Thursday, June 04, 2009

We're Doomed

When large sectors of our economy are being guided into corporate "Obama-care" by babble, not business, as detailed in this May 31st New York Times article:
It is not every 31-year-old who, in a first government job, finds himself dismantling General Motors and rewriting the rules of American capitalism.

But that, in short, is the job description for Brian Deese, a not-quite graduate of Yale Law School who had never set foot in an automotive assembly plant until he took on his nearly unseen role in remaking the American automotive industry.

But now, according to those who joined him in the middle of his crash course about the automakers’ downward spiral, he has emerged as one of the most influential voices in what may become President Obama’s biggest experiment yet in federal economic intervention.
As MaxedOutMama says, "It's all being done on the basis of theorized social costs, rather than with a view to eventually creating a viable domestic auto company." In other words, disregarding the lessons learned in college economics courses except those in Marxist econ. And see Megan McArdle:
GM's main problems are:
1) A terrible, bloated cost structure
2) A terrible, bloated bureaucracy
3) A bunch of meh car lines
Which of these is the government going to solve? That terrible, bloated cost structure supports a bloated union whose jobs are the entire rationale for the government intervention. Leaning on the parts suppliers just risks UAW jobs further down the supply chain. Maybe we can take it out of the budget for copy paper and pencils.

Forgive me if I am skeptical that the government is going to show GM how to streamline its bureaucracy.
Which sets up Jonah Goldberg's modest suggestion:
We're ponying up $50 billion, but the total costs might be closer to $100 billion in the long run. And all we get is the same car company we always had.

So, I'm wondering: How much would it cost to just build a car company from scratch? I'm sure the start-up costs would be high. But the new company wouldn't have to bow and scrape to the UAW and could probably just buy GM's best plants at fire-sale prices.

13 comments:

OBloodyHell said...

> President Obama’s biggest experiment yet in failed economic intervention.

The above had an error in the adjective applied. I fixed it.

OBloodyHell said...

P.S.
The Brits already tried all this back in the 1970s.

They even had some great, classic cars to work with -- MG, Triumph, Jaguar.

Only one of those marques still exists, and, guess what -- it ain't British any more.

Trialdog said...

Mr. Deese's appointment is bewildering at best. The NYT article quotes Larry Summers as saying something to the effect that Deese is a bright guy. This speaks volumes about Mr. Summers.
If one places Mr. Deese's name in a search engine, more about his background is available. If you do so, you'll learn he was a political science major (wow), is an ideologue (who would have thunk it), and has never accomplished anything. (Sorry Mr. Deese, "working" for a non-profit international aid agency where you coauthored an unreadable article or two and hanging around the Obama campaign generating You Tube campaign ads which are laughable when viewed today are not accomplishments.)
Mr. Deese wouldn't know a lug nut from an oil pan drain plug. Yet, by golly, he's been taught poli-sci, and I don't even want to think about that. If he learned anything outside his political science classes, perhaps he can inform the President that Marxism is not a science. Just hope he doesn't get a flat on his way to work one day.

Trialdog said...

Quick follow up Mr. Deese, because I want to helpful and not, you know, be like totally critical. I want to help. So here goes. On the lug nut vs. oil pan drain plug difference. The answer is one has a hole and the other plugs a hole. I think someone as bright as you can figure out the rest.

Carl said...

In almost 3 decades of being a lawyer, my view is that almost all of the worst lawyers wer poly sci majors. (Hope Trialdog wasn't. . . )

Assistant Village Idiot said...

Goldberg's idea is intriguing

OBloodyHell said...

> Goldberg's idea is intriguing

Swift's "Modest Proposal" applied to liberal political appointees is far more likely to be highly effective.

:-9

> Mr. Deese wouldn't know a lug nut from an oil pan drain plug.

So, this really is the "Newer Deal" -- that was a revolution by ignorantly presumptive intellectuals with no relevant knowledge or experience, too.

I don't think the country is going to survive this one, though.

suek said...

>>I don't think the country is going to survive this one, though.>>

I share your concern.

So...what do we do now?

OBloodyHell said...

Not much. I believe that it's still as has been stated:

Too late to fix things and too early to start the hangings.

suek said...

>>too early to start the hangings.>>

Can we at least start a list??

Carl said...

suek:

I'm thinking about ideas for such a list. Any suggestions?

Carl said...

BTW, Canadian David Warren's take on the GM/Chrysler bailouts.

OBloodyHell said...

> Can we at least start a list??

Sure...

Start with:

Obama (Both of 'em)
Pelosi
Reid
Barney Frank
Frank Raines
Jamie Gorelick
Al Gore
James Hanson
Arlen Spector
Barbara Boxer
Probably every Dem Senator on the Senate Banking Committee
Clinton (Both of 'em)
Teddy Kennedy
John Edwards
John Kerry

And, lest we be called partisan, I'd also suggest the inclusion of pretty much every person making policy decisions at the RNC for the last 8-odd years.

That's a start, at least.


Now watch, some libtard is going to see this and start screaming, "They're threatening the president!!!"... :-/