Economics: Buyout: Auto-parts company Lear Corp bawt by Icahn for some 5.3 billion (WSJ) but another source says 2.8 billion (NYT)

A new blog, Securities Law Prof Blog carries a brief unsigned item Lear Shareholders Disappointed with Icahn Bid. Wall Street Journal firt quoted $2.8B, while New York Times cut the figure down to $2,8B. It turns out that an Icahn corporation is assuming a huge debt responsiblity in addition to the lower figure just mentioned.

In any case, some shareholders were furious that the Lear board sold out their investments (saying that $36 a share should have been $60 a share), but it was unclear for what reason that downplay would occur by the Lear board--except possibly the salient fact that there were no other offers. No interest. And why that? Auto-parts companies are losing orders, especially from the Big Three homegrown auto companies, with Daimler-Chrysler the latest to announce huge cuts in its workfroce.

Will someone give Carl Icahn some competition for his bid to acquire Lear, the auto parts supplier? Some major shareholders hope so and express disappointment with the board for agreeing to Icahn's $36 bid. Wall Street, however, is doubtful anyone else will be interested. See WSJ, "Lear Holders Call for New Bids" and NYT, "Lear Agrees to Buyout Offer of $2.8 Billion From Icahn ."

All this billionairism at the h+est American level of coprorate economics points to a whole series of major adjustments that will ripple out fron the crisis in the auto industry, first as it spreads to the auto-parts industry and then to other industries. Layoffs will put more thousands of industrial workers on the streets and at the welfare offices. Families will suffer.

USA > Economy & Clean Air,

But these trends could be avoided by a shift to a command-economy by govt in close consultation and scheduling of change in conjunction with a tripartite forum of govt, business, and labour in the affected industries--whereby the homegrowns are forced to shift over to electyrically-rechargeable plugin hybrids and thus reduce pollution by shifting to a new kind of car (trucks, plaines, skidoos, lawnmowers, etc) that like the new fuelcell in General Motors' concept car the Chevrolet Volt could keep workers employed in non-polluting manufacture, deliverty to distributors, salespeople, etc. This would mean that Prez Bush's call for alternative fuels and teaching-point "America is addicted to oil," could be given teeth. Does this violate some sancrosant absolute principle of "the limits of government"? I think not, despite a text of Dutch Christian philosopher Herman Dooyeweerd that on first read seems in one 1946 essay, according to Gregory Baus on Thinknet seems to imply so.

Dooyeweerd writes in his 1946 essay The relation of the individual and community from a legal philosophical perspective: "...the State is characterized as a public legal community of government and subjects... the State cannot assume an absolute sovereignty over the other societal spheres that differ in principle from the State. Every form of legal power, that of the State also, is structurally delimited by the inner nature of the sphere of life within which it is exercised... As soon as one ascribes an absolute sovereignty to the State, one has abandoned the boundaries of law and collapses into State absolutism, based upon a deification of the State. Then also the idea of the "public interest" [or, common good] degenerates into a lever for an unhampered Sate absolutism... The ius publicum, constitutive of the internal law of the State as a public legal institution does not permit service to group interests external to the (public) jural qualifying function of the State. Therefore, the nature of the State is irreconcilable with the allocation of privileges to specific persons or groups [eg, economically impoverished persons--is this bracketed material Dooyeweerd or Baus's reading / interpretation / distoration ? of the phllosophere] ... It is only the State, on the basis of its public legal power, that can... guarantee against an overexertion of the public legal power itself, as long as the public office bearers keep alive an awareness of the inner limits of their competence. The State, in view of the inner nature of the ius publicum, does not have the competence to bind the exercise of civil private rights to a specific social-economic destination, simply because the ius publicum intrinsically lacks any specific economic qualification... [There is an] undermining influence that the idea of "social rights," in its overextension, exerts on civil private law."

But our problem is not covered here: how far can the state go in calling to account companies who destroy the Clean Air that the entire soceital membership needs to breathe properly? Does the power of the state's sword extend to correcting the excesses of runaway corporations, while the state makes these corprorations continue (altered) production, maintain employment of workers, and provide new products (healthier cars), while making illegal gradually the use of the older polluting product which is damaging the ablity to breathe of many people in the society and exaggerating the health and medical expenses to boot.

Economy: Environment: Canada's Harper doesn't want to follow Bush on severe goals on auto/gas air pollution

Altho the President of the USA in his State of the Union message did not linger long on issues of oil-product pollution in the environment, he did take a strong approach to using Mideast resources, particularly in relation to what is now called "oil security." A day later, Canada's Prime Minister Stephen Harper was reported by Canadian Press via No plans to follow Bush on oil consumption, says Harper (Jan24,2k7).

OTTAWA — Canada won't follow the Bush administration's lead in setting hard targets for reducing oil consumption, but will instead impose tougher emissions standards on the auto sector and other industries, says Prime Minister Stephen Harper.

However, any regulations intended to protect the environment won't come at the expense of the economy, Mr. Harper said Wednesday.

"The government does intend to regulate emissions across all sectors including the automobile sector," Mr. Harper said in an exclusive interview with Canadian Press.

The problem is not just automobiles, we underscore, lest there be some misunderstanding. The problem is autos, trucks, buses, boats, lawnmowers, ski-doos, and airplanes.

"(But) we have to consult the industry and ultimately come up with targets that make progress on the environment while being achievable for industry in a way that doesn't jeopardize Canadian jobs," Mr. Harper added.

"That's our target."<'blockquote>Again, Harper doesn't pause to notice that, were we to start with the auto-manufacture industry and certain of its satellites, we could keep people employed while be would bring new models of hybrid models, like the concept car Chebrolet Volt. With an element of inter-companies agreement and government command, a strict plan of full employment could be maintained in the industry during the entire period of the change-over. It's just too obvious that Harper is beholden to particular industrial investors' interests in gas and autos etc, that is quite aside from employment as such.

Harper just doesn't get it that air pollution is an absolute anti-health violation of the entire population and an enemy of the health system. As the report says:

"... [U]nlike U.S. President George W. Bush, cutting energy consumption won't be Canada's focus as it aims at becoming a world energy superpower, Mr. Harper said .

In his State of the Union Address this week, Mr. Bush said he wants to reduce oil consumption by 20 per cent in Middle East oil imports over 10 years. That would reduce American dependence on oil from the Middle East by 75 per cent.

Canada is now the leading exporter of energy to the United States when oil and gas are factored into the equation. The Bush administration has sought to increase oil imports from Canada, which is seen as a reliable and secure source of energy, since the Sept. 11 attacks.

At the same time, it's important to note that Harper does have something of an energy strategy for Canada, a strategy which is bigger than oil-products, vehicle power, and a strong tolerance of unacceptable rates of air pollution.

Canada is an emerging world energy superpower. We have an abundance of all forms of energy. We're an exporter of virtually all forms of energy."

"Our need and our desire to deal with these things and set targets is really in the context of environmental improvement and environmental preservation and less in terms of energy security."

Mr. Harper appears to be heeding warnings from Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty and Canadian Auto Workers President Buzz Hargrove.

Mr. McGuinty has warned the federal government not to solve its greenhouse gas emission problems on the backs of the industry that is the engine of the Ontario economy.

Mr. Hargrove has also cautioned Harper not to shackle an industry "already on its knees" with more regulation.

The auto industry has been operating under a voluntary emission reduction plan that will end in 2010.

Thus, as it turns out, the problem in Canada is Ontario's Liberals who control the govt lock, stock and barrell, in cahoots with the automakers here and the Canadian Auto Workers.

--Poliicarp