ADVERTISEMENT



Google       

Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Bankruptcy Blogs -> Credit Slips

OR PHONE (866) 635-1838 for Bankruptcy Help, (866) 635-6190 for Divorce,
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense

Find a Local Lawyer

Bankruptcy (866) 635-1838
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402

Bookmark

Bankruptcy

: Credit Slips

Open Access Factories

By Bob Lawless

ADVERTISEMENTS

This semester, I have been teaching a seminar simply called "Bailouts." This week, we have been talking about the automobile industry. One of my students, Aaron Moshiashwili, put forth an interesting idea in his written work for the week. In the seminar, I have stressed that the idea is not to save a particular company but the productive assets that company represents--a point that generalizes to many other contexts in corporate law. In other words, we shouldn't care about the logo that is on the door, but we should care about what goes on inside the building. Regardless of whether they make it or not, the automobile companies are going to create a lot of excess capacity in physical plant and human capital.

Moshiashwili had the following thought:

When the local telephone system got deregulated, one of the things that got built into the requirements was open access. I'm not going to bore you with CLECs or unbundled network element loops; the important part of the deal was this. If one network wanted to come in and compete in an area, the network that owned the local lines had to let the use the existing infrastructure at competitive rates. They can't prioritize their own traffic, or force them to build their own lines, or simply lock them out altogether. In other words, in order to promote competition, we actually allow small companies to compete with large ones on fairly equal footing.

What if a similar provision were implemented for the auto industry? Right now, the Big Three have an AWFUL lot of resources going to waste. And, there are several tech startups right now that are TRYING to make new tech cars, but are finding, surprisingly, that making a car is a fairly difficult endeavor.

So what if one of the requirements of the bailout is that the Big Three, rather than reducing their capacity, are required instead to provide resources to startup auto makers at a flat/reasonable fee? Rather than laying off engineers and closing plants, someone like Tesla motors could pay Ford to have Ford engineers work on the parts of the car Tesla was having a hard time with, and then retool a plant to manufacture Tesla cars. (Tesla makes electric sports cars; they've got an advanced electric motor and drive train, but Tesla had a very hard time getting the gearing working. That strikes me as something that Ford would probably be quite good at.) Right now Tesla Roadsters are being made at a Lotus plant in Wales, while American companies are near to closing shop. Tesla is an American company. This seems like a dumb situation.

I'm not claiming that this would be a panacea. Tesla has managed to make slightly more than 200 cars in two years of production; hardly enough to keep GM in business. But the thing is, once resources exist, people learn how to use them. Right now, if I have a brilliant idea for a new car, what can I do? Starting a new car company is five or ten orders of magnitude more complex than most start-ups. But if I know that all I need is a design and financing, after which I'll be able to pay someone who already owns a factory to help me make it (rather than making a deal which might require giving up the rights to my design, or having to make my own factory) I'm much more likely to give that idea a go, rather than tossing it in the bin.


I understand Moshiashwili to advocate a mandatory system--Ford would have to accept Tesla's work. (Ford is not one currently part of the automobile industry bailout, but the point here is general and not specific to Ford.) The idea is protean to be sure, but it's a clever thought that I had not seen anyone mention. The devil is in the details, and maybe there are too many devils in these details to make it a workable solution. For example, how would you prevent an automobile company from deliberately disqualifying itself from such a program and by sabotaging its excess capacity through layoffs or other devices? Is it reasonable to require an automobile company to keep such excess capacity "online" just in case an entrepreneur emerges who wants to take advantage of plants and human capital? If it's such a great idea, then why don't the automobile companies do it voluntarily for pay?

It certainly seemed like an idea that should be part of the discussion.

Full post as published by Credit Slips on March 16, 2009 (boomark / email).

Bloggers, promote your law blog by nominating your blog for inclusion in USLaw.com's Law Blog Directory and RSS Reader. Benefits described.
Lawsuits and Settlements

Related Searches

























































































































US Law
#1 Online Legal Resource













Your Blog Subscriptions
Subscribe to blogs

10,000+ Law Job Listings
Lawyer . Police . Paralegal . Etc
Earn a law-related degree
Are you the author of this blog? Adding USLaw.com to your Blogroll increases relevance. You qualify to display a USLaw Network badge.
Suggest changes to this blog's description or nominate another for inclusion. Register for updates.


Practice Area
Zip Code:

Contact a Lawyer Now!






0.0126 secs (new cache)