Simon’s response, just below yours, contains part of my “why”. There are avenues in place already for downsizing / re-structuring / re-organizing. But the automakers weren’t interested in going there, even after decades of increasingly obvious structural problems. If they’d suddenly been failing, I might think about this a bit differently.

Along with that — I really truly think this set a horrible precedent, the ramifications of which cannot be known from today, but are unlikely to be good.

That is the most important sentence in the report. But maybe this shows that the republican media machine is doing a good job at pointing out all the negatives, but not having a plan of their own?

The empty can rattles the most…

For most people, standing pat beats going to hell.

That is the most important sentence in the report. But maybe this shows that the republican media machine is doing a good job at pointing out all the negatives, but not having a plan of their own?

Oh, wait… silly me… that whole debacle paid for itself, thanks to all that nifty Iraqi oil money… How many zillions of dollars have we made off that deal? Anybody keeping track?

Agnostick
agnostick@excite.com

I don’t want to see our manufacturing base overtaken by foreign interests, so I think us stepping in and making sure they didn’t liquidate was appropriate.

Except that the “stepping in” has required us to borrow globs of money from… Foreign interests.

And why assume that the choice was bailout or liquidate? If only there were some other form of bankrupcy available, some alternative to chapter 7!

The same thing happened with GM back in the early 80s and we made money off the deal. Should they have gone under then? I genuinely don’t think so.

Again, you’re forgetting about chapter 11, but either way, the answer is yes. If they had liquidated, or if they had gone into chapter 11 and dealt with the underlying structural problems back then, it is far less likely (although one can’t discount the possibility) that they would have had to come back for more. Instead, what lesson did they learn?

There was a serious case for bailing out the financial sector, although it was debatable. There was no case at all for bailing out Detroit.

Exiled, agreed. But I think we need these car companies to go through the bankruptcy proceedings before we know what we’ve got. Then the detailed plans will emerge. Also, look at how quickly the TARP money is being paid back. The government is not interested in owning banks or car companies. Trust me on this.

Polimom, fair enough, and I appreciate the candor. But…why? Listen, I’m all for creative destruction, but these last 12 months have been crazy. Personally, I don’t want to see our manufacturing base overtaken by foreign interests, so I think us stepping in and making sure they didn’t liquidate was appropriate. The same thing happened with GM back in the early 80s and we made money off the deal. Should they have gone under then? I genuinely don’t think so.

What we need now are rules where companies can’t get “too big to fail” because corporations shouldn’t be able to hold the taxpayers hostage to their bad decisions. It’s a clear failure of the deregulatory philosophy that has been the mantra in Washington and I hope we can shift to a more sensible, long term mindset. But I’m not holding my breath.

I’ll certainly still think so.

That jives with the gallup poll trends on party affiliation:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/15370/Party-Affiliation.aspx

It probably also has something to do with this New Era of Accountability and how terrible the administration and congress is doing at following through with it:
http://drawnlines.blogspot.com/2009/05/blue-accountability.html