注册 登录  
 加关注
   显示下一条  |  关闭
温馨提示!由于新浪微博认证机制调整,您的新浪微博帐号绑定已过期,请重新绑定!立即重新绑定新浪微博》  |  关闭

基思·亨尼西(Hennessey)的博客

美国前国家经济委员会主任、乔治·布什的首席经济顾问Keith Hennessey

 
 
 

日志

 
 
关于我

美国前国家经济委员会主任

文章分类
网易考拉推荐

福克斯新闻上汽车行业展开的讨论(续)  

2009-06-12 08:21:27|  分类: 默认分类 |  标签: |举报 |字号 订阅

  下载LOFTER 我的照片书  |

[点击查看Keith Hennessey的英文博客]  [Keith Hennessey的中文博客] 

 在上一篇文章里我试图纠正奥斯坦?古尔斯比对布什总统的错误的具有煽动性的言论,今天在这里我想就另外一个问题,关于今天早晨的福克斯周日新闻上汽车行业展开的讨论,发表一些自己的看法。

主持人华莱士今天早上与以下诸位发起了一场讨论:

  • 奥巴马经济顾问委员会成员和经济复原顾问委员会首席经济学家奥斯坦?古尔斯比。
  • 参议员理查德?谢尔比, 参议院银行委员会高级共和党人。
  • 德尔投资集团主席弗德烈?马力克。
  • 谷歌执行总裁埃里克?施密特。

施密特先生自始至终深思熟虑的答复我要加以赞赏。当然在这场讨论中居功至伟的是华莱士先生,他提出的问题显示了他对政策制定者所面对的实际选择,他们做出的决策以及这些决策将带来的严重后果的深刻了解。我要感谢他,他的努力使这场讨论增色不少。

这是华莱士向弗德烈?马力克提问,布什政府是否在《美国破产法》第11章颁布以前提供了贷款。

华莱士:请让我首先邀请弗德烈?马力克。总统先生说他没有做生意的兴趣,他只是在尽力挽救以使他们能从经济崩溃中全身而退。(播放奥巴马总统的记者招待会的片断)马力克先生,在金融危机期间,在这次形势严峻的经济衰退期间,总统先生真的可以让通用汽车,克莱斯勒汽车,美国国际集团,花旗银行破产吗?

马力克:我认为你要明白的是现在有两种不同的情况。我得把将资金注入金融机构,以稳定金融系统列为必要之举。你不得不这样做。但是卷入通用汽车,先是挽救他接着又让他破产,是一个选择,却是一个错误的选择。

参议员谢尔比和马力克先后对同一个问题做出了解释。

谢尔比:首先,去年秋天我就主张通用汽车和克莱斯勒将最佳解决方案定位在第11章上,那么就能省下大笔的资金,而不是像已经发生的政治重组一样:牺牲债券持有人的利益,而工会却从中的利。

马力克:我同意参议员谢尔比的说法。看吧,我们已经有一套几十年来运转良好的破产系统,以积极正面的方式推动了自由企业制度的发展。因为是由联邦法院运作所以他是不受任何影响的。但是如今你们都干了什么?你们把他从司法部门提出来转到行政部门,还注入了政治因素。参议员谢尔比是正确的,先放入上百亿的美元其后又宣布第11章,这样做是毫无意义的。他们早就应该让公司破产再交由法院处理。

华莱士先生接着问了下面这个关键性的问题:

华莱士:让我这样问吧,如果在某种情况下,布什政府在秋季或者在你们接任的时候直接宣布按照第11章,我们不提供所有权资助金,我们也不会给你们500亿美元的资助,将会发生什么事?

那么通用和克莱斯勒现在已经清算破产了。不管通用还是克莱斯勒都经受不住一个整和的11章。早在12月或者今年1月11章被列入进程的时候,这些公司和所有的外行专家都告诉我们重组不会成功,公司会清算破产。我们估计此举将导致达110万的失业人口。

马力克先生是对的,提供贷款给通用和克莱斯勒是一个选择,但是却不是他和参议员谢尔比先生认为的我们所面对的选择。当时的选择不是贷款就是清算,因为那个时候第11章还没有出台。(就算在今天,就算他们有5个月的时间来准备应对第11章,通用仍然可能失败)施密特先生正确地指出了这一点。

施密特:在我看来,考虑到在这个上百万人将面临失业的惨痛时期,除了挽救通用汽车,如果你们捉摸一下的话,我们还有的选择就是破产,供应链消失,美国汽车工业的亏损或者是银行援助。银行援助是我们需要做出的选择。 

(翻译纠错。读者发现任何翻译错误请发邮件给我们,谢谢:caijingblog#126.com 将#改为@)


英文原文(地址:http://keithhennessey.com/2009/06/07/government-motors-discussion-on-fox-news-sunday-continued/):

Government Motors discussion on Fox News Sunday (continued)

Posted Sunday, June 7th, 2009, at 2:41 pm

In an earlier post I attempted to correct Dr. Austan Goolsbee’s incorrect and inflammatory statements about President Bush.  I would like here to add my views to one additional question on the auto industry discussion on this morning’s edition of Fox News Sunday.

Host Chris Wallace moderated a discussion this morning with:

  • Dr. Austan Goolsbee, Member of President Obama’s Council of Economic Advisers and chief economist on the President’s Economic Recovery Advisory Board;
  • Senator Richard Shelby (R-AL), ranking Republican on the Senate Banking Committee;
  • Thayer Capital Chairman Fred Malek; and
  • Google CEO Eric Schmidt.

I offer kudos to Mr. Schmitt for his thoughtful responses throughout.  And the hero of the discussion was Mr. Wallace, who in his questions demonstrated a deep understanding of the actual options faced by policymakers, the choices they made, and the serious consequences of those choices.  I thank him for trying to elevate the policy discussion this morning.



Here’s Chris Wallace asking Fred Malek whether the Bush Administration have provided loans before a Chapter 11 filing:

WALLACE:  Let me bring in Fred Malek, though.  The President says that he has no interest in running businesses, he’s just trying to save them from collapse and get out.  [plays clip of President Obama's press conference]  Fred Malek, in the middle of a financial crisis, in the middle of a terrible recession, could the President really let General Motors and Chrysler, AIG and Citibank go under?

MALEK:  … I think what you have here, is you have two different situations.  I would label the injection of capital into the financial institutions, stabilizing the financial systems, that’s a war of necessity.  You had to do that.  But, getting into General Motors, saving General Motors and then taking them into bankruptcy, that’s a war of choice, it’s the wrong choice.

Senator Shelby later commented on this same question, as did Mr. Malek again:

SHELBY:  First of all, I advocated last fall that General Motors and Chrysler’s best bet would have go to Chapter 11 then, it would have saved a lot of money, not a political restructuring like what’s happened, where the bondholders have been sacrificed, the unions have carried the day.  …

MALEK:  … I agree with Senator Shelby.  Look, we’ve had for decades we’ve had a bankruptcy system in this country that has worked well, and has fueled the free enterprise system in a positive way.  It is impervious to politics because it’s run by federal courts.  Now, what have you done?  You have taken it out of the judicial and you’ve turned it over to the executive, and I think you’ve injected politics into it.  Senator Shelby is right, there was no sense in putting billions of dollars in and then declaring Chapter 11 afterwards.  They should have let them go into bankruptcy and let the courts work it through.  …

Mr. Wallace then asks the critical follow-up question:

WALLACE:  Let me just ask.  Mr. Goolsbee, if at some point, either the Bush Administration back in the fall, or you guys when you took over, had just said, go into Chapter 11, we’re not going to take an ownership stake, we’re not going to give you 50 billion dollars, what would have happened?

The answer is that GM and Chrysler would have liquidated.  Neither GM nor Chrysler was ready for a complex Chapter 11 filing.  Had the entered the Chapter 11 process in December or January, the firms and every outside expert told us that the restructuring would have failed and the firms would have liquidated.  We estimated this would have resulted in about 1.1 million lost jobs.

Mr. Malek was right, the loans to GM and Chrysler were a choice, but they were not the choice that he and Senator Shelby thought we faced.  The choice was loan or liquidate.  There was no feasible Chapter 11 option available at the time.  (GM may fail even now, after they have had five months to prepare for Chapter 11.)  Mr. Schmitt frames it correctly:

SCHMITT:  It seems to me that what choice did we have except try to save General Motors, given the roughly million jobs that were related at a time of incredible pain and job loss.  So if you think about it , the choice was bankruptcy, the supply chain goes away, the loss of the American automobile industry, or a band-aid.  It needs to be a band-aid, and it needs to be something we get out of.  …


[点击查看Keith Hennessey的英文博客]  [Keith Hennessey的中文博客] 

  评论这张
 
阅读(2787)| 评论(0)
推荐 转载

历史上的今天

评论

<#--最新日志,群博日志--> <#--推荐日志--> <#--引用记录--> <#--博主推荐--> <#--随机阅读--> <#--首页推荐--> <#--历史上的今天--> <#--被推荐日志--> <#--上一篇,下一篇--> <#-- 热度 --> <#-- 网易新闻广告 --> <#--右边模块结构--> <#--评论模块结构--> <#--引用模块结构--> <#--博主发起的投票-->
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

页脚

网易公司版权所有 ©1997-2017