http://www.heritage.org/Research/Economy/wm2170.cfm

http://iht.com/articles/2008/12/17/opinion/edcohen.php

Dont let yourself being distracted by the Title:
“Roger Cohen: Pan Am dies, America lives”

Because, as someone said in another thread, you must properly supplicate when you go before the king.

Me, were I the Congressman talking to Chrysler? I would humiliate them publicly for presenting a plan that no one had proofread, not for their mode of transportation.

Insolvent?

Idiots?

Imbiciles?

Ten of the eighteen senators in your list are not from southern states. It’s not accurate to say that it was only southern state Republican senators who voted against the bailout. I’m not saying that you said that, but I’ve heard that repeated a lot in the blogashpere. It would be accurate to say that the southern senators were leading the opposition to the bailout.

Is Mexico contributing anything?

all stakeholders are going to have to come to the table and be willing to show that they are capable and willing to make really tough decisions about the way forward,” White House Spokesperson Dana Perino said today. … “We need them to become viable, competitive firms in the future. And in order to do that, concessions are going to have to be made by stakeholders.”

That is a real basic definition of a Chapter 11. This is the best news I have had all day.

… but it does look like something out of Monty Python’s Flying Circus.

Pwease save us!

Betrayal is a strong word to describe resistance to giving money to 3 companies who betrayed the trust of their customers…. companies whose leaders haven’t had the intestinal fortitude to make the really tough choices to avoid getting into the predicament they’re now in.

Ostensibly, you can’t put them all on 1 plane because if the plane crashes, the loss of all that leadership talent at once could have, you know, a catastrophic effect on the entire industry.

By late December-maybe the 27th or 28th, with bankruptcy days away, GM, Chrysler and the UAW would be in a far weaker bargaining position than they are now, and would probably give up more and accept less for it. That’s a risky game, but the possibility of a federal bailout probably makes a forced bankruptcy less likely. If GM or Chrysler owe you money, why force a bankruptcy where you get maybe 15% of what the big 1.8 owe them when there is the prospect of a bailout that gives you 100%?

I don’t think Bush and company are subtle enough to play that game, but it is possible. One thought though: The new, much more Democratic congress will take over January 3, with actual business starting Jan 4. If GM and Chrysler can make it until then they will probably face a much more favorable congress, though a lot of Democrats at the greener end of the party have not forgiven GM for “killing the electric car’.

Despite the resolute inability of ideologues on both sides of the spectrum to see this, there’s a big difference between running and cooperating with.

I don’t think you’d be stretching the truth to say the Volkswagen, Hyundai or Toyota benefit from a cooperative relationship with the respective home-market governments.

If they’re so concerned about PR, they should just all bandy together and grab a small exclusive first-class flight in a smaller commercial jet. I don’t understand what the big deal is surrounding all this travel nonsense.

Regarding the article, I think it’s all just talk. When has the White House ever really held anyone accountable?

It’s the same Republicans that opposed the financial bailout that are opposing the auto bailout.

18 Republican Senators voted in favor of the $700 billion bank bailout, but against the $14 billion auto industry loan. They are:

Bob Bennett, R-UT
Richard Burr, R-NC
Saxby Chambliss, R-GA
Tom Coburn, R-OK
Norm Coleman, R-MN
Bob Corker, R-TN
John Ensign, R-NV
Chuck Grassley, R-IA
Judd Gregg, R-NH
Orrin Hatch, R-UT
Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-TX
Johnny Isakson, R-GA
John Kyl, R-AZ
Mel Martinez, R-FL
John McCain, R-AZ
Mitch McConnell, R-KY
Lisa Murkowski, R-AK
John Thune, R-SD

Who has gotten bailed out? The only foreign bailouts I’ve heard of are for subsidiaries of the big-3.

It’s the same Republicans that opposed the financial bailout that are opposing the auto bailout. That they have some transplants in their states is just a convenient way to claim that they are biased, instead of just smart enough to realize that the big-3 are failed, and not salvageable with some mislabeled “loans”.

If we are going to label politicians with auto company names the Toyota Republicans, in this case, are much more correct than the British Leyland Republicans and Democrats.

I agree that the jumping through hoops should stop. There is no such thing as a non-bankruptcy bankruptcy. Hopefully the Treasury will let them go Chapter 11 in some managed way. The Wall Street Journal has reported a study that a number of people would buy from automakers in Chapter 11 if there was government backing. If the Chapter 11s do turn into Chapter 7s it’s better than the alternative of endless bailouts.

‘I’ as in IF they bailout GM/Chrysler.

The difference with other countries being prepared to allocate some monies for their auto companies, or indeed any organisation that needs help, is that they are otherwise fundamentally sound businesses.

Government cars

Lada
Trabant
Yugo
Skoda

Why do I think the government running the auto companies is a bad idea?

It’s not that simple.

America has a pathological fear of government involvement in industry. That’s a big part of it, despite that American government and industry really are quite intertwined anyway, just in a nefarious, back-room fashion, rather than overtly as in, say, Germany or Japan. This results in a lot of indirect, dirty, and slow work by lobbyists, rather than quick, decisive action.

The other issue is a distinct lack of political diversity. In most other countries, there’s a whole spectrum of parties and ideologies, and they’re forced to cooperate to get anything done, or advance any part of their agenda. It’s very hard to be partisan when the range of parties spans that gamut from vertiable neo-Nazis to Marxist-Leninists, with representation from everyone in-between.

In the US**, it’s like football: two teams, one winner.

Because there’s only two teams, a whole lot of pandering and showboating happens. It’s not quite such an issue in Congress, where local interests get a chance, but in the Senate and White House you’re more or less stuck with petty partisan sniping. That both teams represent, effectively, the right wing, doesn’t help any. They’re reduced to petty squabbling and soundbites, rather than real differences, because truthfully there aren’t any.

Parties are a very, very bad thing. That they’re practically institutionalized in the US has made it worse: there are no valid options anymore: if you want to be elected, you need the backing of one of the two machines. To do that, you need to participate in the show.

** (and Canada, the US and Australia, to a much lesser degree)