I was more than a little surprised to run into a post on the Progressive Bloggers front page cheering Republican senators on for blocking the bridge loan package for the American automotive industry.
Including spin-offs, it's been estimated that the Big 3 (or Big 2.5 according to some) employ some 3 million Americans. And it's been noted in a number of places that simply expecting their competitors like Honda and Toyota to pick up the slack if the domestic manufacturers go under is unrealistic. The international automotive companies rely on suppliers who, in turn, also rely on business from the Big 3 to stay afloat. If those suppliers go under, then Honda and Toyota have problems of their own.
Everyone agrees that the Big 3 management have been short-sighted and have made mistakes. But the GOP senators who have tried to block any aid package have done so because they claim they can't get appropriate concessions from the line workers who, as it happens, are unionized. And who, as it happens, already made serious concessions when they negotiated their last contract. And those senators have demagogued the issue by touting a phony figure of $73 per hour in total compensation for those workers. The figure was arrived at by totaling wages and benefits for all workers past and present. It's a bogus figure that can't be used for comparisons with Toyota's employees working in American plants.
The American government managed to find hundreds of billions of dollars for the banking industry and we're still seeing stories of banking executives who are getting six and seven figure retention bonuses. But they can't find $15 billion to keep the Big 3 from going into bankruptcy? Oh, right. The banking executives aren't unionized.
I hope everyone is still cheering when this recession becomes a full-blown depression. That'll sure show those unions.
This is a hard subject for me, but I've been following along faithfully at FDL, where our own Ian and Michigander emptywheel and others have finally taught me some of these things. It sounds as though other parts of the industry -- worldwide, too -- would go down if the Big 2.5 do, and if that happens, we're gonna be talkin' dominoes.
The talk seems to be that Bush is going to do the bailout himself, maybe even today, from the TARP fund. Someone else please explain TARP. I'm still busy with torture.
TARP is the $700 billion dollar fund that was allocated to the Treasury to spend as it saw fit to prop up the investment banks. Having the money come from TARP defeats the purpose of everyone who wanted any kind of controls on the money doled out to the automotive industry because there are no controls on the TARP.
I just read the comments over at nthier's post, pogge. What a load of anti-union talking point rubbish.
Bandying about the bogus figure of $70 and then defnding it as "the amount paid for one worker" is bullshit, and negates his argument at the outset.
It's a basic fact that unions vastly expanded the middle class in North America and are a major reason why our consumer economy works. What is it about seeing working people earn a decent wage that turns some self-proclaimed progressives into morons?
So does this mean we can finally officially call it "Fauxgressive Bloggers"?
The proprietor of that site you linked to appears to a neoliberal ventriloquist's dummy, with the Invisible Hand shoved up his or her backside and Adam Smith's fingers doing the typing. Now, perhaps I've been given the wrong impression about teh intertoobs over the past, oh, 7 years or so, but I thought bloggers were supposed to cut through the deliberate obfuscation of partisan talking points and conventional MSM wisdom, not blindly reinforce them with vindictive stenography about Big Labour Cooties!!1
Shorter: "Naw, srsly -- I dun hate teh evul unions, I just think they need to be put in their place."
P.S. ZOMG $70 AN HOUR?!?!!!1
(Btw, this post seems be to the latest in a most unfortunate series.)
What is it about seeing working people earn a decent wage that turns some self-proclaimed progressives into morons?
Turning the negative stereotype about unions into conventional wisdom is one thing the traditional media have done very well. Even the liberal Toronto Star can be quite negative towards organized labour.
So does this mean we can finally officially call it "Fauxgressive Bloggers"?
I still use the PB front page when I have time to read more than what's in my feed reader but I have to confess that even then, I'm scanning for names I know lately and not checking out many new arrivals. I'm not sure how progressive the progressive crew is these days. And "progressive" is a pretty loose sort of designation. It just took me by surprise to see what Tim accurately described as anti-union talking points. I know I can get that in other places but that's why I normally don't go to those places. I've had those discussions and I don't need to have them again.
Well, one of the real weakness of the internet is that anyone can infiltrate anywhere.
I am aware of a Canadian "progressive" site which regularly features apologists for Ahmanidijad, Mugabe, and Milosevic. And the administration there is too weak to do anything about it.
I am sure the "Progressive Bloggers" site is susceptible to the same silliness.
If I ever get a say in a site, I'd demand that people post in their own names, so that the provenance of an opinion can be traced back to the real source.
Otherwise, the progressive brand just gets frittered away.
Hey, I appreciate that you guys all liked my post over at CBC, but let's get a few things straight.
First, I'm not progressive? For starters, I don't care at all what labels anyone wants to put on me, but I'd classify myself as socially liberal and fiscally pragmatic. Take that for what you will.
Second, so just because you disagree with my point of view you feel the need to talk trash about me? That's some amazing open-mindedness you guys got over here, and guarentees I won't bother reading anything on this site.
Third, progressive, or liberal, means more than what appears to be your limited definition. Just because I don't support spending my tax money to bail out companies that suck doesn't mean I'm not progressive.
Fourth, I do appreciate your contributions to the debate over at my site. I understand your point of view, and it is reasonable, but I don't think it's the best course of action for anyone involved.
You know, I have an auto-bailout routine I used to do when someone would mention the CEOs with their planes, or the "74 dollar an hour" wages, and it goes like this - after, of course, debunking the significance of the former and the dishonesty of the latter:
"Nationalize them. Shitcan management from the very top down, until you get to the point where people start seeming competent. Merge the nationalized companies, consolidate the brands, protect the pensions and wages of these jobs - which, like the industry themselves, are vital national interests - then when the shitstorm is over, let the company resume a private existence as the domestic north American auto company."
I have yet to meet someone who didn't agree with the sentiment, for all that it's a cartoonishly simplistic manifesto in many ways. And to be frank, sometimes all people need is a cartoonishly simplistic tirade to match the simplistically cartoonish (right wing) tirade they heard on television. Fortunately I think progressive people - as opposed to people on progressive blogrolls - have their heads on straight about this issue and are pushing back on anti-union, anti-car-industry BS on this one.
Things have gotten so bad that folks are starting to reject the "comparative advantage" bullshit about how Adam Smith demands that all industry move to Asia while their grandkids work at McDonalds and call centres.
It isn't difficult, now that people's attention has been concentrated, to point out that manufacturing jobs are good jobs, not least because they are and have been unionized jobs. Now that everyone's stock portfolio has circled the bowl, things like solidarity and protection for workers, and PENSIONS, start to look as valuable as they always should have.
These are archetypal middle class earnings and not the 150k mathematical illusion that the Larry Kudlows of the world are prating about on television. This is, hopefully, a crisis progressives can master.
Ya know, Neil, you were very patiently corrected by pogge on the $70 an hour thing and chose to go the pinhead route on that issue. I'm not a nice guy like pogge is, so I calls 'em morons when I sees 'em.
By the way, what's "fiscally pragmatic" about fucking over the working folks and deliberately misunderstanding their issues?
So, how does one get to be on the progressive bloggers? Is there a criteria? If not, how about one, cause we are looking silly.
@Tim: Your lack of common civility amuses me. Again, with the "you were patiently corrected, and didn't agree with us, so fuck you" stuff. Nice.
As a quick primer, "fiscal pragmatism" includes not giving money to companies who will obviously do nothing except lose it!
Were you guys screaming for government bailout money to be given to Nortel when they laid off tens of thousands of people? What about all the other IT jobs that went overseas? What about all the call centers? Nope. But, for some reason, the UAW is sacred.
And BTW, if www.progressivebloggers.ca has really become a blogroll of communist economic ideology, then I'll gladly remove my site from the listing. However, I doubt that's the case. You might see if www.communistbloggers.ca is free.
Since that hourly figure is going to keep coming up, have a link. That post will tell you that the current value for that calculation is $69/hr. and the whole meme was originally created by GM to use as a stick with which to beat the union over the head during negotiations. It was never a valid number for anything other than trying to browbeat today's employees into taking lower wages because retirees insist on surviving and collecting their pensions instead of having the decency to die as soon as they stop working.
As for pragmatism, I would think that being pragmatic would include considering the larger context. At the moment, the larger context is that of an economy that already appears to be teetering on the edge. Playing fast and loose with about 3 million jobs strikes me as being a pretty high risk operation right now. Not pragmatic.
@pogge: As I said over on my site, I agree with you that the $70 is not a metric of hourly wages but it is a useful number for comparing the labour costs of the companies.
Consider this: If Toyota needs to slim down due to the economic downturn, and need to cut some production, they might consider 2 options: Cut wages or lay people off. Maybe they decide cutting wages by 10% across the board is the best for it's employees. So, 10% cut leads to a 10% reduction in labour costs. Done.
For the Big 3, a cut of wages by 10% means a much less significant overall labour cost reduction because of their massive pension and health liabilities. So, for the Big 3, their options are a lot more limited to weather a downturn.
I'm not saying any larger action is fair to the employees, but what other alternative is there? Giving out government money to keep failing companies afloat does not sit well with me for many reasons, but that doesn't mean I don't understand there are consequences.
And, had any of you bothered to read the full extent of what I've written on the issue, you would have noticed one alternative I propose that might be more in line with your thoughts. Have the government take over the pensions. This way the pensions are still secured and at least the Big 3 are freed of their crushing burden and on a "level playing field" on which to compete.
Like it or not, unless the government nationalizes the auto companies, something has to give. Not fair, but the truth.
it is a useful number for comparing the labour costs of the companies
But not at all useful when considering the compensation of current employees and the resulting attitude towards them. Let's just say that wasn't at all clear in your own comments up to the point where I stopped visiting.
And I keep mentioning the context of the larger recession as both a cause of the current problem — making it more difficult for the companies to restructure without help — and a reason why $15 billion in bridge loans might be a good investment when measured against the shock to an already shaky situation if all those jobs are lost fairly abruptly. I don't think you've come close to addressing that.
In your original post, you were virtually high-fiving a bunch of extremist, right wing senators and you didn't seem to be at all concerned with fairness to the employees who have already made concessions and might still lose their jobs. Stop complaining about how you're being treated.
@pogge: Please explain where you draw the line on government money being spent to support companies during a recession. We don't have an infinite amount, so who gets it?
All the big tech companies have announced huge layoffs. Should they get money? Other manufacturing sectors? Retail workers of all the big chains announcing store closures? What about all the small construction contractors who don't have work?
What about all the layoffs in the financial sector? Should the government have made it a condition of their bailout that they not lay anyone off?
Hell, I would prefer the government continued paying these peoples salaries and benefits until they find a new job, rather than prop up shitty companies.
Retail workers and small construction contractors, to name two of your examples, benefit when well-paying manufacturing jobs are preserved. If you help the people who use their services, you help keep them employed.
Is the tech sector in danger? Are we talking about as many spin-off jobs going away? Are there networks of dealers and suppliers who might go down and therefore threaten the immediate survivors if individual companies fail?
What about all the layoffs in the financial sector? Should the government have made it a condition of their bailout that they not lay anyone off?
Now there's a loaded example. The reason for a lot of those layoffs is precisely because there are no controls on the TARP. So the banks can take the cash and instead of extending credit to people who might (for example) buy cars, they buy up other banks, merge them and lay off the redundant employees. While taking time out to pay themselves large bonuses even though the banks they manage are losing money which is why the TARP was created in the first place. Yes! There should have been controls on that money so that it was used for its intended purpose and helped as many people as possible, not just the precious few in the corner offices.
Neil, I will at least admire your willingness to come back and discuss this, even if you are not getting why we are frustrated.
You are adopting a intentionally misleading right-wing frame for discussing this issue (i.e., the only way to make this bail out fair is to cut union wages). And you are using a mistaken metric to argue this point.
By the way, if you want to see how those union employees worked to save the auto industry before they were screwed over the Republican senators you're high-fiving, read this:
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/22/20081212/tbs-uk-autos-bailout-uaw-sb-03c9bed_1.html
The union ain't the bad guy here, Neil.
Neil is a funny person. Apparently, he thinks that "fiscally pragmatic" has the same meaning for the state as it has for individual households.
Today, "fiscally pragmatic" means that the state has to ACT to prevent TOTAL ECONOMIC MELTDOWN.
Maintaining the jobs of just about anyone is utterly pragmatic, since the alternative is 1929-style disaster.
It may be that the strings to be attached to the aid to the auto industry will amount to a kind of nationalization; the whole idea of czardom is control, so the "Car Czar" may end up heading what amounts to a state enterprise.
Blaming the weakness of the auto industry on irresponsible workers involves the pretence that the workers made all the bad decisions. They made none of them.
@pogge: Ok, I see where you're coming from but just can't agree. Propping up one failing industry, that will eventually be forced to die anyways, in an attempt to save others? Yikes, that sounds like a house made of pretty brittle cards. The government would be better off taking us all directly on their payroll.
You don't think the taxpayers will eventually want some influence over these companies they're paying for? Then what? We've seen how well nationalized industries work out.
Anyways, it's been fun, cheers guys.
FTFY.
No, propping up a failing domestic industry for the time being, because allowing a key manufacturing sector like automotive to collapse at this moment (ie, during the biggest economic crisis since 1929) would have broader economic repercussions that could send the entire global economy into a fucking death spiral. In other words, pragmatism, not Neo-Hooverism, which is actually what you're proposing.
But hey--maybe it'll work out better this time around. Suppose it's a lot harder to successfully commit suicide by jumping out of an autoplant window, anyway.
Oh, and if you don't want your "progressive" bona fides to be questioned by teh uncouth hoi palloi, stop transmitting near-verbatim right wing frames while giving mad props to these assholes:
(h/t D-Day)
Neil said:
"You don't think the taxpayers will eventually want some influence over these companies they're paying for? Then what? We've seen how well nationalized industries work out."
Rejecting the nationalization of industry is not a progressive point of view. In many countries, nationalized industry, or industry working within state-determined parameters, works quite well.
Study of the Japanese MITI Ministry, and its many successes, will show this quite clearly.
What doesn't work well is nationalization of ALL industry. That worked even worse that the capitalism which is failing today.
Kicking three million jobs into the sewer because the industry might face partial nationalization is very bad economics. It is far from pragmatic.
Seeing the real reason by republicans is reducing hourly rate of national employees in the US, thus creating a larger unemployment pool of people which puts pressure on employed workers to accept less pay.
It doesn't appear to matter that the actual cost of a car for labour is actually under ten bucks, and thus look at that 90% to reduce costs. Take note that reducing other costs, like say, the cost of paying investors should be lowered.
No it's about bashing workers who actually keep mainstreet going and not Wall Street.
Michael Moore comes to the rescue with a voice of sanity:
Senate to Middle Class: Drop Dead
Friday, December 12th, 2008
Friends,
They could have given the loan on the condition that the automakers start building only cars and mass transit that reduce our dependency on oil.
They could have given the loan on the condition that the automakers build cars that reduce global warming.
They could have given the loan on the condition that the automakers withdraw their many lawsuits against state governments in their attempts to not comply with our environmental laws.
They could have given the loan on the condition that the management team which drove these once-great manufacturers into the ground resign and be replaced with a team who understands the transportation needs of the 21st century.
Yes, they could have given the loan for any of these reasons because, in the end, to lose our manufacturing infrastructure and throw 3 million people out of work would be a catastrophe.
But instead, the Senate said, we'll give you the loan only if the factory workers take a $20 an hour cut in wages, pension and health care. That's right. After giving BILLIONS to Wall Street hucksters and criminal investment bankers -- billions with no strings attached and, as we have since learned, no oversight whatsoever -- the Senate decided it is more important to break a union, more important to throw middle class wage earners into the ranks of the working poor than to prevent the total collapse of industrial America.
We have a little more than a month to go of this madness. As I sit here in Michigan today, tens of thousands of hard working, honest, decent Americans do not believe they can make it to January 20th. The malaise here is astounding. Why must they suffer because of the mistakes of every CEO from Roger Smith to Rick Wagoner? Make management and the boards of directors and the shareholders pay for this.
Of course that is heresy to the 31 Republicans who decided to blame the poor, miserable autoworkers for this mess. And our wonderful media complied with their spin on the morning news shows: "UAW Refuses to Give Concessions Killing Auto Bailout Bill." In fact the UAW has given concession after concession, reduced their benefits, agreed to get rid of the Jobs Bank and agreed to make it harder for their retirees to live from week to week. Yes! That's what we need to do! It's the Jobs Bank and the old people who have led the nation to economic ruin!
But even doing all that wasn't enough to satisfy the bastard Republicans. These Senate vampires wanted blood. Blue collar blood. You see, they weren't opposed to the bailout because they believed in the free market or capitalism. No, they were opposed to the bailout because they're opposed to workers making a decent wage. In their rage, they were driven to destroy the backbone of this country, not because the UAW hadn't given back enough, but because the UAW hadn't given up.
It appears that the sitting President has been looking for a way to end his reign by one magnanimous act, just like a warlord on his feast day. He will put his finger in the dyke, and the fragile mess of an auto industry will eke through the next few months.
That will give the Senate enough time to demand that the bankers and investment sharks who've already swiped nearly half of the $700 billion gift a chance to make the offer of cutting their pay.
Fat chance.
Yours,
Michael Moore
MMFlint@aol.com
MichaelMoore.com
Thanks for that. Moore would feel this in particular. He was born near Flint, Michigan and he knows how damaged that state already is.
Meanwhile I get the distinct impression that Neil has discovered the better part of valor and gone home. Never did answer any of my questions. Ah well.
My inner snarky asshole wants to believe it's because Neil ran out of GOP talking points from today's blast fax.
You guys just can't stop mis-quoting and mis-representing me. It was funny but it's now leaning towards sad. You should learn to read the entirety of what someone says (even just what I wrote here, I wouldn't assume you'd bother looking at what else I wrote on the subject at my site).
@pogge: I only see one question from you directed at me in your last few posts here: "Is the tech sector really in danger? ..." It's hurting right now, yes hundreds of thousands are being laid off. Similarly, are you too young to remember the tech boom? Millions lost their jobs at the end of it. Where's the bailout money?
And no, I didn't "go home". I've been sending the link to friends as an example of how a run-in with the extreme left can be as entertaining as with the extreme right. The similarity between you two is that you demonize those who have differing opinions.
There is nothing extreme about my position on this. I can point you to people who consider themselves to be fiscal conservatives and who agree with me on this. Is Paul Krugman an extremist?
It's hurting right now, yes hundreds of thousands are being laid off.
That doesn't answer my questions about whether entire sectors are in danger or how many spin-off jobs might be lost. So, no, you haven't answered me or properly responded to my arguments.
are you too young to remember the tech boom? Millions lost their jobs at the end of it.
More than old enough. The first internet message board I joined was called NetSlaves and was heavily populated with refugees from the dot.boom which became the dot.bomb (including Steve Gilliard, incidentally). You'll notice that there was no depression when the tech bubble burst. It didn't threaten to cripple the entire financial sector or throw millions out of work right across the continent. There's that pesky context I keep talking about.
And actually:
Millions lost their jobs at the end of it.
I'd like a cite for that. There were a lot of programmers, web developers and content creators who did lose their jobs. But millions? There was a drastic reduction in market value but a lot of it involved paper losses on companies that were little more than vapour ware. That was one of the symptoms of the tech bubble: people taking silly ideas, sticking .com after them and doing IPOs that brought in vast sums for companies that were little more than shells.
If you're suggesting that loss of jobs from that period would rival the 3 million job losses that are routinely discussed for a collapse of the automotive sector, I'd like evidence, please.
Oh. I see. All this moral hazard trolling is simply triangulation as standard operating procedure (if you'll pardon the extreme rhetoric--btw, free Mumia.)
Well, keep firmly establishing your pure centrist cred. Nothing says 'teh Serious' quite like tut-tutting the unions and, once called out, mounting a classic High Broderism defence.
Rest assured--no one will ever mistake you for a dirty fucking hippie.
Here's some info.
That will tell you that in 2001, when the tech bubble burst, there were nearly 700,000 tech sector jobs lost. That's a lot. But it's not 3 million and it didn't happen at a time when the U.S. was already into recession. It happened when the U.S was coming out of a boom and the economy had some resilience.
As for the present, there's talk here of 180,000 job losses for 2008. That's also a lot but again, it's not 3 million. That said, you almost seem to be suggesting that I've ruled out some kind of government assistance to this sector while approving it for the automotive industry. That's not the case. If it gets bad enough I'd be in favour of some kind of assistance here too.
@pogge: Thanks for finding a cite for me.
700,000 tech sector jobs were lost. Ok, so due to that how many retail, manufacturing, etc, were all lost because there were 700,000 people not getting paid? I'll pick a seemingly reasonable number out of my ass and say 1.5M all told. Or 1M, whatever.
So, why does 3M cross the line? Is it because that's the magic line where the sacred auto industry sits?
You guys keep ignoring two basic facts, please address whether you agree or disagree:
- Not getting the bailout money does not mean 3M people will lose their jobs. You talk about propaganda for your $70/hour jobs? Well, this is the talking point coming from the UAW. If GM runs out of cash it will enter bankruptcy, which you guys don't seem to understand does not equal evaporation.
- What do you think will happen in 6 months or so after GM burns through it's portion of the bailout money? They'll be in the exact same position they are now. What's your long term plan? Please don't say "more taxpayer money."
Is it because that's the magic line where the sacred auto industry sits?
Straw man. Nothing sacred about it and never claimed there was. But it's critical right now because directly and indirectly it's responsible for so many jobs. Nice bit of baiting, though. If you're going to keep complaining that everyone is mistreating you I'll be happy to point out all the ways you're returning the favour.
If GM runs out of cash it will enter bankruptcy, which you guys don't seem to understand does not equal evaporation.
At your site, I pointed you to a survey that stated that 80% of people won't buy a car from a company that's in bankruptcy. I think you made some comparison to the airline industry but that comparison doesn't work. If I fly Air Canada today, I don't have to worry about being able to get parts for their plane a year from now. Can't say the same for buying a car.
What do you think will happen in 6 months or so after GM burns through it's portion of the bailout money?
I can't say for sure what will happen in six months and neither can you. If you were that good you wouldn't be here. I see you're still calling it bailout money even though it's actually a bridge loan and I don't think anyone who favours making the loan believes there's no risk attached. They just think there's a greater risk of having the entire sector collapse and a much higher impact than writing off $15 billion.
Six months from now, more infusions of government money may be called for. Maybe in the automotive sector or maybe somewhere else. That's Keynsian economics. Was John Maynard Keynes an extremist? That's a question I'd really like you to answer.
Neil,
That's the first I've seen of that job figure for the dot-com bubble bursting, and without context there's no way to tell if it's inclusive or exclusive of associated job losses. But leaving that aside, it's a very poor comparison. The dot.com bubble burst from 2000 onwards, in what was then a booming economy. The detritus of the bubble - almost certainly including a large amount of fired talent - was scooped up by firms which didn't fail. It was a great cataclysm in terms of people losing their shirts on the markets - my family included - but no great shakes in terms of great terrible job losses.
The post-September the 11th recession and then jobless recovery did give us a rather poor baseline level of employment afterwards, but it was never a story of tech sector workers on breadlines, simply because they're workers that can shift themselves rather easily.
With the auto companies, we're talking about a different age range of employees. We're talking about more of them. We're talking about supply chains all over the continent which mean a far more direct "linking" effect between a factory closing and 800 people in some different town working for a different company -immediately- losing their jobs too.
All of this happens, not as in 2000-1, before a mild recession, but in the middle of what is certainly the worst one since the early 80s, shaping up to be the worst since the '30s. How many millions of people were unemployed in 2000-1? What was the EM-Ratio of employable adults to employed adults, which takes account of not just workers recorded as looking for work, but those who have given up or never started to try?
The EM ratio was at an all-time high, for the entire century. This is a vastly, vastly worse disaster, on a march larger scale, at far worse time. If you seriously think the best solution is for the government to simply pay everyone for not doing their jobs, at least that's a humane sentiment, but it's also a temporary and ludicrously unsaleable one politically. So in practice, that's no position at all.
If you can't get behind saving:
Millions of quintessential "good jobs"
Hundreds of thousands (?) of pensioners
Unionism in North America
than what do your 'progressive' politics constitute? Secularity? I'm in the LPC here, and I'd be embarassed to see the Kudlow and Company talking points about the 'irredeemable auto sector' on Liblogs. Yeah, obviously the fact that they are the only auto group with hypertrophied pension costs from back when they were the only automakers on the planet worth talking about. This is a reason to let them perish as opposed to just have trouble and cost taxpayers... way less money than the goddamn banks already have?
North American cars still sell. If they shape up, they'll sell better, and the retirees from the pre-import days won't keep drawing benefits forever. The auto unions are a bogieman only to the right. It seems to me like these are the single most valuable, most salvation-worthy jobs in North America; if the price tag is a problem, the response should be more and better government involvement to ensure we and the Americans aren't taken for a ride. It should not be inaction.
Ok, this is getting repetitive, I answered all these questions over at my site (except the Keynes one).
I never said your support of the bailout makes you extreme. Your flaming of anyone who opposes you makes you extreme. IMHO some of your reasons for supporting the bailout are reasonable and some are not. I assume Krugman has very well thought-out reasons and is probably right. The difference is that if I were to sit down with Krugman I assume he would proceed to have a civil debate with me, not start off by questioning my "progressive cred" and propose I should be taken off the progblog roll. Can't you handle other reasonable people having a different opinion than you without flaming them?
Another example, you guys suppose that anyone who has a similar opinion as one of your political opposites is one of them. Why? I'd venture a guess most of you vote NDP, but are you saying that everything the Libs or Greens propose is wrong? Or even the Conservatives? I assume then that you are opposed to Harpers idea to extend EI benefits to self-employed people? Hey, I was as shocked as anyone that he said that, but a good idea is good no matter where it comes from.
To be fair to pogge, Neil, I was the one who was flaming you. He was the one making the reasoned argument. Which, as he noted, you have failed to address.
George Bush promptly contradicted the GOP senators whom you credited with a good move; if the rest of us can agree with George W. Bush I think our ecumenical cred is fairly robust.
If you write stuff this neoliberal and have it go on the Prog-Blog feed it's going to attract some comment like this. If you defend it on pogge.ca, well, duh.
I mean, there is a blogroll, and a political party, where this sort of thing will get you a round of hearty backslaps. Just friendly advice, not an attempt to oppress you.
@pogge
I feel like YOU aren't the one understanding.
even though it's actually a bridge loan and I don't think anyone who favours making the loan believes there's no risk attached
So, we really didn't learn our lesson from the mortgage sector? We loaned high risk individuals money who were unable to make payments because they had been abusing money for so long that they had no idea how to have a viable financial plan and then we were shocked, SHOCKED, that the entire industry collapsed? So, now, we want to loan a sector who has no comprehension of the word 'cutback' for bloated CEO salaries, whose managers keep a fleet of private jets and who have golden parachute packages in the hundreds of millions and we want to give these folks a loan?
This is in addition to decades foolish negotiations by the UAW and the auto companies. The UAW has gotten everything they've asked for, and now they've virtually bankrupted themselves. I do believe there are many many innocent folks out there but I agree with Neil, I'd much rather take that 15 billion and pay the workers directly than actually give this to the auto industry.
And your citation of Keynesian economics is priceless. Keynes looked to government to support INFRASTRUCTURE...i.e. FDR type programs (public works, roads etc.) I would be hard-pressed to believe that Keynes would endorse throwing 15 billion dollars at a sinking ship, loan or not.
And mattbastard...what is wrong with being a centrist? Seeing both sides of the story? Analyzing a situation from a point of view where you can examine it thoughtfully and without the painted politics of one-sided ignorance and denial that the other side could EVER have a valid point?
@Jason: Generally good points, here's my take on your 3 things to consider saving.
"Millions of good jobs" - If there isn't a good business underlying business to support them, then of course they shouldn't be saved. If the Big 3 were to come out with a completely kick-ass restructuring plan that could really work, that's a different story, but they have not as of yet. I'd still oppose the bailout but at least it wouldn't be as bad as throwing away our money.
"Hundreds of thousands of pensioners" - In my opinion the pensions are safe no matter what. Even if the Big 3 evaporated the governments wouldn't leave them hanging. So, I figure the government is eventually going to be taking that burden anyways, so as I've said all along the bailout plan should be to assume the pensions. Gives the Big 3 some breathing room and levels the competitive field. Everyone's happy, no?
"Unionism in North America" - I have no problem with unions. I think the UAW specifically got too greedy and took so much that they're in danger of losing it all. This doesn't mean they're a boogieman. What was done in the past is done, everyone just needs to look towards creating a stable future for themselves.
Lastly, embarrassed to see talk of an "irredeemable auto sector"? I think you guys need to broaden your scope a little. I've seen no end of trashing the financial sector on there. Again, why are financial and tech employees second class for progressive people?
The "irresponsible end user" model of the mortgage crisis has no purchase outside of right wing talking points. It's generally a good shibboleth to determine someone's political alignment.
Similarly, blaming the auto sector's wage costs on the UAW; care to look at the wage graph? How do you propose the UAW should have dealt with the pension costs of workers from an era in which North American automakers were the sole automakers? Feed retired autoworkers to the current ones in place of wage increases?
And if you think Keynesianism is exclusively about infrastructure, I assume you've not only not read Keynes but not even read the relevant wikipedia articles. I'd link you, but, hey, they're on wikipedia. The term "full employment" sound familiar? Just so you know, it's kind of different from "indifference to millions of job losses during very high unemployment."
Hmmmm... Time to mount my old hobbyhorse: will all those who have not yet read 'The Conservative Nanny State' please go do so now.
Neil:
"No business model"
It's more or less a given that they'll be building better cars at lower cost unless the government completely &*^@#s the dog on this. They don't need to flourish gloriously, just stagger onwards and survive. Labour costs are going to go down from their current level for several structural reasons, and that's assuming assuming progressives defeat the current pressure on the UAW to sell out their workers or face being busted.
"Pensioners safe"
Well, if the governments of the US and Canada were the type of free marketeers that'd actually let the auto industry implode, than, no, the pensioners would be hilariously unsafe. You don't fiddle while Rome burns but then save all the Roman orphans.
"Unions good, UAW Bad"
Why? Did the UAW exceed the wage demands of a reasonable union? Numbers please, because, they didn't. As the breakdowns in the NYT showed, the labour cost difference is overwhelmingly the legacy costs arising from formerly being the sole automakers in the industry. It's the combination of that unavoidable static disadvantage, with consumer choices and poor management decisions, which combined to leave an industry selling too few cars with a considerably higher labour cost.
The UAW could have been run by Milton Friedman and Friedrich Hayek and they still couldn't have prevented the auto crunch, at least not without killing off the pensioners, forcing management to make better design choices, and somehow engineering the electoral defeat of the Republican Party, 1994-2006. That's a bit of a tall order for a union, imo.
@Jason: Nice, you turned from a seemingly reasonable person into the opposite within a post. Congrats.
What the hell are you talking about, anyways? Are you reading the same thread you're posting on? Who said anything about the mortgage crisis?
Further, why are you railing on me about Keynes? Did I ever mention Keynes (except to re-quote a question from pogge)?
Anyways, it's been fun guys, but I'll leave to pursue other matters unrelated to (apparently) single-handedly destroying the economy. I hadn't expected to stumble into the "demonize anyone who doesn't worship the auto sector" segment of the web today, but it's been a hoot.
Enjoy your bailout money (which I'm sure you will get in the end, so don't sweat it).
@Jason, clearly you have not read Keynes. If you had actually had any comprehension of the General Theory you would understand that Keynes was very much a free market capitalist and only wanted government to expand social agendas in times of crisis. Yes, his position was that only the free market could operate once 'full employment' was achieved, but again, he advocated INFRASTRUCTURE - or public works projects. I'm not sure why you're not comprehending that...? I'd be happy to go into more detail about FDR's policies as well, but as you have so obviously stated, those are accessible on Wikipedia also.
And as to this statement It's the combination of that unavoidable static disadvantage, with consumer choices and poor management decisions , which combined to leave an industry selling too few cars with a considerably higher labour cost. with emphasis on management -- to whom do you think this bailout money is going? The workers? of course not, the MANAGERS! So you've said poor management in combination with other factors got us here, and now you want to give the managers more money? Interesting strategy.
@Jason: One last post to address a mistake on my part: When I posted I noticed your reply that I took as very confusingly directed at me, had been to someone else, sorry.
I've read Keynes. General Theory, Consequences of the Peace, Consequences of Mr. Churchill. You said
And your citation of Keynesian economics is priceless. Keynes looked to government to support INFRASTRUCTURE...i.e. FDR type programs (public works, roads etc.) I would be hard-pressed to believe that Keynes would endorse throwing 15 billion dollars at a sinking ship, loan or not.
There's two assertions here, one explicit, the other implicit. The first is that the idea of looking at this bailout as Keynesian is "priceless," which is to say, false to the point of being amusing. The is incorrect, if only because the economic crisis is giving unprecedented momentum to various neo-Keynesian points of view; who do I believe on Keynes, you or Krugman? The second is that Keynes would oppose an auto bailout. Absent a necromancer we can't know, but I highly doubt it. Drastically increasing unemployment at a time of high unemployment as a route to full employment? Tell me more.
to whom do you think this bailout money is going? The workers? of course not, the MANAGERS! So you've said poor management in combination with other factors got us here, and now you want to give the managers more money? Interesting strategy.
If you'd read the comments above you'll notice that I favour the most draconian approach to management which can be managed. What that is largely depends on the intestinal fortitude of Congressional Democrats, a mysterious and unknown quality. My point in addressing management was to debunk the UAW-centric narrative which appeared several times above and to focus blame where it belonged.
Quite frankly I'm at the point where I favour some form of nationalization to firmly deal with the individuals most responsible for the crisis and to avoid myopic market driven nonsense like the SUV boom of recent years. But it would be foolish to blame everything on management when consumer demand is a big part of the story as well, both in terms of demand for stupid but profitable vehicles - how should a company react to that? - and in brand loyalty to newer firms from abroad. People who wanted efficient cars did not tend to be people who wanted a Chevy or a Dodge. People who wanted gas guzzling monstrosities or retro-themed muscle cars actually did buy American. We weren't calling them idiots for servicing that need when it was relatively profitable a few years ago; and we didn't predict, any more than they did, the fuel cost spike of 2008. We should avoid over-tidy generalizations.
propose I should be taken off the progblog roll.
Oh I wouldn't do that. I certainly did say I was surprised to see your post there but I would never propose you be expelled. I have a problem whenever they start talking about controlling the content of their affiliates. Ask Scott Tribe. He'll tell you I rebel and threaten to leave if he looks at us funny.
Meanwhile, the Republicans' memo on the bailout has now been published. Their opposition to bailout is "a first shot against organized labor".
How progressive.
http://thenewshole.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/12/12/1713569.aspx