“Last September, I was in a hotel room watching CNBC early one morning,” Thomas L. Friedman writes for The New York Times. “They were interviewing Bob Nardelli, the C.E.O. of Chrysler, and he was explaining why the auto industry, at that time, needed $25 billion in loan guarantees. It wasn’t a bailout, he said. It was a way to enable the car companies to retool for innovation. I could not help but shout back at the TV screen: ‘We have to subsidize Detroit so that it will innovate? What business were you people in other than innovation?’ If we give you another $25 billion, will you also do accounting?”
“How could these companies be so bad for so long? Clearly the combination of a very un-innovative business culture, visionless management and overly generous labor contracts explains a lot of it,” Friedman writes.
“The blame for this travesty not only belongs to the auto executives, but must be shared equally with the entire Michigan delegation in the House and Senate, virtually all of whom, year after year, voted however the Detroit automakers and unions instructed them to vote. That shielded General Motors, Ford and Chrysler from environmental concerns, mileage concerns and the full impact of global competition that could have forced Detroit to adapt long ago,” Friedman writes.
“Indeed, if and when they do have to bury Detroit, I hope that all the current and past representatives and senators from Michigan have to serve as pallbearers. And no one has earned the “honor” of chief pallbearer more than the Michigan Representative John Dingell, the chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee who is more responsible for protecting Detroit to death than any single legislator,” Friedman writes.
Friedman asks, “O.K., now that I have all that off my chest, what do we do?” Freidman offers up some ideas that center around accountability in exchange for bailout billions, including, “Lastly, somebody ought to call Steve Jobs, who doesn’t need to be bribed to do innovation, and ask him if he’d like to do national service and run a car company for a year. I’d bet it wouldn’t take him much longer than that to come up with the G.M. iCar.”
Full article here.
[Thanks to MacDailyNews Reader “dla” for the heads up.]
“We need a hero, a giant… We need Steve Jobs to start an auto company. Hey, Steve, come on… I’ll place an order for one of your cars right upfront, and I bet there are plenty of others like me… I’m begging you, Steve Jobs, to start a car company. You understand that it’s not about being the cheapest; it’s about being the coolest by being the most functional and a joy to use. We need less Detroit and more California, and you’re the one for the job.” – Dale Dauten, King Features Syndicate, November 02, 2006
Dear Obamacommies,
Here’s how capitalism is supposed to work:
If a company is stupid enough to pay its CEO 600 times that of the average worker while the company is disintegrating due to total lack of innovation, then the company deserves to go out of business to be replaced by a better, smarter company.
Note that the words “government” and/or “bailout” do not appear anywhere in that sentence.
To see how Obama’s brand of gov’t “works,” please consult the ash heap of history because they have all failed or are in the process of failing.
Hey..that was my idea!
2010 Chevy Impella… (Steve Jobs Edition)
$49,000 Base Price. Lines are “really thin”.. 4 Cyl engine with 95 HP, 8 Track Player, and White only
$75,000 will give it to you in Black with a CD player and a 98 HP 4 Cyl engine…
Yes, Steve has a great vision of what people want. However, without the innovative team at Apple that Steve took years to pull together, nothing would get done.
Apple is more than just one man now!
What do you have to say then about the bush admin bailing bank after bank after asshole with a shitty loan?
I haven’t seen this many bailouts since the titanic… and it’s all been under bush.
moron. obama isn’t president yet.
Jobs would make a great car that only 5% of the market would buy…
Now if Obama would be the owner operator of a car company….
I like how one of the ads on this page is for renting a Hummer from Avis.
It seems so right.
As for “more California” in the car design, I don’t think so.
Be careful what you wish for, do you remember Sir. Sinclair?
He had a great computer company responsible for the gems like ZX Spectrum, and then he went into car business, he made an electric car, C5, which was his Titanic or Ctanic
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinclair_C5
Nardelli is an ass. He ran Home Depot into the ground, and now he can’t get Chrysler off the ground.
So you’re blaming Obama for a bailout that was performed by the current Republican Admin.? You are directing blame at the wrong guy. Obama won’t be president for more than 2 months yet.
Neither Bush was a true conservative.
Smaller, less intrusive federal government, not the opposite, is the way to prosperity.
Proper regulation, not over-regulation and not deregulation, is the key to success.
Bush was simply the lesser of two evils, not a true Republican. Ditto for McCain.
Obama is change and wants to take a different direction. The wrong change and the wrong direction, but whatever. It’ll all work out hopefully.
Steve Jobs… the computer guy in the auto industry? I think not. Having a PC maker do any thing other than PC’s is a terrible idea- it would drive the maker out of business. A PC guy can’t run an auto company and design new cars people would actually buy- they would build the most expensive cars full if innovative ideas that no one would want. Next thing people would want is Steve Jobs to start making phones or something- terrible idea… Leave the PC people to PC making- Apple will never make anything people will actually buy- outside of Macs.
Re: Redistribute This… You are a bitter douchebag.
I agree that a bailout of any of these companies (banks, insurance companies, mortgage lenders, et al) is basically a bad idea. It is obvious from the news on NPR that the current administration asked for $700+ billion without a real clue or plan how to make it solve the problems. Now it seems the current administration is is poised to ask for more $$$. I do not agree that we should bail out Detroit. I say let the failed companies sink and lets all deal with whatever happens. I may lose my job any day now, and guess what? I will have to deal with it.
Obama has/had nothing to do with any of this crap. So don’t blame him!! If anything, Obama seems more prepared to deal with this problem in a pragmatic way – rather than the inclusive and secretive ways of the current administration.
Great, a car that every customer needs apple’s permission to modify. Ask Steve what radio we can put in it without voiding the warranty.
Simpletons: People who blame the President, any president, for the economy, when it’s the congress – Democrat-controlled, by the way – that’s responsible for authorizing corporate bailouts and bloated pork projects.
Only dumbass Friedman is clueless enough to write such crap. Jobs wants no part of auto manufacturing or unions.
Friedman is just a off the shelf click whore.
You’re right on!!!
See how McCain showed his true colors?
And, Obama….we’re in trouble. Let’s hope for the best.
The “handouts” (bailouts) are going to put us in a depression. Maybe that’s what the politicians are trying to do. Then, when we’re deep in dog-poo, they can “present” their “new” solution that everyone will agree to because we’re in so much trouble.
Michael
The Congress has been controlled by the Democrats for 2 years, not the last 8. The Senate is basically 50-50 with the jackass Lieberman voting with the Republicans on Iraq. But yes, let’s not let facts get in the way of uninformed rants. Do you know what a veto is and what vote it takes to over ride it? Bush could veto anything that comes across his desk if he doesn’t agree. It is all there in your 4th Grade SStudies book.
Steve-o wouldn’t touch the auto industry with a 50 ft Wi-Fi radius.
Sure. Because the Republican controlled House and Senate did such a good job when they were in charge, right? And sorry, but it was Dubya who deregulated everything in sight and let the banks run themselves into the ground.
They would not have to get Jobs to RUN the company, just to be “significantly involved”. As in, no new designs get approved without his say-so and involvement.
The ignorant, Right-wing Republican who started the discussion has a point – that bail-outs are not the way to go when the C-class executives are earning over 100 times what the typical worker earns while running the company into the ground. Such companies deserve to either collapse or to show their C-class executives the door. The latter was what was suggested here. Had nothing to do with Obama, with redistribution, or with a bailout.
BTW: I just read that 52% of McCain’s evangelical supporters actually believe that Obama is/was a Muslim. Where did they get this idea? I can only guess it was their own information network – starting with McCain and his agents – who were telling this tale. Additionally, the American government is supposed to be separate from the religious beliefs of the participants … so, how should this matter? Point: if your informants are willing to lie to you, and lying is frowned upon by your strongly-held religious beliefs, WHY should you listen to anything these people say? All that to say that 52% of McCain’s evangelical base consists of gullible, under-educated, poorly informed fools who ought not be allowed to vote in the first place. Not because they voted for McCain, but because they were sucked in by this multi-layered lie.
To sum up: Jobs could clear out much of the dead-wood at the top of the auto industry and help Detroit build more sensible cars, but could he convince people to BUY them? THAT is where the problem is … the American public loves their gas guzzlers and doesn’t care about any silly gas problem until it hits them in their own wallet. Nobody forces someone to buy a Hummer or Lincoln Navigator to make that solo commute to work. That’s a personal choice.
Innovation is a transferable process that is not limited to a particular industry. Steve Jobs, if given free reign, would trim the lines down to four models, focus the resources strategically, cut out the dead weight, and run the race against time (money running out) to get a product out the door. Remember when he said (paraphrasing here) ” You know when you see a concept car and it’s so cool. Then when the real car comes out three years later it sucks, and you’re like ‘what happened?!’ That’s because the engineers tell the designers it can’t be done, and there’s 30 compromises, and then the manufacturers say it can’t be done, and there’s 30 more compromises. Well, when we were designing the first iMac the people who couldn’t figure out how to do it, or couldn’t buy into the idea that we were design-driven, they left or were asked to leave”. These principles could be brought to bear on the auto industry, especially with an eye on energy independence. However, I don’t think he could overcome the unions and the labor burdens unless he started outside Detroit. Otherwise, Friedman is spot on, as usual.
So if you let GM fail, what happens in the meantime? millions of people lose their jobs and the economy falls over the cliff. There’s no more capital available for that “better, smarter company” to get started, and we’re left in a depression with no domestic auto industry, or any industry at all.
Good idea!
Dean Kamen.
Obama pushed for the bailouts and wants more. This is just the beginning. I don’t think Bush should have bailed anyone out either. We need real conservatives in charge. Time will prove this.