Banks got us into this mess, so it’s banks that will have to get us out.

From the President on down, nobody is disputing such a self-evident premise.

And that includes Wall Street. Here’s a typical statement – from RDQ Economics LLC in NY, “They [the Obama administration] should be focused on stabilization” of financial firms “and stimulus — and that should not only be ‘Job 1,’ that should be the only job right now.”

Of course, the financial crisis has killed Wall Street. So the statement might seem a little self-serving, except for the fact – once again – that everybody agrees with it. I don’t buy it.

Maybe banks were the problem a lifetime ago – when Bear Stearns was taken over and Lehman went under.  When nobody knew which were the good banks and which were the bad banks and interest rates shot up as a result.

But it just takes one stupid question to realize we’re so past that now…

Who will the banks lend to?

To you and me? Wait a minute. We’re saving more. From a negative savings rate, we’re now saving about five percent of what we earn.

It’s about time. We couldn’t go on forever spending more than we make. It was bankrupting us.

Do you really want to buy a new car? Richard Wagoner, CEO of GM, wants you to. So does Ben Bernanke. And, let me go out on a limb and submit that President Obama also wants you to.

But what’s good for the economy isn’t necessarily good for you and me.

But surely companies need more loans from banks? If companies weren’t running so low on cash, why are so many of them cutting their dividends (37 so far this year)?

Aren’t the auto companies strapped for cash? Aren’t many banks scraping the bottom of the cash barrel? Couldn’t they use loans from other banks?

Yes, yes, and yes, BUT…

Fewer sales mean a smaller cash flow. When you’re earning less cash, the last thing you want to do is get a loan and go deeper into debt. Ask any responsible CEO: Higher interest payments and lower earnings aren’t a good combination.

Then there are the irresponsible CEOs, who have made a ton of bad decisions and are now forced to take out loans. Just ask Vikram Pandit of Citigroup (NYSE:C) and Bob Nardelli of Chrysler how it feels to put their companies into deeper debt?

No self-respecting bank would give these companies a loan. They’re getting them from the government.

Responsible companies – especially those in cyclical industries – are paring down debt right now, not increasing it.

In other words, we’re way past the point where banks are holding back the economy. In fact, there are very good reasons why the government shouldn’t spend hundreds of billions of dollars to a trillion dollars more to save banks…

• Throwing good money after bad. The so-called stress test isn’t nearly tough enough. Many of the banks getting government money won’t survive.
• The adrenaline shot is diluted. When banks were leveraged 30 and 40 to one, these banks might have been able to kick start a lagging economy. Not anymore.
• Inflated pay scale. A reality check is long overdue. Without the lucrative derivative market and with lower leverage, banks can’t afford to pay their 20-something employees millions of dollars anymore.
• Where’s the accountability? On a scale of 1 to 10, remorse gets 0 and a sense of entitlement gets 11. Dozens of banks were engaged in reckless behavior. They bullied Freddie and Fannie. They gave out billions of dumb loans. They infected other banks all over the world. Has any banker said, “I’m sorry?” Not that I know of.

We shouldn’t be asking our banks to go back to the bad ol’ days of dumb lending and dumber borrowing. It’s not fair to lenders or borrowers.

But even if banks wanted to return to their loosy-goosy lending ways (which they don’t), they wouldn’t find enough pent-up demand for credit to lift the economy out of its current doldrums.

Banks are a problem. But they aren’t the answer. Their festering issues are hurting the market because Wall Street thinks that banks are more important than they are.

It’s the ultimate lose-lose situation…

Save the banks and the economy still drops like a rock.

Don’t save the banks and the markets drop like a rock.

I’m bearish. And you should be too. There’s no easy way out of this dilemma.

Source: Saving Banks Accomplishes Nothing

The dollar rose against the yen on Monday after the Bank of Japan followed last week’s interest rate cut with a warning that the health of Japan’s economy has deteriorated and is likely to get worse.

But investors’ equally dim view of the U.S. economy hurt the greenback against the euro, which rose broadly in holiday-thinned trade. Doubts about whether a U.S. automaker bailout would steer the economy out of recession also hit the dollar.

Traders said volumes were razor-thin in the lead-Up to the Christmas holidays, aggravating even the slightest moves in the currency markets. Still, many said demand for dollars remained low.

“The dollar view is so opaque at the moment, and the risk reward at this time of year is not worth it unless you really have to trade,” said Maurice Pomery, head of foreign exchange at IDEAglobal in London.

The dollar managed to rise above 90 yen for the first time in nearly a week after BoJ Governor Masaaki Shirakawa said yen strength and a global slowdown may force Japanese exports still lower even after a record plunge in November.

“All Asian exporters are at risk in this global economic slowdown, but Japan is at the top of the list,” said Dustin Reid, senior currency strategist at RBS Global Global Banking & Markets in Chicago. “The stronger yen has been playing havoc for Japanese exporters, and the auto companies in particular are likely to be significantly affected.”

So far this year, Japan’s currency is up nearly 20 percent against the dollar and more than 22 percent against the euro.

Early in New York, the dollar was changing hands at 89.85 yen , up 0.8 percent, after earlier rising to 90.23. The BoJ cut Japanese interest rates last week to near zero.

The euro also rose 1.3 percent to 125.79 yen after earlier hitting a session peak of $1.4123. Sterling fell 0.8 percent to $1.4814 , while the euro rose 1.1 percent to 94.35 pence , near a record high of 95.56 pence touched last week.

A move by China’s central bank to cut lending and deposit rates by 27 basis points — its fifth cut since September — shed more light on the scope of the global slump.

GRIM U.S. OUTLOOK

After coming under steady pressure in December, the dollar rallied on Friday after the Washington announced emergency loans for crippled General Motors and Chrysler.

But while the move averted a crisis for now, traders said uncertainty over the companies’ restructuring plans left many doubting the long-term effect it would have on the economy.

Last week, the Federal Reserve cut benchmark interest rates to near zero, underlining the severity of the economic crisis and undermining support for the dollar.

Investors are also looking for the European Central Bank to cut interest rates, currently at 2.5 percent, in January, though ECB executive board member Lorenzo Bini Smaghi warned about the risks of monetary policy being too lax, according to the Rome newspaper Il Messaggero.

Steven C. Johnson, Reuters 12/22/08

Each CEO – GM’s Richard Wagoner, Ford Chief Executive Alan Mulally and Chrysler’s Robert “Bob” Nardelli – left Washington D.C. two weeks ago scolded, and with a clear understanding that the government is expecting each company to shed costs and present forward-looking plans that prove taxpayer money will not be wasted.

Wagoner has been fuzzy on the company’s goal to cut at least $15 billion in costs, but few options have been ruled out.

GM could further reduce its North American workforce. It could eliminate and/or sell one or more of its brands. The primary name on the table is Sweden-based Saab, and the interested buyer is the Swedish government.

Some of its directors say filing for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection is also an option, though one Wagoner has said is off the table, The Street reported.

So far, GM has asked to delay a $7 billion payment to a union retiree health fund. It returned two of its leased private jets. It stopped running its escalator at 7 p.m. at its headquarters. It stopped buying batteries for hanging wall clocks, eliminated voicemail in plants and consolidated printers and copies. It’s also buying cheaper toilet paper and pencils.

Meanwhile, Ford has pulled back the curtain on nearly all of its plans to hopefully break even by 2011.

In the cost-cutting arena, the company is canceling 2009 bonuses for its managers around the world, as well as all U.S. employees. Mulally would work for $1/year if Ford receives a bailout. Ford will sell its corporate aircraft will continue reducing its dealer and supplier base, estimating it will have 3,790 dealers by end of 2008, Reuters reported.

It’s also weighing the sale its Sweden-based car unit Volvo Car Corp. to Sweden. Despite high safety ratings, Volvo only captured a 0.5% of the market through October, down from 0.8% a year earlier and accounting for 3.7% of Ford’s total sales last year.

Ford is also hatching plans to produce better and more-appealing vehicles. It plans to invest about $14 billion over the next seven years in fuel-efficient technologies and products. And it is planning a line of electric cars, but details on those won’t be revealed until the Detroit Auto Show.

Chrysler has been mum on current cutback plans.

In October, Nardelli ordered a 25% reduction in the Chrysler’s salaried workforce. And the company is close enough to its stated goal of eliminating 5,000 salaried jobs by year’s end – largely facilitated by salaried employees who accepted buyouts and early retirement – that it doesn’t anticipate many more layoffs.

Nardelli was the first of the CEOs to suggest he’d work for $1 a year. He also said that Chrysler’s owner, private equity firm Cerberus Capital Management LP, will pledge to forgo any profits from a Chrysler sale if the car company receives government money, The Detroit Free Press reported.

And in case you were wondering each CEOs travel plans Thursday:

• GM’s Wagoner will drive a Chevy Malibu hybrid from Detroit to DC.
• Ford’s Mulally will travel in a Ford Escape Hybrid
• Chrysler’s Nardelli is keeping his travel plans secret for security reasons, but will ditch the corporate jet.

Emergency Meeting With Union

Before their bigwigs arrive in Washington D.C., the companies will ask United Auto Workers officials to reopen a 2007 labor agreement to further cut costs, a person familiar with the situation told Bloomberg.

According to Bloomberg, GM will seek to stop paying union workers when plants are closed and no work is available, and Ford and Chrysler likely will ask for similar concessions.

“We are at the bargaining table every day working on things to make these companies, to put them in better shape if you will,” UAW President Ron Gettelfinger said in an interview on Bloomberg Television. “Other people need to come in to see what they can do to assist these companies.”

GM said today (Tuesday) that light vehicle sales dropped 41% in November, from 261,273 vehicles a year ago to 153,404.

Ford didn’t fare much better, with U.S. sales in November falling 31%. Every line of Ford vehicle posted falling sales, and the company responded by slashing first-quarter North American output for 38% to 430,000 vehicles, Bloomberg reported.

Source: Big Three Auto Companies Weighing How to Shed Weight for Gov’t Bailout

Ford, GM and Chrysler are all in danger of folding into bankruptcy after a complete lack of innovation and outmoded business models combined with the current financial crisis and a lack of credit to drain the American icons of profitability.

Ford posted a $2.98 billion operating loss for the quarter ended Sept. 30, while GM reported a $4.2 billion operating loss during that same period. Together, the companies burned through a combined $14.6 billion of cash in the third quarter.

Ford chewed through $7.7 billion in cash taking its reserves down to $18.9 billion from $26.6 billion at the end of the second quarter. If the company continues to burn cash at this rate, Ford will run out of money by April 2009.

GM is even worse off. The nation’s largest automaker said that the amount of cash it has on hand fell to $16.2 billion at the end of September, down from $21 billion at the end of June.

The company said it could run out of cash by the end of the year, and be forced to declare Chapter 11 bankruptcy.

“Even if GM implements the planned operating actions that are substantially within its control, GM’s estimated liquidity during the remainder of 2008 will approach the minimum amount necessary to operate its business,” GM said in a news release.

If any, or all, of Detroit’s Big Three fail to acquire the financing they need going forward, the consequences for the U.S. labor market – and for the economy – could be devastating.

All told, the three automakers employ more than 200,000 people and support millions more U.S. workers indirectly through suppliers and dealerships. Their collapse could ultimately cost the economy more than 2 million jobs total. And that doesn’t count the estimated 1 million Americans – including many retired autoworkers – who rely on the U.S. auto companies for pension and healthcare benefits.

“The industry is so interdependent,” Ford Chief Executive Alan Mulally told CNBC.  “We’re nearly 10% of the U.S. GDP, and if one of the automobile manufacturers gets into serious trouble, it has tremendous implications for the entire industry.”

Mulally was one of three CEOs – GM’s Richard Wagoner and Chrysler’s Robert “Bob” Nardelli being the other two – lobbying lawmakers for financial assistance over the past month. All three yesterday appeared before the Senate Banking Committee, in the hopes of building on the marginal support they currently have.

“This is about much more than just Detroit,” GM’s Wagoner told the Senate. “It’s about saving the U.S. economy from a catastrophic collapse.”

Today, Mulally, Nardelli, and Wagoner will make their case to the House Financial Services Committee.

Policymakers Take Sides

Washington is deeply divided over whether to loan the automakers taxpayer money at a time when the U.S. budget deficit is spiraling out of control. (The U.S. budget deficit hit a record-high $237.2 billion in October – the first month of a new fiscal year. That’s four times larger than the October 2007 deficit of $56.8 billion.)

The White House and its Congressional supporters argue that the U.S. auto companies are victims of their own ineptitude and stubbornness and have long been spoiled by Democrats all too eager to accommodate their union lobbies.

“The fact is [the U.S. auto companies are] in trouble for reasons that relate to their own decisions rather than a lot of consumers out there who have gotten caught up in this credit crunch, in effect, through no fault of their own,” Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz) said.

For years, Ford and GM fought tougher regulations of fuel efficiency and chose to promote gas-guzzling sports utility vehicles and pick-up trucks instead of pursuing hybrid technology and alternative fuels.

GM has spent $95 million on lobbying over the past decade, and $10 million so far this year, according to OpenSecrets.org – a Web site that tracks political contributions. Ford has spent $5.7 million on lobbying this year and $80.6 million over the past decade, according to the Web site.

However, many Democrats say that the United States can’t afford not to bail out the auto giants given the precarious state of the economy. Most analysts believe the U.S. economy has entered into a deep and painful recession that could take years to emerge from.

“We’re seeing a potential meltdown in the auto industry with consequences that could impact directly upon millions of American workers and cause further devastation to our economy,” said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV).

Dems Determined to Push Bailout

Reid has proposed a $100 billion economic stimulus plan that would include $25 billion in loans for the auto industry as well as $13.5 billion for roads, mass transit and other public infrastructure; money for financially ailing state governments; more jobless benefits; and added food stamp assistance, the New York Times reported.

The plan will need about 60 votes to avoid being bogged down in a senate debate. That means at least 10 Republicans would have to vote in favor of the bill even if all Democrats supported the measure. That seems unlikely. There’s also no guarantee that President George W. Bush wouldn’t just veto the bill anyway.

Should that piece of legislation fail, which it almost surely will, Democrats say they will propose a separate plan to divert $25 billion of the $700 billion approved earlier for the financial industry to the automakers.

In return for the loans taxpayers would receive stock warrants, and automakers would have to accept limits on executive pay and ban dividend payouts. They would also have to use the money to build more fuel-efficient vehicles. The loans would be for 10 years at 5% interest for the first five years and 9% interest for the remaining five years.

Of course, U.S. Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson and President Bush have made it clear that they are staunchly opposed to diverting bailout money meant for use in the financial sector to the auto industry. They would prefer the auto companies simply make due with the $25 billion in loans cleared by Congress earlier this year to make the industry more fuel efficient.

“We want the automakers to succeed and we support using an existing program to help them do so,” said White House spokeswoman Dana Perino. “There’s not an appetite in Congress, or in the administration, to open up the… funding for individual industries, because once you start down that road, it’s a slippery slope to other industries that might say that they need help.

With sufficient strength in Congress, the Republicans may be able to stall the Democrats and keep Ford, GM and Chrysler on the hook for now, but come January the landscape will change considerably.

President-elect Barack Obama will be moving to the White House on January 20, and as Reid pointed out, he’ll be bring a stronger Democratic majority with him.

“If ever there were a time for bipartisan solutions, this is it,” Reid said. “Senators have a choice to make: We could wait until January – when we have a new Congress and a new president – or we could start solving this crisis now.”

Source: GM, Ford, and Chrysler Chiefs Push for Action in Washington as Congress Debates Another Bailout

This from Money Morning:

With his landslide election victory Tuesday – coupled with Democratic gains in the House of Representatives and in the Senate – U.S. President-elect Barack H. Obama II will have the ability to pursue more or less any policy he wants.

For investors who have been trying to analyze the economic outlook for the New Year, the election of U.S. Sen. Obama (D-Ill.) provides a major piece of the forward-looking jigsaw puzzle that these analysts hope to assemble. That’s because the likely trends of the United States and other economies around the world – and the relative success of different sectors within those economies – depends crucially on who’s in the White House, what policies they have, and how effectively they can pursue those policies.

Only one thing keeps the triumph of the incoming Democratic president from being totally complete: The Republicans appear to have held onto 41 Senate seats, enough to prevent the Democrat majority from overriding a united filibuster. In practice, however, there are few issues on which the Republicans will be completely united. Thus, on only a few “litmus test” issues – such as the “Employee Free Choice Act,” which removes the secret ballot from union elections – is this filibuster threat likely to be effective.

Obamanomics: From the Environment to Health Care

A review of President-elect Obama’s economic policies – characterized by the term, Obamanomics – clearly offer profit opportunities. Let’s take a closer look at some key areas to consider in 2009.

In the economics area, Obama’s two signature policies are a promise to institute a “cap-and-trade” system of carbon emissions permits to combat global warming, and a substantial expansion in state healthcare provision, notably to include universal healthcare provision for minors.

On the energy front, the support of U.S. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), for the “cap-and-trade” system will make it much easier for Obama to pass legislation quickly, probably in the first half of 2009. Under Obama’s proposed legislation, emission permits will be auctioned to utilities and other businesses with substantial carbon emissions. This has the advantage of being more of a free-market approach than McCain’s plan to give away the permits for free, which would have required the creation of a huge government bureaucracy to decide who would get those permits.

Even so, Obama’s approach has the disadvantage of imposing gigantic new costs on utilities and other carbon emitters. Indeed, Obama himself has said that new coal-fired power plants would become hopelessly uneconomic under his plan – chiefly because of the costs of the emissions permits they would need. That suggests that nuclear power plants (which he does not oppose) would account for the majority of new power-station construction during the Obama presidency – although solar, wind and other power-generating technologies that look pretty and can be made to work also will fare well.

The corollary of Obama’s emissions permit program, therefore, is that an investor should sell coal-producing companies and coal-fired electric utilities, and invest in nuclear power stations and uranium-mining companies. In principle, there should also be opportunities in the solar- and wind-power sectors, but the “new energy” fad of the last couple of years has already driven their valuations to uneconomic levels.

On the healthcare side, investment recommendations are more difficult to isolate. Generally, Democrats are skeptical of the patent protections enjoyed by pharmaceutical companies – as well as the high prices those protections create – so the major manufacturers of patented drugs should be avoided.

Conversely, the producers of generic drugs appear poised to benefit from the increased spending on healthcare – especially the manufacturers of pediatric healthcare products, including pharmaceuticals – should benefit from the Obama program’s emphasis on children’s healthcare.

Financial Crisis Redux

Of all the questions investors will have about the New Year – following Obama’s victory – is what the new administration will do about the current financial crisis.

A federal bailout package – consisting chiefly of spending increases – seems almost certain in the short term; that will cause the federal deficit to balloon even more than it has already, will make U.S. Treasury bond financing increasingly difficult, and will further stoke inflation. In those circumstances, avoid Treasury bonds, except the inflation-protected buying Treasury Inflation Protected Securities (TIPS), the principal and interest of which are linked to the Consumer Price Index (CPI). TIPS currently have an attractive yield around 3.0%.

It seems likely that an Obama administration will tend to impose costs on the financial-services sector in return for the bailouts it receives – perhaps, for example, banks will be required to funnel lending into low-income areas, or toward other chosen beneficiaries. Limits on financial-sector remuneration also may make it difficult for the major banks to do business, particularly in the trading area. The Democrats have a more aggressive attitude toward “predatory lending” than the Republicans, and will undoubtedly find innumerable examples of such lending in the mortgage and credit card area over the next few years, which they will wish to punish. Hence, financial sector investments should be generally avoided.

Potential Profit Plays

On the other hand, both Obama and the Democrats seem more likely to propose bailouts for states and municipalities that find themselves in budgetary hot water because of the recession that’s sure to come (if it’s not here, already). Thus, municipal bonds, which carry a considerable credit risk under a tight-fisted Republican administration, may be thought of as less vulnerable to default under an open-handed Democrat administration with sympathy for the issuer’s problems, particularly if that municipality represents a core urban Democratic constituency.

When New York City got in trouble, U.S. President Gerald Ford – the Republican who succeeded the disgraced Richard M. Nixon – took an unsympathetic attitude and The New York Daily News captured his perceived attitude with the headline: “Ford to City: Drop Dead!” No such episode will occur under the urban-oriented, free-spending Obama!

And that makes munis a “Buy.”

Also in the “Buy” category are automobile and auto-parts companies. No matter which candidate ended up winning Tuesday, the victor would almost certainly decide to bail out U.S. carmakers, as well as the suppliers that rely on them. After General Motors Corp. (GM) was rebuffed in its bid for aid by the Bush Administration, the bailout of U.S. carmakers is now being billed as a top priority for the incoming President Obama.

Automakers such as GM and Ford Motor Co. (F) benefit from being the headliners in an iconic U.S. industry – especially because it’s one that employs lots of potential Democrat voters in industrial states and suffer from international competition that increasingly riles the more protectionist Democrats. A bailout is thus inevitable, probably without involving the automobile companies in a Chapter 11 bankruptcy. And that makes their shares worth a “flutter.”

President-elect Obama’s supporters celebrated ecstatically Tuesday night. Investors should be more skeptical. But looked at carefully, an Obama administration – and Obamanomics – would still seem to offer opportunities for profit in the New Year.

Source: Money Morning Outlook 2009: Obamanomics Offers Investors Plenty of Profit Plays in the New Year

Instead of direct financing assistance, it looks like the Bush Administration will speed up a $25 billion loan program that was approved by Congress in September and that’s aimed at helping automakers develop more-fuel-efficient vehicles. The program is administered by the U.S. Department of Energy. The administration is also believed to have asked the U.S. Commerce Department to explore other ways that aid could be brought to the automakers – without expanding the scope of the bailout package.

The so-called “Big Three” automakers – GM, Chrysler, and Ford Motor Co. (F) – are in need of government assistance after being pushed to the brink of bankruptcy: Foreign competition and a slumping economy have combined to push vehicle sales down to their lowest level in 15 years.

GM has been in talks with Cerberus Capital Management LP about buying Chrysler since September. But potential investors in the deal have been hesitant to back the merger without the safety net of federal assistance, or a government guarantee of some sort. GM’s inability to secure financing at a time when credit is hard to come by and auto sales are in decline has left the No. 1 U.S. automaker with few options other than appealing to the government.

GM spokesman Greg Martin said in late October that the company had asked the Treasury Department to broaden recently passed legislation, intended to bolster banks and financial institutions, to include auto companies.

In fact, General Motors Chairman G. Richard “Rick” Wagoner Jr. reportedly went right to Treasury Secretary Henry M. “Hank” Paulson Jr. and lobbied for the government to provide emergency financial aid to the Big Three via the $700 billion bailout plan.

Badly in Need of a Bailout

GM desperately needs some sort of outside funding, as the company lost $18.8 billion in the first six months of the year, and is hemorrhaging about $1 billion in cash each month. That has raised the prospect of bankruptcy for the company. GM had $21 billion as of June, but a merger with Chrysler would give the company access to another $12 billion in cash.

Cerberus bought Chrysler from former parent Daimler AG (DAI) last year for an estimated $7.4 billion. But the new owner hasn’t proven anymore adept at arresting Chrysler’s financial and market-share declines. Chrysler, perennially the smallest of the Big Three, has seen its sales fall by 25% — almost double the 12.8% overall decline in U.S. auto sales. Chrysler has been hurt because its fleet of pickup trucks, minivans, sport utility vehicles and high-performance cars include a number of gas guzzlers – popular for their performance when fuel prices are low, but an albatross to market when oil prices were at record highs.

Cerberus had buyout discussions with the Japanese automaker Nissan Motor Co. Ltd. (ADR: NSANY) – and Nissan’s French partner, Renault SA – about recruiting Chrysler into its international auto alliance. But Chrysler has apparently decided to focus exclusively on the potential for a deal with General Motors.

Just how deep the Big Three’s problems actually are will become very clear this week: Sales figures for October will be released this week as part of the third-quarter earnings reports that Ford and GM are scheduled to release.

Industry sales fell 26.6%, but many analysts believe that October could be even worse. Edmunds.com, a well-known auto-industry researcher, is predicting a sales decline of roughly 30%, The Times reported.

Should any of Detroit’s Big Three go bankrupt the consequences for the U.S. economy would be both deep and long lasting. Together, the companies employ more than 200,000 Americans, and support millions more U.S. workers indirectly through suppliers and dealerships. And that doesn’t count the estimated 1 million Americans – including many retired autoworkers – who rely upon the U.S. auto companies for pension and healthcare benefits. Many of those retirees already saw their benefits suffer severe cutbacks as the carmakers struggled to find cost-savings. Any new cutbacks would undoubtedly affect them, too.

The unemployment rate hit 6.1% in September and continues to rise. Some analysts anticipate the jobless rate could climb as high as 8.5% to 10% next year. With a jobless rate that reached 8.7% in September, the state of Michigan has the highest unemployment rate in the country.

Alternative Energy is No Longer an Alternative

If bailout money isn’t an option, the first step for automakers is to get the Energy Department to expedite the release of the $25 billion in low-interest loans for GM, Chrysler and the Ford Motor Co.

The loan program is viewed as key to the U.S. auto industry’s future – allowing the three U.S. carmakers to use government money to develop fleets of new, more-fuel-efficient cars and trucks, new hybrid technologies, and new powerplants to run these new vehicles. By doing that, the automakers could then take the money from the corporate coffers that would otherwise have been used for this hybrid research and development and redirect it for use modernizing plants and developing new, more-competitive production techniques.

“The auto companies are clearly running out of cash, and badly in need of more liquidity,” David Cole, chairman of the Center for Automotive Research in Ann Arbor, Mich., told The Times. “Releasing the $25 billion in loans is a necessary first step.”

Getting Political

Like the U.S. defense industry, the U.S. auto industry has always enjoyed strong political support. And the current period is no exception. Elected officials in states with a heavy automotive employment base are rallying around the Big Three. Just last week, the governors of Michigan, Ohio, New York, Kentucky, Delaware and South Dakota wrote a letter to Treasury Secretary Paulson and U.S. Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke, urging “immediate action” to assist the foundering industry.

“While all sectors of the economy are experiencing difficult times, the automotive industry is particularly challenged,” the letter said. “As a result, the financial well-being of other major industries and millions of American citizens are at risk.”

But with the presidential election set for today (Tuesday), it’s unclear if some of the Bush Administration’s reluctance to add the auto industry to the bailout plan is part of a concern about setting a precedent that could open the door to other industries – further boosting the rescue plan’s ultimate cost – or if the administration is seeking to avoid making any decisions that could subsequently conflict with the goals of the incoming president. For instance, the Democratic nominee, U.S. Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., has said in recent days that he supports increasing aid to the troubled auto companies, while Republican hopeful John McCain, R-Ariz., has not said whether he would support auto-sector aid beyond the $25 billion, The Times reported.
And, as Money Morning has reported, President George Bush realizes that some decisions about how the bailout will be administered will have to be left to the next president.

Source: Government Won’t Extend $700 Billion Bailout Plan to U.S. “Big Three”

Detroit’s “Big Three” automakers – GM, Chrysler, and Ford Motor Co. (F) – are in need of government assistance after being pushed to the brink of bankruptcy by slumping sales and increased foreign competition.

GM has been in talks with Cerberus Capital Management LP about buying Chrysler since September. But GM’s inability to secure financing at a time when credit is hard to come by and auto sales are in decline has left GM with few options other than appealing to the government.

GM spokesman Greg Martin said Monday that the company has asked the U.S. Treasury to broaden recently passed legislation, intended to bolster banks and financial institutions, to include auto companies. “We believe the federal government should consider using all the tools available to it, including some recently enacted, to support industries that are in distress and that are essential to the U.S. economy,” Martin told the New York Times.

Earlier this month, Congress gave the Treasury Department the authority to spend up to $700 billion to take equity stakes in ailing financial institutions and buy up troubled assets. While automotive companies would not be eligible for cash injections, the government could end up purchasing bad auto loans from the financing subsidiaries of Detroit’s automakers, an anonymous source told Reuters.

Meanwhile, the Energy Department could release $5 billion in loans to GM to help it finance the merger. The money, according to The Wall Street Journal, would come from the $25 billion approved by Congress last month to help domestic manufacturers make more fuel-efficient cars.

The White House yesterday (Tuesday) confirmed that the Bush administration has been in talks with GM.

“I can tell you we’ve been in contact with automakers, GM and others,” said White House spokeswoman Dana Perino. “And beyond that, I’m just not able to comment on any of those discussions.”

GM desperately needs funding, as the company lost $18.8 billion in the first six months of the year, and is hemorrhaging about $1 billion in cash each month. That has raised the prospect of bankruptcy for the company. GM had $21 billion as of June, but a merger with Chrysler would give the company access to another $12 billion in cash.

Should any of Detroit’s Big Three go bankrupt the consequences for the U.S. economy would be severe. Together, the companies employ more than 200,000 Americans, and support millions more U.S. workers indirectly through suppliers and dealerships, The Times reported.

The unemployment rate hit 6.1% last month and continues to rise. Some analysts anticipate the jobless rate could climb as high as 8.5%-10% next year. With a jobless rate that reached 8.7% in September, Michigan has the highest unemployment rate in the country.

Source: GM, Chrysler Merger Could Get Government Backing

The big news today is happening on the highways…

But first, let’s look at the basic figures.

Yesterday produced a weak rally in the stock market – with the Dow up 68 points. Oil lost $3, to close at $128. The dollar rose slightly. And gold got whacked for a $17 loss, but still closed above $900.

You’ll remember how we left you yesterday…we hope you remember, because we can’t. But we think we said that the US consumer should be cutting back. His energy is much more expensive. His food is more expensive. His house is going down in price. He can’t borrow as he used to. He has to cut back, we keep saying; he has no choice. And when he cuts back, the US has to go into a slump. And here we agree with Warren Buffett; it will be longer and deeper than more people think.

We agree with George Soros too; the slump will result in a “noticeable decline in living standards” for most Americans.

But as we signed off, we noted that we were waiting for the evidence…the proof that the consumer is cutting back.

Now we have it. And it comes from the highways.

“Steepest drop in driving since ‘40s,” says a CNN headline item.

According to the report, Americans drove 11 billion miles less this past 12 months than they did the year before.

In the 1940s, the reason for the cutback in driving was obvious to everyone – the country was at war. The auto companies practically stopped making cars so they could turn their production to tanks, jeeps, and trucks. Oil too was diverted from leisure use in the 48 states and used to power ships and airplanes.

But after the GIs came home, they got married, bought cars, filled up their tanks, and headed for the open road. Every year since, until very recently, the national odometer showed more miles driven than the year before.

Now, something big has happened…for the first time since WWII, Americans are driving less.

America’s truckers too are pulling off the road. A report in the New York Times says that many cannot afford to fill their tanks. Diesel fuel is selling for as much as $5 a gallon. This puts the cost of filling a 250 gallon tank well above $1,000. And many truckers fill their tanks three times a week.

Naturally, the auto industry has to downshift. Not only because gasoline is so expensive, but also because the average household is struggling to pay its other bills too. After it pays the interest on its debt, it has less left over than ever before. And then, it has to pay for food, gasoline…and other things, many of them imported. Of course, food and energy are rising sharply, but until recently, Americans could count on low-cost Asian producers to cut prices on our imports. Now, import prices are rising at 14.8% — the highest rates since the early ‘80s.

We’ve already accused the official numbers of lying; now we call Bill Gross, who runs the biggest bond fund in the world, PIMCO, to the stand, to help make our case.

“If we calculated inflation the same way other countries do it, our CPI would be 1% higher,” says Gross. (Bond yields would be 1% higher too, he notes.)

Prices are going up more than the official numbers tell us, in other words. About the only thing that is going down, for the typical American, is the price of his house. And here the news that house prices are going down more than we thought too. The latest survey results from Case/Shiller show the average house in America’s largest 20 cities down 14.4% in March compared to a year earlier – the largest drop on record.

Can you blame the lumpenconsumer for getting down in the dumps? Everything that we warned him about is happening to him. His bills are coming due…his assets are going down…and his income is falling.

Yes, dear reader, that too. The job numbers show a modest decline in employment. What they don’t show is the many people who are “self-employed” who are having a hard time finding work. One of the great benefits of the internet was that it allowed workers much more flexibility. Many found they could leave the 9-to-5 office routine, move to the beach or the mountains and still continue to work on-line. Here in London, for example, there are probably thousands of Americans who are enjoying life in the city, while continuing to work via the worldwide web. We see them in Starbucks, for example, with their heads down and their laptops up. Freelance work was a big advantage for the former employee, because it allowed him to go where he wanted when he wanted. It was a relief to the employer too because it permitted him to reduce internal office costs and fixed expenses. But in a downturn, the easiest thing for an employer to cut is the out-of-office staff. He can just send them an email!

Often these freelance consultants are mature workers who then find it very difficult to get back into the regular market.

“Out of a job and out of luck at 54,” begins an article on the subject in today’s press. Apparently, there are many thousands of people who are “too young to retire, too old to get a new job,” says the report.

Curiously, these facts and circumstances are not showing up in the stock market. Instead, they are showing up in consumer confidence numbers – which continue to sink. Traditionally, stock indices and consumer confidence numbers coincide. When stocks go up, people are confident. When they go down, they lose heart. But not necessarily in that order. In 2005, however, the numbers began to diverge. Stocks rose. Confidence fell. Investors saw clear sailing. Consumers saw rough seas.

Who’s the better weather forecaster? We’ve put our money on the consumers.

And more opinions…

*** Another item from the automobile sector. An auto dealer south of Kansas City has tried to motivate buyers by offering a free gun with every new auto. Predictably, the European press regards this as more proof that Americans are all gun-crazed yahoos.

We don’t know why they needed more proof. We thought the matter had been settled; of course Americans are gun crazed yahoos. At least, the best of them are.