
kris sent me a quote from filmmaker michael moore on
his answer to the auto industry bailout question.
moore invoked fdr's world war ii edict where the commander-in-chief told the big three exactly what kinds of machines they were going to be manufacturing.
this time, moore envisioned a president obama enacting something like:
"We're going to put the companies into some sort of receivership and we, the government, are going to hold the reigns on these companies. They're to build mass transit. They're to build hybrid cars. They're to build cars that use little or no gasoline."
now i dunno about that . . . and yet, it's a germ of an idea . . . .
while i'm not for soviet-style auto by committee and love too much the sense of individuality and expression that american car companies are still capable of creating, i definitely agree there should be a short leash, i.e. strings attached to any cash infusion.
i really don't know what to think.
do our guys ride this one out and come back lean and hungry? does the government step in and make what becomes a gutsy investment in the country's economy? or does the american auto industry go the way of electronics and textiles to manufacturers beyond our borders?

i can only hope the answer is "yes" to one of the first two because i simply cannot fathom the possibility that the epitome of all that is american, the automobile, might one day cease to be produced here.
i still can't wrap my brain around the idea of the financial dominoes that fell to create this season's wall street meltdown.
but i can look at gas prices on a sign and cars i covet in a magazine and guess why there aren't more than a handful built in the u.s. that appeal to me.
i understand there are shareholders who wanted big returns on their investments and car companies that wanted to keep them happy and grow rich themselves.
i also knew that rather than plow their money into short-term money losers featuring smart, efficient design, like the rest of the fuel-strapped automotive world, our guys chose to take the easy route of making low-concept, high-profit cars the way they always had and pocketing the returns.
well, that kind of thinking came to bite them on their collective butts once the price of gas shot up.
(the consumer can't be let off the hook, either. supply had to come from demand; and with easy credit and the desire to consume conspicuously, we lived larger than large, if not downright bloated.)

with their fortunes suddenly tanking amid this fall's credit firestorm,
the big three went to washington, hat in hand, seeking the same kind of help the financial sector got.
problem is,
no one seems to want to give any. (hell, if i knew the same kind of short-sighted thinking was going to stay in the heads of our automakers, i wouldn't either. )
still, though, what irks me about the lack of support for a bailout of our auto industry is, yeah, they made their bed and maybe they ought to have to sleep in it.
so why didn't the high rollers of wall street have to as well?
why do white collars trump blue? because ultimately, all those workers who found a good life not through college, but skilled trades, are the ones who are going to be turned out onto the street.
is it because the arcana of high finance is so convoluted, confusing and easily obfuscated that rather than get to the bottom of who is to blame, the feds just signed a blank check to make it go away?
(whereas, i suppose, the old model of manufacturing and supply and demand the big three practice is easier to follow and, thus, criticize and punish.)
maybe this is an act of
seppuku -- slashing the guts of one of our last heavy industries -- to atone for dishonoring american ingenuity and work ethic.

we'd had our warning shots after the oil embargo of the early '70s. the country looked overseas for fuel-efficient cars since we didn't make them here.
we had our chance to make good in the '80s, but we just quit trying once gas stayed cheap and lucrative SUVs became all the rage.
or maybe it's our politicians punting -- giving up on advancing the cause of u.s. manufacturing in the face of formidable competition and letting the global marketplace fill the void.
(plus it kills two birds with one stone -- we get cheaper cars -- for the time being --and hamstring big labor at the same time.)
i'm probably being hopelessly naive and romantic about what the strengths of this country should be.
despite our tremendous strides and preeminence in this information age, i still believe we can turn out sophisticated, high-octane dream machines better than anyone in the world.
while we can have brains of silicon, i think it would be a mistake to move into the future without a backbone of steel.