Capitol Hill Blue Forums Political Issues Finance, the economy & Economics Bailing out the auto industry - yes or no?

Flaming truck, meet flaming arsehole!

I'll reveal my prejudices here:

1) I'll bet it belongs to a guy and his bank.
2) I'll bet the guy was young when he decided to buy.
3) I'll bet that if he ever has child-support payments to make, the truck payment gets made first.

No doubt that's what they "need" and no doubt "they'd be fools". Now let's sit back and see how foolish they are about their needs.

Romantic or not, cash or not, reputation or not, display of feathers, or not, if the impulse is hard-wired, there's not much you can - or maybe even ought to - do about it.


Yes, all this is unnecessary waste of resources... But RESTRICTING someone from doing what they want to do with their own money is not going to work. And even if it were possible to PREVENT people from doing what they want with their own resources, in the name of 'protecting the public interest', should we?

(Think about an argument you made, with respect to Rick's suggestion that people should be prevented from having children if they don't have the resources to support them...)


To effect any change, one has to USE human nature, not fight it... CS is on the right track - once it's shown that the desire for 'performance' can be reached in a different way (and which also happens to be for the public good), it will stand some chance of being adopted. All that needs to be done, then, is to put the marketing geniuses to work on it, and it will be a done deal. IN FACT, all you have to do is point out that making an electric car is a bit more of a CHALLENGE to achieve, but will yield SUPERLATIVE results... get that point across, and it's "Katie, bar the door!"


I'm not saying you're wrong about the desired results; I'm saying you're wrong IF you think that any kind of restrictions would be either practical or effective.

I'd love to find a way to steer this conversation back to the original topic, but I find I have to ask a question.


Then I vote we ban petroleum-based racing effective, oh, Dec. 31 2009.

If that's where the innovative people are, let's get them going in the right direction -- and look how many NASCAR fans would come right along with! (And no, that's not a shot at NASCAR or its fans.)

Sorry, RB, I missed you post.

Ah, but that's an awfully big "if" - and I don't believe that humans are hardwired to drive powerful vehicles.

Who's talking about restricting people from what they want to do? Want to race? Race. Want to race petroleum-based vehicles? Think again.

Want to invent newer, faster, more efficient modes of transportation? Wonderful, with appropriate regards for impact on the planet and its residents. I might even cheerfully share some tax dollars to help you out.

Want to run a big, failing company into the ground for years on end, and then ask me to give you my money precisely because your company is stuck in a Camaro (or Suburban) frame of mind?

Think again.

I'm not saying what can or should be done. I'm saying we need some priorities here, and we need them Right Now -- especially if I'm going to be the one financing them.

Think again.

We've got enough bans. And it would never work (unless the big NASCAR families were behind it - then it might... but that is such a radical change, it's not really in the realm of possibility).

What would be better would be the opposite... OPEN UP racing to hybrids or pure electrics! Of course, that would never work either, because NASCAR is already so anal about their rules already...

Perhaps instead, come up with a new racing league that IS open to electric cars, that will outperform NASCAR on a speed-per-pound basis, and that would use technology that is accessible to 'average' Joes and Janes. (That's how NASCAR got started, with the 'stock-car' circuits, even though it is practically unrecognizable as such today)

Agreed on all of the above... with two possible exceptions...
1) That "IF", although huge, is nevertheless (I think) undeniable... that is not to say it's a dealbreaker; just that it will be more effective to use that 'impulse' rather than assuming it is unimportant. (In fact, whether it's 'hardwired' or not could be irrelevant, if it can actually be USED to achieve the greater good)
2) Bans simply don't work... especially with something so entrenched as the love affair with the automobile as it is today.

Your following comment is spot-on, you catch more with honey than turpentine (or however the phrase goes).

As for the money, absolutely agree.

A solution might be to provide 25 billion ONLY to those who ACCELERATE the marketing of electric vehicles, and then put out an EXTRA incentive (say, 5 billion or so, heh!) to the WINNER of the RACE to ACHIEVE the HIGHEST PERFORMANCE in the electric vehicle CHALLENGE.

(Maybe I should go to work for the Obama energy ad agency??)

RB - my idea of banning petroleum-powered racing was half tongue-in-cheek; I know it's a big industry but I don't think the auto industry truly focuses on it.

(Still there is a part of me that wants to say "Yeah, we can ban gay marriage, we can try like hell to ban abortion -- but God forbid we ban turning left for 500 miles at high speeds, because that would just be WRONG.")

Again, the focus here isn't on banning, it's how to get the innovation going. It either has to be done through the major automakers (and it looks like that requires a big bailout to keep them afloat), or we let them sink and find another path.

I'm sorry, but muscle cars and racing are not the issue here, unless a way is found to make them part of the solution. This stuff is no more sacred than, well, than hitching posts and sutlers.

There are still farriers in this country - not a lot, but some, where their services are needed - but when cars came on the scene, I doubt anyone said "But what about the blacksmiths? And if we don't shoe horses, we won't need shoes OR nails, and the anvil makers will go out of business, and public stables, and the trickle-down effect will be terrible!"

Really. That's about where we are. Either these companies are dinosaurs and they need to die off, or they are responsible enough for a bailout. Which should it be - and if it's a bailout, what is the bailout to be used for?

Else I think the American auto industry, and perhaps this thread, have run their course.

Oh, and one other thing...

I may be completely wrong about one thing... 'petroleum-based' racing COULD be banned - and in fact for the Indy Racing League, it already has!

At its inception, they used methanol not gasoline (although I believe methanol is often derived from petroleum, it doesn't have to be). Furthermore, since 2005 they have been using 100% ethanol, except that for safety they went to a 98% mixture, since 100% ethanol flames are practically colorless and difficult to see and avoid.

so, in some respect, what you suggest is not only possible, but already in existence for the one of the most prestigious racing circuits in the U.S.!

I do stand corrected.

Now, to get NASCAR on board.

OK, one really last thing, and a good thing too because it brings things back on topic!

I do believe that IRL's switch to ethanol HAS helped make it more popular to be seen as not just a 'greenie' fuel; perhaps the same thing COULD be done with electric as well.

NASCAR, in particular, "ostensibly" can use only cars that are "based" on "actual production" vehicles by the big three... so in theory they "can't" use electric vehicles until the automakers do.

So, yes, even in this narrow application of "racing" the change would have to come from the automakers... and if they want OUR money (i.e., taxpayer money, or even loan guarantees backed by "our" money) then we ought to include strings attached to the accelerated development of renewable-energy alternatives, especially the electric car.

In fact, this whole economic crisis could end up being a blessing in disguise!