GM

Jim DeMint (S-SC), David Vitter (R-LA) and Mitch McConnell, along with a slew of other Republican senators have begun their pitched battle attacking American auto workers this week by opposing any bailout that doesn’t include slashing unionized autoworkers pay to that of non-union autoworkers in the south. Effectively killing a Congressional bailout of the Big Three automakers, they focused their invective on the high pay received by workers represented by the UAW.

Notwithstanding the question of whether the U.S. automakers should receive such help from Congress, attacking American workers as the root cause of the industry woes speaks volumes about what we already know about these Senators, who are hostile to the rights of working Americans while bedding with the worst elements of industry.

Extending the Senators’ logic a bit, should all American’s wages be reset to some other standard? Perhaps Congress should take it upon itself to set UPS worker wages to Fedex standards. Perhaps Toyota workers employed in Alabama receiving $40 an hour have their wages set to those workers at the VW assembly plant in Puebla, Mexico. The comparisons hare endless here but what is important is that, when it comes to screwing working people, these Republicans regulatory ambitions know no bounds.

On the other hand, if it is to become Congress’ role to regulate wages, then perhaps we can start to evaluate executive pay in a similar manner. Something modest is in order here. I like linking U.S. executives wages to that of similar executives in, say, Great Britain or France.

Breaking out of that fantasy, the reality here is that, as was noted in the LA Times and elsewhere, the Republicans’ primary aim is not to consider the merits of the financial bailout of the auto industry so much as to stick it to the UAW, sort of a counter punch to the upcoming effort by organized labor to enact the Employee Free Choice Act. In addition, any blow back that these Senators might receive from their fiscally conservative supporters (I’m speaking about their financial supporters not the electorate), is avoided by tossing this monkey wrench into the process. As we are seeing, President Bush is now talking about deferring funds from the financial industry bailout (TARP), allowing the Republican senators to spoil the deal while avoiding the consequences resulting from a catastrophic failure of the industry.

Popularity: 4% [?]

In the December/January issue of Fast Company magazine there is an infographic by Spanish graphic design company Lamosca that puts the world’s top ten corporations by revenue in a different perspective.

Here are some interesting highlights that are included in the infographic:

• Last year, Finland’s government budget was 40.5 billion euros, about 20% less than Nokia’s annual sales.
• Wal-Mart has more than 2.1 million workers, about the same as the populations of Latvia or Namibia.
• Toyota is the only Asian company in the top 10.
• The oldest company in the top 10, ING is descended from an insurance company founded in 1743.
• Thanks to Shell and ING, the Netherlands, the world’s 19th-largest economy, is the only country other than the U.S. to have more than one company in the top 10.

With all of this relative wealth, this raises the question as to why these and other similarly capitalized companies are seemingly incapable of stepping up in a substantive way to address many of the world’s challenges? While it can be said that companies are in the business of making money, isn’t there also an ethical responsibility for these companies to minimize the harm they inflict on the environment, strive to improve the lives of people in the communities in which they operate and prevent to the extent possible the harm on the world that they inflict wither directly or indirectly?

Popularity: 4% [?]

Last week, my colleague John Richardson wrote an article titled “5 Reasons to Save the Big Three.” While I do not necessarily believe that a bailout in some form should be ruled out altogether by lawmakers, I do think there are a number of solid reasons to oppose government intervention at this time. So I thought I would offer a contrasting perspective.

Most Republicans are against any bailout based on their doctrinal “free-market” ideology (yes, the same philosophy that got us into this mess with the deregulation of Wall Street investment banks under Phil Gramm during the Clinton Administration). So we know we shouldn’t be looking to that side of the aisle for the moral high ground in this debate. The Democrats, under the leadership of Pelosi in the House and Reid in the Senate, are in a very precarious spot. On the one hand, the Democrats have been given a clear economic mandate by voters to clean up the mess caused by “eight failed years of Bush economic policies.” On the other, the Democrats have some very powerful interests to consider, namely the UAW and its thousands of blue collar voting members in Michigan and the Midwest. This balancing act has caused most Democrats, including Obama, to lean cautiously in favor of some type of federal intervention.

Following the first round of hearings, House Speaker Pelosi said: “Until they show us the plan, we cannot show them the money.” President-elect Obama also agreed that taxpayers can’t be expected to “pony up more money for an auto industry that has been resistant to change.” This week, the Big 3 are getting their second – and likely final – chance to convince lawmakers.

Bankruptcy or bailout? Here are 5 reasons why Congress should think twice before dolling out the money to the auto industry.

[click to continue...]

Popularity: 3% [?]

Executives of the U.S. auto industry – flanked by their cadre of lobbyists – are now busy begging lawmakers for handouts. So far, GM, Ford and Chrysler have failed to present a strong case for using taxpayer money in their resuscitation. We know that Wagoner (GM), Mulally (Ford) and Nardelli (on behalf of Cerberus Capital, owner of Chrysler ) will get one more chance to prove their case once Obama takes office, if not sooner. And regardless of whether the “big 3″ automakers end up filling their golden chalices with federal money, a mandate stipulating an increase in the production of plug-in electric cars will emerge. This much is sure.

So it seems that this is an opportune time to consider what the next era of America’s auto industry might usher in. Let’s start by taking a quick trip back to high school chemistry class since the future of the auto industry and the new fleet of next generation cars starts with the letters “Li” on the periodic table.

The element lithium is one of nature’s more flexible atoms. Lithium salts were used during the 19th century to treat various ailments and millions of people around the world today rely on it to treat psychosis and manic-depression. Lithium is also used as an industrial agent to kill algae and to filter carbon dioxide from the air in spaceships.

Lithium is the lightest metal and the least dense solid element and because of this it is very effective in heat transfer applications used in rechargeable and primary batteries because of its high electrochemical potential, light weight, and high current density. A lithium-ion battery is the “engine” (non-combustion of course) of today’s electric cars and will likely remain so in the foreseeable future.

[click to continue...]

Popularity: 5% [?]

During the past week, the media has railed about the performance by the CEOs from Chrysler, General Motors and Ford.  Like beggars in mink coats, Mssrs. Wagoner, Nardelli and Mulally marched to Washington DC last week to plead for $25 billion in financial aid from the government to an incredulous audience.  Ill prepared for the onslaught by Congressional inquisitors, the Big Three CEOs looked like angry zebras ready to face down a brood of lions. What was obvious to everybody but the “zebras” was the fact that that the even angrier public and Congress have lost patience for these business leaders who expect financial aid, no questions asked. Lions 1, Zebras 0. [click to continue...]

Popularity: 5% [?]