Skip to main content

auto-destruct

i don't own a car. i never have and, considering that it's my preference to live in cities, i don't plan on owning one in the near future.

that said, when the auto industry came begging to government to save them, both in the united states and, more quietly, here in canada, i wasn't entirely averse to propping them up. even if you take the libertarian capitalist view that, if these companies are allowed to collapse, someone will buy up their assets and start a new car company, you need some kind of plan for dealing with the interim real world where millions of people in both the primary and secondary industries will be thrown out of work. basically, the government is going to pay for those people one way or the other, either in the form of auto-industry support or in the form of employment insurance and welfare. by bailing out the car companies, you at least have the chance of getting the money back at some point in the future.

this was supposed to be the week where we found out what the payback plan looked like. this was the week when the automakers were going to reveal their plan to get lean and get serious about reversing the flow of money out their door. and they seem to have got a handle on the first part, however, the plan is decidedly lacking on details about the second half of that equation.

car companies have shown that they are more than capable for planning for cutbacks- that they can strategically eliminate jobs and facilities or curtail benefits to current and previous employees. the problem with that, if you're the one loaning them money (and you are), is that cutting back on expenses doesn't help them pay off their loans. It just means that they're going to take a longer time to go through the money your handing them. in the midst of discussing what concessions workers are and aren't going to agree to, no one seems to be asking what it is that's going to generate the money that will be used to repay the loans their taking out now.

to put this in perspective, picture yourself applying for a bank loan. the person at the bank asks you to tell them your plan for repaying the loan and your answer is "i'm going to move to a cheaper apartment, get rid of my cable and high speed internet and i'm not going to eat take out any more". what are the odds that you're going to get that loan? (actually, to carry this analogy further, the auto industry's ascertain that, in contrast to actual events, americans will just buy more cars than ever and that this will allow them to pay back what they owe would be akin to telling a banker that you intend to repay your personal loan by earning more money and leaving it at that.)

i don't like the idea of putting millions of people out of work. i don't like the idea of shutting down a sector that will throw the economy into more turmoil. i'm looking for work as it is and, to be selfish for a moment, i don't need the competition.

however, what i've seen this week doesn't inspire me to open my taxpayer's purse. we may need an auto industry in north america, but i think we also need a completely different group of people running it.

Comments

Michael said…
You've never owned a car? Wow!

I'm sure there can't be Americans who have never owned a car. Unfortunately I live in a city with almost zero public transport and commute into a larger city very not much more than that.

I envy you being in the position where you can get around without a car. I wish I could.

as long as you're here, why not read more?

fun-raising

no, i am not dead, nor have i been lying incapacitated in a ditch somewhere. i've mostly been preparing for our imminent, epic move, which is actually not so terribly epic, because we found a place quite close to where we are now. in addition, i've been the beneficiary of an inordinately large amount of paying work, which does, sadly, take precedence over blogging, even though you know i'd always rather be with you.

indeed, with moving expenses and medical expenses looming on the horizon, more than can be accounted for even with the deepest cuts in the lipstick budget, dom and i recently did something that we've not done before: we asked for help. last week, we launched a fundraising campaign on go fund me. it can be difficult to admit that you need a helping hand, but what's been overwhelming for both of us is how quick to respond so many people we know have been once we asked. it's also shocking to see how quickly things added up.

most of all, though, the ex…

losers?

just a short time ago, i waxed prosaic about trump supporters who felt betrayed by their candidate pursuing in office the exact things that he said he would. short version: i have no sympathy.

today is a bit different. in the wake of america's bombing of a syrian air strip, in response to a chemical weapons attack by the syrian government, my facebook and twitter feeds were peppered with plaintive shades of "we believed you". these are the people who heard trump say that he wanted the united states to step back and focus on defending its own. indeed, trump did say such things, over and over; america cannot be the policeman of the world. even arch-liberal cynics like me had to admit that this was a refreshing argument to hear from someone outside the paul family, and, could easily have been turned into trump's greatest argument against hillary clinton. [he chose to go another way, which also worked.]

trump also said, repeatedly, that america needed to invest heavily …

long division

after the united states election last year, there were the usual calls for the country to unite behind the new president. that never happens anymore, because, since george w. bush scored a victory in 2004, having launched the country into a war in iraq for no reason, the people on the losing side of a presidential election have been pretty bloody angry about it. democrats hated bush 43. republicans really hated obama. democrats really hate trump.

it didn't help that trump didn't make the typical conciliatory gestures like including a couple of members of the opposite party in his cabinet, or encouraging his party to proceed slowly with contentious legislation. barack obama arguably wasted at least two and as many as six years of his tenure as president trying to play peacemaker before he felt sufficiently safe to just say "screw you guys" and start governing around the ridiculous congress he was forced to deal with. not-giving-a-shit obama was the best president in …