L.A. Times business/finance columnist Michael Hiltzik, last seen using his twice-a-week space to cold lie about the California budget, demonstrates today how you don't need to fawn over Barack Obama (or his predecessor) to thoughtlessly endorse the latest bailout emanating from Washington. All you need is a bucket of false choices, argumentative hyperbole, selected historical nuggets, and the bedrock conviction that Something Must Be Done.
[T]he question boils down to this: How much is it worth to save the U.S. economy? The answer may well make the GM deal look like a bargain, for the choice may be between the nation's making this investment now and facing a future with a hollowed-out industrial midsection bereft of factories, commercial strips and households.
Whether the government's novel venture into industrial ownership will save the economy, or whether it's even a necessary component of an economic recovery, are questions certain to be widely debated in the coming months while GM hares its way through an expedited bankruptcy reorganization.
Some will say the government has no place meddling in a company's destiny under any circumstances. One argument is that it lacks the mind-set to succeed in the private sector.
Some people are uneasy about compromising the traditional independence granted private enterprise in the U.S.A. This isn't that much of a "tradition," though, when you consider the long history of federal lifelines thrown to drowning industries. The government bailed out the airlines after 9/11, gave loan guarantees to Lockheed Aircraft Co. and Chrysler Corp. in the '70s, and propped up banks, railroads and industrial firms of all descriptions during the Depression.
It's just one bad column, but it's symbolic of both a mindset and a working style that are grossly overrepresented in the halls of serious journalism: Act or Die. Let historians or partisans argue over such minor details as whether stuff like this works. And proceed with all speed from cold analysis involving credible numbers to the evocative language of unanalytical dystopia.
Try to factor in the incalculable economic cost of a GM collapse, including the direct loss of tens of thousands of jobs. […]
The indirect impacts would ripple and build: scores of suppliers thrown into bankruptcy and thousands of dealerships put out of business. Whole communities that had been dependent on GM and its commercial tendrils impoverished. Towns and cities with a vibrant past but no future. The nation's manufacturing infrastructure decimated; once an enterprise the size of GM is liquidated, it can't be replaced for years, if ever. In terms of politics as well as policy, this is a choice that President Obama could not make.
Love how quickly we travel from "incalculable" to "nation's manufacturing infrastructure decimated."
Too bad there hasn't been a massive industrial collapse in Hiltzik's own back yard, one that somehow failed to decimate the tendrils and impoverish the future. Oh wait.
Start your day with Reason. Get a daily brief of the most important stories and trends every weekday morning when you subscribe to Reason Roundup.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com
posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary
period.
Subscribe
here to preserve your ability to comment. Your
Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the
digital
edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do
not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments
do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and
ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
"The answer may well make the GM deal look like a bargain, for the choice may be between the nation's making this investment now and facing a future with a hollowed-out industrial midsection bereft of factories, commercial strips and households."
This guy needs to pull his head out oof his ass because the industrial midsection of this country is already hollowed out. We used to make a lot more than cars here.
(?_?)(?_?)??__Sugarbabymeet.com__?? This is the best place for looking for sexy ladies(younge&rich) dating relationship or marriage. Now,Join us totally free!(?_?)(?_?)
I thought Democrats were against corporate welfare...
Hahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!
Go back and check whose names are on the great corporate welfare bills of history.
Remember, the Democrats controlled both houses of Congress with only brief interruptions from the thirties to the nineties.
Naturally nobody ever said 'I'm proposing this bill to make all my fatcat cronies rich', no, it was always about "job creation" and "looking out for the little guy".
Republicans have a piss pour record on spending as well, but a lot of GOP pols who made a bad name for themselves did it opposing those bills to "create jobs" and "look out for the little guy", thus making it look like they were in favor of unemploymant and screwing the little guy.
The nation's manufacturing infrastructure decimated, eh? That's not so bad. Just 10% down.
I'm sure that's what Michael Nutzak meant by "decimated", since he's a professional word-guy. I wonder why he's getting so worked up over a measly 10%?
Shut the fuck up, Michael Hiltzik.
Try to factor in the incalculable economic cost of a GM collapse...
Huh. I'm worried about the exponents (like interest) a bit more than than I am about the factors.
"The answer may well make the GM deal look like a bargain, for the choice may be between the nation's making this investment now and facing a future with a hollowed-out industrial midsection bereft of factories, commercial strips and households."
This guy needs to pull his head out oof his ass because the industrial midsection of this country is already hollowed out. We used to make a lot more than cars here.
(?_?)(?_?)??__Sugarbabymeet.com__?? This is the best place for looking for sexy ladies(younge&rich) dating relationship or marriage. Now,Join us totally free!(?_?)(?_?)
Spammers know the proportion of in-their-mom's-basement libertarians there are, I guess.
I'm in your basement.
once an enterprise the size of GM is liquidated, it can't be replaced for years, if ever.
Wait- is that bad?
Gee, and I thought the whole point of my surrending money to GM was NOT to let them go bankrupt. Glad to see my funds were spent wisely.
Of course, we wouldn't let AIG go bankrupt now would we?
I thought Democrats were against corporate welfare - back when they didn't control the legislative and executive branches.
I thought Democrats were against corporate welfare - back when they didn't control the legislative and executive branches.
The GM and Chrysler bailouts aren't corporate welfare - the investors are taking it up the ass.
Its union welfare.
Hahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!
Go back and check whose names are on the great corporate welfare bills of history.
Remember, the Democrats controlled both houses of Congress with only brief interruptions from the thirties to the nineties.
Naturally nobody ever said 'I'm proposing this bill to make all my fatcat cronies rich', no, it was always about "job creation" and "looking out for the little guy".
Republicans have a piss pour record on spending as well, but a lot of GOP pols who made a bad name for themselves did it opposing those bills to "create jobs" and "look out for the little guy", thus making it look like they were in favor of unemploymant and screwing the little guy.
'Omg, omg we have to do something!!!1!'
What a retard. How about everyone in LA punches Michael Hiltzik? That's doing something.
The nation's manufacturing infrastructure decimated, eh? That's not so bad. Just 10% down.
I'm sure that's what Michael Nutzak meant by "decimated", since he's a professional word-guy. I wonder why he's getting so worked up over a measly 10%?