"[GM's] total liabilities are more than 50% greater than the book value of their assets" - For every one dollar they have, they owe >$1.50. "GM’s problem is not a short-term liquidity crisis. A debt-for-equity swap would provide temporary relief from GM’s short term obligations, but at the cost of continuing the bleeding and delaying the restructuring." "It would be better to give away that money directly to the workers rather than let GM decide how to dissipate it. At over $200,000 for each of GM’s 123,000 North American employees it would a very nice gift. The taxpayers’ cost would be the same, but at least the money would help secure a future to hard-hit households." "Overall, however, we believe that paying off workers and liquidating the company is equivalent to putting the patient out of his misery before attempting to administer the best economic medicine."
Article 2 Highlights: "First, their huge disadvantage in costs relative to foreign brands must be eliminated. " "Second, management as is must go. " "Starving research and development is like eating the seed corn." "A managed bankruptcy may be the only path to the fundamental restructuring the industry needs. It would permit the companies to shed excess labor, pension and real estate costs. The federal government should provide guarantees for post-bankruptcy financing and assure car buyers that their warranties are not at risk."
So... 0. Allow bankruptcy. Government will LOAN money to the company for the restructuring. Attach conditions that control fallout (insuring warranties, pay suppliers to decrease ripple effect,etc) 1. Stop the bleeding. Cut manager pay. Renegotiate worker benefits. Cut failing car lines. 2. Find better managers. Don't pay them exorbitant salaries/bonuses. Eliminate the huge divide between workers and managers. 3. Increase true investment into the company. Instead of pensions, give stock or set up profit sharing. Increase R&D. 4. Re-emerge a smaller company and pay back debt in a structured, timely manner. If anything, this process will allow some time for those that aren't dedicated to slowly move into other industries.
Basically, the only government intervention should be at the financing level. Steps 1-4 happen all the time in the open market. They would have happened in this case too, if the market for financing wasn't so horrible.
Recently, there has been a lot of talk about faith, politics, and Obama. I've hesitated to talk about this because 1. I haven't fully fleshed out my opinion the matter 2. I wasn't sure if I could be truly objective and 3. It's a difficult subject to bring up without causing a near religious-riot. Certain hot-button issues such as abortion and same sex marriage have the ability to conjure up division and general-ugliness on all sides of the issue.
But since election day is near, and in light of a very good discussion over the weekend, I figured today would be as good a time as any to weigh in on the issue.
First, though, I wanted to share a related situation from my high school government class.
Background: I went to a very conservative Christian high school. The government teacher that I will be referring to was “liberal” in this context, but I believe she would lie somewhere between moderate and conservative from the Evangelical Christian point of view. With this context in mind, here’s the story.
In our government class, we were having a class discussion about the role of government in controlling legal (and not-so-legal) substances such as alcohol, cigarettes, and marijuana. In the course of the discussion, the students presented this question: “Should government ban the sale of cigarettes?” The reasoning (from our limited point of view) was clear: Cigarettes are just bad. There are no instances in which cigarettes benefit your health. Not only that but they cause cancer in innocent bystanders in addition to the primary users. The general consensus of the class was that, yes, we SHOULD ban cigarettes. This view was further catalyzed by the fact that “THE BIBLE SAYS our bodies are temples of God and thus everyone should take care of our bodies by not smoking!” (we thought we were so smart…)
Do you see what just happened there, though? We made the leap from our personal beliefs to beliefs on public policy-a totally different realm. What my teacher said in response has shaped my view of government and politics since then. She said:
Teacher: “Yes, I agree that smoking is bad and people should not do it (note: she was a former smoker) but I would be wary of ANY government that took the right away.” Us: “Why?” T: “Because I worry about any government that pushes beliefs from any one religion on the public.” Us: “Oh” *change of subject because we didn’t want to think about it anymore…*
Now, I understand that this issue seems like a very mild and unimportant issue, but keep in mind the level of conservatism in our school. Smoking was a big issue for us because, honestly, we were super-duper-ultra-conservatively-sheltered. At the time I didn’t give her statement second thought but as I got older, I started to realize the wisdom in that exchange. You see, this jump from religious belief to political policy never sat well with me. The question always persisted: What if Christians weren’t the majority religion in this country? How would our views on government regulation of “moral” issues change?
Extrapolating this issue to a more controversial topic, what if, all other things being the same, gay marriage were the norm and straight marriages were frowned upon? Would you want the gay marriage proponents to restrict your right to get married and have it recognized by the state? What if we were a Muslim state from the get-go? Would you enjoy saying “One nation, under ALLAH” in the pledge of allegiance? Of course not, but does this mean we must condone gay marriage by voting to allow it? I’m not so sure that the other way is right either-especially in light of my own morally conservative framework. This is why, I suspect, it’s been so difficult for people like me to come up with a mental framework for issues like this.
On the one side, I believe that same-sex marriage is wrong in my moral framework. On the other side, I strongly believe it is wrong to impose our beliefs upon others through public policy in the pluralistic society we live in today. Good religious policy does not beget good public policy. There are numerous examples of this throughout history-humans seem to have a penchant for interpreting the Bible in a way that benefits their own worldly motives. So what should we do? Should we vote via our morals or should we vote in favor of pluralism?
Well, if I were to be completely honest, I don’t know. Through all this discussion, though, I get the sinking feeling that we’re asking all the wrong questions. Most Christian views on these issues are homogeneous: Abortion is murder, gay marriage is wrong. What we fail to understand, though, is that the world is not. In the religion, there is a (mostly) singular view of the truth presented, whether through Bible, Koran, or other document. The world, however, is not so lucky. There is no “Worldly Bible” and so we do not have an standard base our laws upon. This is why, as difficult as it is, we have the system we currently have. We distill our religions and beliefs into universal principles that are mostly acceptable to most people. Principles like “Do not murder and do not steal” are not purely Christian morals, as much as the extreme right wing would have you believe. The founding fathers understood this, and that’s why we must filter our beliefs and the laws we impose through the electorate. They understood that if any one party had control of the system, the system would be flawed no matter how “right” the principles of the ruling party were.
OKOK. So what? Should we just not vote?
Well, no. This pluralism…this constant struggle to distill and catalyze principles is both the curse and the benefit of the system (nod to Dickson on this one). My belief is that we should vote for whatever you believe is more important. If you believe that, pluralism-be-damned, allowing gay marriage is sanctioning sin, you should vote for prop 8. If the opposite is the case, you should vote against it. Whether you vote for something or don’t is not the issue. It is not only your right and privilege to vote on issues that matter to you, it is your duty as a citizen of this family. No. What I care about is whether you are taking our society as a whole, worldly organization into consideration when voting. From a moral standpoint, it sucks if everyone else thinks what you believe is wrong, but you know what? Life’s rough. That’s democracy and it’s the best we’ve got. We as Christians must vote in line with our beliefs but understand that the system, in aggregate, will decide the direction of our country. As Obama said in his excellent speech on faith and religion in 2006, “people are tired of seeing religion used as a tool of attack.”
Incidentally, this is one of the reasons I’ve decided to vote for Obama. Not because he votes in line with me (he doesn’t) but because he has shown a penchant for listening before acting-for understanding and articulating his position before acting. In contrast to McCain, he understands that the act of listening is taking action. Many times, immediate call to action is needed, but I would argue that the ability to listen and understand is just as important.
*Note: Geez. I just reread this. It’s a helluva long way to say: Vote what you believe but look from all points of view, huh? Ah well…I’m a windbag.
(thinking: Why the hell do they want to know if my name's Lee? I'll tell them yes so they'll buy something.)
A: WE THINK WE MIGHT HAVE FOUND YOUR COUSIN.
(thinking: hohoho we americans are so clever matching last names and all. mental note: speak LOUDER because LOUD english is easier to understand......................................................................)
GSG: ....?
(thinking: WHY are these americans putting this white lady's picture next to me???)
H: WE'RE LOOKING TO BUY A PRESENT FOR YOUR COU-SIN, Kathy Lee
(thinking: hoho genius! just genius!)
A:*looking around*
(thinking: Hmm...lets get something....chinese-y. I wonder if they have some kimonos or maybe some kimchi?)
A: OO oo wait a minute I think we've found it *pulls out stereotypical rice hat*
A/H: yes yes YES
(both thinking: *mental high five* this is pure television g-o-l-d! hohoho. if this isn't good TV what is?)
Coco Wang draws comics depicting tragic and heroic stories of the 5/12 earthquakes in China. These comics are some of the most inspiring and moving things I've ever read.
Nowadays, all you hear about in the news is that the world is going to hell, people are getting worse, etc. It's truly a breath of fresh air to hear about real heroes. People who gave up everything for the greater good. People willing to give their own lives to save another's. If you only read one thing this year, read this.
