More on A Different Thought about the Auto Industry Bailout

Response to yesterday’s post was quick, and plenty. Most comments came to my email address, but one was posted to the blog.

This follow-up article is a reply to the question asked, “How can we do it?”

As to the other part of the comment about political courage; among current leaders there is not enough to take action such as suggested here. Perhaps Barack Obama will have it….

Your comments are encouraged and all are welcome – pro and con.

To bailout, or not bailout, that is the question.

On the one hand, some say the loss of jobs in the industry and related fields would cripple an already weakened economy. The ripple effect would be enormous: auto parts makers and auto dealers are the obvious; the trickle down effect is not so obvious, but towns, families, retailers, etc. would suffer.

On the other hand, some say the foreign auto producers will step into the gap left by the demise of the American auto companies, and the effect of the demise will not be such a disaster. In addition, with millions of US cars on the market, parts and service requirements will continue for many years. All we would really lose, in the long term, are the profits that the car companies might generate and keep in this country. That may all be true, but no one mentions the timing. It will take years for auto production in this country to rebound, regardless of who is making the cars.

Lastly, is $25 billion dollars enough or will the car people come back for more? At the rate they are burning cash, probably the latter.

Therefore, here is a more complete new thought.

Rather than loan or invest billions in Ford, GM and Chrysler, why not quickly nationalize them, removing management, installing new people, new energy, new thinking, a new model for doing business, and possibly even new pay rates and health insurance and retirement plans, and get on with the job. Bring in a Bill Gates or Steve Jobs, or one of hundreds more innovative thinkers to lead the charge. Use the $25 billion to create new, trim, companies rather than propping up old stale ones. Along that line, fire the entire core of lobbyist, especially those who fight against higher fuel efficiency standards.

That sounds very easy. Obviously, it is not. Here is a blueprint that might work if given a chance.

Consider the GM situation. GM stock is hovering slightly above $3.00 a share, and the capitalization of GM is somewhere near $3 billion. For the plan, have the company create a new class of voting stock and let the government buy $5 billion to $10 billion worth. The funds go to GM for immediate use. At the same time, voting the new shares, completely replace the GM Board of Directors. Get new people; with no auto industry experience; with creative minds; not willing to work the old, failed model; and let them go to work. Replace the current executive staff without bonuses. Let the lawyers begin!

Bring the best and the brightest to the Board and the executive ranks to lead the company. Develop a new model for doing business. Perhaps the DELL model of building to order, having dealers only to provide a few demo cars, take orders, and supply parts and service. Without saying, “It won’t work,” say, “It is a good idea, let’s make it work.” If not that though, what others ideas are there? Remember, the old model failed.

Here is another thought: Rather than manufacturing so much of the vehicle let others do so. Become a design and marketing organization. Buy engines from someone else – Honda, for example. Transmissions from another source. Fit the cars together in less than a year rather than taking two or three years to bring a new model to market. Alternatively, buy immediately salable cars from other manufacturers, customized to be the GM model. That is certainly not a new idea. Think about the Isuzu Rodeo and the Honda Passport of a few years ago. Honda sold Passports by the thousands. It was not a Honda vehicle though; Isuzu built a Rodeo, changed the trim and interior, sold it to Honda and then Honda sold it as a Passport. There are other examples.

Get vehicles with fuel-efficient engines on the market in a hurry. Give GM and/or its dealers something to sell.

Fuel-efficient small cars, and hybrids, have proven themselves as sellers in the market. There are more than a million of Toyota’s Prius on our roads. Rather than taking two or more years to do the research, design and testing, buy the technology. Now is the time for action – not development and design.

Get vehicles selling and cash flowing. Then, when operations are stable, start investing in research, development and design. At this moment, what difference does it make who manufactures the major assemblies? Later build a goliath of an industry and be a technological leader. There is no time now.

With no lobbyist fighting to keep fuel efficiency requirements low, the government can move forward with stringent regulation to reduce carbon emissions. In spite of what the auto companies and the oil companies have said, global warming is real. Let the bailed out auto industry be the leader in reducing carbon emissions, not the fighter against reduction.

There are many creative geniuses in our country. Let them “have at” the auto industry. Forget the words, “We have never done it that way,” or “We tried it once and it did not work,” or, even worse, “It can’t be done.” A long time ago, people said that about landing on the moon.

Adopt the cry, “We know it will work and we can do it.”

How many years will it take to move the inertia of the auto industry to make it into something new, different, and PROFITABLE and FLOWING CASH?

Probably close to three years. On the other, without the bailout suggested here, the existing companies, working the old auto industry model, will take at least five years IF they can do it at all.

It is exciting to think about. It would be exciting to participate.

Your comments are invited.