Headline in the NYTimes:
Obama is said to shift plans to fix Detroit: A Panel, Not a Car Czar.
Not a big improvement.
From Car Czar to Car Politburo
Previous post: The economics of conglomerates
Our Books
Modern Principles of Economics
Launching The Innovation Renaissance
The Great Stagnation: How America Ate All the Low-Hanging Fruit of Modern History, Got Sick, and Will(Eventually) Feel Better
Create Your Own Economy: The Path to Prosperity in a Disordered World
Discover Your Inner Economist
Good and Plenty: The Creative Successes of American Arts Funding
Judge and Jury: American Tort Law on Trial
Markets and Cultural Voices: Liberty vs. Power in the Lives of Mexican Amate Painters (Economics, Cognition, and Society)
The Voluntary City: Choice, Community, and Civil Society (Economics, Cognition, and Society)
Creative Destruction: How Globalization Is Changing the World's Cultures
Changing the Guard: Private Prisons and the Control of Crime
What Price Fame?
In Praise of Commercial Culture
Entrepreneurial Economics: Bright Ideas from the Dismal Science
Contact Us
(1) Everybody gets a Prius, (1a) Everybody can borrow a Chevy Pick-Up when they move, (1b) Everybody can borrow a Ford GT on their birthday. It’s a very green plan. Any takers?
Obama seems to be going through advisor proliferation, especially on economics. I think this will hurt his ability to get clarity and accountability on decisions. It seems like a legislator’s solution, not a manager’s. With all the economics councils, I wonder what’s driving it? Is it that every bigwig needs to run their own team to feel important, or is there something I’m missing? If it were me, I’d want somewhat less decision-makers and somewhat more smart analysts working on fleshing out their plans and testing them for unintended consequences. My theory on Geithner’s skeletal plans is that he doesn’t have enough good help, for example.
What seems to be happening now is that the GM/UAW/Bondholder negotiations are going nowhere because of the expectation that the Obama admin will provide more money regardless of whether there’s a deal or not. The bondholders would just as soon take their chances in bankruptcy as accept the crappy deal they’re being offered, while the UAW think they have Obama watching their back and don’t need to accept a deal nearly as crappy as the one the bondholders are being offered. But can any of the stakeholders be forced to accept anything outside of bankruptcy? But if they all balk on any agreement, will Obama really allow GM to go into bankruptcy?
I can’t see that a ‘central committee’ vs a Czar makes any difference, except that the change can be used as a pretext for a delay in making any significant decisions (which delay is what I expect next).
I had not heard that MW. I love the old GT-40, and had/have high hopes for the renewal.
I can’t see that a ‘central committee’ vs a Czar makes any difference
Politburos make it much easier to airbrush photos and rewrite history.
A friggin’ committee – what a swell idea. Why?
Obama needs political cover because he is going to stab the UAW in the heart and generally break every campaign promise he made to the rustbelt states. He hopes the voters in Ohio and Michigan forget by 2012.
If sales numbers continue to decline it won’t matter anyway, the Detroit 3 collapse, the parts supply chain collapses and the transplants do extensive shut downs until the market recovers.
save_the_rustbelt : Obama needs political cover because he is going to stab the UAW in the heart and generally break every campaign promise he made to the rustbelt states.
Everyone seemed to think Obama was a secret centrist for some reason. Well he isn’t. I think we all know where this is going, with the government taking control over large portions of the economy. And it’s going to be a very deliberative, reactive sort of control. With plenty of concessions to special interests.
“Clearly we need a committee of Czars.”
First order of business, “Czar” or “Tsar”?
So, Alex-do you recognize that queazy feeling in your stomach?
It’s called “buyer’s remorse”.
not a good sign, *sigh*
What does the appointment of a “Czar” over a given problem signify? The appointment of a Czar for the auto industry, to my mind, would evince a resignation that the problem can not ever be solved. Bravo to President Obama for making a gesture which illustrates his conviction that problems do have solutions after all.
Ford GT? Jeremy Clarkson bought one and ended having to take a back because it was so unreliable. He said he never did complete a round trip in the car
Comments on this entry are closed.