As much as I’d like to keep more cars off the street, I think it would be a mistake to let any of the big three fail. It’s virtually impossible these days to start a car company from scratch, and we’d have the pension obligations.

I think the key thing is how this is paid for. My recommendation would be through a carbon based tax on fuel, so that non-drivers aren’t continuing to subsidize drivers. This would serve the purpose of encouraging people to buy fuel efficient cars, and might be politically feasible–our gas tax is going to retool the industry to make cars less expensive. It could be structured so that there was money for transit improvements and bike sharing as well…

I agree with anon and car-free nation, in that a bailout should be used as leverage to get progressive agenda items from the big three. I want to see fewer, fuel-efficient cars, increased rail & bike transportation and urban planning that doesn’t rely on car travel – but the way to get there is going to be from here. Leverage and accountability could be combined to create some big steps forward, without further harming workers in Detroit who need jobs right now and pensions they can count on down the road.

Let ’em fail. We will not want for cars if they go under. I think this pruning is at least 20 years over due. How long do the tax payers have to carry these ignoramuses?

@car free nation

Yes, it is very hard to start automobile manufacturer from scratch. I think, you and I, could probably start one that makes cars that nobody wants.

It’s a shame, that when you finally think you’ve got a government with its head on straight, you find out they don’t have the guts to carry out the vision. Maybe an opposition party is not a bad thing.

The car makers should be bailed out with the caveat that the retooling result in the production of rail cars and buses. The nyc subway used to get its cars from St. Louis, now they come from France and Japan.

We can’t keep these obsolete, inefficient, over-regulated companies limping along. Imagine if we’d bailed out the horse carriage-makers when the car was invented.

On the one hand, it diverts the productive power of America’s workers into underproductive industries instead of creating things that people actually need or want. This injures the economy in the long term, instead of helping it. Imagine if the government put everyone who is currently working in Silicon Valley to work in a telegraph factory, subsidized by Federal funds. We’d all be significantly poorer because the wealth created by computers would not exist, and we’d also be flooded with a lot more telegraph machines than we need.

On the other hand, if cars do indeed have a future as an industry in America, they’ll be built again some day. People forget that in this globalized day and age, GM is no more an “American” car maker than Honda or Nissan are–anyone from anywhere in the world can buy stock in GM or Honda or DaimlerBenz or any other multinational corporation. Hell, the Japanese car makers even employ Americans building cars for sale in the U.S. So it’s not like cars will stop being made in America once GM goes kaput.

The reason this is even being considered is the entrenched special interests (both corporate and labor) that stand to be harmed from change. Yes, change hurts in the short run, but in the long run it helps more people than it hurts. It’s just socially optimal.

You ever notice at a National park or Forrest you hear things like, this was made in the 1930s, and this was made in the 1930s. Yet very little has been done or made since then.

Or how about Reclamation projects? Dams that feed us water now or still provide cheap electricity.

And no one can forget the Defense industrial complex.

Rather investing in America’s infrastructure and people, we invest in cooperate companies and DOD torture/death.

I think big oil should bail out the car makers and NOT the tax payer.
After all big oil and the car makers complimented each others businesses and ripped main street off by as much as they could. Now it’s time to feed their golden calf.

As President-elect Obama looks to bail out the auto-industry, he also considers a stimulus in infrastructure spending. The Chinese just announced a similar plan. However, Japan did the same thing in the 1990s, but with little success. PBS has an interesting take on it:

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/blueprintamerica/blog/the-dig-rebuilding-the-economy-with-infrastructure-spending/225/

Here’s something from a Times article on the bailout:

Mr. Bush indicated at the meeting that he might support some aid and a broader economic stimulus package if Mr. Obama and Congressional Democrats dropped their opposition to a free-trade agreement with Colombia

Talk about horse trading! “Why yessir, Mister ‘bama, I sure can give you that mangy old mare – um, I mean fine strong horse – you’re asking for, but she’s gonna cost you a purty penny!”

Whew, that honeymoon was over fast. Yes We Can … prop up inefficient businesses whose main product kills our children and destroys our quality of life!

“I think it’s funny that this ridiculous plan isn’t immediately shot down by other members on this site. It seems to me that this Obama fellow brainwashed people into believing there was going to be a “new deal” and a national rebirth when instead it’s a feeding frenzy for auto industry lobbyists!”

Hasn’t it been shot down, or at least disapproved of, in nine out of ten comments? If you’re looking for people to tear their hair out because Obama is disappointing on this issue, the fact that they are not is evidence that the obamamania you’re referring to (or kool aid or obamabot-ism, pick your internet cliche) was never as manic as it was alleged to be. Anyone that thought he was going to be perfect hasn’t been paying attention; my enthusiasm was greatly tempered by his surprising flip-flop on telecom immunity for wiretapping crimes. But I’m still cautiously optimistic. I would rather have an engaged president that compromises on some issues, knowing he is doing the wrong thing, than a disengaged one that is letting others do the thinking for him. Having Bush’s DOT support congestion pricing—what a trip that was! Does anyone think Bush could explain how c.p. works, why it is helpful and fair? Obama could, even though his DOT may not give it the same support. And as we saw in c.p.’s federally supported first attempt here, a disgraced presidential administration that is disengaged at the top is not very helpful in accomplishing whatever good things it happens to attempt.

We will see if Obama changes his automaker welfare position as economic thinkers line up against it (and mildly inform the public) the way they did against the McCain-Clinton gas tax summer partytime. I’m thinking, probably not, but there’s HOPE. 😉

Well, I HOPE you’re right, though I highly doubt it considering how much they’ve sold out to established interests. (Coal companies, the UAW, etc.)

I also deal with the same sort of situation every day when discussing health care reform.

This charlatan is more sold-out to big pharma and health insurance companies than any previous candidate, yet his loyal followers keep asking for a leap of faith or hope in the absence of any actual actions.

I also deal with this when discussing marriage equality.

He’s against it. He believes for religious reasons that gay people are second-class citizens (he’s farther to the right on gays in the military than Clinton in 1992!). Yet I’ve been told that he “doesn’t really mean this” and that I should have a leap of faith, or hope, or whatever. This man is a charlatan who dupes people!

The scariest thing is that they need a new enemy… now that Hillary and Palin are vanquished, there needs to be a focus for the negative emotions of the people involved in the “movement.” It will probably be some foreign con

tal, the only thing your carciature of Obama supporters needs is someone who fits it.

This might be an opportune time to lobby for ideal transport and transit virtually available here and now with modest industrial design initiatives, along with long-range research and development of molecular strength material science as industrial, environmental, and security imperatives that make extremely important economic sense.