Reason's Ford Blind spot

In the course of promoting free markets, Reason points out that Ford is a free market success story while the recipients of government bailout money are still struggling to become profitable. The headline of the story is Unsubsidized Ford Profitable for Six Straight Quarters.

Ford was the only domestic auto manufacturer to avoid bankruptcy or take a bailout from the federal government. 

This simple analysis misses the a lot, because the government's programs did a lot to help Ford.  There was a cash for clunkers program and various government stimuli that helped keep the consumer in a better position to spend money, but the largest subsidy was the bail out of Ford's suppliers. Without the GM and Chrysler bailout Ford's supply chain would have been in dire straights, and the final impact on Ford would have been anywhere from bad to catastrophic. 

This blind spot appearing in the blog of a libertarian oriented magazine bothers me.  Libertarians often become libertarians because they habitually look at second order effects of government action. If an unpopular company whose suppliers were subsidized by the government was distorting the market by out competing a company with unsubsidized borrowers I'm sure Reason would be quick to point this out.  Just because Ford did a lot of things right and is popular doesn't mean that it is an example of a free market success.
Upvote Upvoted 0
5 responses
While the bailout did keep Ford suppliers alive, I am not certain that we can say this is a major benefit to Ford. If they (suppliers) went under they would not have necessarily shut down. They would probaby have continued operating under different management. Whoever got the assets would certainly want to continue selling to Ford. Without others (GM/Chrysler) to sell to they might have had to sell to Ford for less.
— Joe Sr
This is possible, but it's only true if the suppliers would have been able to continue operating. I don't know how dependent the suppliers are on economies of scale to be able to operate profitably, but most arguments for the bailouts suggested that they might not keep operating if GM & Chrysler weren't bailed out.
— Jeff Lonsdale
Do you think the assets of the suppliers would be sold for scrap steel? They (suppliers) may fail, but then the creditors own the assets and the best thing they can do with them is to make parts for Ford. If assets are being used to make parts being sold to Ford, I fully expect that they would continue to be used to make parts for Ford, even if the ownership of the assets changed hands.
The bailout was done to prevent the assets (of the car companies and the suppliers) from changing hands. The new owners would have been free of high priced union contracts and the unions would lose.
— Joe Sr
It is true that it was a large bailout of the unions, and it may be true that the suppliers could have kept operating as a going concern.

That still leaves the government bailout consisting of cash for clunkers and other stimulus measures aimed at giving the consumer a leg up helped Ford become profitable. Cash for clunkers is basically a direct subsidy to car companies, so calling Ford unsubsidized is still wrong.

— Jeff Lonsdale
Yes, absolutely. Ford was subsidized, but that was just a secondary result of the government bailout of the unions of both the car companies and their suppliers.
— Joe Sr
Add Website URL »