TARP, the Consumer-Driven Version?

Larry Summers just wrote a letter to Congress explaining Obama’s rationale for asking for the remaining $350 billion in TARP funds. One of the things he says Obama will do differently is get credit to consumers and businesses more quickly.

We must also do everything in our power to ensure our efforts are more directly reaching Main Street. It is neither right nor sound economic policy to allow the small businesses that are responsible for more than two-thirds of job creation and entrepreneurs who have worked hard and played by the rules to be victims of the credit crisis that they were not responsible for creating. We will work in close cooperation with Congress, the Federal Reserve and other agencies to strengthen financial institutions and restart lending for small businesses, auto purchases, and municipalities.

Undoubtedly, Congress will complain about this second request, particularly given the way Hank Paulson completely mismanaged it. But there is already fairly good proof that getting credit to consumers and small businesses will have an immediate impact on the economy.

As I noted in my review of December auto sales, the GMAC-as-bank deal that BushCo negotiated in the last days of December had an immediate and significant impact on GM’s sales.

GM said its December sales were helped by a zero-interest financing offer that its GMAC finance unit was able to make during the last few days of the month after GMAC was granted status as a bank holding company by the Federal Reserve.

This allowed GMAC to access money from the federal government aimed at helping banks and Wall Street firms. GMAC had essentially run out of cash to make auto loans earlier in the fall.

Within days of negotiating this deal (which also undoubtedly freed up GMAC to make floor plan loans to dealers), it invigorated GM’s sales.

And I wonder whether the same move isn’t also having an impact on sales across the industry.

Early industry sales results for January indicate that industry conditions might be improving slightly, Ford Motor Co.’s group vice president for marketing and communications, Jim Farley, said during an interview at the Detroit auto show.

Farley described the increase as the first positive sales “blip” he has observed in months. However, he was hesitant to predict that the trend would even last through the end of the month. He speculated that the increase could be caused by manufacturers deciding to extend December incentives into January or by a slight increase in consumer confidence but stressed that it’s too early to know.

“It’s very, very surprising, I have no idea why it’s happening,” Farley said. “But I think across all manufacturers, across all segments, we are seeing a surprising trend rate on sales, beyond our expectations. We don’t know if it will last all month…we are not sure of the underlying cause,” Farley said. “But we are seeing, during the first week or two, really strong business across the country.”

Whether or not it’s credit or  incentives, GM’s example makes it clear that credit will have the desired effect.

Imagine the thought! A TARP program that actually has a positive effect on the economy!?!?! And once that works, maybe the Obama Administration will realize that they need to be putting much more emphasis on those small businesses and less on finance.

image_print
  1. Arbusto says:

    Is the assumption Paulson can’t spend the money before Congress or Obama put some lame controls in place. I’m so not looking forward to the next four years.

  2. klynn says:

    I have been reading a great deal on Hoover and FDR in light of the current Plantation Caucus spin on FDR/New Deal history and their anti-stimulus position.

    One of the interesting elements about Hoover is that he tried tax cuts as a stimulus but it did not work so he followed the cuts with tax hikes.

    Prior to the start of the Depression, Hoover’s first Treasury Secretary, Andrew Mellon, had proposed, and saw enacted, numerous tax cuts, which cut the top income tax rate from 73% to 24%. When combined with the sharp decline in incomes during the early depression, the result was a serious deficit in the federal budget. Congress, desperate to increase federal revenue, enacted the Revenue Act of 1932. The Act increased taxes across the board, and the percentage increased with income, to near pre-1928 levels for top income earners. It also implemented a 13.75% tax on corporations.

    In order to pay for these and other government programs, Hoover agreed to one of the largest tax increases in American history. The Revenue Act of 1932 raised income tax on the highest incomes from 25% to 63%. The estate tax was doubled and corporate taxes were raised by almost 15%. Also, a “check tax” was included that placed a 2-cent tax (over 30 cents in today’s dollars) on all bank checks. Economists William D. Lastrapes and George Selgin,[30] conclude that the check tax was “an important contributing factor to that period’s severe monetary contraction.” Hoover also encouraged Congress to investigate the New York Stock Exchange, and this pressure resulted in various reforms.
    National debt expressed as a fraction of gross national product climbs from 20% to 40% under Hoover; levels off under FDR; soars during World War II. From Historical Statistics US (1976)

    I think the Repub demand for tax cuts is to make Obama’s stimulus “tank” just like it did for Hoover.

    I am glad to see a positive blip in the auto industry after getting some TARP $$$. It gives a short term confirmation that stimulus works.

    • Hmmm says:

      Huh. Wonder whether BO is doing the tax cut thing first knowing it won’t work, so he can SHOW it doesn’t work, THEN plans go to the tax hike which he knows -will- work. Since going there directly didn’t fly with the Congressional R’s.

    • masaccio says:

      I put up a diary about the Hoover tax hikes here. Hoover raised taxes across the board. Obama promised to remove the Bush tax cuts for the very rich, which would raise taxes on the only people who benefited from the Bush years by 4%. It is just remarkable that people cannot learn real lessons from the past.

      • klynn says:

        Thanks for the link masaccio. Great diary. If I “get” my history correct, what really “killed” Hoover were the tax cuts, which then created the need for tax hikes. The revenue need was so great the hikes had to be quite substantial. The Repugs are not wise to rewrite and spin history to create chaos. They would be smart to embrace Hoover and FDR and realize what worked and what did not work, instead of putting energy into tanking Obama due to their desires to kill the Dem party.

        I can only hope the Dems will stand together with Obama and show exactly what happened historically and NOT repeat the mistakes of Republicans past. The Plantation caucus needs to be confronted on their self-centered attitude.

  3. BooRadley says:

    Thanks ew.

    Thanks to Oliver Wolcott for opening the digg.

    FWIW, Jim Kramer just buried all the big banks that accepted TARP money. In light of Summer’s letter, he’s now a strong bear on the big financials.

  4. Russron says:

    I find the Auto Sales number interesting. Could this be due to a hopeful outlook for change, by those buying? Also, after 8 years under Chimpy, knowing he’s on his way out–sure has me a lot more hopeful. I’m actually thinking I can afford a home for the 1st time in my life. Possible trend? Once sentiment/psychology turns, it can have a powerful impact!

  5. foothillsmike says:

    It would be interesting to see if these purchases were driven by individuals or fleet sales. Is this large companies, states, municipalities etc. doing annual buying?
    163 hrs & 26 min

  6. Blub says:

    when this crisis is all over, can we please take the first $350 billion back? taxpayers get the finco’s dividends, forever, or something?

  7. rosalind says:

    well if daimler/chrysler’s credit crunch is easing, i’d certainly take another look at the SmartCar, that baby can scoot!

    (video footage of l.a.’s latest freeway pursuit with the SmartCar hitting 90mph)

  8. Knut says:

    I know we have to get spending back up again to avert the worst, but structurally the United States has too much consumer spending. Our economy has been bent out of shape to accommodate it, with the consequence that a huge proportion (ok, I don’t actually know what it is) goes into cosmetic changes in automobiles, gasoline to maintain suburban lifestyles, a bewildering aray of ever renewed electronic gadgets, meals out, and God knows what else. The proportion spent on what we used to consider the necessaries — food, unpretentious lodging, and clothing is small, but that’s the base. What we don’t have in this country is the kind of social spending that characterises the advanced European economies — spending that supports not only the consumption of old people, which we actually do fairly well, but more importantly the consumption and human capital investments of young ones. Simply ginning up spending again without changing the basic allocation is going to cause further devastation to our public infra-structure.

    Not to mention that the consumption has fueled our huge trade deficit with the rest of the world. Something has got to give. The most obvious and least painful give is consumption of the middle and upper middle classes. It’s a hard truth, but the poor have already given their bit.

  9. Hugh says:

    The $350 billion can be expected to have an effect. I mean $350 billion is still a lot of money. But it doesn’t get to the reason why financial institutions are so unwilling to lend. OTOH they already have money they could but aren’t lending. But they are holding on to it because this cash is offset by the toxic assets that render most of them insolvent. While many of them have shifted these crap assets to the Federal Reserve, at some point they will have to take them back. So I don’t see credit being freed up that much.

      • Hugh says:

        Thanks for the link. There is indeed a liquidity trap and it has been around since well before Fed rates hit zero. I think the article mistakes the cause for the effect. Rates went to zero because no one was lending. It wasn’t that rates went to zero and then banks stopped lending. Also banks could do consumer lending at non-zero rates and make a profit but they aren’t. The reason is again their insolvency brought on by their toxic assets. It’s all a shell game really. Banks are holding assets with a face value of X dollars. If they had to mark them to market, they would be worth 1/4 X dollars. If they had to declare this, they would have to admit they are broke so they don’t. I have long favored nationalizing banks, forcing them to restart regular lending, refinance troubled mortgages with a 40% cramdown which would bring them to pre-bubble levels. I would have them make a public accounting of their troubled assets at the cramdown level or at .6 X dollars. Some banks would be so insolvent they would just have to be closed. Others, most in fact, would be re-capitalized through government loans and eventually reprivatized. During this process banks that were too large to fail could be split up. Their size could be further reduced by re-imposing Glass-Steagall and forcing them to sell off their investment and insurance divisions.

        It just occurred to me I should put this in an oxdown diary.

  10. Neil says:

    The German prime minister’s plan consists mainly of Keynesian measures that should let money trickle up: tax cuts and insurance premiums cuts and raised child support are all part of it. There will also be a car wrecking premium of 2500 euro for cars older than 9 years which is supposed to help the famous German car industry…