Osler's Razor

Well said, Prof. Osler.

I am jumping onboard your "no bail out bandwagon."

While I continue to believe the financial sector "rescue" is/was somewhat different (liquidity is the sine qua non of American business), the bail-out bucks need to stop here.

Offering major corporations federal stupidity insurance is an unsustainable policy.
 

Farmer,

You have just coined a new favorite phrase for me: "federal stupidity insurance." It works on so many levels.
 

Man it would have been nice to have Federal Stupidity Insurance while in law school. Do you think it can be claimed retroactively?
 

I purchased federal stupidity insurance years ago. However, I bough it from AIG. D'oh!
 

I must step in here on behalf of GM. They are an important part of this country, and have given a lot to America. Those executives only are doing what other executives do all the time. If they fly commercial, they don't have the same amount of flexibility, and can't get as much work done. They are well-compensated because their talents are so valuable. I thought they did very well in their appearances in Congress.
 

Mitt Romney agrees.
 

Is GM "wall street" or "main street"? Because I want to help "main street" but I am against "wall street". Also, I am against all other streets, so if you live on "9th Street" don't come knocking on my door for help.
 

GM is cruisin' on down Better-Than-Ever Street! In a Pink Cadillac!
 

Yesterday's NY Times had an OpEd piece by Mitt Romney. It is worth a read. I had no idea that his father had taken the helm of American Motors back in the 50's. Maybe GM should hire him.

This bailout stuff and the 53,000 job cuts at Citi have taken an emotional toll on me this week, since I once worked and consulted for Citi and it impacts so many of my friends.

I also married into a Chrysler dealership family - thank goodness they sold out about 10 years ago - so I know more than I want to about how the parent company treats the dealers.

RRL - GM is mainstreet [although GMAC (Credit) could be considered Wall Street or a banking subsidiary].
It is the small plastics company that makes cup holders for the cars in Podunk, USA or the textile factory in NC or SC that makes the fabric for the interiors that are already feeling the effects from the suto industry slow downs. NC is taking a huge hit as are many other small business suppliers to the auto industry. And when bankrupcy occurs they will be pretty far down the food chain for reimbursement.
 

GP Guy --

Talents? I'm sorry, but empirical evidence points to their management and decision-making skills as negligible.

This is a classic example of the powerful exploiting the working class for its own benefit, and when the working class isn't participating in the market the way the capitalists want, they turn to the government to help. It's the absolute inverse of socialism.

There are two "proper" choices at this juncture. The absolute free market solution is to let GM fail because of mismanagement and make the workers suffer because of decisions beyond their control, because management cared more about profits than making a quality product that people would buy.

The other solution would be to allow the workers to take over the operations of GM's facilities and democratically manage them (through the union), with assistance from the federal government if the people approve it. Then, production should be geared toward producing quality automobiles for the nation with any surplus over to export. Quality assurance would be handled by the federal government, either through administrative regulation or direct legislative action (the former being more practical, the latter more democratic).

Of course, such a major economic shakeup would have to be the first step in an economic restructuring from a society that trades in abstractions (credit, large amounts of money, and corporations themselves) and a doing away with the corporate/stockholder form of business altogether.

We're faced with three difficult and somewhat unpalatable choices. On the one hand, we could have unabashed robbery of the public coffers to help the private sector, which is morally and economcially bankrupt. We could allow the public and good workers to suffer the consequences of decisions made by their bosses, which would be morally bankrupt and would hurt the overall economy of the United States.

Or we could face the difficult task of economic restructuring with little to no guarantee of success, dependent entirely upon the managerial talents of an informed populace, competent administrative team and unionized workers. While this would have the potential payoff of a long-term, sustainable economy not driven by profit but by meeting the needs of the citizenry, the initial steps would likely be difficult and faltering.

So there's no "good" option. There's just evil, less evil, and near-on impossible.
 

You know, I would save Ford At LEAST they made a FEW decent hybrids and have had a long standing commitment to quality AND a relationship with Mazda. They also own Volvo, which, though I can not afford to buy OR own one of their cars (they are expensive to buy AND to maintain) AT LEAST they have safety of families as a priority). Hate to say that I would axe Chrysler save for their minivans, a few jeeps and a few trucks I guess. NONE of their cars are worth anything Seriously I have been able to get a substantial Chrysler discount for years now and I bought one minivan. That's it. As for GM? How about this: Let Chrysler do the minivans, Let ford do the cars, Let GM do the trucks, and MAKE THEM ALLL commit to making more FUEL EFFICIENT, (or possible all electric or something) SAFER CARS for Americans to buy and drive. I am currently looking for a car with the most airbags that I can afford. DO you know that even in used care there is NOTHING under $17K????

As far as I can see EVEN TOYOTA does not get the highest safety ratings!!! The companies with THE SAFEST cars on the road are: Volvo, Saab, Mercedes Benz and SUBARU. Toyota has ONE CAR that is as safe as a Subaru Outback or Forester - a HIGHLANDER which starts at $30K.

I just want to get almost 30 mpg and know that If I get broadsided by some drunk yahoo in a suburban or a bronco that I have a fighting chance.
 

You know, I would save Ford At LEAST they made a FEW decent hybrids and have had a long standing commitment to quality AND a relationship with Mazda. They also own Volvo, which, though I can not afford to buy OR own one of their cars (they are expensive to buy AND to maintain) AT LEAST they have safety of families as a priority). Hate to say that I would axe Chrysler save for their minivans, a few jeeps and a few trucks I guess. NONE of their cars are worth anything Seriously I have been able to get a substantial Chrysler discount for years now and I bought one minivan. That's it. As for GM? How about this: Let Chrysler do the minivans, Let ford do the cars, Let GM do the trucks, and MAKE THEM ALLL commit to making more FUEL EFFICIENT, (or possible all electric or something) SAFER CARS for Americans to buy and drive. I am currently looking for a car with the most airbags that I can afford. DO you know that even in used care there is NOTHING under $17K????

As far as I can see EVEN TOYOTA does not get the highest safety ratings!!! The companies with THE SAFEST cars on the road are: Volvo, Saab, Mercedes Benz and SUBARU. Toyota has ONE CAR that is as safe as a Subaru Outback or Forester - a HIGHLANDER which starts at $30K.

I just want to get almost 30 mpg and know that If I get broadsided by some drunk yahoo in a suburban or a bronco that I have a fighting chance.
 

OK Uh I don't know why that printed twice sorry.


Also I bought my minivan from a reallllly nice guy at a Chrysler dealership. His name is Chuck and I TIRED to buy more cars from him but he never has ANYTHING I want.. I feel terrible for him. I do believe that tyhe Corporate does treat the dealers badly AND ALSO why does GM need like 5 versions of the SAME CAR??? Buick Pontiac Chevy etc COME ON!!! LOSE the PLATFORM system it SUCKS DO like Toyota and Honda Have TWO versions One low end one high and leave it at THAT!!!
 

"This is a classic example of the powerful exploiting the working class for its own benefit, and when the working class isn't participating in the market the way the capitalists want, they turn to the government to help."

I'm pretty sure every time we discuss anything that even remotely relates to the economy Lane has written something akin to this exact sentence. Apparently, everything is an example of the exploitation of workers.

"The other solution would be to allow the workers to take over the operations of GM's facilities and democratically manage them (through the union), with assistance from the federal government if the people approve it. Then, production should be geared toward producing quality automobiles for the nation with any surplus over to export."

Or we could make the goal to produce unicorns and happy thoughts because that would be just as possible as what you propose. If the union took over these shops and the government directed them then there would be one goal and one result - the union would benefit. Workers would get pay raises, better pensions, better health care. Lane, workers aren't inherently altruistic, and if they had the chance they would do exactly what they've attempted to do in every collective bargaining agreement, get a bigger share of the pie.

"Quality assurance would be handled by the federal government"

This is potentially the funniest thing you've ever written. It had me doubled over for like 10 minutes.

I think the problem here is your only looking at one half of the problem, the mismanagement at the top. This is probably because that problem fits in with your worldview (which is that corporations are bad and workers are being oppressed). However, as Christine pointed out a couple of days ago the workers have some responsibility here too. The unions have put Detroit at a competitive disadvantage. Ignoring that problem guarantees that any solution (even the international workers revolution) is doomed to failure).
 

If I sound like a broken record it's because there's a pattern to this. The failure of the banks and GM aren't unrelated coincidences. The economic troubles we're experiencing are the direct result of complex socioeconomic processes.

I don't think workers are altruistic. I don't even think most of them are competent to manage a company. But I do trust in democracy and the people. I trust in the collective knowledge of the workers to know how to do their jobs.

There are problems with unions, but not in their demanding humane treatment for workers making things "uncompetitive." Unrestrained capitalism leads to the kinds of things we see in developing nations like sweatshops.

I as much admitted that things wouldn't be rosy under an economic restructing. Every system lends itself to abuse -- socialistic, communistic, capitalistic, feudalistic, no matter what. The very nature of a power relation, the sociology of human beings, it all adds up to produce problems that must be handled.

My view (incidentally, a view shared by others) is that the flaw that is inherent to the capitalist system is unsustainable. Wealth, like any other resource, is finite. It can't be created out of nothing. Value arises in a complex sociological relation, and the market theory of value treats it as an abstraction, something set by conditions while ignorant of the conditions by which value comes to be expressed in these relations. A labor theory of value is much more sound on this point, since it doesn't reify abstractions like "price."

Of course, labor theories of value don't work in for-profit economies. Wealth in for-profit economies tends to concentrate at the top, not at the level of the laborer, because privatization makes possible the holding of the means of production in private hands, e.g., GM owns the factories that produces the cars, lets the workers come in, and then pays the workers a wage so that the workers can buy back the cars they built, so that the abstract entity can make more money (and, in the best of cases) increase the wages of the workers.

It is not in the company's interest to treat the workers beyond a certain level of minimal comfort. Everything is run toward accumulating more wealth for the top with the idea that it should flow down to the bottom.

But it never does. Lots of value (labor) goes in, but almost no value is returned. That's a textbook definition of exploitation. And in return, when the top is in trouble, the only two "free-market" options are screw the taxpayers (bad) and screw the workers (bad). I suppose if the management voluntarily decided to cut their salaries, make sure that employees retirement plans were solid and that they could guarantee that layoffs and "downsizing" wouldn't happen, that would be great...

But are we really going to, as a nation, as a democratic nation, going to put the fate of our citizenry in the hands of the dubious altruism of the executives of a publicly-traded company? You know as well as I do that the shareholders would throw a fit if GM's executives did that, because then their bottom lines would be threatened.

In the fight of bottom lines, I am on the side of the taxpayer and the worker. If someone has to suffer, I say let it be the people with whom responsibility rests: mismanagement. I won't penalize unions for fighting for better treatment for workers, even if it made US autoworkers "uncompetitive" in terms of the abstract share price. There's a point where morality and ethics enter in to our economic theorizing.
 

RRL makes an excellent point: men and women are not angels. No matter who we are, with few exceptions, whenever people get even a little power, they begin to oppress others. It is a sad truth that has played itself out throughout history. If we look at communist nations that attempt to live Marxism, we see that even they were stratified. Granted, there were only two classes, government officials and everyone else. Officials live in oppulance while everyone else is destitute. Well, at least they are all EQUALLY destitute. Glad they could work into the system at least a little equality.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: We live in a society that wants to be free from consequences.

And it's destroying us.

We're abandoning the traditions and values that made us a great nation: free will, accountability, hard work, selflessness, and service.

I guess freedom has spoiled us, and now we're in danger of losing it.
 

Here is the problem Lane, you envision a world in which GM (or Ford, or Chrysler) is run by the USFG for the betterment of the people. They provide cars to the nation, not for profit but just because it is something that must be done. But the question becomes, what is the motivation for innovation? Who will be the inovator? Who will be there to develop the next advance in safety technology? Who will be there to develop the next generation of electric cars?

The answer is nobody. Toyota didn't develop the Prius because they wanted to save the world. Toyota didn't develop a line of smaller, gas-efficient, low maintenance vehicles because they wanted to help people. They developed those cars because they wanted a competitive advantage. They were driven by profit. They were driven to beat their competitors to a developing and emerging market.

Capitalism sparks innovation. In every area we can imagine (science, pharmaceuticals, medicine, automobiles, etc.) competition is the sine qua non to creativity, innovation, and progress.

The funny thing about the GM situation (if there is a funny thing) is that it is a perfect example of what happens when competition doesn't exist. GM didn't really have to compete against anyone 50 years ago, and as a result became lazy and stupid. And while emerging companies (Toyota, Honda, Nissan) that emerged in the 70s/80s were developing new ideas and moving the ball forward GM was mired in old models and traditional ideas about the car business.

The great thing about capitalism is that now there is a natural solution to this problem. GM loses. They couldn't compete. And now they go away.

Government ownership has the opposite effect. There is no competition. No motive for innovation. No incentive for creativity.

Bottom line, Lane endorses a world where exceptionalism is discouraged. That would be a scary world indeed.
 

As pro-union as I am, I'm actually going to place at least a portion of the blame on the UAW. The automotive industry in the United States is based, in large part, on outdated technology. Cars are made by unskilled or medium-skilled employees stamping and assembling hundreds and hundreds of metal parts. The problem with this is that technology is moving away from this model. As the techonological process becomes more streamlined, less and less parts are needed, and cars are made (or at least have the potential to be made) lighter, stronger, faster, more efficient, and with many less parts. Some body model prototypes, made from molded carbon fiber alloys instead of metal, are 1/4 as light as the current models and would require as few as 30 parts, instead of over 200 stamped metal ones. What do you think UAW's position on this is? A new technology that puts millions of union workers out of business? Of course they're not going to embrace it. The problem comes when people start valuing technology, convenience, economy and value over "buying American." Which is why the Japanese are making small, efficient cars and succeeding, and the Big Three, whose model is built on buying the biggest, toughest, Americanest gas monsters and failing. Until the Big Three learn to wake up, swallow their hubris, and adjust their business model to match consumer desires, they're going to continue to fail.
 

RRL --

Lots of innovation is done outside of the private sector! We're both university-educated men; let's take a moment to remember our colleagues across the street.

I won't deny that the desire for profit acts as a motivator (and in our current society, the prime motivator) for innovation. But there's no necessary connection there.

As long as we're talking in the airy-fairy realm of theory, the push for innovation could come from many sources: government grants, eductional research programs, the simple desire to better mankind, national defense needs, etc.

In all practicality, we need a values/ethics shift along with an economic one. The former fails without the latter. Socialism requires, as Craig alludes to, a certain amount of angelicity among men. However, unlike many, I don't see the "basic nature" of mankind as sinful and greedy. I deny that there is any such thing as a basic nature. We're all products of the society that formed us: in a capitalist society, we're greedy bastards hellbent on self-preservation because we have to be. The conditions for value formation require it.

So I don't discourage exceptionalism. I encourage it. In fact, Marx is very explicit that the conditions under which innovations arise are those where a basic need can be easily met: e.g., we didn't develop literature and culture until after we had surplus food from farming, and we didn't develop high technology until after industrial processes could be automated. The luxury of time provides the breeding ground for information.

Imagine if we didn't require the rat race to "get by" in terms of basic necessities. Imagine if our income were entirely devoted to leisure pursuits and (in the case of those best suited to it) research.

I think competition is great, which is why I actually oppose permanent national monopolies on the means of production. I just oppose the corporate form of an economy where value is set by stock price and decisions are made by shareholders instead of democratically by the people involved. There's as little competition in an absolute laissez faire economy as there is in a totally socialist (e.g., Stalinistic) economy.

The version of Marxism I'm particular to (what you might call Trotskyism, democratic socialism or even anarcho-communism) holds that the best economy is one where the production of goods is primarily focused on meeting the needs of the citizenry, with economic decisions made democratically by communities → unions → state governments → federal government. So there's plenty of competition between the United Workers of General Motors and the United Workers of Ford, but that competition isn't, "let's see who can entice more people to buy our products," but rather, "let's see who can put out a product that is superior, for the good of the people."

But you're right. That's utopian to the extreme. No one (currently) wants to do that, because for the good of the people isn't as hedonistic as "will make me a lot of money." I think that this is a consequence of a default-utilitarianism in public ethics, brought on by the capitalist culture, analytic philosophy, and general Anglophone worldview of the Western world. As I said, none of this is as simple as I paint it (but I'm already typing far too much, as you've no doubt noticed!). We live in a complex world where everything from our science to the groceries we buy on the weekend is interrelated in very complex ways to our values and the way we live. Ideas run in bundles and worldviews and ideologies are sometimes difficult to express without forcing tugs and changes elsewhere in the web of belief.

That's why meaningful political change happens very, very slowly (and I sort of like it that way), except during Kuhn-like paradigm shifts. I think that the current crisis marks the beginning of such a shift. Personally, I think the better way out of it for us is to change to a more community-minded, collectivist paradigm of business and socio-economic relations. Others are free to (and do) disagree, and I'm sure our descendants will learn which of us was right. It might very well be you. Or it might be me. The beauty of democracy is that we're allowed the chance to shape our own fates.
 

Socialist societies have often been the home of great innovations. Sputnik, anyone?

Crappy cars, though-- the Lada, the Yugo, the Trabant, the Vega, the Volvo, the Dachia... bad, bad, bad.
 

Osler, is that your new photo?
 

"I don't see the "basic nature" of mankind as sinful and greedy. I deny that there is any such thing as a basic nature. We're all products of the society that formed us: in a capitalist society, we're greedy bastards hellbent on self-preservation because we have to be. The conditions for value formation require it."

So how do you explain the basic evil nature of communists in the politburo in Soviet Russia (not to mention Stalin and Lenin and Castro and Che). Or, how do you explain the evil nature of socialists in Germany, Italy, etc. I think you're denying basic human nature, which is fortunate because socialism as a theory only works if human nature doesn't exist. So, I understand why you're doing it, but I don't think it makes it any more legitimate.

The entire history of mankind, including the history of mankind prior to the developement of market economics and what we call capitalism, is a history of the basic nature of humanity. Selfishness, greed, lust, etc. - these are basic human instincts, and no amount of wishing them away makes them go away.

I actually think this is the problem with your entire premise, and Trotsky's as well for that matter. If the people would make decisions that are the best for everyone, if we could trust the people to be altruistic and to make determinations based on the needs of ALL the people and the desires of ALL the people then your system would be great. But it faces the same problems that a top down workers revolution faced in Soviet Russia. The experts, the political elites were not altruistic. They were not there for the good of the people. They were greedy and evil men, and they sought out what was best for themselves. The people, the workers, etc. are no different. Under your democratic-socialist system the majority would seek advantage for itself and ignore the minority. The minority would suffer.

Bottom line, capitalism is a system that is upfront with the people. Work hard, create, move up. If you don't, then you will fail. Is it always pretty, no. But it is honest, brutally so.

Your system is dishonest because it allows people to believe in a world that doesn't exist, a world that has never existed.

And obviously there is some amount of competition in government grants (schools compete for them) and defense contracts (because defense contractors compete for them by developing new technologies). So, government can foster competition within a capitalist system, but when government controls the actual mechanisms of innovation (for instance, when the UK took over the British automobile industry in the 70s) it is a horrible failure because competition ceases to exist.
 

Twd -
I would suggest looking at a used Volkwagen Jetta or Passat. Both are loaded with airbags and the Passat I drive gets 30mpg + on highways and stretches of road that are not stop and go. In town I tend to get 24 to 25 mpg.

We had Plymouth Voyagers when the family had the business and WE LOVED that car. My brother is driving a Dodge Caravan now and LOVES it ~ and none of us have kids. It is just a well designed vehicle. The Hemi engines that Chrysler brought out ~ Magnum, 300, etc. were garbage. Really Chryslers demise can be tied to its merger with Daimler who eally didn't manage the company during that time and then when it didn't perform - dumped the company.
 

Obviously I believe that Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, etc. are products of the society that spawned them, that their political philosophies were misguided and that they were bad people. But any society is capable of producing evil men. More to the point, it's disingenuous to compare the development of socialist philosophy in the USSR/SE Asia to the development in Europe and the West. The sociological conditions are vastly different.

The conditions under which evil arises aren't universal; they're as diverse as human psychology, so I'm uncomfortable speculating as to the precise cause in general.

You're right, though, that Marxist philosophy is closely tied to anti-essentialism. But then again, so are many other critical theories, like Kantian deontology, feminist legal theory, critical race theory, Hegelian dialectics, Heideggerean existenialism (well, all existentialism, really), Husserlian phenomenology, etc. I've also just listed the philosophies I personally find to be palatable.

As I've said, ideas tend to run in packs because at their base they're shaped by common value judgments. Central to my philosophy, and indeed to modernism in general, is the rejection of the Christian doctrine of original sin or the idea that humans necessarily "are" one way. You find this idea cropping up in all sorts of other places these days -- evolutionary psychology, capitalist economics, Objectivism.

The problem is that you're still making a universal claim (all humans are necessarily motivated by an instinct of greed and self-preservation at the expense of others) and basing it on particular examples while divorcing those examples (the process called "reification") from the social and historical context of the people. We can't perform the sorts of psychological experiments on people to decide whether it is nature or nurture that makes us evil. At best, we can hope to phenomenologically understand the conditions under which evil can arise, and it seems that it arises in different ways in different value systems.

A big theme in Continental philosophy in general is a critique of reification (hence the term "critical" you see appended before diverse philosophies, like critical legal studies) and an attempt to situate theories, worldviews, ideologies, etc. within their context. This bothers are lot of people (generally analytic in nature) that are uneasy around constructivist theories of human psychology and epistemology.

In the quest for objectivity and certainty, we often shoehorn the data to fit preconceived models.

I guess the point of this rambling jaunt through major topics in 20th century interdisciplinary philosophy is that we should be careful to talk in absolutes about things we don't really fully understand.
 

--Does RRL not have enough clients?
--I don't remember having as much free time in law schoolas Lane seems to have.

And sadly, I don't have enough time to read their LONG, LONG comments now.

All I know is the UAW Job Banks thing is nuts. Funny how the foreign automakers have set up plants all over the U.S. and are doing fine.

Finally, like C, I wonder about the new photo.

Were you thinking this might get picked up by Yahoo Finance again and you wanted a more serious looking picture on your blog?
 

IPLG -- I am a proud graduate as of August 2008. Passed the Bar and everything!

I'm currently working as a document reviewer for a discovery company, but today I am ill and sitting up in bed spewing revolutionary vitriol to semi-strangers on the Internet (I've actually met RRL before, though I doubt he remembers me).
 

IPLaw, don't be a hater! Just cuz we don't have time or energy to argue about stuff we can't change... We can argue over which band is better, the Kinks or the Who...
I vote the Kinks.

And for the record, I don't think that GM has ever made a car I'd be seen in.
 

*Assumes contrarian position*

The Who are clearly superior. "Behind Blue Eyes" is a masterpiece of modern balladry. Pete Townsend's picadillos notwithstanding.
 

The Who, easily. Please. They even made a good movie ("Quadrophenia").

The photo is the one I finally picked for the book. I'm kind of test-driving it here. Despite the fact it was taken in a back yard by a small child (really, it was), it was much better than the ones taken by Baylor's ace photographers.
 

Prof -
Get that kid a better camera!

The WHO over the Kinks
 

I read the title of this post and laughed until it hurt. Nicely done.
 

Yes, it's a much better picture!! Go for it.
 

Yeah, Ginger, I agree about the car . . . and I was always too paranoid about breakdowns, so when I owned cars I had first a German car, then Japanese.

Although i might vote for the Who . . .
 

IPLG - I was on a telephone deposition all day. Don't tell the client I was also engaged in a economics discussion. I try to keep my side gig (arguing with Lane) on the down low.

Lane - we've met? You're right, I don't remember, which makes me feel bad. Am I remembered fondly from this meeting, or (as is the case with most of my meetings) not so much.

I also vote for The Who, and it isn't even close. Though, I think Lane could benefit by listening to "Won't Get Fooled Again" a few more times.
 

RRL -- you were the judge of one of my Tex. Ad. Law practice rounds, the one about the wayward accountant. As I recall, I made some argument you considered to be "totally preposterous." If it makes you feel any better, I agreed with your assessment then and didn't use the argument again. I can't remember what it was, but it was something I made up off the cuff in the heat of the back-and-forth. I moot court like I fence... with wild improvisation.

Similar results, usually.

As for how you're remember, of course it's fondly. I've never made agreement on political topics a condition for liking someone. If it were, I wouldn't have very many friends.
 

Is it Haiku Friday yet?
 

No. But it will be in 20 minutes. It' only Thursday still!
 

Christine I will look at the Passat, thanks!!! My next door neighbor had a brief mid life crisis and she is selling her VW Beetle Convertible which is like about 4 yrs old. It only has 2 doors, BUT since it is a convertible I guess the kid could get a running start and then jump in it, just like Magnum PI or maybe the Dukes of Hazard. Except when the top is up. Which it would be. A lot. Because it rains here in Oregon. A lot. You Texans, with your pools, and your nice weather, and your.... pools.... You have no idea what I go through. I put up with goats, woodchucks, and giant worms hiding in corn ears. and rain.
 

You have corn scum? Impressive, my brother had that when he tried growing a few ears up in St. Clair Shores.

I'm not in Texas with a pool. I'm in Durham, NC with a dusting of stinkiin SNOW on the ground. I need to go back to Florida where it is warmer.
 

Ah drove mah truck right inta mah damn pool!
 

Although I am normally against bailouts, I am going to have to step in on the same side as GM, Ford, and Chrysler. To begin with, the $25B "bailout" they are asking for is actually a structured loan. In fact, the Democratic Party's proposed bill would simply allocate those funds from the already-enacted $700B bailout plan.

It's hard for me to choose which line of reasoning against bolstering the auto industry is actually worse: the "let them restructure in bankruptcy" idea, which is speculative at best; the "they just turned out to be innefficient 'losers' in a competive market" idea, which is overly simplistic; or the "they don't deserve it" approach, which blissfully disregards the last decade of regulation.

I think my personal favorite is the "inefficient 'losers'" argument. In fact this would be almost entirely true, the superiority of Foreign competition due to domestic inefficiency, a decade ago. . .

I know several people who work for a major supplier of the "Big 3," and there have been major complaints for years about regulations that have ensured anything but "free competition." My favorite example (and possibly one of the most little-known, yet destructive) is the tariff in place to protect domestic steel companies from foreign competition. The result was an artificial increase in the price of steel in the United States. As most people (I hope) know, auto makers buy a lot of steel.

This is only one example of the hostile environment currently faced by domestic auto makers, and I admit it doesn't alone amount to conclusive proof that everything is super-dooper down at GM. My point is that we really don't know how competitive our domestic auto makers are. The best guess we have (1990s & early 2000s quality problems) has pretty much been out of date since the "dot-com" bust. Actually, at the supplier mentioned earlier, they had undergone (back in 2001 - 03) a complete overhaul for a "Total Quality Product" system which was resulting in extremely small manufacturing tolerances.

Since any realistic notion of "free competition" is even farther out the window than "efficient markets," the only thing left is policy basics. Should Congress allocate $25B toward a structured loan to the Auto Industry, or just leave it with the other $675B in the original bailout plan for the financial services industry?

Honestly, when 4 million jobs are directly at stake (not considering the ripple effect of a bankrupt "big 3"), I prefer to choose the "evil" that doesn't leave at least 4 million people unemployed. This is especially true when we factor in that a lot of the "inefficiency" from American auto makers is really the result of adverse regulation.

So, I think that a properly-implemented structured loan arrangement would be a really good idea here, provided something can be done to prevent any companies (Chrysler!) from turning around and letting Daimler strip them of assets. - which is always my first fear when someone says "bailout."