What are the auto industry's doing?

Ok, so we have a bailout loan for 2 of the 3 big American auto companies which is supposed to essentially be an eased in version of bankruptcy unless their genius turnaround plans work.

What exactly are their genius turnaround plans? I ask because I was watching football on FOX (a dangerous meeting of often willfully ignorant Americans but I do enjoy football) and the two most prevalent commercials were for Dodge and Ford trucks and trucks with hemis in them with "improved efficiency" of 20 mpg.

I'm sorry but that's shitty gas mileage. Don't try and say "well, it's good for a vehicle of that size" cause I don't care. How many people need a vehicle with 390 hp? Maybe 5% of the people who but them. But we still market them in America as if they are what Jesus himself would drive. Americans don't need these behemoths that are peddled to us and anyone who doesn't know that is an idiot. Stop marketing these gas guzzling pieces of shit to us as a status symbol and maybe people would stop buying them. Anyone who really needs to tow or haul something can look hard enough to find a vehicle to suit their needs but these are not leisure vehicles or everyday vehicles.

As conditions of the loan I would've executed all of the executive leadership, pulled all advertising for SUVs and trucks and discontinued immediately all production of those vehicles and convert the factories into hybrid manufacturers and electric/plug in hybrid research centers. If you have a large family get a goddamn station wagon.

Our current goal is to have a minimum fuel economy of 35mpg by 2020. The rest of the developed world AND CHINA will be there or beyond that by 2012. I just don't understand this boneheaded asshole mentality of the American public sometimes.

Etiquette and reinforcing the class structure

I've been meaning to write about this for a while (a couple of weeks ago my office went through etiquette training) but never got around to it but I would really like to address it.

I hate the idea of formalized etiquette, especially when it comes to table manners and how to eat "properly." I am all for being considerate and polite at a dinner table but once you formalize a set of nearly arbitrary rules that you judge people by I think that solely for the purpose of reinforcing the class structure. Someone from a lower class can make money but if they don't learn your precious set of rules they can't join the club.

Well, anyone who judges me, or anyone else, by such rules isn't someone I want to be spending much time with because they are probably a useless piece of shit getting by in life on tradition and legacy instead of talent and skill.

And anyone who thinks "I wish people didn't judge people that way either, but they do so you better learn the rules" can eat my shit because you're just propagating the corrupt, unfair system. Change starts with each individual so stop sucking up to those who have the power and start standing up against corrupt uses of power and obstacles to others to keep them out of power.

Counting the bailout votes

Another way I view the auto bailout is by going to economists I respect and trust. Here is a list of the ones who are my current go-to guys:
Joseph Stiglitz
Paul Krugman
Dani Rodrik
Dean Baker

So far Baker and Krugman are for the bailout, Stiglitz is against, and I haven't been able to ascertain where Rodrik falls although he's been very thoughtful about the financial crisis in general. Check out his blog

My dilemma with the auto bailout

Ok, so I haven't been happy with Democrats, Republicans, or really bloggers on the issue of the auto bailout and I agree with all of them on some of their points. Let me elaborate.

1. I tend to agree with Democrats and bloggers that we need to do something. Bankruptcy may be a market solution that would serve the corporation right but it would be brutal to the work forces of the Detroit area (not like it hasn't screwed them already)

2. I agree with Republicans that Democrats are pushing too fast with a no, or very few, strings attached BS bailout that doesn't adequately change their business model. Unfortunately Republicans also think the only problem is union salaries. The two major problems are (in order) the Big 3's business plan and strategy, Executive pay.

3. I agree with the bloggers that the workers are the most important thing to protect in the situation but I disagree that we need to save the industry at all costs (essentially in its current form) to do that. That's exactly how those corporate snakes want you to think. They keep enough Americans employed so that if something like this happens they scream "but you don't want to hurt the autoworkers do you? so you need to bail us out"

Here are my thoughts on the subject. Centralizing an industry may seem like a good idea at first but it's pretty much the worst idea ever because if that industry needs to move or go away because of competition or technological advances it will destroy an area of the country (read: Michigan). If this industry were spread out better across the country any one area wouldn't be hit as hard and could absorb the shock. So any bailout that doesn't help move A LOT of the American auto industry away from Detroit is a terrible idea.

And as far as unions go, I love unions, I wish we had more of them and I wish they were stronger and more intelligently run but I don't think that something like the UAW should be fighting to make sure that the auto industry always exists in Detroit and always pays high wages. I think their goal should be that AS LONG AS the auto industry exists it should be paying its workers good wages with good benefits (hell, that should be true for every job and every american). But industries have to move and progress. We lost a lot of textile jobs over our history when we became so developed it didn't make sense for us to be producing them on a large scale. We employ less workers in many factories because we can automate the jobs and make them more efficient and use our human resources in other areas. Here's what the auto industry bailout (and larger economic policies) should be based on:
1. Protect the workers (not their current jobs): Social protections, safety nets, education, job retraining, relocation assistance should all be used (in this situation and our society in general) but flat out protectionism of their jobs is BS
2. Make the executives of the Big 3 suffer as much as possible. Offer them no protection, take their money, sue them for negligence to get more, take their positions, and even execute them if you need to (this applies to financial executives too). They created this problem and they should pay for it
3. Encourage the diversification of ALL regions. One industry towns and regions are dangerous. Even if you make Detroits Big 3 manufacture Hyrbrids, Plug in Hybrids, and Electric (which we should) they should not be so centralized.

I'll rant more on this later but I just had to get that off my chest.

Clarification on guns

Ok, I grew up with guns all my life and have no moral objection to the idea of people owning them. But I want to clarify what a semi-automatic weapon is because I think people misunderstand the term:

Semi-automatic means that a gun fires one bullet each time you pull the trigger and you don't have to re-cock the weapon in between. Essentially ALL pistols are semi-automatic.

Uzis and assault rifles often have the ability to switch to semi-automatic but it's automatic weapons that have the machine quality of firing bullets as long as you're holding the trigger down and firing large numbers of bullets per minute.

The only guns that typically are not even semi-automatic are revolvers, and most shotguns and rifles.

I bring this up because recently there was a handgun murder reported in the news and I heard a colleague say "it wasn't just an ordinary gun. It was a semi-automatic .357or something." Okay:
1. That is a pretty normal gun. Most, damn near all, pistols are semi-automatic.
2. People who can commit murder of one or two people with a pistol could kill them just as easily with a single action revolver or shot gun. Automatic weapons would be needed to kill large numbers of people

That being said, I support cities rights to ban guns (although I'm not a huge fan of statewide bans) and in general I think we should regulate the shit out of guns (registration, licensing for gun owners, mandatory gun safety training) because we do have a major problem with gun violence but a national semiautomatic weapon ban seems, to me, to miss the point.