No Point In A Bailout For Auto

There is no point in loaning the Big Three money unless they prove that they can continue on as going concerns. They currently lose billions per quarter, WHAT WILL CHANGE FROM A LOAN? If all giving a loan will do is allow them to lose money for a longer time, then there is no point in doing so.

I'm surprised that Congress asked some tough questions and got to the bottom line. What exactly will the Big Three do to change their circumstances? Don't tell me make more green cars, that's very poor thinking, they already make green cars like the Chevy Malibu and their hybrid SUVs. What matters is that those cars can't compete against the BETTER green cars of Toyota and Honda. Why buy a Malibu when you can buy a Civic? The Malibu is cheaper, but not cheap enough and they're as cheap as GM can go.

So basically the question becomes, how can the Big Three produce a BETTER small car than Toyota and Honda in the timeframe they have under a loan? The executives were vague because they know the answer is that they can't. They can't possibly make a better car and leapfrog Toyota and Honda in just two years or so. It takes that long just to come up with a new car, basically they'd have ONE shot to produce a car that would leapfrog Toyota's and Honda's new designs and that just isn't possible.

The Big Three can still survive, but not in their current form. They have to be allowed to downsize for real, that is close down whatever factories they need to and fire as many workers as they need to. THAT's the real solution, the long-term solution. From a SUSTAINABLE base, they can then start to improve on quality and expand. But they have no way of supporting their current structure, any money put in will just be lost.

GRE Scores by Major

Thanks to Carpe Diem for the table. It doesn't surprise me one bit that public administration majors score the lowest, by a wide margin. This is yet another reason why I have no faith in government, bureaucrats are the dimmest, least capable people yet they're expected to make important decisions and regulate the rest of us all? Regulators need to be smarter and more informed than the people in the industries they regulate. Unfortunately, most fail those two requirements. True, top level decision makers aren't usually public administration majors, but the fact that only a government worker of some importance would bother getting a PHD in public administration and their obvious lack of talent scares me. And the second worst scores belong to education PHD candidates, again those looking for a career in government. No wonder our educational system is such a mess.

Sarah Palin's Record

Actually, my friend pointed out that Palin is a strong fiscal conservative and has been since her first years in politics. The media has not presented her record in a comprehensive or fair manner. She did her best to cut spending and stand up to corruption and giveaways to special interests, and has been stronger as she's gained political experience.

Her views on gay marriage are EXACTLY the same as Joe Biden's and Obama's, check the VP debate. Republicans lost because they abandoned their principles and had nothing to run on. They couldn't run on fiscal conservatism and smaller government given their recent record. It's up to a new batch to present that philosophy to the American people, the current crowd just cannot be trusted or believed. Palin's social views are her own, but she will not run on those views if she expects to do well on a national level. All indications are that Palin is a fiscal conservative who is determined to fight and eliminate wasteful government spending. That's what will make her a star, that's what won election after election for the Republicans until they so violated their promises that they could no longer be trusted and were kicked out of government.

Obama Our President

If this can move us forward significantly towards a colorblind society, then it is an achievement. However the future is in doubt more than ever before, liberal policies simply do not work. We have to hope that America can move forward and prosper despite those policies, and that Obama will not cater to the extreme left burdening us with more feelgood, but useless policies. What we need are prudent programs and policies, well crafted and effective. We can't afford more pork barrel spending and giveaways to special interests, voters want an end to wasteful spending for the sake of image and contributions. We need change in that respect.

Obama's acceptance speech was not encouraging, especially the remark about Wall Street prospering while Main Street doesn't. Main Street's wage stagnation is due to globalization, there are no simply and easy solutions to this, but over time, wages will begin to rise again.

At least foreign nations have reacted positively and America's image is better now than before. Obama has to use this goodwill wisely to strike a fatal blow to the Taliban. He seems willing. I don't think disengaging is even close to the best course of action. Letting Afghanistan go to the terrorists will cause trouble for future presidents and lead to a larger engagement for future generations.

We can only hope Obama will be a president in the mold of Clinton (personal issues aside). But Clinton was reigned in by a fiscally conservative Congress, I fear that there will be no brake applied here, who will make sure funds are spent wisely? Hope is irrational. Hope is all we have left.