GM and Chysler Bankruptcies

[kandrathe]

Yep supply drops, and assuming demand stays the same, price goes up. Of course right now, demand has dropped too and I admit that supply is going to drop more than demand. I'll grant that the short term in the car market I'm talking about is still 5 years or so, not one year. But I also feel that someone will use some of that idle capacity that is still viable that gets shed when these people go belly up.

Me too. But, I think we agree that the next few years will be "interesting".

But this issue is not really new. Part (and I can not say how big a part) of the reason the Big 3 failed is because they didn't produce what the market wanted. Yep their big gas guzzlers still sold well, but they never made a good mid size or small size that people wanted.

They tried to compete in the small and mid-sized markets, but they failed and rather than "reinvent" themselves, they settled to focus on the remainder.

The other thing to consider is where demand is going to grow. I still contend that the demand is going to grow in the smaller car sizes that the failing companies had more issues in.

I think the best idea would be to rethink the societal problem of transport, then work toward a unified strategy that involves the vehicles, as well as the energy sources and the roadways. There are numerous reasons for road use (e.g. from Dad off buying groceries to the truck driver hauling groceries to the store), and so each of those problems needs to be resolved.

So to go back to your food issue.

If I'm hungry enough, I'll eat mushrooms.

So I still say that we can easily still fill 60-80 of the production under the current plan and that we really only need what can be produced on 90 acres.

I doubt it. I think the US is losing about 40% of its ability to produce vehicles, and therefore also the jobs that used to be associated with that production.

Lower quality vehicles will get purchased now too. Used cars that had a year or three of road life in them that got scraped before will be back on the roads, because yes cars that pass all the standards to be drivable get scraped.

The US government is actually paying people to scrape their old cars and buy new cars.

And yes prices will go up in all the car markets.

Nod.

You of all people didn't really believe there would be? Obama campaigned on Hope and Change, not Change and Hope. He put the real promise first. :) I never said he was a great candidate. I've never had a great candidate to vote for in my voting lifetime though. :)

Yes, I knew it was the latest incarnation of a snake oil salesman blowing sunshine up my kilt. I still *hope* he doesn't do to much damage during his four years in office.

And this problem actually goes back farther than that. Didn't Reagan push a lot of regulation out on car markers too?

I wouldn't be surprised. The problems with the US government are systemic, and Washington fights to remain in control of everything globally (including the US economy).

Also as I mentioned earlier, it's not like Japan doesn't have similar standards and they still seem to be able to produce vehicles that meet all our requirements.

Japan is having problems as well.

It looks like in 2008, the big 3 made up 48.4% of the US sales. So we have to keep in mind that everything we are talking about is less than half of the total vehicles sold in the US. Yes, it will have an impact. But some of the trends and issues in the market are related to the GLOBAL recession. If that changes it will have impacts as well. Back in May of 08 Chrysler was only the 5th biggest manufacture in the US market. ... There are also several Chinese manufacturers that have been looking to get into the US market. Do you not think they will try to step that up if all the Chrysler plants close. ... You're thinking still seems to be rooted in a local market, not a global market.

Yes, and no. GM is a global company, and its plants and suppliers span the globe. Ask Mexico or Canada how the big 3 failures will affect them.

Of course the thousands and thousands of people out of jobs (unless one of those Chinese plants does what Toyota and Honda have done and make plants in Kentucky, Ohio, Missouri, etc) they won't have incomes to buy cars with. Of course I covered that a bit in my falling demand.

China will probably not be willing to build plants in the US, unless the US government gives them away along with a bunch of guarantees.

Hah! I live in a town of 16,000 - 20,000, we do have a 24 hour cab company and if you plan really well you can get a greyhound bus to pick you up in the parking lot behind McDonalds. I don't live on a transit corridor. :)

I wasn't only concerned about your commute. :)

I also realize that if circumstances hadn't forced me to, I wouldn't have willing gone without a car that long, but I couldn't do much about it. However it taught me some good lessons, and while I'm in process of fixing up an 88 Honda Civic to have as an option, I'll still get around on my bike and feet mostly. I'll still use my cooler attached to a two wheeler to assist me in shopping and getting clothes to the laundry mat.

There is the bed of an old rail line about 4 blocks from my house, which is designated as a light rail corridor and has been for the past 20 years.

I also realize that this can't work for everyone, but I would bet that over 40% of the population could get away with it, they just don't think they can. Honestly I hope they don't have to either. It can be a real pain in the ass and really limit options. But a car is not a requirement to survive in the United States.

Neither is fuel oil, or natural gas. But, heat and transportation certainly make surviving easier.

On a final note I'm still not sure what you want. You don't want them to collapse, you don't want them propped up. What do you want to happen to a company that hasn't responded to the pressures that have been hitting them for decades. Do you think that if the Feds hadn't bailed them out they would have survived? We are going to have an aftermath. My personal opinion is that we would have been better of to get the natural aftermath of the failures than this crap we are going to have with the Fed in the middle, but I also feel that while it will hurt, that we'll be fine.

To me, the perfect solution would be to divide GM back into multiple car companies and divide the stocks accordingly. Then, give each one 1 year of bankruptcy protection to reorganize, and figure out how to emerge if they can with a vibrant new competitive company. Back off on the CAFE standards as a mandate, but instead turn them into some type of incentive system. Bring the UAW and all the car companies in the US to sit down at the table and hammer out a realistic labor plan for the next 10 years, then everyone signs it and lives with it. I would be more comfortable with the members of the UAW owning 60% of GM, rather than the US government. The way to make these companies succeed is to give them a predictable future. Which means, you need to have a comprehensive transportation plan that considers roads, transit, energy, and industry. The problem is that what we have now is the beginnings of at least a $100 billion quagmire.

[--Pete]

Hi,

This is a government made SUV. It may not run but it will still take gas. Come on Pete. Wake up!

Touché! :lol:

--Pete

[Lissa]

Saturn was owned by GM.

[Kevin]

To me, the perfect solution would be to divide GM back into multiple car companies and divide the stocks accordingly. Then, give each one 1 year of bankruptcy protection to reorganize, and figure out how to emerge if they can with a vibrant new competitive company. Back off on the CAFE standards as a mandate, but instead turn them into some type of incentive system. Bring the UAW and all the car companies in the US to sit down at the table and hammer out a realistic labor plan for the next 10 years, then everyone signs it and lives with it. I would be more comfortable with the members of the UAW owning 60% of GM, rather than the US government. The way to make these companies succeed is to give them a predictable future. Which means, you need to have a comprehensive transportation plan that considers roads, transit, energy, and industry. The problem is that what we have now is the beginnings of at least a $100 billion quagmire.

The Baby Bells of the Automotive Industry. Not the same I know but it just kinda popped into my head. :)

I actually wouldn't have a problem with any of it, and I does help to know where you're coming from.

Of course I think if they had failed and not been federally interfered with in the failure that something like that may have come out of the bankruptcy court.

[kandrathe]

The Baby Bells of the Automotive Industry. Not the same I know but it just kinda popped into my head. :)

No, that is appropriate. We tend to believe that in order to compete globally, we need megalithic corporations. What we end up with are virtual monopolies that "are too big for the government to allow to fail", which indicates a problem in and of itself. A way to resolve the housing crisis (after cleaning up the derivative loopholes) is to break up Fannie and Freddie into organizations that would be allowed to go bankrupt if they failed.

Of course I think if they had failed and not been federally interfered with in the failure that something like that may have come out of the bankruptcy court.

In my Utopian world view, the government should lead with things like "going to the moon", and indicating a viable energy use policy. Having the government invested in the success of a company that is tied to the old transportation metaphor puts them in conflict with developing a transportation plan that is good for the people. To me it seems just wrong for the President to also be the Chairman of the Board of Government Motors.

[--Pete]

Hi,

To me it seems just wrong for the President to also be the Chairman of the Board of Government Motors.

And there I agree completely. In my world view, the government should regulate all commerce and industry for the protection of the citizens, and only for that. And the government should own no commerce nor industry nor any part of them. The Republicans seem to fail in the regulation, the Democrats in the owning. And there does not seem to be a third choice.

Jefferson was right and we're about 11 revolutions overdue.;)

--Pete

[Kevin]

Hi,
And there I agree completely. In my world view, the government should regulate all commerce and industry for the protection of the citizens, and only for that. And the government should own no commerce nor industry nor any part of them. The Republicans seem to fail in the regulation, the Democrats in the owning. And there does not seem to be a third choice.

Jefferson was right and we're about 11 revolutions overdue.;)

--Pete

Here here! :)


I don't mind the government stepping in if there is a monopoly. Monopolies are not good for the consumer, I've never seen an economic model where they are. I don't mind them setting environmental regulations. They shouldn't own anything. Heck I remember a big stink about the army corp of engineers building public works as part of their training because it took jobs away from private industry. I don't really have an issue with that, though I do recall a case in my hometown, added a runway to the airport. No private contractor put a bid in. But there was still a huge stink about the Guard unit building it for their AT (Annual Training).

I think you nailed the parties pretty well too. I would love a 3rd choice (or 4th or 5th or Xth) for many different reasons, this among them.

[--Pete]

Hi,

I don't mind the government stepping in if there is a monopoly. Monopolies are not good for the consumer, I've never seen an economic model where they are.

Yep. They're especially bad for a free market since they stifle the competition that the free market is supposedly based on. However, regulating monopolies has historically been difficult and there has been, at best, little success.

I don't mind them setting environmental regulations.

Again, yes. But there needs to be some strong thinking done. Not environmental, but consider the case with sealed beam headlights. By defining what headlights had to *be* rather than what they had to *do*, the USA fell years behind the rest of the world in that technology.

They shouldn't own anything.

I agree. I'd go so far as to include roads, bridges, schools, and 'public buildings' in that 'anything'.

I would love a 3rd choice (or 4th or 5th or Xth) for many different reasons, this among them.

Yep. Ain't gonna happen unless we change our winner-take-all form of elections. Of course, expecting to have the winners in that form change the form that let them win is a bit optimistic;)

--Pete

EDIT: To the mods: could we disable the auto-error module on these forums? Every time I check the *perfect* post I just made, I find that that module has added a few random typos and/or mistakes. TIA. ;)

[Roland]

GM produced 3,382,315 vehicles in 2005, and Chrysler made 1,652,703 vehicles. I foresee a near term shortage in manufactured vehicles. 2nd place was Ford with 2,965,872 vehicles. What most people don't realize is that Ford, who got in to the cheap borrowing before the "liquidity crisis" :ph34r:will probably run into financial trouble within the next year as well. The big three produce about 80% of the vehicles produced in North America.

So the big question I have is; where will the production capacity come from to step in and provide North America with automobiles?

Just a thought from the other side of the coin, since my life depends on it: who says you have to buy a new car every year? Maybe, just MAYBE, people will have to take care of what they already own. That means spending money on maintaining the vehicle(s) they own, putting money back into the very same hard-working people you want to support. People like me, my father, my technicians, and all the employees of the vendors I deal with. That means continuing manufacture of parts. That means increasing giving REAL dollars to REAL people, who work hard every day for their money, rather than expecting it to be handed to them because of their title.

I'll be the first to say this whole thing is a cock-up of massive proportions, and it scares the living daylights out of me day and night. However, there IS an upshot to all this: a move from consuming to maintenance. The best part? With proper care, maintaining even an aging vehicle can be MUCH more cost-effective than purchasing a new one, and will guarantee far more dollars into the pockets of both the dealerships and many other places. Maintenance is what keeps me alive. It's what gives me my meager salary. It's what sustains the other half of the auto industry, the one NO ONE ever talks about or even considers.

This could very well be the best AND worst thing to happen to the automotive industry since its inception. The Big Three have been sitting on their laurels for far too long, and it's cost them. The Asian import market is skyrocketing, and it will gladly fill up the void left by the departure of the old guard. The European import market has hundreds of vehicles ready to fill our needs, if only they can cross the governmental barriers of safety and emissions concerns (some of them viable, most of them typical political BS).

There will be a short-term shortage, but a large portion of that will be caused by those people unwilling to let go of their domestic brand loyalty. I see far more import vehicles on the road than I do domestic, and far more older import vehicles than domestic.

Here's a thought: enticing import auto manufacturers into building factories on our soil, like BMW and Volkswagen have in the south? You support domestic industry, even if it's through an import product. What? Too simple? Yeah, you're probably right. Besides, I'm sure BMW, Mercedes-Benz, Volksawagen, Toyota, Honda, Nissan, Hyundai, Volvo, and Saab are on the verge of collapse, too. (Ok, so maybe that last one.;))

Oh, and to get back to your figures, what good are looking at production rates 4 years ago? What about last year? Or the year before? How about comparing production rates to actual sales? How about ratios of combined domestic production to that of import? Likewise for sales? No, I don't think we'll see nearly as much of a problem with automotive SALES in the future, near or far. At least, not due to lack of production. Perceived lack of production will probably hinder things, as all FUD does, but actual production should ramp up significantly from other manufacturers to fill the void. Besides, it's not like people are banging down the doors looking for new cars right now - that's a large part of why all these dealerships are in such trouble. They're stuck with millions of dollars in stock that they can't get rid of, so they're forced to sell them for pennies on the dollar, minimizing profits while maximizing costs (dealerships more often than not finance those vehicles; they rarely ever own them outright). --I'm stopping myself here before I go off on an hour-long tangent. Suffice it to say, I think that portion of the automotive industry will be fine. The only ones who will suffer will be those who can't suck up their "American Pride" and buy a product based on its actual worth, rather than the badge glued to the front of it.

[Roland]

Used Car Market Affected by Shortages

If you're going to spout off sound bytes, why not look back a bit further? The reason the used car market has been so low and soft these last few years is due to MASSIVE financing offers for buying a new car. Huge sticker price reductions, large (over-inflated) trade-in values, and 0% / low-cost financing pushed a MASSIVE surge of new vehicles onto the market. This caused the used vehicle market stock to skyrocket as dealerships unloaded cars en masse into auction lots, where they were scooped up for pennies on the dollar by all the used car lots. They then sat there, for months on end, stagnated, because their was no market for it, thus driving prices further down as an incentive to get something out of their investment.

The other side of that coin that no one ever talks about, period, is the service industry. We live and die by the number of used, serviceable vehicles still on the road. When people can buy / finance / lease a brand new car for potentially thousands of dollars less (or, if they can be persuaded to think they can) than maintaining their old vehicle, they'll trade in their old vehicle for a nice, shiny new toy - thus ensuring only HALF of the auto industry stays in business, and forcing the other half, the actually sustainable half, out of business.

Now that we've hit such a deep recession, used car sales are on the rise, thus driving prices up due to increased demand. Hardly anyone is buying new cars, thus helping to sustain the automotive repair industry. Dealerships sell less cars, but in theory can (if they're competitive) bring in more dollars in service work, and the independent repair market starts to flourish again, after several continuous years of deep recession and stagnation (that no one ever hears about, or cares about).

Apples to apples, and all that. People need to start looking at the whole picture, instead of just the half that gets all the media attention.

[kandrathe]

Just a thought from the other side of the coin, since my life depends on it: who says you have to buy a new car every year? Maybe, just MAYBE, people will have to take care of what they already own. That means spending money on maintaining the vehicle(s) they own, putting money back into the very same hard-working people you want to support. People like me, my father, my technicians, and all the employees of the vendors I deal with. That means continuing manufacture of parts. That means increasing giving REAL dollars to REAL people, who work hard every day for their money, rather than expecting it to be handed to them because of their title.

I read somewhere that the average vehicle life had grown from 9.2 years in 2006 (a record high), to 10.8 in 2008 (a new record high).

I'll be the first to say this whole thing is a cock-up of massive proportions, and it scares the living daylights out of me day and night. However, there IS an upshot to all this: a move from consuming to maintenance. The best part? With proper care, maintaining even an aging vehicle can be MUCH more cost-effective than purchasing a new one, and will guarantee far more dollars into the pockets of both the dealerships and many other places. Maintenance is what keeps me alive. It's what gives me my meager salary. It's what sustains the other half of the auto industry, the one NO ONE ever talks about or even considers.

We really have no other choice as I see it. The downside for you would be the unemployed who no longer commute, and the under employed who cannot afford even simple maintenance.

This could very well be the best AND worst thing to happen to the automotive industry since its inception. The Big Three have been sitting on their laurels for far too long, and it's cost them. The Asian import market is skyrocketing, and it will gladly fill up the void left by the departure of the old guard. The European import market has hundreds of vehicles ready to fill our needs, if only they can cross the governmental barriers of safety and emissions concerns (some of them viable, most of them typical political BS).

My question would be "who" enabled them to rest on their laurels?

There will be a short-term shortage, but a large portion of that will be caused by those people unwilling to let go of their domestic brand loyalty. I see far more import vehicles on the road than I do domestic, and far more older import vehicles than domestic.

I still believe you cannot shutter dozens of manufacturing plants without affecting the supply pipeline. No one has the excess capacity to pick up the slack. Japan is poised to step in if they can increase their production. The rest of Asia hardly registers a presence in North America.

Here's a thought: enticing import auto manufacturers into building factories on our soil, like BMW and Volkswagen have in the south? You support domestic industry, even if it's through an import product. What? Too simple? Yeah, you're probably right. Besides, I'm sure BMW, Mercedes-Benz, Volksawagen, Toyota, Honda, Nissan, Hyundai, Volvo, and Saab are on the verge of collapse, too. (Ok, so maybe that last one.;))

Didn't that happen with Toyota, Honda, and Nissan?

The only ones who will suffer will be those who can't suck up their "American Pride" and buy a product based on its actual worth, rather than the badge glued to the front of it.

I don't think its just nationalistic pride. The price of Honda, Toyota, and Nissan were still about 30% higher for the same class of vehicle. On average, the quality was higher as well. Although, at times, the big three would pull it altogether and make a quality vehicle for a decent price (well below the "imports", which were made in the USA too). When consumers are given a choice between, cheap, affordable, and high quality, they invariably go for the middle option. Where the Japanese cars are competitive is where their high quality nears the affordable range.

[eppie]

Didn't that happen with Toyota, Honda, and Nissan?I don't think its just nationalistic pride.

This car business is weird anyway. Several brands that were mentioned in this thread (Volvo, Saab, Opel, BMW, Mercedes) were at least partly in american hands anyway (GM, Ford or Daimler/Chrysler) and I think all car brands are doing bad, not only the american ones.

Some other weird (not direct government arranged) deals; Saab is being bought by a sportscar manufacturor that sells 20 cars per year. Porsche owns. volkswagen, Fiat buys part of chrysler and tries to buy opel despite having a 6 biljon euro dept etc. etc.

I have to agree with Roland, the only sustainable way of keeping the economoy healthy is using cars for longer time accompanied by a dramatic reduction of new car production. Making and selling cars works for the bubble economy (money keeps flowing) but for the real economy throwing away expensive things that still work is a waste.

[kandrathe]

I have to agree with Roland, the only sustainable way of keeping the economoy healthy is using cars for longer time accompanied by a dramatic reduction of new car production. Making and selling cars works for the bubble economy (money keeps flowing) but for the real economy throwing away expensive things that still work is a waste.

Well, I don't agree.

The quality of cars is such that they last between 12 and 20 years if they are driven regularly (they last much longer if they never leave the garage). Yes, some people buy a new car every 3 to 5 years, but those used cars do not just get scrapped. The used cars are sold and bought by poorer (or smarter) people who care for them and try to get the most lifespan from them. While I certainly could buy a new car every year, I don't. I look at a vehicle as a rapidly depreciating asset, so I try to find one that has been used for 2 or 3 years. Then, I take very good care of them. I've only ever bought two new cars in my life, and only one of them was a huge mistake. It was foreign, and was very expensive to maintain. I owned it for 10 years, but it still cost me over $10K per year to own it. The other was a car my wife drove for almost 15 years, had driven it over 300,000 miles, and she wrecked it three times too. She still misses that car.

The way to affect the demand for automobiles would be to reduce the number of miles people need to drive. This can be done by the Government if they 1) required people to live closer to their work, 2) implement a massive transit system, 3) tax gasoline at much higher levels, 4) take over GM to control the quantity of vehicles produced.

[Jester]

The way to affect the demand for automobiles would be to reduce the number of miles people need to drive. This can be done by the Government if they 1) required people to live closer to their work, 2) implement a massive transit system, 3) tax gasoline at much higher levels, 4) take over GM to control the quantity of vehicles produced.

One is hopeless, and violates free association. Two is a good idea, but that ship has sailed for most major American cities, and would take quite a lot of effort to reverse. Three is a fantastic idea. Four would be useless, because the US is an open economy and GM is not a monopoly supplier.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

One is hopeless, and violates free association.

Yet, urban planning everywhere is trying to rezone to limit sprawl. The city planning trend is to force building vertical.

Two is a good idea, but that ship has sailed for most major American cities, and would take quite a lot of effort to reverse.

The numbers don't add up for me. It seems to cost more per passenger mile, and not provide enough passenger miles to eliminate lane miles of roads.

Three is a fantastic idea.

Which is a regressive tax, but it does punish those who drive the most, and ultimately forces people to move closer to their jobs, or use the heavily subsidized transit.

Four would be useless, because the US is an open economy and GM is not a monopoly supplier.

Not really. OPEC is not a monopoly either, but sudden increases and decreases in supply can heavily affect the market (e.g. Chip dumping). The government doesn't need to remain profitable, so it can use the power of production and price control to manipulate and blackmail the market.

[--Pete]

Hi,

One {"required people to live closer to their work"} is hopeless, and violates free association.

Not to mention that since people often change jobs, or at least job sites, it is impractical. I worked for Boeing in the Seattle area. I worked at three different sites in fifteen years, and I knew people that had worked at more. I was fairly lucky in that the closest site was only eleven miles away, the furthest twenty-three. I could have easily had a forty plus mile commute (each way).

The only thing that idea would have accomplished is to make the real estate agents rich.

Two {"implement a massive transit system"} is a good idea, but that ship has sailed for most major American cities, and would take quite a lot of effort to reverse.

The cities that have good transit systems paid for them in money and inconvenience long ago, but pay for them they did. It might be harder to do it now (I'm not sure that is true), it might be more expensive (again, I don't think so in constant dollars). The question isn't can we afford to do it now, the question is can we afford to wait. Because it *will* be a lot more expensive and a lot more inconvenient when it has to be done in a rush, as an emergency measure, because the other options are gone.

Three {"tax gasoline at much higher levels"} is a fantastic idea.

Yes. At least to the level of maintaining the existing infrastructure. Preferably to the level of funding 'two' above:)

Four {"take over GM"} would be useless, . . .

And gets your Libertarianism card revoked :whistling:

--Pete

[kandrathe]

And gets your Libertarianism card revoked :whistling:

Just to be clear... All four options are distasteful to me.

[Jester]

OPEC is not a monopoly either, but sudden increases and decreases in supply can heavily affect the market (e.g. Chip dumping). The government doesn't need to remain profitable, so it can use the power of production and price control to manipulate and blackmail the market.

No. OPEC is not quite a monopoly, but they have market power. They control enough of a scarce natural resource that they can affect prices.

GM does not have market power. If they lower production, there are a dozen companies across three continents that will step up to fill the breach. It's a manufactured product, which makes it much harder to gain market power. A GM production stoppage would be solved by other companies within a couple years, and that would be the end of the fruitless attempt to control production that way.

How would blackmail work? They could overproduce, and drive everyone else out of the market. But foreign companies would still have their production infrastructure. Unless GM wants to try to corner the global auto market on the taxpayer's dollar, that's a hopeless game. They could under produce, but other companies would just step in to fill the breach. They have no ability to alter the elasticity of demand.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

How would blackmail work?

It's not really GM, it the US government. Yes, scarcity is an issue, since it takes time for the other manufacturers to fill the void. Once the other manufacturers step up production and fill the channel, GM can also step up production and drive the price down. If you can do this enough times, you drive your competition into bankruptcy. Of course, then the government can just buy them up. Rinse repeat.

And, speaking of conflict of interest... Who negotiates trade for the US government?

[Jester]

It's not really GM, it the US government. Yes, scarcity is an issue, since it takes time for the other manufacturers to fill the void. Once the other manufacturers step up production and fill the channel, GM can also step up production and drive the price down. If you can do this enough times, you drive your competition into bankruptcy. Of course, then the government can just buy them up. Rinse repeat.

All this would do would establish a *very* expensive subsidy on cars. Why would the government want that? They'd lose money on the deal hand over fist, and car prices would drop, increasing consumption. And if they ever stopped with the subsidy, to actually try and get people to stop using them (the whole original idea!), foreign competition would immediately fill the gap. To drive every last competitor out of business, and prevent re-entry, they'd have to do what I said earlier: corner the global auto market. That's just not feasible, not even for the US government.

This idea just does not function. What they'd have to do to get car consumption down by creating scarcity would be to establish high tariff walls and tax the hell out of cars. Owning GM would be irrelevant.

And, speaking of conflict of interest... Who negotiates trade for the US government?

That seems to me to be the least of the problems. Governments negotiate trade for themselves or for trusts all the time.

-Jester