Wasabisoft

The biggest problem I have with the whole Auto Industry Bailout thing is one of intent: when the American Big 3 automakers (GM, Ford and Chrysler) came to the government in search of aid, their initial line of reasoning was NOT “Look, we understand we’ve been jacking off for the past decade and are now reaping the consequences of our admittedly American business tactics.  For some strange reason, the Japanese pursued higher efficiency, better technology, and overall operational streamlining INSTEAD of our brilliant, bludgeon-the-consumer-over-the-head-with-advertising-while-our-vehicle-standards-plummet approach, and that has lead – QUITE unfairly, I might add – to the Japanese earning profits that cannot be adequately mathematically described as a percentage of our own because OUR profits are a fucking NEGATIVE NUMBER.  Therefore, we are in dire god damn need of a huge fuck-off loan or at LEAST a nice governmental stock purchase like the Financial Industry got.  And exactly WHOSE dick got sucked to seal THAT deal?”  No no NO, the overture of choice was “Hey, give us tons of relatively oversight free cash or we swear to whatever god you care to name that we’ll go right into bankruptcy and take millions of American jobs with us.”

So now the government has a choice (or at least a “choice”): as per Capitalist doctrine, allow the Auto Industry to fail, lose an awful lot of American jobs, and hope that the Big 3 either figure out what they’re doing wrong or at least spawn some smaller, hopefully more efficient new car companies; OR, “protect” those jobs the Big 3 are so vocally holding hostage by writing another gigantic, taxpayer-funded check to keep the Big 3 afloat.  While a bailing out is not (technically, but who’s counting) a Socialist tactic, it is definitely an Anti-Capitalist one.

The choice/”choice” is obviously not an easy one.  It becomes a question of stability versus principle, one which has plenty of adherents on both sides.  What’s odd about this situation is that, in opposition to the traditional Republican=Stability/Democrat=Principle dichotomy, this time the DEMOCRATS are favoring a move that would protect American jobs (and promote – at least in the short term – Stability) and the REBUBLICANS are insisting upon following the Capitalist playbook (thus advocating a loss of Stability in favor of the clean white light of Principle).  And within the context of this “choice”, I once again feel that neither path is best for Americans.

Supposing the President does go ahead and do for the Auto Industry as was done for the Financial Industry (aside: remind me to do a piece on Industries later, and how they, too, are Anti-Capitalist).  It’s bad enough that a precedent was set with the initial TARP measures to prop up finance companies, let alone the reinforcement that precedent will receive with application of the same measures to auto companies.  The whole IDEA behind Capitalism is that the market will decide (ok, “decide”) which products and services are best by virtue of the company providing those products seeing profits from their work.  If a company (say, GM) is no longer able to see profits from their method of business, then GM must change the way they do business OR be rendered unable to support itself.  Such a failure will lead to job loss, but will also lead to market share being freed up for the advantage of other, more nimble, better run companies… who may them be able (finally) to expand their own business and create job opportunities for the very people whose jobs were lost by GM’s failure.  In probable accordance with some economic law I’ve never heard of:  the amount of jobs in a given industry will expand to fill all available space created by Demand for that industry.  Or is that Boyle’s Law.  I don’t fucking remember.  Anyways.

But what message does that send to other American Industries?  It would seem that, so long as your company (or conglomeration of companies: “The Industry”) has a sufficient number of employees to hold hostage (or simply has a large enough impact upon the economy, which is what a [sufficient number of employees] basically IS), you can engage in whatever retarded (literally slowed development, look it up) business practices you like and, when the billion dollar bill comes due, the government will step in to prop up an “industry vital to America”.  It’s the rough restaurant equivalent of you and two of your buddies (you call yourselves the “Big 3″ because you all think your penises are much larger than they actually are) going down to the nearest place with a bar (I like Rock Bottom Brewery, myself; corner of N. Carefree and Powers, Colorado Springs, CO; tell ‘em Darian sent ya), ordering the entire menu and a hottub’s worth of alcohol, and then, when the check comes ($12, 068.47, plus 3 restraining orders), realizing you’re all unemployed and have approximately $7.18 and a condom between you… but suddenly the President walks over (from the bar, where he was alternating between drinking extremely cheap Mexican beer (that he brought in with him; he likes the faint taste of urine) and playing Iraq Invasion DS, retail price $Eleventy Trillion) and pays off your entire bill (using his American Taxpayer Card, bonus rewards of $400,000 a year FOREVER) because, and I quote, “You guys are some really great guys.  Heh heh heh.”

As a brief aside: I apologize for the unnecessary number of hateful metaphors in the last paragraph.  It may give you the impression that I harbor some bitterness towards our government and our Commander-In-Chief; this is not the case, as under the provisions of the Uniformed Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) I’m not allowed’s ta.  Besides, it’s more an “I could do a better job than these re-re’s” feeling than a disgruntlement feeling.  It depresses me to see my country suffer due to selfishness and stupidity.

But let’s say the President has a brain fart or something (let’s just say) and the Auto Industry DOESN’T get their bailout.  Such a thing, as was stated by President-Elect and Cool-Guy Barack Obama, would be very irresponsible of our government because it would lead to immense instability across our society.  The whole purpose of government is to promote and ensure stability; failing to do so would be a dereliction of duty.  But… there’s a disconnect here.  Government’s required response to this situation seems to be to prop up the Auto Industry, thus ensuring stability… but doing so will undermine the Capitalist system itself, necessitating further bailouts down the line and ultimately sacrificing future stability for the sake of present stability.  So… it appears there is NO effective way to extract ourselves from this situation.  And this appearance is, unfortunately, true… but only within the dichotomy set up by the bounds of the Capitalist system.

“Oh SHIT, Sean, you’re not about to suggest that CAPITALISM is the problem, are you?”  Well… yeah, a little.  The problem is that the American people (and, by inconvenient extension, the American Government) want stability from an economic system that is inherently unstable.  Capitalism is designed to be unstable; instability (especially in the form of competition) drives companies to constantly improve and streamline their operations so as to continue making a profit.  This ongoing stretch towards perfection ultimately improves conditions for the consumer, thus ensuring that the consumer/The American People don’t get fleeced at every turn.

The problem is not ultimately rooted in Capitalism; the problem derives from the emergence of Industries (big I) as the superseding form of organization within Capitalism.  The whole point of our government adopting antitrust laws was to prevent all companies within a given industry (little i) from collaborating to eliminate competition.  The de facto monopoly thus formed would have the effect of allowing companies to collectively go on metaphorical $12, 068.47 binges because, now that competition is eliminated, the American consumer has a choice between shit, crap, and shitcrap.  In theory, antitrust laws can keep this from happening… but once an entire industry starts working together, disguising collaboration becomes much, much easier… as anything that looks like an across-the-industry change, adopted by all companies simultaneously, is obviously a reaction to industry forces and is certainly not a new profit-making measure secured by company representatives over yesterday’s golf foursome.  (Why high-powered heterosexual males insist upon calling their golf teams foursomes is beyond me.  Probably because I’m straight.)

The result of collaboration too large to be seen is the new entity known as The Industry.  You can tell there’s SOME level of collaboration going on due to the existence of Industry lobbyists.  When a group of lawyers are paid morbidly obese amounts of cash to influence Congressmen and assorted other government officials to give special attention to the needs of an entire Industry, there has to have been at LEAST a Power Lunch to hammer out what the lobbyist is to say.  (I have no idea if Power Lunch is an actual corporate term; it just feels like the kind of self-fellatizing thing a small-fish tiny-pond executive would say)  You can name your Industry: I promise you there’s a group of lobbyists with VERY nice business cards for those guys, too.  Look, go read Jon Stewart’s America: The Book for a section on lobbyists that is MUCH more funny (and true!) than anything I’m capable of.

The point is that an entire Industry failing at once (you’ll notice that foreign companies within the Industry’s industry are doing just fine, thank you), especially TWO Industries, should indicate a problem with the Capitalist system in general.  I see two obvious solutions: either the government starts breaking up Industries like they give a shit about the American people (though I understand that WOULD cut into your reelection campaigns) and the Capitalist ideal we claim to love so much, OR we recognize that trying to squeeze stability from a system that thrives on instability is counterproductive and that our society, as it stands today, might be more responsibly served by incorporating some Socialist concepts into the way we do business, both within the economic and governmental spheres.  At the very LEAST we can provide some basic necessity infrastructure via governmental agency; at a further extreme, governmental ownership (or at least stockholder-ship) of business could provide some (relatively) impartial oversight upon Industry practices, and possibly reduce the tax burden upon the American people through government stock income.  Hell, the government already owns, what, like 80% of AIG now?  I could’ve sworn THAT’S Socialism right there.

So, look, here’s my conclusion, based on the information I have in my head right now:  bail out the Auto Industry.  But do so in the form of a stock buyout, so that (by Capitalism’s own rules) the government can be involved in the various companies’ dealings, ensure that business is being conducted responsibly, and start getting the taxpayers’ money back as business improves.  If a company really wants to get out from under government control somewhere down the line, let ‘em buy back up to 51% at either the initial government bailout purchase price OR current stock value, whichever is GREATER.  God dammit, if the American taxpayers are going to keep these Vital Industries from going under (and yes, saving some jobs in the process) we are GOING to make sure these companies actually DO make use of our investment… and get something back for our largess in the process.  Please, gentle reader:  let me know your thoughts on this, ESPECIALLY if you have some data or theory I missed that leads you to a different conclusion.  Integrity of thought is, as always, my number one motherfuckin’ priority.  Coincon 2020, bitches!