ObamaMotors versus Toyota

[dude1394]

So I"m watching lightly the upcoming ObamaMotors hearings against Toyota and I'm thinking that this may be a great thing since I'm sorta been looking around for a new car.

I can get the ObamaMotors to bludgeon Toyota into giving me a great deal on a much better car than ObamaMotors can make!

[92bDad]

Toyota...so "Green" it'll kill you

[GermanDunk]

You betcha

[dude1394]

From instapundit...

UPDATE: Related? FBI Raids Toyota Supplier Denso in Antitrust Probe. It might be a coincidence, and not a coordinated attack on a Government Motors competitor and non-UAW shop. But in an era of state-crony capitalism, all motives become suspect . . . .

And of course the obvious conflict(s) of interest with the ObamaMotors owners and supporters doing the investigating. But that's what it's like in a socialist country I guess.

[Print] [Email]
The taint in the Toyota probe

Examiner Editorial
February 25, 2010


[IMG]http://media.washingtonexaminer.com/images/250*157/Toyota10.jpg[/IMG]

Regardless whether one loves or hates Toyota, a herd of huge elephants in the living room of this controversy have thus far been completely ignored in news reports and analysis. These include, first, a pair of related conflicts of interest underlying the government's role, and, second, the disreputable records of several key "expert" witnesses in the mounting crusade against the besieged automaker.
The conflicts of interest begin with the fact the federal government is itself the controlling owner of General Motors, having invested billions of U.S. tax dollars in one of Toyota's two main American competitors. There is no creditable way to separate federal policy decisions from their commercial effect on both Toyota and GM as long as the government is simultaneously prosecutor, judge and jury. At the very least, the government must divest its GM shares as soon as possible.
The other conflict of interest is with the government's major partner in GM ownership, the United Auto Workers union. Aside from the fact Toyota has for decades successfully resisted UAW attempts to organize the Japanese automaker's U.S. work force, the UAW is among the most powerful special interests doling out campaign contributions to congressmen sitting in judgment of the stricken car company on two key House panels. Nineteen of 36 Democrats on the House Energy and Commerce Committee cashed sizable UAW campaign contribution checks to their 2010 re-election campaigns, including the present and immediate past chairmen, Henry Waxman and John Dingell. Similarly, 12 of 25 Democrats on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee got such checks. Are Democrats who have long claimed that money corrupts politics now so brazen as to claim they are exempt from such special interests influences?


Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/op...#ixzz0gYvDVyFC

[alexamenos]

The conflict of interest thing makes this one a no-brainer....the Federal Government should have absolutely nothing to do with Toyota. I don't care if Toyota was intentionally using faulty (and potentially deadly) parts in order to save $0.45 per vehicle. Government Motors is not the proper judge, jury and executioner of Toyota.

[mcsluggo]

I am sorry... but personally I think both of your logic is quite weak and doctrine driven on this issue.... and I would just ignore it as the usual rah rah hyperbole generalizations, but I actually think you are serious.

The US governement shouldn't regulate automotive safety because an arm of the US government has bailed out a car company? Seriously?

I understand that both of you think the government should basically be hacked up (pretty much entirely in Alex's case.. and left with little but a super military in Dude's case).. but THIS argument is pretty damn weak support for your overall beliefs.

[alexamenos]

The US governement shouldn't regulate automotive safety because an arm of the US government has bailed out a car company? Seriously?

Your phrase the "US government has bailed out a car company" is quite deficient. The US Government did not merely bail out a car company, but instead the US Government currently has a majority ownership interest and a huge financial interest in one of Toyota's top competitors.

It's a lie to pretend a conflict of interest does not exist here. A conflict of interest exists here by definition.***

The argument is that conflicts of interest matter and we ought to take them seriously. If you want to argue that my position is crazy, you ought to atleast acknowledge and address the conflict of interest aspect of it, as this is the entire basis of the argument.

***I read very recently that GM-Newco is planning an IPO sometime this year....I'm sure the folks at the Federal Government are, unlike the rest of humanity, too honest and decent to do anybody wrong, but the conflict of having one institution take in cash from an IPO at precisely the same time it sets in judgment of a competitor of that offering seems readily apparent to me.

[bobatundi]

Isn't it also interesting that Obama's proposed tax on TARP recipients doesn't apply to GM or Chrysler--even though they haven't (and likely won't) pay it back, while the banks almost all have.

Oh wait, there's an explanation from the White House: "the financial problems of both GM and Chrysler resulted from the overall poor economy." Really? Because I thought it was from years of overproduction, excessive wages & benefits at all levels of the company, and producing a generally shitty product.

I was actually an Obama supporter once upon a time. Oops.

[92bDad]

Originally Posted by bobatundi

I was actually an Obama supporter once upon a time. Oops.

Positive Rep to you!!!

[mcsluggo]

Originally Posted by alexamenos

Your phrase the "US government has bailed out a car company" is quite deficient. The US Government did not merely bail out a car company, but instead the US Government currently has a majority ownership interest and a huge financial interest in one of Toyota's top competitors.

It's a lie to pretend a conflict of interest does not exist here. A conflict of interest exists here by definition.***

The argument is that conflicts of interest matter and we ought to take them seriously. If you want to argue that my position is crazy, you ought to atleast acknowledge and address the conflict of interest aspect of it, as this is the entire basis of the argument.

***I read very recently that GM-Newco is planning an IPO sometime this year....I'm sure the folks at the Federal Government are, unlike the rest of humanity, too honest and decent to do anybody wrong, but the conflict of having one institution take in cash from an IPO at precisely the same time it sets in judgment of a competitor of that offering seems readily apparent to me.

the conflict of interest exists if you assume that USG is one large monolithic entity, and would operate as a regular shareholder with a financial stake. Somehow I don't think Geithner is getting stock options...

the potential mercanilist conflict of interest (defending a US flag company against foreign comp) is much more tangible and present. MUCH

[bobatundi]

Originally Posted by 92bDad

Positive Rep to you!!!

oh no

[aquaadverse]

What's next, tossing out the people who have actually invested money in GM as bondholders and accepted the lower rate of return in exchange for the position in the pecking order for a better piece of the reorganized carcass to give the position to an important chunk of his political base who have only taken money out of the company/

As a native son of Michigan with relatives who bled with Reuther, I saw us pass mile marker "How we do things in Chicago" a year ago.

If you take cutting a back room deal with Unions a couple of days before an election that could derail an entire agenda and Party and add in "Japanese don't vote, but hold a lot of US IOUs so they can't squeal too loud" and multiply it by the coefficient of an inept and embarrassed Congress facing a Bataan November, thinking Obama had the Rhamster make a few calls politely asking for updates when they can find time is pretty unlikely.

That bullet proof body that was giddy and flushed with an overwhelming incoming majority made great sport embarrassing the D2.5 CEOs on a world stage suddenly needs every tiny bit of deficit reduction in treasure and rep they can find.

Toyota has handed them a gift wrapped opportunity of high profile beat down with almost zero blow back potential. People who are accused of hiding something like a soccer Mom vehicle suddenly and with no warning turning into the Death Mobile from Animal House are in a situation where the best strategy is curling up in a ball and hoping the person beating them gets tired before permanent damage is done.

When the person with the club is one of the owners of a competitor with a vested interest and controls all three branches of government, the odds of people who have no problem locking the door and doing business without fellow members of Congress makes a lack of suspicion and concern illogical imho.

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by mcsluggo

the conflict of interest exists if you assume that USG is one large monolithic entity....

The USG is one large entity.

[mcsluggo]

So is the United States of America. and yet somehow there are distict entities within it.

[dude1394]

Yea...nothing to see here move on. Amazing how non-chalant liberals have gotten.

Patriot Act - Renewed no problemo
Gitmo not closed - no problemo
Wiretapping - no problemo
Surge in Afghanistan - no problemo
Killing terrorists instead of capturing - no problemo
Guvment owning AIG, GM, Chrysler - REALLY no problemo...more please!

[Underdog]

Originally Posted by dude1394

Yea...nothing to see here move on. Amazing how non-chalant liberals have gotten.

Patriot Act - Renewed no problemo
Gitmo not closed - no problemo
Wiretapping - no problemo
Surge in Afghanistan - no problemo
Killing terrorists instead of capturing - no problemo
Guvment owning AIG, GM, Chrysler - REALLY no problemo...more please!

Obama is better at being Bush than Bush ever was!

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by mcsluggo

So is the United States of America. and yet somehow there are distict entities within it.

This is a specious argument. All organizations have subunits with different agendas. You may as well argue that it is impossible for any organization to have a conflict of interest in any regard.

[mcsluggo]

You think MY point is specious!!!

the US government is a huge and complex entity that doesn't have an underlying "share price" or profit motive as its governing objective. (for better or for worse)

Nor do its "directors" have stock options or anything even vaguely similar.

The USG didn't take an ownership stake in GM to make a profit, and its exit strategy from that position isn't dictated by profit motive.



there are a zillion potential conflicts of interest in government, and even in this case (the fact that Toyota is a foreign-flag company, and most people are basically mercanilists at heart is the most obvious one..) but the idea that there is going to be an intra-USG conspiracy to over-regulate competitors to fluff up the Treasury's equity position in GM sounds basically tin-hat to me

[alexamenos]

Your strawmen are quite tiresome.

the idea that there is going to be an intra-USG conspiracy to over-regulate competitors to fluff up the Treasury's equity position in GM sounds basically tin-hat to me

....you may take note that I've explicitly stated that the conflict of interest is readily apparent and obvious even if we buy the assumption that the powers that be in the USG are too innately angelic to act in anything but a just fashion towards Toyota.

Moreover, there's more than a profit motive at stake, there's a power motive and that motive is nigh-on ubiquitous in government. The USG has a vested interest in rescuing GM, and coming down hard on Toyota would feed that interest. <--that's a conflict, and it's silly and specious to pretend this conflict doesn't exist.

You can argue that the conflict won't really affect the USG's sense of justice, and I'd agree with this....

...obviously I'd agree because the USG is so thoroughly corrupt that one more piece of shit in the outhouse doesn't make it stink that much worse.

[mcsluggo]

but... do you think that this conflict of interest is really any more pronaunced for the USG defense of GM, than for the USG defense of Ford?

Or do you think that the current incentives are for the USG to actually penalize Ford as well (as Toyota)?