Constructive gadfly
Published on December 9, 2008 By stevendedalus In Politics

 

 

I’d be the last guy to defend a CEO making 21mil a year even if his company was stumbling over bales of profit, let alone one losing billions. Hell, Lou Gehrig cap in hand had to beg for a $40k contract, so I seethe when an A-Rod winds up with a 250mil multiyear contract, and Manny turns down Torres’ offer of 40mil for two years because he—in his old age no less—wants 100mil for four years! Then there are these part time pitchers with 4.0 ERA getting 10-15mil, and those with 3.5 ERA are lionized as 20mil superstars. The Amazon Bozo who "created" an electronic catalogue, and Bill Gates who, despite better existing platforms, under bid for the IBM contract no more deserve being multibillionaires than the technical writers for Sears and Montgomery Ward and the American Marine Indians who broke the Japanese codes, respectively. The founding fathers of science—the likes of Einstein and Newton—and the computer pioneers at Xerox, AT&T and university labs got little monetary reward but no one was counting.

Nonetheless, the audacity of Congress to lecture insultingly the Big Three who at this point have never looked better relative to the great progress being made, is simply arrant arrogance and hypocritical, particularly in light of their many failings as lawmen—not to mention their blank checks to Wall Street financiers. It is actually unAmerican the way the congressional committees have behaved. They continually stick it to the CEOs and UAW with the harangue of "legacy." But that legacy also includes the entire American story of magnificent automobiles that were second to none in their time, and it took real grit to labor on the assembly lines without robots and flimsy steel and plastics. In the 60s and early 70s youthful protestors and image seekers bought foreign—they were masochistic and joy rode on the junk from Japan and Germany. It was only when the first and second oil crises hit did they begin to buy for the economy. Still the early foreign cars were a joke—Opel, Beetle, Datsun, Mirage, Corolla—that fared no better than the four and six cylinder autos of the 30s and 40s. It really wasn’t until the union free southern states cajoled the foreign companies with incredible incentives to build spanking new robotic plants did they begin to compete with the rusted out plants of Detroit which had to undergo tremendous restructuring of their plants in order to compete. Today, despite finicky Consumers Report, no one can claim there’s much difference in comparable models.

If Congress wants to turn to legacy they should lecture the consumer soccer moms, the male chauvinists with their demand for SUVs and pickup trucks, along with the southern governors promising the moon.

Copyright © 2008 Richard R. Kennedy All rights reserved. Revised: Dec 9, 2008.

http://stevendedalus.joeuser.com

http://www.lulu.com/rrkfinn

 


Comments (Page 1)
3 Pages1 2 3 
on Dec 10, 2008

Next time, put a little feeling into your writing.

And I agree!  See?  We can agree on somethings!

on Dec 10, 2008

I cannot fathom what kind of stupidity one must have to think that letting millions of people lose their jobs is the best course of action. Regardless of your views, the automotive industry cannot fail in this economy. The free market is unable to compensate when the global economy is failing.

I seriously hate Republican politicians now. Get off your corrupt ass, sign the bill, and kindly get the fuck out of my government. You disgust me with your disregard for the American worker.

on Dec 10, 2008

I cannot fathom what kind of stupidity one must have to think that letting millions of people lose their jobs is the best course of action.

Da Comrade.  You would have done well in Soviet Union!

How about - when they are not producing what people want?  When they are leeching off a system that long has passed them by?

The simple fact is that the only constant in life is change.  That is why the "millions" of buggy whip makers lost their jobs.

on Dec 10, 2008

If Congress wants to turn to legacy they should lecture the consumer soccer moms, the male chauvinists with their demand for SUVs and pickup trucks, along with the southern governors promising the moon.

Wrong.  The 'Big3' should have competed, pure & simple, but they didn't.  They allowed the UAW to make them and keep them uncompetitive.

The 'southern governors promising the moon' mischaracterizes them a bit, but even so, I don't think you'll find many critics of those governors among the constituents employed at those manufacturing plants.  You might also want to acknowledge how bleak the economic downturn was that hit the midwest & south in the late 1970's, a time when the southwest was booming, and that all those states were desperate for jobs, any jobs.  You should be praising those governors, not dissing them.  Blaming the competition for failure to compete is lame, to be kind.

on Dec 10, 2008

No Name McGee
I cannot fathom what kind of stupidity one must have to think that letting millions of people lose their jobs is the best course of action. Regardless of your views, the automotive industry cannot fail in this economy. The free market is unable to compensate when the global economy is failing.

I seriously hate Republican politicians now. Get off your corrupt ass, sign the bill, and kindly get the fuck out of my government. You disgust me with your disregard for the American worker.

 

yeah and how many more times will the tax payers be asked to do the same thing...were they not just begging 5 months ago? now they are back...and they will be back again

 

I heard a great compairision to this. The taxpayers are not bailing out the companies, they are bailing out the jobs. Its creating an artificail thing.... and this is never wise.

 

So enjoy it i guess. I am sure they will be back in march.

on Dec 11, 2008

So enjoy it i guess. I am sure they will be back in march.

You think it'll take till march for them to come back?  I'm betting they start angling for more by the end of January, if they wait that long.  I mean their number went from 25 billion to 34 billion in the span of two weeks.  In two weeks they somehow needed 9 billion more, so what is to stop them from blowing thru 14 billion in 3 or 4 weeks.

Regardless of your views, the automotive industry cannot fail in this economy. The free market is unable to compensate when the global economy is failing.

The notion of anything being too big to fail bothers the hell out of me.  Nothing should be too big to fail in a capitalistic, market based economy.  Yes it will be extremely painful to see an industry as big as the american auto industry fail and lots of people will lose their jobs but that is no reason to prop up a failing business model.  If a business isn't profitable it needs to fail so that something else can take it's place that is profitable. 

Look at the market like you would a forest, sometimes you need to cut down the old growth trees to allow saplings and underbrush to grow to sustain the the animal life that depends on the forest.  It's the same with our economy, sometimes we need to get rid of the old failing companies to make room for the small startups.

on Dec 11, 2008

The notion of anything being too big to fail bothers the hell out of me.

I agree.  They should be allowed to reorganize under bankruptcy protection and have a shot at competing again.  The notion that 'millions' of jobs will somehow vanish if they are allowed to file bankruptcy is nothing but a scare/extortion tactic.  Jobs 'will' be lost, but there is no alternative that will simultaneously preserve those jobs and make the big 3 competitive.

on Dec 11, 2008

We can agree on somethings!
Till your next comment, anyway.

They should be allowed to reorganize under bankruptcy protection and have a shot at competing again.
All of a sudden bankruptcy is a good thing!

on Dec 11, 2008

I agree. They should be allowed to reorganize under bankruptcy protection and have a shot at competing again. The notion that 'millions' of jobs will somehow vanish if they are allowed to file bankruptcy is nothing but a scare/extortion tactic. Jobs 'will' be lost, but there is no alternative that will simultaneously preserve those jobs and make the big 3 competitive.

I completely agree.  The notion that no one will buy a car from a company in bankruptcy is simply not true.  As long as the company in bankruptcy offers warranties on new cars that are insured by a third party company they will definitely be able to sell cars.

on Dec 11, 2008

All of a sudden bankruptcy is a good thing!

No one ever said that bankruptcy was a good thing, but it is what a company should do before going to Washington looking for a handout.  No one is saying that times aren't going to be tough, and certainly no one is saying that they want potentially millions of people to lose their jobs, but the thought of using tax payer money to prop up a failing business model just doesn't make any sense and it is certainly NOT the American way (I apply this to the banks as well btw).

on Dec 11, 2008

You think it'll take till march for them to come back? I'm betting they start angling for more by the end of January, if they wait that long.
Ford might since I don't think it's included since all they need is a credit line down the road.

they are bailing out the jobs. Its creating an artificail thing.... and this is never wise.
What's artificial about jobs--and they are too big to fail. Besides, what's the point of creating 2½million jobs if you let 3million disappear.Though granted in this case 3mil is a bit of an exaggetation.

on Dec 11, 2008

they are too big to fail

No one is too big to fail.  If they were too big to fail then they wouldn't be failing right now would they? 

Yes it is true that the bigger they are the harder they fall and the big three failing would have tremendous impact to our economy.  However propping up a failing business model is merely delaying the inevitable.  At what point do we cut off the big three.  They were asking for money a few months ago and got it, now they are back asking for more and they are likely to get it.  What happens if they are back in Feb. or Mar. asking for even more money.  At what point do we say enough is enough, or are we simply going to socialize all failing big businesses so that none of them fail?  How is that "fair" (a term Dems love to toss around) to the small businesses?

on Dec 11, 2008

No one is too big to fail.
Right, like the Iraq Mistake, farm subsidies to millionaires, tax writeoffs, tax shelters, interest deduction on home mortgages, tax incentives for auto transplants, entitlements--bailouts in reality all too big to fail.    

on Dec 11, 2008

Mixing your metaphors a bit irresponsibly there, Richard.  But I'm all for pulling the plug on farm subsidies, too.

on Dec 11, 2008

Iraq Mistake, farm subsidies to millionaires, tax writeoffs, tax shelters, interest deduction on home mortgages, tax incentives for auto transplants, entitlements-

Just because these exist doesn't make them right.  Just because something has been done before doesn't mean it should be continued.  At some point it has to stop, at some point we have to declare that enough is enough.  I for one passed that point a long time ago and I really think it is time for congress to recognize that it has all been taken too far. 

3 Pages1 2 3