"The Economic Equivalent of an Atomic Bomb"

Question: Why save the auto companies?

Steven Rattner:  Not to over-dramatize, but also not to mince words, it would have been the economic equivalent of an atomic bomb for the Midwest.  You would have seen a million jobs disappear almost immediately; you would have had ripple effects all through service providers and other kinds of businesses that depend on the auto sector for their income.  You would have had massive unemployment; you would have had insolvency in states.  It’s almost impossible to imagine how big the devastation would have been.

Question: Were auto unions the problem?

Steven Rattner:  The union, the UAW, was part of the problem, but it was not all of the problem.  Remember that labor is only 7% of the cost of making a car, so even if you reduce 7% to 6%, you’re not dramatically changing the profit equation.  Of course, there are the famous healthcare benefits for the retirees and other costs that come with the UAW, but the UAW was not the only problem. 

Having said that, the UAW was part of the problem. And we had very direct conversations in which we pointed out that having a system where you got overtime if you worked more than eight hours in a day, even if you work six hours a day for the rest of the week, was not where the world was at today.  Having a holiday system where at General Motors, you not only got the 4th of July off, you got the whole week of the 4th of July off, was not where the world was.  Having 300 separate job classifications at these companies so that someone who was in charge of turning one screw couldn’t turn another screw, was not where the world was.  And to its credit, the UAW understood that.  They came in not rolling over for us, not willing to do anything we said, but they understood that their contract was outmoded and needed to be revisited.

Question: Where will the auto industry be in five years?

Steven Rattner:  One of the things about automobiles that I did figure out early on, and it gave me some courage about this whole thing, was the fact that nobody’s invented a substitute for the automobile—unlike perhaps newspapers or some other things that we do every day.  Automobiles are still going to be bought and you still need to sell something like 15 million cars a year just to keep the fleet from aging.  Right now we’re selling between 11 1/2 and 12 million cars a year.  At its peak, it was 17, at it’s depth it was 9 1/2.  My point is that, car sales are certain to go back to a normalized level of 15, 16, 17 million cars a year.  So there’s going to be a vibrant car business in the United States.  The question is: "Who’s providing those cars?"  Is it the “Detroit Three” as they’re known, is it the Japanese transplants or are the cars going to be imported?  And I think we’ve put GM and Chrysler in a position where they can be competitive for that market, and I think Ford is competitive for that market.  So five years from now my prediction would be that the Detroit companies still have a very significant share of the market and are doing quite well.

Question: Should the government support the auto industry now?

Steven Rattner:  I think by and large, the market should rule.  I think government should only intervene in the private sector under extraordinary circumstances.  And the reason Rahm Emanuel and the President and Tim Giethner and Larry Summers supported our intervention a year-and-a-half ago we because the private market had failed.  There was no capital available to support these companies, even in a bankruptcy.  There was just no private financing.  And so that’s an appropriate time for government to intervene.  But it was made very clear to us by Larry Summers and others that once the restructuring was over, the government needed to get out of the way.  And I think that’s the right principle.  This country really should remain true to its market principles and I think this was an extraordinary exception to that rule.

Question: Will America get back the $82 billion from automakers?

Steven Rattner: Yes. I believe that the American people will get back the vast preponderance of the $82 billion whether they’ll get back every penny or not, nobody can know.  But without getting into the sort of the weeds on this, if you... there are various metrics that you can use to value each piece of the government’s investment in these different companies.  And when you add it all up, it gets you very close to $82 billion at the moment.  The companies are doing quite well, there are related businesses that we put money into like, GMAC, which is now called Ally, are doing quite well and I believe the government will get, if not every penny of it, very close to all of it back.

Recorded September 23, 2010
Interviewed by Victoria Brown

If American taxpayers hadn't spent $82 billion to save the auto industry from economic collapse, "it’s almost impossible to imagine how big the devastation would have been."

LinkedIn meets Tinder in this mindful networking app

Swipe right to make the connections that could change your career.

Getty Images
Swipe right. Match. Meet over coffee or set up a call.

No, we aren't talking about Tinder. Introducing Shapr, a free app that helps people with synergistic professional goals and skill sets easily meet and collaborate.

Keep reading Show less

Can the keto diet help treat depression? Here’s what the science says so far

A growing body of research shows promising signs that the keto diet might be able to improve mental health.

Public Domain
Mind & Brain
  • The keto diet is known to be an effective tool for weight loss, however its effects on mental health remain largely unclear.
  • Recent studies suggests that the keto diet might be an effective tool for treating depression, and clearing up so-called "brain fog," though scientists caution more research is necessary before it can be recommended as a treatment.
  • Any experiments with the keto diet are best done in conjunction with a doctor, considering some people face problems when transitioning to the low-carb diet.
Keep reading Show less

Golden blood: the rarest blood in the world

We explore the history of blood types and how they are classified to find out what makes the Rh-null type important to science and dangerous for those who live with it.

Abid Katib/Getty Images
Surprising Science
  • Fewer than 50 people worldwide have 'golden blood' — or Rh-null.
  • Blood is considered Rh-null if it lacks all of the 61 possible antigens in the Rh system.
  • It's also very dangerous to live with this blood type, as so few people have it.
Keep reading Show less

Want to age gracefully? A new study says live meaningfully

Thinking your life is worthwhile is correlated with a variety of positive outcomes.

Surprising Science
  • A new study finds that adults who feel their lives are meaningful have better health and life outcomes.
  • Adults who felt their lives were worthwhile tended to be more social and had healthier habits.
  • The findings could be used to help improve the health of older adults.
Keep reading Show less