Geez

by: Matt Stoller

Thu Dec 11, 2008 at 20:11


Here's copyfighter Larry Lessig.

Perhaps the shock to banking would be too great just now. I'm willing to be persuaded that intervention is necessary there. But the more I read about the auto industry, the less I am convinced.

People speak about this as if not bailing out Detroit means automobile production in America ends. That's not what failing to bailout Detroit means. Not intervening now would be these automakers would enter bankruptcy. And bankruptcy means the assets of these dinosaurs get reorganized: Someone else buys these companies, at a price the market sets, and runs them profitably, because of the price the market set.

Obviously, that change would not be painless. And I'm all for minimizing the pain where the pain is doing no good -- with workers, or others depending upon these industries. But I'm against interventions designed to minimize the pain where the pain would do good -- by radically changing how that industry is managed. The whole justification for insanely high executive compensation is, in part, so they can weather such storms. I don't see why the government should be in the business of building safety nets for the (relatively) well off.

I just don't get this amazing lack of sympathy for working people, or perhaps, the naivete at how politics actually works.  Why a $700B bailout for bankers, which produce no obvious product, and not a $14B bridge loan for people that actually make automobiles?  No particular reason.  Oh, and the market shall provide.  It's really a really remarkable sentiment in this day and age, a sort of tenured 'let them eat cake'.

... I really respect Lessig, I gave him $25 when he thought about running for Congress, and I think he's engaging in good faith here.  That doesn't change the fact that I'm just kind of flabbergasted at liberals who casually throw out ideas that have really awful consequences, like a depression, and use casual discredited free market mantras as justifications while glossing over terrible terrible pain these ideas cause.  And no, assistance to minimize the pain associated with economic dislocation is not part of the deal.

Matt Stoller :: Geez

Tags: , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Geez | 78 comments
I don't get it either .. (4.00 / 3)
what does Lessig not understand here?  What makes the banks so special?  Has the USA become that cold-hearted a place?
yes (4.00 / 3)


For some reason, it seems that Obama has some pathological and deep-seated psychological need for Republicans to like him.  Seriously.  It's weird.
[ Parent ]
Once a libertarian, always a libertarian! (4.00 / 2)
Lessig acquired a little liberal vocabulary at Oxford, but he's still the same no-government libertarian that he was in high school.

At Oxford Lessig learned that Republicans aren't really libertarians, and this was apparently a huge surprise.

Now he advocates no government control on the internet, and no government bail-out for car-makers, and it's just another demonstration that...

You can take the boy out of the Republican Party, but you can't take the libertarian out of the boy!

[ Parent ]
Exactly... (4.00 / 1)
I suspect many converts to the democratic party over the last 8 years have libertarian roots like Lessig and myself.  As a long time independent, it was the authoritarianism of the Bush administration that pushed me firmly into the democratic party.  Going forward I'd expect a lot of internal debate within the democratic party over spending.  
[ Parent ]
Please stay a Republican (0.00 / 1)
You'll be a lot happier. So will we.
[ Parent ]
It's complete ignorance about how important... (4.00 / 5)
...manufacturing is to middle America.

People don't get it.  They think that GM is just another company...  Well, then AIG was just another insurer, and we should have let them go down, too, right?

GM is life... take GM away from the upper midwest is like taking water away from Iowa... just as corn couldn't grow in Iowa without water, no economy can grow here without industry feeding it...

Only people who live here can actually understand that this is a lot bigger than GM, by an order of magnitude of 20 at least...  GM going under is a death sentence for the Great Lakes States.

But people don't get it... especially in California and such... they just can't fathom how important manufacturing is to the region and the country, and just don't get why it needs to be saved.

It seems that those who have never stepped foot in the midwest couldn't possibly comprehend what a catastrophic and total failure this would be, not just for the region, but the country as a whole.

And I don't know how to convince them... I'm trying like hell, but there are just too many liberals ready to stab their union brothers in the back 'cos they don't like that Americans bought SUV's in big numbers....

REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!

was this really necessary? (4.00 / 1)
"especially in California and such"

Lessig is one dude, famous for his work on computer-related issues.  he doesn't speak for "California and such."  

by all means, keep bringin the heat w/rt the importance of the auto industry to the midwest, but leave cali out of it.  

[ Parent ]
According to a recent CNN poll... (4.00 / 3)
...resistance to the bailout is highest in the West, and the South at 67% against.  The South, I understand, but the democratic West?  

That is where I got my comment from... and the people whom I've been butting heads with on this issue all seem to be mostly from the West coast.

But, I'll back off... no point in me sniping, too... we have to be all in this together, and bitching on my part doesn't help.

I apologize...

REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!

[ Parent ]
Fuck. The. South. (4.00 / 2)
God, do I hate that region of this country.  Every single time progress seems to be made, it's the South, through their nutcase congressmen and senators that puts a stop to it.  And, frankly, I am sick of it.

I hope the secede again.  They'd become a 2nd world country without the subsidies the blue states give them.

For some reason, it seems that Obama has some pathological and deep-seated psychological need for Republicans to like him.  Seriously.  It's weird.

[ Parent ]
You're totally wrong about subsidies (0.00 / 0)
I'm going to bypass your prejudicial comment about the South and try to keep things substantive. Particularly your claim that southern states receive "subsidies" from blue states that outweigh what they pay into federal taxes. You're wrong. States in the midwest and west receive a much more generous share of federal outlays, proportionally, than southern states. Also your contention that it's only the representative from the South that impede "progress" is ridiculous. Joseph McCarthy was from Wisconsin.

Save Our Schools! March & National Call to Action, July 28-31, 2011 in Washington, DC: http://www.saveourschoolsmarch...
[ Parent ]
No he's basically correct (0.00 / 0)
Its still the case that the south as a whole is subsidized by the other states, the other regions are much more evenly distributed between giving and receiving more. http://democraticactionteam.or...
not a single southern state except florida gives more federal tax dollars then they receive. Meanwhile the real split is between solid blue and solid red states, hence the title of the graph, "red state socialism". Michigan even is on the giving side, you would think the southern senators would be grateful.

Though the irrational hate regarding the south is unnecessary. I moved to North Carolina to go to college (grew up in Maryland, nice little contradictory state of its own) and I thought I would dislike the south. I don't know that I want to live there forever but its much more then its caricature, as are most things. Plus we voted for Obama, a fact I would not have predicted happening, for sure. But I'm sure the region of the country mr. savant is from is perfect.  

[ Parent ]
Umm, Texas (0.00 / 0)
isn't in the South? New Mexico is a "red state"? But okay, neither one of us is completely correct. And thanks for taking a stand against irrational hate. Maybe living in the South will grow on you.

Save Our Schools! March & National Call to Action, July 28-31, 2011 in Washington, DC: http://www.saveourschoolsmarch...
[ Parent ]
fair enough -- you have more of a basis for your comment than i assumed... (2.00 / 2)
which is my mistake.  

i guess you just got my back up w/ the comment about california (and i'm a transplant from PA... go figure :-)

but i'm definitely with you on the importance of this issue.  

[ Parent ]
why was this TRed??? (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
Mountain west killed this (0.00 / 0)
Ten states had two Senators who voted no, 4 in the South, OK, and 5 in the Mountain West.  That's MT, NV, UT, AZ and WY.  Baucus and Tester.  Baucus is useless except for the majority leader vote.

Crapo and Allard voted against it, too.

The 4 southern states were AL, MS, KY and GA.

[ Parent ]
the issue isnt that (4.00 / 1)
the issue is whether this is the best way to keep manufacturing in america. there are really big serious global market pressures absolutely crushing the automakers in the upper midwest. any bailout doesn't change the fundamentals of the playing field. so you may prop these companies up for 4 years, or 10 years. but under their current structure with the current global manufacturing market they can not stay in business.

there are lots of chinese and they're going to get real good at making cars and airplanes. just as good as americans. bank on it.

until Obamarama wants to deal with the much bigger issues cough - healthcare - cough - how come he's not mentioning it more - cough - and wage arbitrage - cough then this is all just funny money and the great rust belt is done. done.

if you're just looking for unemployment checks, fine. lets do it through a national program where all works get access to the safety net, not just a couple of companies because they have apple pie in their logo.

~* the * Will * to go on *~

[ Parent ]
At this point, I wish that the Chinese would just... (0.00 / 0)
...buy out GM and be done with.  Ironically enough, the workers would probably get a better deal as a result!  THe Chinese would probably maintain plants here and honor the union contract...

REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!
[ Parent ]
Re (0.00 / 0)
I don't think that the Chinese would like unions very much.  They may be godless commies on paper, but they're really an oppressive corporatist state.  I am pretty sure that unions are illegal in China, as well.
[ Parent ]
nah (0.00 / 0)
remember even walmart allowed a union in store in China.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

[ Parent ]
Chinese Unions (0.00 / 0)
Chinese unions are state sponsored actually, and the state has been pushing hard lately for their formation.  State sponsored unions probably sounds like a farce to most Americans, but the system has it's advantages and disadvantages compared to the union system in the US.  It very much depends on your perspective.

http://www.iht.com/articles/20...

It'll be quite interesting to see if Chinese unions are the harbinger a dramatic rise in production costs in China and what that will result in.  Will jobs go back to the US? Will jobs go to Indonesia? Africa? China had the unique advantage of having both natural resources and abundant cheap human resources, quite like the US 100 years ago.

[ Parent ]
This is really disturbing. (4.00 / 3)
I wonder how much help the state of Alabama gives foreign auto's for all of those plants in that state.  And those workers didn't benefit from the wages that workers in Detroit make?  As for the banks,  as much as I don't like it, I generally thought that it was necessary to bail them out.  But, if we're not going to loan the money to GM, why did we give away much larger sums to the banks?  

this is the question (4.00 / 1)
yes! keep asking that one!!!!

I'm serious. I love the way the auto deal is going, both because I think a govt aided bankruptcy is right, and because people are going to ask THAT question a lot more. and they should.

I couldn't read the full lessig article - site was spinning - but if that quote is everything, he's wrong - a straight up bankruptcy would be much worse. these companies are not going to be able to get a debtor-in-possession loan to keep operating and to guarantee warranties. we need the govt to do that, but we need a bankruptcy to get the companies the ability to negotiate with its creditors for new business terms. bankruptcy is not punishment, its a way to create good solid businesses out of businesses that are failing and in over their head. in the end that means good market rate jobs for people supporting a production capacity that meets the level of demand in the market. goodness if you've even run a small business it's so easy to see that this is fundamentally true and that you really can't have a fantasy in a deflationary world where all prices and wages are dropping except yours.

I'm afraid passionate voices on the left want to turn this into a "real jobs" vs "evil jobs" kind of war. we should be looking at these companies in the same way, and the terms for the bankers should be much more harsh for the same reasons that the terms of this auto deal are headed in the right direction. no freeloading off tax payers. terms for the banks can still be changed - but Obama has to feel pressure to do something about it.

~* the * Will * to go on *~

[ Parent ]
I don't think the comparison of banks and automobiles (0.00 / 0)
can be compared to small businesses.  Who wants to put money in a bank that has failed and who would buy a car from an auto maker that has gone bankrupt.  No one.  I have another question.  These southern senate folk who are kicking and screaming about the auto loan, where was the outrage over the bank deal.  I know there were some who spoke out against it, but how did the bank deal pass with relative ease and why will the auto loan either not get done or pass by the skin of its teeth?  
[ Parent ]
This is precisely what I wonder as well: (0.00 / 0)
"I have another question.  These southern senate folk who are kicking and screaming about the auto loan, where was the outrage over the bank deal."

Could it be a matter of timing? The bankers were at the front of the corporate bread line and they got their cut when folks were still kind of in a daze about this looming crisis. By the time the carmakers number was called, we'd seen billions already fly out of the Federal coffers and the stories were already circulating that the money had been mis-used, or not used. Its the whole, "fool me once..." deal. There has been some "outrage" on the banking/insurance bailout, it just came after the money had been appropriated. There was some outrage, even in Congress, about the bank deal. I remember being very disconcerted because many of the congress critters that were vocally against the bank bailout were rabid republicans, like Michele Bachmann, and I don't generally feel comfortable when folks from that end of the spectrum are the ones carrying my water. In fairness, Al Franken spoke against it too.

Maybe I see things too simplistically, but if the carmakers need a loan, and the banks just got a pile of cash from the Feds, isn't there a way that the congress (or whomever is in control in DC) can channel the cash to Detriot, through Wall Street?  I used to get gov. guaranteed loans to go to college, seems like a similar scheme might entice the big banks to make loans to support manufacturing.

Two birds with one stone?



"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

[ Parent ]
I notice how it's usually the ones with comfy jobs that throw out that nonsense. (4.00 / 1)
I liked Speiers more from the start.  I'm glad she won.  

It's this kind of thinking that will topple this country.  Look at the entire world's situation.  And those countries with the highest living standards are the ones who are most prone to have violent protests.

A Depression in the United States of America, at this stage in its history, will only be tolerated if some form of socialism is ushered in.  And what are the chances of that?  And I am a socialist.  But the goddam South fucks the rest of us over again with their goddam senators.

For some reason, it seems that Obama has some pathological and deep-seated psychological need for Republicans to like him.  Seriously.  It's weird.

This is a huge problem in this auto business. (4.00 / 1)
More takedowns of this attitude would be much appreciated!

As it is, thanks for writing this.  It's kind of sick to watch.

The transit strike in NYC... (4.00 / 3)
the attitude here reminds me of what the press was showing in NYC during the TWU strike.  Transit workers were striking, in part, so that FUTURE members of TWU wouldn't have their pensions and health benefits affected.  The reaction the media showed was mostly "well, i don't have that kind of health care. i don't have that kind of pension.  why should those transit workers?"

Many people in this country don't think in terms of solidarity.  They think "I don't have it, why should they?!" instead of "They have it, why don't I? What can I do to help them keep it, and work towards having it myself?"

It's a Reaganesque attitude... (4.00 / 2)
...and one of his most difficult-to-eradicate legacies... the "I got mine, screw you with yours," mentality that pervades society nowadays and makes it nearly impossible to implement progressive reforms 'cos someone, somewhere may have a slightly better benefit than you, and dammit to hell, we are going to take those Mo'Fo's down with us if we need to!

REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!
[ Parent ]
Exactly right (0.00 / 0)
This would be a perfect oppurtunity for auto workers in the south to stand up and say 'we stand with our fellow workers in the north'.  I won't hold my breath on that one though.  
[ Parent ]
Or, they got it, why can't I? (0.00 / 0)
That seems to be the attitude, to some extent, from those advocating for a bailout of the automakers.  The basic line is that the bankers got a pile of cash with no real strings attached, so when do we get ours?

I don't see much solidarity in that attitude, especially when it comes down to arguments about how the bankers don't "produce" anything of value, like the autoworkers. Or how some people in certain geographical regions "just don't get it".  Where's the solidarity in those attitudes?



"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

[ Parent ]
Btw, the way for Obama to guarantee winning Michigan, Ohio, and other states (4.00 / 3)
that have a lot of parts manufacturers, is to swoop in and save them.  He's a fucking idiot if he doesn't.  Ohio's his on a silver platter in 2012 if he saves the American auto industry.

For some reason, it seems that Obama has some pathological and deep-seated psychological need for Republicans to like him.  Seriously.  It's weird.
Which is a point totally lost on liberals who oppose... (4.00 / 2)
...the bailouts.  If democrats get the blame for GM failing, millions of Democratic voters will be PERMANENTLY lost in these critical electoral regions.  We blue midwest democrats already feel betrayed by the liberal "Let them Fail!" crowd, although many of them have realized their folly...

We voted for hope... not "Let them Fail!"

REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!

[ Parent ]
Fucking A well told, brother. (4.00 / 2)
I am not from the Midwest, but our union of the Left, which includes (in no particular order) seem to want to fuck each other all the time.  The minority voye in Cali voted yes on 8, but gay give money a votes to the same party THEY belong to and work for.  The environmentalists hate autos, but without the union money and manpower, the Dems could NEVER EVER win an election for president.  Our left/liberal coalition is far too often at odds with each other instead if recognizing that we fucking NEED each other to fucking WIN!!!

The Right does not have that problem, you'll notice.

For some reason, it seems that Obama has some pathological and deep-seated psychological need for Republicans to like him.  Seriously.  It's weird.

[ Parent ]
Exactly! (4.00 / 1)
A failed US auto industry today = millions of potential GOP voters in 2-5 years, and yet another big slide on the path towards the end of US democracy and the Democratic party. These workers will eventually turn to some RW populist savior (hint, hint, it's happened before) to rescue them, and it would be catastrophic for the country.

The GOP thrives on disaster and dislocation.

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton

[ Parent ]
I don't think we should let the auto's fail, (4.00 / 1)
but when it is clearly a group of Republican's that are holding this loan up, why would Dem's get blamed for it.  Rachel Maddow made a good point tonight, make the Republicans fillibuster this or at least vote against it.  That would at least put on record who was for it and who the rotten bastards are that are against it.  When either event happens, their names and party affiliation should be plastered in red all over the midwest.  
[ Parent ]
Whose watch (0.00 / 0)
If bankruptcies and mass unemployment happen on Obama's watch the Republicans who caused it will work super hard to transfer the blame for their evil deeds.  They can't run anything but PR and handouts for the rich.

That's why an honest to God fillibuster is so important.  It burns into the public consciousness who is to blame and how stupid and anti-people these policies are.  It's not the cash, it's the class.

[ Parent ]
A Headline I Expect To See Very Soon (0.00 / 0)
although perhaps not in the Washington Post:

The God of Jonathan Edwards comes for the Republican Party

Public Relations didn't save the Politburo; it won't save the Republicans either. Neither will moose-dressing, Ayn Rand, or being washed in the blood of the lamb.

[ Parent ]
I agree. (0.00 / 0)
They should have made Repubs fillibuster for a week.  
[ Parent ]
Harry Reid laid the blame on the Republicans in his statement (0.00 / 0)
I was glad for that, at least the man knows how the political blame game is played if nothing else. They are clearly at fault here, and it looks to me so far like they will get that blame.  
[ Parent ]
I admit that it took some convincing for me to support the automaker deal (0.00 / 0)
but I'm not certain that couching the response to the automakers in such crass political terms is the best way forward. It makes it appear as though the Obama administration is bailing them out in order to win re-election.

That said, the folks in the manufacturing states have every right to feel that their support for the Democratic party has been betrayed and to threaten to bolt the party in future elections. But, really, where are they gonna go? Once again, our stunted political system offers no viable alternatives.  

"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

[ Parent ]
I admit that it took some convincing for me to support the automaker deal (0.00 / 0)
but I'm not certain that couching the response to the automakers in such crass political terms is the best way forward. It makes it appear as though the Obama administration is bailing them out in order to win re-election.

That said, the folks in the manufacturing states have every right to feel that their support for the Democratic party has been betrayed and to threaten to bolt the party in future elections. But, really, where are they gonna go? Once again, our stunted political system offers no viable alternatives.  

"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

[ Parent ]
there's a fear here (4.00 / 3)
Lessig -- like most of us -- fears the collapse of capitalism, and thus of his lifestyle.

Most liberals have a theory: "capitalism is basically good and it provides us with all the finer things in life. It is also basically sustainable for ever. We can tax a little so that nobody is too miserable and provide social services."

The ideological battles of the 1990s were essentially about the last sentence. The right wing wanted to keep taxes very very low. The liberals felt that you could spend a little more and help people more and were willing to have a few less "finer things in life."

The current crisis seems to suggest -- scarily -- that that whole battle wasn't the point. Actually, it was about the second sentence. Is capitalism itself sustainable? Right now, with a bizarre combination of nationalising major industries and handing out free "emergency cash" to whoever is the most politically connected, it seems not. Half the money is going to some poorly thought-out quasi-state-control, the other half to line the pockets of a lucky subset of the elite. Neither is the ideology of capitalism that both right and liberal have agreed on.

That's why liberals are freaking out and everyone is saying things that shock each other and themselves.

Past caring (0.00 / 0)
Let all these industries fail. We should have let the banks and insurance companies fail. Let it all go to hell. Anyone who preaches government bailouts of any of these corporations because the huddled masses won't survive without their trickle-down is a hypocrite.

If I applied to these companies for work, I applied to work for them in faith. If they fail, they fail. So do I. That's how it goes. Maybe I was treated unfairly. Maybe I was stupid. Perhaps I was exceedingly stupid. Perhaps I was unfortunate enough to be educated during the Reagan era when getting an A in stupid was the most important grade to get. Tough luck. Maybe next time I'll know better; probably not. I deserve the losses I'll get. So do you.

Assuming that you're serious (4.00 / 2)
What do you propose to do with the millions who would be put out of work? Let them starve to death or go homeless, some of them turning to crime, and becoming a huge burden on society? Or would you take care of them by providing them food, housing, perhaps some menial jobs to make them feel useful. Don't you realize that this would cost as much, if not more, than bailing out the Big 3, but without something to show for it as a hopefully self-sustaining entity down the line? You're not thinking through the implications of letting them fail, and projecting a "This is how the world SHOULD work" mentality on how the world DOES work, especially right now. Saying "I don't Care" and "Let them fall" is tantamount to excluding yourself from serious discussion. What about the day after?

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton
[ Parent ]
You assume quite a lot (4.00 / 1)
about what those millions out of work would do.  Or rather, you presume what they would passively allow to happen to them.  Perhaps, much like the Republic workers in Chicago, they would rediscover that they have genuine power.  Perhaps communities would rediscover the value in looking after one another.  Perhaps we wouldn't collectively look to corporations to provide "self-sustaining" work or stable economies (why you think that capitalism does this, I can't imagine.  In fact, it necessarily does the opposite.)  

It is not necessarily callous to say that we need to let the current system fail, nor is it unserious.  It is callous to say that workers have to continue selling their labor in order to survive and we should continue to prop up a system of private capital with public funds in order for that dynamic to persist.  It is unserious of you to suggest that There Is No Alternative.

[ Parent ]
Ok, I get, you believe that capitalism is inherently and irrevocably flawed and doomed (4.00 / 1)
and must totally and inevitably fail, so that a worker's paradise can finally take its place and all will be well with the world forever after. Fine, whatever. Sure, is AN alternative. But one that only people who live inside their own heads can believe in. Whatever you call it yourself (true socialism, Fourrierism, Marxism, utopianism), what you propose has been tried, and has never, ever, ever worked. Wonder why? Because it's inherently at odds with human nature. I'm not talking about modified socialism of the sort that we partially have in this country, and which most of the rest of world has. I'm talking about full-blown worker-owned means of production, which is simply never going to happen. So it's a waste of time to even talk about it, except in theory. And now's not the time for theory, but action.

You're willing to experiment with the lives of millions, because YOU are convinced that THIS time, it'll FINALLY work. And what if it doesn't? Will you support these people yourself? We've got a very imperfect but nonetheless viable way of keeping these people employed, housed and fed--for now--and you're calling for massive social and economic reorganization on a scale and in a manner that's never worked before because it sounds cool. Excuse me if I'm not convinced. You're sounding just like Lessig here, playing theoretical games with peoples' lives.

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton

[ Parent ]
Seems to me that the bailouts (4.00 / 1)
of banks and of manufacturers is not that unlike playing theoretical games with peoples' lives.

There are no guarantees, its a crap shoot either way.


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

[ Parent ]
How is saving a hard-working person's job (0.00 / 0)
in a still-viable industry (provided the right reforms be made) just because their boss was a selfish idiot playing theoretical games with their lives? Allowing them to lose their jobs and go on the government dole unproductively (as opposed to productively) is not? What kind of nonsense is that? Whose life is being played with via these bailouts? Taxpayers, who are going to be saddled with the costs one way or another?

As for financial firms, I agree that, as with the Big 3, their management was corrupt, greedy and incompetent, and has to go, and perhaps even face criminal charges. But why should their employees suffer for their idiocy and possibly criminality? And more importantly, why should the businesses--and their employees--who depend on them for financing be allowed to suffer for that? Have you taken that into account?

As someone who nearly lost his Wall St. job (in IT) years ago due to crimes committed by my firm's top management, which I had zero to do with, and as the relative of people who might lose their business because of the financial meltdown--and the son of a retirement age mother with an already greatly diminished retirement fund who will be jobless if this happens--I'm not exactly keen on this "The economy needs to collapse before something better takes its place" mentality that appears to be embraced by people who probably don't have a personal stake in the matter. Millions of innocent real peoples' lives are at stake here.

By viewing this as a theoretical game, you are engaging in precisely the same sort of detached and unconcerned playing with peoples lives that neocons caused so much needless suffering with. Theirs were sins of commission. Yours of ommission. Same difference.

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton

[ Parent ]
There is no guarantee that the carmakers (0.00 / 0)
will be successful in the long term, even with the bail-out (loan is apparently a better word for it). Its a gamble. Why would you believe that some government appointed "car czar" (or any other oversight mechanism) can come up with a plan to turn arounbd the auto industry? You have consistently presented the situation as one in which the solution you favor is a sure thing, while any other alternative is some kind of theoretical game.

My point is simple: any attempted solution is a theoretical game, so slamming one of them in that way is disingenuous.

You are very good at setting up straw men and putting words in other mouths.  Never, at any time, have I said anything like, "The economy needs to collapse before something better takes its place".  In fact, I have commented right on this very diary, that I support some kind of loan arrangement for the carmakers. Likewise, i think was unfair that the banks/insurance companies got their slice of the pie without concessions, it that any reason to repeat the same mistake with the automakers? Its like saying, "well, we blew money in Iraq without any question or oversight, so why bother with such things when it comes to handing money out to US domestic industries"

My support for JBen comes from your general attitude toward those comments which is basically, I don't have to bother reading anything you link to because I have already decided what your position is and I think its stupid. Never mind that fact that you have no idea what JBen is ACTUALLY talking about, its enough for you to slice up the straw men that you construct. Essentially, you are arguing with yourself.


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

[ Parent ]
There's no guarantee that a cancer patient (0.00 / 0)
will successfully undergo treatment, so why not just forgoe it and let nature take its course? That is essentially what you're presenting here as a viable alternate option. And yes, I realize that sometimes cancers do naturally heal themselves, and sometimes treatments fail, or themselves kill the patient. But I'm guessing that, on average, active treatment (of one form or another, including holistic, of which I'm personally familiar with a few successful examples) is much more successful than passive non-treatment. So the fact that a given course of action MIGHT fail is no argument against it, especially when doing nothing is far more likely to fail.

As for straw men and arguing with oneself, I do not and never have supported an unconditional bailout of automakers, and don't know of anyone who has. Clearly, conditions must be attached. So you're just putting words in my mouth and yourself setting up strawmen. Do you do this for a living, this projection thing you've got going on?

I honestly don't know what you're arguing here anymore as you've been all over the map. Is this some sort of meta obsession that you have, to find potential holes in peoples' logic and use them to distort their central points, rather than debate those points?

I'm arguing for a modified bailout, with conditions and strings, to keep this industry alive, for now at least, and these workers' jobs intact, more or less. The fact that this might not succeed is a very weak argument for not doing it anyway, especially in light of the fact that if this isn't done, these companies almost surely will go bust, and these workers will lose their jobs, with no alternatives in sight for a long time to come. Yes, it's a risky form of "welfare" that might not succeed, but if they lose their jobs, what do you think that they'd live on if not "welfare" (whatever it's actually called), but without the prospect of having real jobs any time soon. A bailout, if done right, MIGHT succeed, and give them long-term jobs that won't require government welfare. No bailout all but guarantees no jobs for a long time to come (or can you come up with viable alternative means of employing these people where they live?).

Sure, it's all a risk, but that's just stating the obvious and presenting it as an argument for not doing something. ANYTHING that might be done--or not done--now is a risk, by necessity. I'm proposing a risk that has some chance at succeeding, while you're proposing...I'm not sure what, at this point, but my initial comment was in response to someone who proposed doing absolutely nothing. I'm guessing that even you don't agree with that?

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton

[ Parent ]
There was a time (0.00 / 0)
when people, sincerely and honestly as I presume you are, made the exact same argument about the necessity of monarchy.  How could we possibly survive and prosper without a king?  People had tried to live without kings before and had always failed because people have an inherent need to be ruled - it's simply human nature.  Successful life without a monarch would never, ever exist - but perhaps was a pleasant theory.

All of life, at every moment, is an experiment.  Adam Smith's well-intentioned experiment has failed.  Capitalism is not "viable".  There is more desperate poverty in the world now that there has ever been, which is the necessary consequence of capitalism.  We live in a finite, closed system of resources, but capitalism necessarily demands permanent growth - which is a materially impossible demand.  

As for your claim that a radically democratic polity which collectively owns its capital (that, by the way, is what I call "it") has been tried and "never, never works" - you are mistaken.  There are numerous successful examples, but I'll point you toward the Mondragon Cooperative.  If you are genuinely interested in these issues, I would point you to David Schweikart's After Capitalism as a good place to start.  

The Soviet Union and Mao do not represent the width and breadth of anti-capitalism any more than Jerry Falwell represents the width and breadth of Christianity.  

I am not playing a game.  Working for justice is not a game.  Human beings have called for and endured massive social changes throughout their history and will do so numerous times again.  I appreciate the reasons behind your deeply conservative position, but the outcomes of that vision are much greater suffering than those you project upon a changed world.

[ Parent ]
So now the default conservative position (0.00 / 0)
is believing in capitalism, and being against capitalism is the default centrist position? I'd hate to think what the default left position is.

All "successful" examples of the economic system that you believe in only worked for a brief time, under very limited and controlled conditions, by people who willingly engaged in them, in a non-self-sufficient way, e.g. utopian communities in the 19th century, Israeli Kibbutzes, 60's communes. It's never worked, to my knowledge, on a sustained national level, especially for large industrialized western nations. If it has, please point one out to me. Otherwise, you're literally advocating radical experimentation with peoples' lives, of a sort that's never worked in the past, and generally caused much more suffering that it supposedly alleviated. The argument of "what do we have to lose, things are really bad now anyway" is unconvinving, because things could get much, much worse--and have, when such top-down collectivisation has been tried, including to my own family in the 20's, 30's and 40's USSR.

What you believe in sounds nice and noble, but it goes against human nature, and is practically untenable. And the argument you make that just because it hasn't worked, doesn't mean that it can't work, can be applied just as well to capitalism. Which, by the way, I don't believe in the way you appear to believe that I do. "Pure" capitalism is as untenable as "pure" socialism--neither works on its own. I'm all for socialism-like programs like social security, Medicare, Medicaid, SCHIP, universal health insurance, universal education at all levels, subsidized transportation, communication, internet, etc.

The profit motive, in and of itself and divorced from any desire to produce something of value for the community and world according to ethical let alone legal standards, disgusts me. It's just that I don't believe that completely removing the ability to start up, own and run one's own company strikes me as both unfair and untenable. The fundamental scientific and technological innovation that successful businesses rely upon generally come from the public sector, directly or indirectly, but business innovation comes from private enterprise, or a private-public mix. You really think that government would have given us the personal computer, cell phone and hybrid car? Not the underlying science and technology, but the actual affordable and well-designed products?

The fantasy of a workers' paradise in which workers collectively start up, own and run all the means of production is an illusion. It's never worked, and will never work. It would be lovely if it did, but human nature invariably gets in the way, even in the most well-intentioned attempts to implement this. Some people work harder than others. Some are more ambitious than others. Some are smarter or have differing ideas. Some more greedy. Some more outright dishonest. Sooner or later, it falls apart. And it's not terribly efficient. Just because the exploitative and extreme forms of capitalism that we see today and have in the past are immoral doesn't mean that they're the only kind of capitalism. Plus, as you may have noticed, they tend to fail horribly, being just as unsustainable as pure socialism. Some mix between the two is the future. So perhaps we agree more than you might think.

But if it pleases you to call me a conservative (which I'm not, at least according to most's peoples' definition) to make it easier to dismiss me, go right ahead.

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton

[ Parent ]
I'm not engaging in the dismissive rhetoric, you are. (4.00 / 1)
My use of the term conservative was descriptive, not dismissive.  The word conservative means suspicious of, disinterested in, and resistant to change - as you clearly are regarding this issue.  All people are inherently conservative on most issues, for completely understandable reasons.  I'm sorry that you misunderstood my use of that term to mean Conservative, in the narrow usage of our political system.  Not using the uppercase "c" was meant to distinguish that.

I attempted to point you to just one successful example (of many) - and despite your claims otherwise you were apparently uninterested in educating yourself.  Such movements are not only not anti-entrepreneurial, but embrace it.  What they don't allow is private ownership of capital.  Markets and entrepreneurial efforts are not exclusively tools of capitalism, but private ownership of capital is.

I'm not expressing some "belief" about the way capitalism works - but empirically derived, widely held scholarly observations on the actual functioning of capitalism.

You keep using words like "fantasy" and "never" that are based upon commonly held, but ultimately uninformed understandings of these issues.  I don't mean that to be dismissive, but it's accurate.  

[ Parent ]
So Stieglitz, Krugman, Reich, Bernstein, etc. (0.00 / 0)
who, last time I checked, don't reject capitalism, but merely certain abusive and extreme forms of it that serve the needs of the few over the many, are not adherents of "empirically derived, widely held scholarly observations on the actual functioning of capitalism", simply because they disagree with you and your unnamed scholarly experts?

I don't mind your asserting that a credible case can be made for why capitalism is untenable, so much as I mind your breezily and dismissingly asserting that this case is fact, not opinion (or "belief") and proven beyond doubt, and that anyone who still disagrees is in some sort of denial--like the above know-nothings (or tools of evil capitalists?).

There's a difference between making one's case, and presenting it as inarguable.

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton

[ Parent ]
You are the expert on that tactic (0.00 / 0)
"There's a difference between making one's case, and presenting it as inarguable."

All you have managed to state, in an inarguable way, is that any alternative to bailing out the Detroit 3 will not work.  You've made no attempt to engage JBen in any way.

"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

[ Parent ]
Non-responsive (0.00 / 0)
And thus not worth responding to meaningfully, except to say that it wasn't "any alternative to bailing out the Detroit 3" that I said "will not work", as it was the one that was proposed in this thread, namely, doing nothing, and letting the chips fall as they may.

As for engaging someone, if your defintion of that word is to agree with them and accept their premises, then sure, I haven't "engaged" him or her.

Want to add dishonesty to your bag of tricks?

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton

[ Parent ]
Another straw man (0.00 / 0)
If you think JBen's suggestion is to "do nothing", you've only proven that you are speaking out of ignorance.

"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."
[ Parent ]
Straw man? (0.00 / 0)
I was merely responding to the original comment, which stated:

Let all these industries fail. We should have let the banks and insurance companies fail. Let it all go to hell.

This is not a call to "do nothing"? Who's ignorant--or dishonest?

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton

[ Parent ]
LOL (0.00 / 0)
The whole of your posts on this subject have been nothing but unsubstantiated insistence that you are right and I am not only wrong but dealing in "fantasy".

All the names you mention, while smart fellows, are still "orthodox" economists - and therefore by definition are supportive of capitalism.  Furthermore, they would concur with me that capitalism both concentrates wealth in the hands of a few and demands constant growth.  They, however, still believe that Keynesian policies can be used to mitigate the worst of these problems. We are witnessing a global financial meltdown that belies their claim.  

There is a whole world of "unorthodox" economists (c.f. James Galbraith, Schweikart) and political theorists (c.f. Negri, Zizek, Habermas, Adorno, Dryzek) who take alternate positions based upon the evidence.  The fact that you are unaware of them does not make them any less credible.  The fact that I only noted a few is due to the suspicion that you don't actually care -  but I assure you they are representatives of a large and important academic community.

Moreover, I wasn't claiming that my point was inarguable - but that your points weren't inarguable - which was your inital claim.

[ Parent ]
All that I've been sayinig (0.00 / 0)
is that there has never been a viable, sustainable, successful non-capitalist economic system in a modern industrialized state, and that given this, to experiment with yet another attempt now, while perhaps a wet dream to theoreticians (and clearly only a wet dream, since it's obviously not going to happen given the political reality in this country, making this entire discussion purely theoretical), is the height of irresponsibility. Had the solutions that you appear to be proposing ever worked on such a scale, I'd be more than willing to give it a shot. But they haven't worked, making such experimentation reckless and irresponsible. The way to experiment with such models is via the legal and political system during less turbulent times, i.e. though selling the public on it and getting the green light, and not via some far-left (as opposed to progressive left) version of the Shock Doctrine by "slipping it in" during a crisis.

I'll say this much. It can neither be proved nor disproved that the basic economic model that you embrace could ever work. Maybe it can, maybe it can't. But neither can it be proved that the fundamental economic model that I embrace (with huge modifications, as I've stated)--capitalism--can and will never work, just because SOME versions of it have failed--namely, corrupted, abused and rigged versions of it. But, although no state-level socialist model has ever succeeded in a sustained manner that I know of, there have been successful "modified" capitalist models that have worked in such a way, e.g. the US in the 50's and 60's, where wealth and income disparity and poverty were at record lows.

You're obviously arguing that the current failure was systemic, inherent and unavoidable, the inevitable outcome of capitalism itself, and not the result of horrible mismanagement. I'm arguing the exact opposite. Which is ironic, given that we'd probably make the exact opposte arguments with respect to the economic model that you embrace. I.e. you'd argue that previous failed attempts at it were due to horrible mismanagement, and I'd argue that it's inherently flawed and untenable.

Has it ever occured to you that we (and these academics) may both be wrong, and right? I.e. that each of these opposed systems, in pure form, is untenable, but that some hybrid might be the way to go? Which, I'll remind you, is what I argued above.

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton

[ Parent ]
Sigh (0.00 / 0)
And I've failed.

Look, if you'd actually read what I've been writing then you'd know that I am not arguing for any sort of top-down, vanguard-directed, authoritarian Leninist/Maoist solution to our current economic woes.  
I am arguing for a robustly democratic, market-based successor-system to capitalism which ends the private ownership of capital and returns it to the hands of the robustly democratic polity.  Everytime you say something like, "the system you believe in has been tried and doesn't work" you are not, in fact, speaking at all to what I'm talking about.  What I am talking about has been tried and does work and has worked on trans-state levels for many, many years.  Again, the fact that you are unaware of such things does not make them figments of my imagination.  I attempted to provide you with a brief overview of just one of those success stories and you were unwilling to avail yourself of even a wikipedia article on the subject.  

The "it's never worked before" argument (although, as I've been trying to tell you, that argument doesn't apply here) is a specious one.  Rousseauian/Lockean republics had never existed either prior to the late 18th century, but they've been reasonably successful modes of governance - though certainly not perfect (and please don't make the mistake of saying that capitalism is a necessary feature of those political systems - Wealth of Nations was published in 1776).  Again, your argument is the equivalent of "we must have a king".

I embarked upon this exchange with you simply to indicate that it was not necessarily unserious or callous to suggest that alternatives to bailing out private capital with public funding exist - the charge which you had lobbed at NealB2.  I didn't intend on giving a seminar on political economy, and won't continue to do so.  If, however, you are truly interested in these issues at all then I highly recommend you do some reading on these issues and refine your pro-capitalist argument beyond simply an appeal to the status-quo and "common knowledge".

[ Parent ]
But the "alternative" (0.00 / 0)
that I began this subthread by responding to was that we do absolutely nothing and let these companies fail and their unfortunate employees lose their jobs. Did you even bother to read his/her original comment, because that was precisely what was recommended in it. Not putting ownership into workers' hands (which in the case of automakers might not be a bad idea), but doing absolutely nothing and letting the chips fall where they may.

Which, apparently, is not what meither of us have been recommending. So who's arguing with themselves now and making up straw men?

If the choice is between one, doing nothing, and two, doing something, with that something being one of several alternatives, then I think that we're BOTH opposed to what the original commenter was recommending, even if we differ in the specifics of what should be done. I'm certainly open to alternative ideas of what should be done (even if I might reject them), so long as something IS done, in the end, as opposed to doing nothing at all and letting things somehow work themselves out. That was entirely my original point.

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton

[ Parent ]
Fair enough (0.00 / 0)
By the way, if your sig is a reference to Robertson Davies novels, then that's pretty cool. Regardless, pace
[ Parent ]
Nope (0.00 / 0)
My sig line is a reference to that which it references, the good book of Proverbs from the Old Testament. I'm not exactly what you'd call religious (but then you don't have to believe in Zeus and Hera to like Greek mythology either, of course), but there's a lot of good stuff in that book that I refer to now and then. Check it out, it's like a handbook to the liberal ethos written thousands of years ago. The term "Inherit the Wind" comes from it.

Some other choice nuggets:

3:13 Happy is the man that findeth wisdom, and the man that getteth understanding.

1:26  I also will laugh at your disaster. I will mock when calamity overtakes you;

3:35  The wise will inherit glory, But shame will be the promotion of fools.

5:22  The evil deeds of the wicked ensnare him. The cords of his sin hold him firmly.

5:23  He will die for lack of instruction. In the greatness of his folly, he will go astray.

6:14  In whose heart is perverseness, Who devises evil continually, Who always sows discord.

6:15  Therefore his calamity will come suddenly. He will be broken suddenly, and that without remedy.

6:17  Haughty eyes, a lying tongue, Hands that shed innocent blood;

6:18  A heart that devises wicked schemes, Feet that are swift in running to mischief,

6:19  A false witness who utters lies, And he who sows discord among brothers.

9:1  Wisdom has built her house. She has carved out her seven pillars.

10:9  He who walks blamelessly walks surely, But he who perverts his ways will be found out.

10:24  What the wicked fear, will overtake them, But the desire of the righteous will be granted.

10:25  When the whirlwind passes, the wicked is no more; But the righteous stand firm forever.

Stuff like this kept me going during the Bush years. Still does, since they're not over.

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton

[ Parent ]
Moreover (4.00 / 1)
Based upon your responses, it is clear that you're not actually reading what I've written, but projecting some sort of strawman, cartoonish "Kommunizm is kuel" argument onto me that you think you've then defeated by saying "no it isn't!"

I mistakenly thought you might be interested in genuine discourse, but given that the comment of yours I was responding to initially consisted mostly of flame and projection at NealB2, then I suppose I shouldn't have expected so much.  Good luck.

[ Parent ]
Dude (0.00 / 0)
You're engaging in classic passive-aggressive manipulative faux "discourse". E.g. telling me that I MUST click on some vital link that proves your point and read it thoroughly before I dare to express any further opinion on the matter, and when I fail to do so, proclaiming me to be unserious about engaging in "genuine discourse". I.e. either this discourse is conducted on your terms, accepting your premises, or it's not a real discourse.

The whiny and petulant nature of your retorts says everything that I need to know about you and your mode of "discourse". I.e. agree with me or you're closed-minded, dammit!

Yeah.

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton

[ Parent ]
Not reading the link (4.00 / 1)
then slamming JBen for not citing references is self-serving and dismissive.

"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."
[ Parent ]
asdf (0.00 / 0)
Yeah.
[ Parent ]
Discourse (0.00 / 0)
I don't care if you agree with me or not.  I didn't expect that you would.

However, I had hoped that if you were going to take the time to reply you would have done us both the service of considering my actual argument and responding to it, as I did with your argument - that is what one means by "genuine discourse".  I am not aggressive, passive or otherwise "dude".  

Now, it is my intent to be enough of an adult not to continue this with you.  If, however, at some point you wish to actually discuss these issues with some seriousness, I'll be happy to read what you have to say.

[ Parent ]
Because people don't like those products (4.00 / 2)
And at the same time people all over the country are losing their jobs.  If democrats are seen as too focused on a few big names in a certain region of the country they will suffer for it.

Not that I agree with the banker bailout or even disagree with the bridge loan till january.

Obama wont call it bankruptcy, but he will essentially be forcing the process on the big 3 to restructure.  They don't make a product I'd be willing to buy and I can't imagine their arrogance about the bailout is increasing their sales.


http://transgendermom.blogspot....

Their arrogance? (4.00 / 3)
Hmmm... we see it quite differently over here... the arrogance is against us...

As for "no one wants to buy these products".... well the Big 3 have over 50% market share, so someone likes their products (including myself), even if you don't... That is arrogance on your part.

This a lot bigger than a single company or a "few" (i.e. 3 million) jobs...  and that's why there is resistance... too few people "get" how the failure of the Big 3 puts the U.S. in third world status permanently...

REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!

[ Parent ]
This is what you get when someone who cares more about ideas than people (4.00 / 4)
weighs in on stuff...that directly affects people. It's not only the right that puts ideas above people. Our people might be smarter and our ideas better, but clearly, not all of ours are totally plugged into reality. I'm always wary of ideas and people who look at real people as theoretical abstractions. He writes of pain, but doesn't appear to have a clue as to what it actually means.

Plus, it's stupid on purely economic terms to allow the Big 3 to fail. If that happened, we'd just have to support the millions who'd be out of work, via welfare, unemployment, retraining, public works projects, etc. Which, duh, keeping the Big 3 alive basically is, and on a much cheaper scale. Except, this would be a public works and "welfare" project that could actually turn a profit and be self-sustaining someday, if managed well.

What on earth is he thinking with this hands off nonsense.

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton

Thank you. (4.00 / 2)
I agree.

Just out of curiosity, did the 'I want to be the hero senator from Kentucky' who wants the union members to take the pay the Japanese auto workers make also suggest that AIG et al employees take a pay cut? Did he suggest that the executive staff of those companies (and the Big 3) take a substantial pay cut?  Or is just the union members he wants to stiff?

[ Parent ]
It's been a long time since the last depression.... (4.00 / 1)
I agree with Kovie. Dorothea Lang photographs are something you see in art museums, right? Nobody's read Studs Terkel, or Let Us Now Praise Famous Men, or even talked to their own great grandparents.

Lawrence Lessig really can't imagine himself selling apples on the streets, or stranded in the Mojave Desert with a blown radiator and three kids in the back seat who haven't eaten anything but a can of beans and two pieces or bread since the day before yesterday. He has no idea what it might be like to live for three months in a makeshift tent outside Las Vegas waiting for the government to start hiring for the Hoover Dam.

I'm always tempted to say fuck guys like this. It's not that they're bad people, but even in their ignorance, you'd think they'd at least try to grasp how privileged they are on the one hand, and the other, just how fragile that privilege is. Honestly, as much as I despise this kind of cavalier attitude toward other people's misfortunes, I can't bring myself to wish anyone, even the Lawrence Lessigs of the world, a dose of the misery which might enlighten them. Let's just say that I pray for them.

I'm with you (4.00 / 2)
I count my blessings for the privileges I've received, but I've experienced enough misfortune to know a few things. I go to a small liberal arts school with more then its fair share of trust fund kids with nice cars and everything taken care of. It can be frustrating to be surrounded by a lot of inherently smart people who are just so dumb and ignorant about life, the kind of people who grow up to be Lessigs and Corkers and AIG executives. It wouldn't take much to shatter their bubbles. Some are decent, but most can't quite grasp the meaning of Dylan's "Like A Rolling Stone".

Its just a shame that white collar workers have to start getting hit before anything gets done in this country.

[ Parent ]
Civil War (0.00 / 0)
Reading the comments on these blogs really brings out the sense of betrayal by those in the midwest.

During the Depression, it was in places like Ohio that the US political system started unraveling, until FDR brought the country back from the brink.

This time, things will be worse.

Nothing is off the table.

if not now. when? (0.00 / 0)
when are we going to hold this industry responsible for their lousy products and absence of vision and disregard for the environment?

if not now, when?

how many times are we going to prop up the American auto industry before holding them accountable for their years of ineptitude?

if not now. when?

go ahead bail them out. but someday please please please god hold this industry accountable for delivering decent outcomes.

Your missing half the story (0.00 / 0)
but your conclusion is correct. Going forward we are going to have to become a lot more involved in setting clear rules and regulations for our industries that lead to decent outcomes. Letting our upper class executives run amok on the planet clearly isn't working.
[ Parent ]
Geez | 78 comments
USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2010, Powered by SoapBlox

Powered by: SoapBlox