes would have done so a long, long time ago. Both the Europeans and the Yankees spend huge amount of dough supporting their farmers. Ours would go banko very quickly if they had to compete without subsidy or market support in markets where other producers are more or less paying farmers in other countries to produce. We also can't even really compete on subsidies : our pockets just aren't that deep, and agriculture is too dodgy. And all of that is before any political considerations.

          • http://www.intensedebate.com/people/JustinWordswrth JustinWordswrth

            I'm sorry, I am not really understanding what your are trying to say.

            Are you saying we are better or worse off because of our farm subsidies?

          • Mulletaur

            I'm not really passing judgement on whether we are better or worse off because of farm subsidies, but I am trying to make the case (perhaps not very well) that our agricultural subsidies (and other supply measures) are absolutely necessary in the face of subsidized agricultural production elsewhere. That is the policy judgement all countries have made up to now with the possible exception of New Zealand – no country has been willing to get rid of their subsidies (and supply measures) unilaterally for fear of damaging their domestic farming industry. They only do so when other countries against whom they compete follow suit.

            Perhaps everybody is wrong. But subsidies persist despite great efforts to negotiate them away at various GATT negotiation rounds, and the Kiwis are the only ones I am aware of who completely dropped their subsidies.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/JustinWordswrth JustinWordswrth

            If the object is to keep ones domestic farming industry competitive through subsidies, it will inevitably become an arms race.

            Certainly, if the goal is to protect agriculture in one's nation, subsidies will be needed to combat subsidies in other nations. But why should the goal be to protect agriculture in his own country? Subsidies come at the expense of other people, and thus, other industries.

            Now if we stopped subsiding our farms and bought our agricultural products from the countries who remained subsidising, they would, in effect, be subsidising our imports – which is an economic benefit, a free gift really, to us.

            So what would happen to our farmers? Yes, it would drive some out of business, and they would need to find work elsewhere. But can the rest of the world make up for the subtraction of the Canadian goods from the market? Demand for other countries' products will go up, which will drive prices up (except, of course, it is probably the subsidies that will go up).

            To summarise tersely, I do not think that agricultural products are absolutely necessary for our economy, but I do think they are absolutely necessary for our democracy.

            I am tempted here to leave you with a short passage from Joseph Heller's Catch-22, regarding the farther of Major Major Major Major:

            His specialty was alfalfa, and he made a good living out of not growing any. The government paid him well for every bushel of alfalfa he did not grow. The more alfalfa he did not grow, the more money the government gave him, and he spent every penny he didn't earn on new land to increase the amount of alfalfa he did not produce. Major Major's father worked without rest at not growing alfalfa. On long winter evenings he remained indoors and did not mend harness, and he sprang out of bed at the crack of noon every day just to make certain that the chores would not be done. He invested in land wisely and soon was not growing more alfalfa than any other man in the country.

  • Stephen

    The car compnaies remian masters of the shakedown. Sometimes done with the Unions sometimes on their own.

    With individual companies no longer being so dominant, both within the industry and the industry within the economy they lose some power. One hopes going forward future governments will be able to say no.

    The only silver lining out of this is that government intervention foced changes that werent happening on their own. However, a bunkruptcy court would have made simialr changes (another form of state intervention by the way) but it wouldnt have cost taxpayers anything and there wouldnt be the tempation for politics.

    The limits of whatever usefulness government ownership had ae fast approaching.

    • Mulletaur

      The solution is to break the oligopoly of the big car companies, break entry barriers to car production and use the power of governments to regulate markets to ensure that the structure of the industry is many smaller producers rather than a few big ones. China and India are producing cars now, their companies should be encouraged to set up here, and if they are not interested, at least we should pull down barriers to importing their cars into North America.

      In other words, we need to make the so-called 'capitalist' economy work the way that it is supposed to, giving us the sort of benefits that Adam Smith and others have claimed for it. But that's silly, because as everybody knows, capitalism as Adam Smith described it does not and has never existed.

  • http://www.citymydada.blogspot.com truemuse

    Isn't the cost of every government job 2 miliion dollars? 166 working at EHealth made over 100K a year. Sarah Kramer gets 500K for a few months of work. Yeah…I think my math is right.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/Crit_Reasoning Crit_Reasoning

    Coyne's reply, my reply, and Wordworth's reply all seem to have disappeared. Very strange.

  • Critical Reasoning

    Never mind. It was some ridiculous "IntenseDebate" bug. Nested replies are sometimes hidden, arbitrarily. Their code is still very much a "work in progress" (as opposed to a relatively bug-free finished product). I guess we'll have to put up with it for a few more months until more changes are made.

  • scf

    There is also the consideration that the market share abandoned by a collapse of GM would have been filled by another company, and that other company would need additional parts to make their cars.

    • Mulletaur

      True, but the gap between the time that GM collapsed and the time that any company just breaking into the market would have started producing cars means that all the parts suppliers would have collapsed. And, given the fragility of the financial system, perhaps that would have triggered something much more serious and profound.

  • scf

    Good point. We can either pay GM or Kramer, but there is not enough money to do both.

  • Mulletaur

    Just remember that in the their first economic update after the last federal election, the Harper government was the only one in the world which, faced with a leaky economic boat, bailed water back into the boat with their contractionary budget.

  • http://www.intensedebate.com/people/DerekPearce DerekPearce

    Coyne's point that money invested in the auto bailout (plus the subsequent consumer $ use to purchase GM/Chr products) is talking money away from other companies/industries is sound, from this non-economists perspective anyhow. I hadn't thought of it that way before, and asked in other blog discussions "What about the outward wave of economic damage if they fail?" So okay, fine, in a macro sense this may lead to lower productivity and, through interest on debt, sap more money per job protected than it is technically worth.

    *Sigh.* But what about in a micro-economic sense? Those of us on the centre-left are not whacky bleeding-hearts if we think letting the market work strictly on its own terms causes major upheaval, disruption, pain etc. to the many of individual THOUSANDS of families whose earners would be thrown out of work. You don't have to be Jack Layton or Jim Stanford to think this. Job retraining is a great idea– a laid-off member of my immediate family is one such programme– but realistically only a minority percentage of auto workers (not just at GM/Chrys, but at their suppliers and in the service industries of all of their affected communities) would successfully transition to jobs where the pay is comparative.
    No-one is owed a job and, apart from high wages, the too-sweet benefits packages unions demanded & to which mngmt agreed over the years have made them uncompetitive, and that has begun to be addressed. But if the market was left to its own devices and investment/purchasing $$ naturally flowed where it "should", what would be the cost in terms of say, rising crime rates, increased alcohol or drug addiction, domestic abuse and municipal (of any size) decay? God, I sound like Maud Barlow or something and it makes me gag a bit, but these are valid considerations.

    Lastly– Jack Mitchell, get hold of yourself boy! It's possible to disagree with Coyne without calling him an evil reptilian kitten-eater ;^)

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/JustinWordswrth JustinWordswrth

      The free market answer to your question is that the bankruptcies would allow better companies to buy up the good assets and expand their operations, leading to productivity, jobs, etc.

      The problem with easing the pain of a recession is that is causes the recession to turn into a depression. Then, crime, addiction, and alcoholism, and all the other things I like to do (kidding) will become even more prevalent.

      The business failures will cause immediate and severe pain, but only temporarily. The bailouts will make the decline less steep, but the painful repercussions will be felt for much longer.

      • Mulletaur

        "The free market answer to your question is that the bankruptcies would allow better companies to buy up the good assets and expand their operations, leading to productivity, jobs, etc."

        Pointless if the economy has crashed so badly that nobody has any money to buy anything except for food and shelter. Remember the Great Depression ?

        • http://intensedebate.com/people/JustinWordswrth JustinWordswrth

          Purchasing power comes from production. Encouraging unproductive sectors at the expense of productive ones does not ameliorate the problems, it exacerbates them.

          If the economy has crashed so badly that nobody has any money to buy anything except for food and shelter, then the argument against spending money on auto production is strengthened. It is the equivalent of saying that there is no demand for cars, among almost everything else.

          Now, if you are talking about making cars for export, the problem is that the countries with whom we would like to trade already make cars much more cheaply than we can.

          • Craig O.

            Purchasing power does not just come from production, it comes from production and then subsequent consumption. You can't have one without the other in a stable economy – production has no value if the products are not put to use.

            The free market solution doesn't necessarily apply in a recession – even good companies are stretched to the limit and don't have the funding to pick up the good assets from bankruptcies. They'll pick out the very best elements, but that still leaves many solid components of failing companies left out. Even in bankruptcy, there needs to be willing investors and recessions mean that potential investors have very tight purse-strings. The whole point of recession stimulus spending is to make up the gap left by private investors, both to provide funding for still-viable elements of failing businesses and to prevent the ripple effect on companies that rely on those failing businesses.

            I do have issues with the current auto-bailouts, but most of these are with respect to their ultimate price. GM and Chrysler are downsizing and cutting out bad aspects of their company. Government assistance allows the good components to be preserved and transferred to better companies, while giving some stability to the market. However, the price tags are huge and I think alternative ways to inject cash into the auto industry in Canada should have been explored.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/JustinWordswrth JustinWordswrth

            Purchasing power comes from production. Consumption is the exercising of purchasing power.

            If Citizen A produces a Product X, assuming he has no personal need for a Product X, he will want to sell it. If Citizen B would like to buy Product X – the "subsequent consumption" – he will need a Product Y of his own with which to trade. If Citizen B does not have a Product Y, he will not be able to trade for Product X.

            The reason that Citizen B did not have the power to purchase product X is because he did not produce a Product Y.

            It undoubtedly creates economic problems when people and businesses do not have access to credit. This is why people should be a little more economical with the way they use their credit.

            Our economy is suffering the bust of the boom caused by easy credit. That easy credit has permitted, if not forced, severe misallocations of wealth and resources engendering completely distorted demand and prices.

            The market is now trying to regain stasis or balance. Part of the recovery process is the expunging of unnecessary enterprises that should have gradually faded away many years ago.

            The magnitude of this recession should be taken as a lesson of what happens when recessions are tampered with and delayed. The more attempts at subduing a recession with injections of market-distorting cash, the more severe the inevitable correction.

          • Mulletaur

            "Purchasing power comes from production."

            The last Great Depression totally discredited the validity of Say's Law. As a starting point, you should really read Keynes' General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money which deals with this very issue. You may not agree with his analysis, but if so, you should at least attempt to disprove it before you make bald statements like the one above.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/JustinWordswrth JustinWordswrth

            If I understand Keynes and Keynesians correctly, where I think the most important error is made is in regards to employment, particularly full-employment.

            Full-employment to me is a nonsensical term. The fallacy is that jobs equal wealth. It is not difficult to achieve full-employment. Just burn everything you have. You will have lots of work ahead of you trying to replace it all. The purpose of an economy is not to create work, it is to reduce work.

            That is to say, a job is a job if it increases the return per investment of labour.

  • Gordon McAlpine

    I read your comment, but why don't you get our own magazine. On the next page there were pictures of a board of directors willing to thump ordinary workers to get more money and productivity. Leave the middle class worker alone and direct your money problems at the corporate level. Fuck you business suit people.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/JustinWordswrth JustinWordswrth

      Labour Pains

      Yes, Fuck You business people! If you would just cease creating systems of production that increase the standard of living for humans, we could all get back to the pleasures of leisurely rotting in filth. Shame.

  • Mulletaur

    "But why should the goal be to protect agriculture in his own country?"

    To eat.

    Imagine for a moment that the financial system had collapsed as it was on the verge of doing in October 2008 and export finance was no longer available. Countries dependent on food imports would, well, go hungry. That was the original reason why the European Union started subsidizing agriculture : securing their food supply with recent memories of near famine in the immediate post war period.

    Commodities act differently from manufactured goods in markets, particularly on the supply side. Too much production and prices plummet, farmers go out of business, sometimes for good, leaving shortages in future years. Too little production and there can be hunger or extremely high prices, increasing poverty and causing other related economic problems (as everybody needs to eat). The volatility of commodities means that the economics of farming on a large enough scale to be efficient are notoriously unpredictable.

    Domestic subsidies usually don't apply to exports, so you don't benefit from the subsidies as a foreign consumer directly. Usually what happens is that subsidy creates overproduction which is dumped (the economic meaning of the word) on world markets at below cost prices, which ruins local producers. So one year, there is lots of cheap canola oil. The next year, all your farmers have switched out of canola (because they took a beating the previous year) and you can't buy it on the market unless you pay an uneconomic price for your food industry consumption because the European Union had a drought and now have a shortage. So you are doubly-snookered. Farmers have no willingness to get hammered a second time, so they won't be coming back into the canola growing business any time soon. See what I mean ? The main problem is what economists refer to as 'price stickyness'. It is a much bigger problem in agriculture.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/JustinWordswrth JustinWordswrth

    One can obviously be able to eat without any domestic production of food (although Canadian production would never drop to 0). I always have a TV to watch, and they are all from Japan.

    All different types of business have different difficulties with production. An electronics producer does not have to worry about expiration, a corn farmer doesn't have to worry about someone producing a better model of corn.

    Anticipating fluctutations in demand for whatever reasons (gluts, droughts, etc.) is job of every businessman, the farmers who are best at accommodating the oscillations will prosper the most.

    If the subsidies are forcing an overproduction/underproduction cycle, is this not an argument against them?

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/JustinWordswrth JustinWordswrth

    Is there no market for new parts to replace worn parts of existing cars?

From Macleans