Comments on: Obama Wants Car Czar to Accompany Big Three Aid

By: Ian Turner

Ian Turner — Thu, 13 Nov 2008 03:21:53 +0000

When employers collectivize in the way that unions do, we properly call it collusion and it is illegal.

It's true that the natural state of things give more power to employers than to employees (also more to lessors than to tenants), and that unions can help to reverse that natural tendency, but the state of unions in the United States is appalling.

By: Cap'n Transit

Cap'n Transit — Thu, 13 Nov 2008 01:14:18 +0000

Well, if Obama and Secretary Oberstar can then dictate that these car companies start making more and cheaper trolleys, buses and trolleybuses, then I guess that's good. But it's a big if. I don't agree with the blanket union-bashing in some posts. I think the UAW has been wrong in clinging to auto manufacture as the best source of work for their members. But in general I don't think there's anything wrong with collective bargaining. Capital uses a hierarchical structure to accomplish its goals, why shouldn't labor?

By: vnm

vnm — Wed, 12 Nov 2008 22:13:50 +0000

An automaker bailout comes with strings attached. Just ask AIG: As soon as a company takes taxpayer money, taxpayers have the moral authority to help set the direction for the company.

By: Niccolo Machiavelli

Niccolo Machiavelli — Wed, 12 Nov 2008 22:04:19 +0000

Well, where the union sympathies and the urban policy meet is in the rust belt. Another reason those southern factories are so efficient is they are way out in the wide open spaces, Detroit smokestacks are in River Rouge, Flint and the rotted urban core, likewise Chicago's. The one floor operations that generate employment in the exurbs also generate housing and travel in the exurbs. Pushing development, employment and industry, back to the urban core turns this around. Japanese and German auto workers take mass transit to the plant.

By: Jerry Reid

Jerry Reid — Wed, 12 Nov 2008 18:59:28 +0000

There is plenty of profitable car-making going on in the southern states by a number of different companies (VW, Toyota, and Honda come to mind). I think the reason the Big 3 are in such trouble is that they have spent decades dispensing unsustainable wage and benefits packages to union members. This is a good deal if you are in the union, but maybe not if you're a taxpayer.

Those car makers who don't have unionized work forces seem to be in far less economic pain and they pay good wages, too. Just not union level wages, with health benefits that extend to the grave.

By: Mark Walker

Mark Walker — Wed, 12 Nov 2008 18:07:23 +0000

The car-making states are blue states, so Obama is just doing what politicians do -- keeping the home fires burning. Let's wait for the inaugural and state of the union addresses to see to see how this fits into the big picture.

By: Larry Littlefield

Larry Littlefield — Wed, 12 Nov 2008 17:03:59 +0000

Hey Obama, how about a mere $500 million to subsidize the wholesale purchase of 2 million fully-outfitted commuter bikes at $250 apiece? (That price is certainly possible for next year due to the deflation taking place on a global scale).

The money comes back as the bikes are sold -- If people don't have the full retail price they can pay the $250 back over time.

If you can bail out the auto industry in exchange for a gauzy promise of fuel efficient cars, why not making sure plenty of transport-appropriate bikes are available?

Also, if the govenment is going to force people to subsidize the Big Three, how about ordering 10% of the most fuel inefficient (and dangerous for small car drivers) SUVs off the road every year, starting with the oldest, thus forcing the owners to buy new cars? Or perhaps do without them.