tincans.thumbnail.jpg

Michael Scherer over at Swampland writes about what a swell idea it would be to have Mitt Romney, who has been demagoguing the auto industry crisis, as "auto czar."  (Mitt’s dad was head of an auto maker that is no longer in business, I guess this somehow qualifies him as an expert in the field.)

This, however, is my favorite part:

According to Bloomberg, Obama’s transition team is already investigating the possibility of a "swift, prepackaged bankruptcy" to save the industry.

Except officials of the Obama team were swift to deny this — three days ago.

Now, maybe you think the denial is crap, but it is nonetheless part of the story. 

Here’s another part:

  • Nobel laureate Paul Krugman: "If GM goes under, which looks like a real possibility, then that’s a huge blow to huge anti-stimulus program at exactly the wrong moment."
  • Former Treasury Department Director Nouriel Roubini"Giving essentially $50 billion of low interest rate loans to automakers is a way to help them… there are about 2 million jobs directly/indirectly related to the auto industry… We have no choice…"
  • Digby"You simply can’t wipe out a million jobs or more as we are just going into a terrible worldwide recession. It’s like telling someone they have to go on a diet when they are in the middle of a heart attack."

Krugman and Roubini, you’ll remember, "got it right." Digby just says it better than anyone else.  

Conventional wisdom around an auto industry bridge loan seems to be minted by Richard Shelby, and nobody is pointing out that the non-union factories in his right-to-work state would stand to benefit from a Detroit collapse.

This is largely because the UAW has, without question, executed the worst, most non-existent public relations campaign ever.  It’s just shocking how bad they are at this, leaving everyone to scramble in their defense.  Tying their fate to the automakers and leaving it to the CEOs to present their case seems fraught with risk. (If I was Gettlefinger I’d be on a plane to China looking for buyers to save my members’ pensions, but nobody asked me.)

But the breezy lack of concern for what the impact of a bankruptcy would be (managed or otherwise) on an economy where one in ten jobs is tied to the Big 2 1/2 is pretty gobsmacking in its own right, especially coming as it does from a class of people who are openly hostile to labor and think retirees and their pensions can be easily reduced to statistics in some spread sheet.

If people are going to juggle with economic knives here using Time Magazine as a stage, is it too much to ask that they be able to use the Google?

Related posts:

  1. Why Did NYT Do a Puff Piece on Finance Members Holding Up Health Reform?
  2. With GM Bankruptcy Closing TN Plant, Will UAW Spend Against Anti-Labor Senators?
  3. Time Magazine Writes Ed Liddy Fan Fic
  4. Time Magazine CEO Worship
  5. The Politics of Car Dealers