The Big Three Dama

I’ve been watching the Big Three bailout drama with increasing dismay.  First, the executives from GM, Ford and Chrysler flew in private jets to Washington for a hearing, and then proceeded to beg for $25 billion–without offering a plan as to how the money would help them get out of their present mess.  Congress told them to come back with a plan, and suggested that next time they find a more plebeian mode of transportation. So back the executives came this week, humbly carpooling in the poorly made cars their companies produce, with more detailed plans for restructuring.  The CEOs magnanimously offered to work for $1 a year if they received the bailout money (nevermind that the bulk of their salary comes from stock options and bonuses, not salary).  They presented a plan for laying off workers, closing plants, focusing on core brands, and lowering health care and other costs.  Congress wasn’t exactly impressed, and polls show Americans are not in favor of yet another bailout for yet another mismanaged corporation.

But here’s the problem: the Big Three are just too big to fail.  They directly employ roughly 100,000 people in the United States, but their suppliers across the country employ hundreds of thousands more, and the ripple effect would send our already reeling economy into a tailspin.  It now looks like the auto companies will get their money, albeit only half of what they were originally seeking.  The same “too big to fail” logic was used to justify the bailout of AIG and several other financial institutions.  And, like it or not, in a “centralized” economy, the logic is quite sound.  What concerns me is that “too big to fail” usually means “too powerful to regulate.”

Conglomerates Abound

There is no shortage of conglomerates whose purpose is to maximize profit, at any cost, provided that no laws are broken (of course, we all know that laws are stretched and often broken).  In fact, publicly traded companies have a fiduciary duty to their shareholders to maximize profit; that is, they are required by law to do so.  What this means is that a company cannot focus on social or environmental goals unless working towards those goals somehow helps the bottom line.  As a result, the traditional approach taken by corporations with respect to social and environmental goals has been to 1)influence laws to their benefit, 2)avoid litigation, and 3)lower operating costs (e.g., by installing CFL light bulbs, cutting wages or benefits, or reducing packaging waste).

A consequence of this paradigm is that, at least in America, public policy is too often shaped by what benefits corporations rather than individuals; getting corporations to follow the law is time-consuming and expensive, since large companies have a fleet of high-powered attorneys at their beck and call; and only limited inroads have been made on fair trade, environmental sustainability, and other important issues.