home

"Punishing" Detroit

A question for Brad DeLong and other defenders of the Geithner Plan - any plans to ask this - "We have to ask ourselves: Do we want to revive our economy, or do we want to punish the [auto industry]?

Why is Wall Street immune to "sacrifice?" Why do Wall Street creditors not have to "recognize that they cannot hold out for the prospect of endless government bailouts[?]"

I repeat again, I do not criticize President Obama's auto industry plan. I do vehemently criticize his free lunch Geithner Plan for Wall Street.

Speaking for me only

< Obama Tough On Detroit, Easy On Wall Street, Part 2 | Heck Of A Job, Jakey? >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    hm (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by connecticut yankee on Mon Mar 30, 2009 at 11:23:11 AM EST
    Well, the official story is that Detroit is peddling unrealistic plans.  So the WH may be losing patience with them.  Ultimately we dont know the back room aspect so it's just a matter of guessing at motives.

    For the bank deal I can imagine that Obama is getting pitched a much more apocolyptic scenario and has responded accordingly.  But again you have the choice of imagining that he's simply in love with/in bed with the bankers.

    The tell all books are still several years away.

    Give them a trillion dollars (none / 0) (#5)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 30, 2009 at 11:23:51 AM EST
    and I bet they won't see so "unrealistic."

    Parent
    Govt is giving GM 60 days' funding (none / 0) (#7)
    by Cream City on Mon Mar 30, 2009 at 11:26:20 AM EST
    per reports but I haven't seen how much that is.  Not a trillion but millions.

    Parent
    probably a couple of billion (none / 0) (#8)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 30, 2009 at 11:27:51 AM EST
    Or 998 billion less than they are giving wall Street.

    Parent
    Yes, slip of the typing fingers (none / 0) (#9)
    by Cream City on Mon Mar 30, 2009 at 11:41:04 AM EST
    as it will be billions.

    Parent
    Re: Wall Street sacrifice vs. the Auto Industry's (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by vicndabx on Mon Mar 30, 2009 at 12:18:43 PM EST
    The ponzi scheme on Wall Street runs too deep and too many supposed "masters" were taken in and would be exposed for the schemers and fools that they are were the gov't to really try to get to the bottom of what's what.  By contrast, the US auto industry has been labeled as an albatross for years by it's own citizens, thus making it an easy target.  Much simpler to beat a dead horse than to believe there's something wrong w/that (apparently) new pony that was born during the last election.

    What? (none / 0) (#15)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Mar 30, 2009 at 12:37:24 PM EST
    A ponzi scheme outside of Madoff?  You're one of those online smokers aren't you?

    Parent
    Heh (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by vicndabx on Mon Mar 30, 2009 at 12:45:10 PM EST
    You're one of those online smokers aren't you?

    the internets belie our true numbers.  we are everywhere, and more prevalent than the administration probably wants to believe.

    Parent

    Haves and Have Nots (5.00 / 5) (#14)
    by Amiss on Mon Mar 30, 2009 at 12:32:54 PM EST
    This, to me is just another glaring representative of the widening gap once again between the "haves" and the "Have Nots". As soon as the Have Nots get even close to the same treatment as the Haves,  the Government steps in to make sure that that line is Not crossed.

    Is Chrysler a public company? (none / 0) (#1)
    by denise k on Mon Mar 30, 2009 at 11:20:02 AM EST
    I thought Chrysler was taken private a year or so ago.  It seems to me that if they wanted to make the company profitable, they could do so with their own money.  I am not sure that is entirely consistent thinking on my part, but that is what went through my head when I saw this news.  

    It seems to me you can make the argument that the credit market is different because it affects the entire economy. Chrysler's loss will be bad, no doubt about it, but will it be bad to the same magnitude as the credit market?  Don't know, but don't think so.  

    Personally, I would like to both messes put into receivership so they can be overseen by people who have no vested interest in the outcome.

    Goldman Sachs (5.00 / 0) (#3)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 30, 2009 at 11:21:50 AM EST
    could go private too. It was for most of its existence.

    Parent
    Yes (none / 0) (#2)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 30, 2009 at 11:21:09 AM EST
    Chrysler is owned by Cerberus.

    Parent
    80% Cerberus but 20% Daimler (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Cream City on Mon Mar 30, 2009 at 11:25:14 AM EST
    still, so I read.  I think that means 20% German investment?  If so, this could have international implications and make Obama's trek to the world economic conference even more interesting.

    Parent
    Looking for Fairness doesn't make sense (none / 0) (#10)
    by samtaylor2 on Mon Mar 30, 2009 at 11:51:33 AM EST
    The question is not is it fair to one industry vs. the next, it is, does it make sense in terms of getting the economy back on track.  

    The banking industry (like GM) is so intertwined with other aspects of our economy that letting many of the banks fail (as well as GM), would be devastating.

    Nonsequitor (none / 0) (#11)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 30, 2009 at 11:55:45 AM EST
    Unless you are of the view that the auto industry failing would not be devastating to the economy.

    Parent
    Are You COMPLETELY Naive? (none / 0) (#12)
    by tokin librul on Mon Mar 30, 2009 at 12:05:53 PM EST
    Why is Wall Street immune to "sacrifice?" Why do Wall Street creditors not have to "recognize that they cannot hold out for the prospect of endless government bailouts[?]"

    Because Wall Street is the OWNERS Club.

    The auto industry is just a bunch of peons, some of them sell-paid, but essentially they're blud-collar proles.

    The OWNERS never get held to the same standards as the peons...

    It Is Not As Though (none / 0) (#16)
    by bob h on Mon Mar 30, 2009 at 12:37:46 PM EST
    Wall St. generally has not sacrificed; something like 600,000 financial industry jobs have disappeared.  The shareholders in the big banks have lost their dividends and most of their investments.  The problem is that the Wall St. oligarchs have not paid the price.

    The funny thing about what you write? (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 30, 2009 at 12:41:52 PM EST
    It is an argument for lowering Wall Street salaries. Supply and demand you know.

    Parent
    600,000 mostly middle class (5.00 / 3) (#18)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Mar 30, 2009 at 12:42:58 PM EST
    financial industry jobs have disappeared.  The one thing that didn't disappear are all sorts of the same old bonuses and great new bailouts for the masters of the universe......the hatcheck girl doesn't get a free lunch though because free lunches are over.

    Parent