who needs capitalism when you can have this slightly used auto industry for the low low price of your ideals?

chapter 1 (seriously):

tell me again, george, how taxes, welfare, labor unions, and religious tithing aren't socialist ideas.

i've said it before, and i'll say it again: i'm down with many things socialist.

but in the spirit of darwinism, i'm also down with many things capitalist. much like socialism, in theory, capitalism is good for the civilization. capitalism, in theory, encourages the constant improvement of goods and services, and keeps prices at a reasonable level... in theory.

great, your thinking. the circus is going to start talking about social darwinism.

not today, friend.

today i'm more concerned with the confusion that our elected officials, media mongers, and general populace have about socialist and capitalist tenets, and the effect this is having on the auto industry.

first allow me to point out that communism is not the issue here.

socialism is the grey area between a capitalist democracy and full blown communism (which isn't that scary, people. you've been watching too much red dawn). socialism refers mainly to an economic structure, where as democracy refers to a form of government. a socialist country doesn't have to be a monarchy, oligarchy, democracy, tyranny, or anything else. most socialist countries, for example, are social democracies.

in sweden, let's say, there isn't just one brown, unisex shoe, they democratically elect their leaders, and, unlike seattle, not everyone owns a volvo (oh, seattle i can't stay mad at you...).

so where does the good ol' U S of A-holes fit in to this?

i suppose, technically, we are a socio-democratic aristocratic plutocracy.

don't believe we're a plutocracy? the entirety of our representation fits into a handful of buildings in a small neighborhood of a district approximately 1/4 the size of chicago, and believe me, they make a lot more money than you do, and that money makes a big difference. don't believe we're an aristocracy? then why are so many kennedys and bushes running around DC, mispronouncing words (the governator counts for this one, he's a shriver, and who the hell knows what he's saying half the time)? don't believe we are socialist? quit paying your taxes then, see how the government feels about that. or try joining a union shop without joining your local. it won't happen.

so we're afraid to let the government run the banks (which is a great idea, in that all interest accrued would generate capital for the country, and all the jobs normally provided by a bank system would still be present, aside from the fat cats who usually own the banks, and don't do much work aside from backstroking through a tub of gold coins, whose jobs would be handed over to government fat cats), and we're afraid to implement universal health care (which is also a great idea, because health care is part of the one universal human right to life), but god forbid we let the car companies fail.

chapter 2:

tell me again about the socialists, george. tell me about how they have basic human rights.

i appreciate socialist regulation of banks and healthcare because those should not be businesses. those are institutions that should be handled by the government because:

A) money is a societal construct that is based on nothing (even when it was based on the gold standard), and exists only as a numerical representation of debt, which in itself is only a numerical record of how unfit we are to live in a particular market or trade circuit, which are societal constructs in themselves (and there's your social darwinism. but it's cool, i'm still down with credit, and welfare, so long as we have to exist in a money based society).

B) it is grossly criminal to make money off of healthcare. what if it was you who was sick, and had no healthcare? what if it was you who couldn't even put your insurance payment on plastic because your job doesn't pull enough money to back a sufficient line of credit? what if it was you who couldn't pay for your insulin, or HIV meds, or your chemo because it was a "preexisting condition" and your provider wouldn't cover it? what if it was your child who fell off the monkey bars and broke her arm? what if you were the one getting the call at work? the call saying she had been taken to the hospital, and she was doing fine now, that'll be 12 grand, please. what if it was you who had to walk in the front door, hiding a last notice letter behind your back, and tell your baby girl how happy you are that her arm felt so good today that she could play softball at recess?

chapter 3:

tell me again about the capitalists, george. all about how they're gonna have cars. tell me, again.

i believe in capitalist ideas for business, and capitalist means every man, woman, child, and invalid for themselves.

"too big to fail" means it has already failed.

if a business, like GM or chrysler, provides shitty product, service, and job security, they have failed. by the laws of capitalism, they go under, and other companies fill in the market segment that they failed to fill, or, perhaps that market segment disappears, if it is one that the consumer public doesn't deem necessary.

in the case of GM, we are now paying them to go bankrupt, we are buying their horrible, horrible company, and pushing forward with their miserable business model.

"but the jobs" you say, "but the capital"

here's what i propose:

first, we do not rescue big business... ever.

second, we take the money we keep crapping all over GM and chrysler, and we invest it. we invest it in companies like honda, nissan, toyota, and volkswagen who have US devisions. we offer them money to build new factories in the US. the jobs generated by these new factories pick up the pieces left behind by the fall of the big 2, they also keep tax money stateside (as the companies have US divisions, they do pay taxes here, as do their workers), they also produce better, and more efficient cars, which is an instant positive move toward CAFE standards, and we get paid back partially in stock, that we agree to sell back at time when it will not hurt the company. we invest in companies like tesla, who could use the money to push their model portfolio growth, add new factories (read: jobs) and, consequently, lower the cost of their product. we invest in places like MIT, and UC Davis PHEV (plug-in hybrid electric vehicle) research center, who are furthering, at an incredible rate, the technology used in clean vehicles. we invest in small companies that convert regular cars to all electric and bio-diesel (they are already out there). we invest in a clean energy vehicle infrastructure, so people who actually drive bio-diesel cars don't have to go to mcdonald's with an 80 gallon drum, or pay ludicrous prices at the small handful of stations that actually sell bio-fuel around the country (safeway gas stations in seattle were, at one point charging $4.89 for bio, while premium petrol ran $3.07). we use what's left over of the money (the amount we've invested in GM and chrysler minus what may have been invested in the aforementioned areas) and dump it into the government subsidizing of efficient cars, and buy-back programs for older, less efficient cars.

but this is just my pie in the sky idea of a world where the government doesn't use other people's money to bet on the 3 legged horse (47 straight loses. Glue Stick was due, i tell ya! it was a lock!).

so now, you, me, dupree, the auto unions, and fiat, own the big 2.

GREAT!

hey, guess what i got you for christmas?! a punch in the nuts!

awesome! when can i pick it up?!

how 'bout now?! no backsies!

you know what i wish for at night when the lights are out and it's just me and the big man downstairs (my older brother lives downstairs)? i clasp my hands real tight and close my eyes, and say, "please old man in the sky, pretty pretty please, don't let some bizarre turn of events occur wherein i wake up in the morning and i own GM."

well thanks for nothing, god. you know what i want even less than to own GM? the US government calling the shots at GM! ever seen the fight scene in see no evil, hear no evil? the one where richard pryor is blind, and gene wilder is deaf, and wilder is trying to instruct pryor on where and how to hit the guy, and everyone ends up on the floor choking each other? i am now usurping that as an allegory for the US auto industry.

chapter 4:

just look out at the river there, lenny, while i tell you all about the cars we're gonna have.

you know, i bet pirates were pretty upset when the air travel industry usurped the maritime industry (meanwhile, air pirates? when's that happening?) and horse fans probably were sad to see that mode of transport go by the wayside. i'd also be willing to bet that people who made or used electric and steam powered cars way back in the day were a bit confused when this new internal combustion engine, that required the discovery, extraction, and refinement of a limited resource, and emitted nasty poison smoke somehow took over the auto industry (i will not take the time to explain why that happened other that to point out how great it is for short term profits to have an entire industry that demands a finite supply).

but despite progress in the transport industries, people still use boats, and ride horses. people still buy vinyl, too, even though there have been multiple advances in music convenience technology. and despite the perfection of intravenous injection, i still ingest my fluids with my mouth, most of the time.

so to all those people who have these strange complaints about the way the auto industry is progressing, allow me to retort:

1) the internal combustion engine is dying. soon all cars will be run on alternative fuels.

so? as stated before, sometimes popular things, no matter how long, or how universally they were popular, go by the wayside. hanging on to old trends as though your life depends on them is never a good way to live. but, just like boats and horses persist. so can cars. who's to say car racing will go away? that there won't be places that you can take a nice thirsty v8 out for a joy ride? no one is saying that. what is being said is that the petrol powered internal combustion engine may not be the choice for the masses anymore.

2) what about freedom of choice? people who want gas powered cars are being discriminated against.

wrong. i'm sick of people crying discrimination over stupid shit. i want a platinum-plated space shuttle armed with nuclear warheads and manned by easy supermodels. but until that store opens up, it looks like i'm gonna have to figure that one out myself. that doesn't mean i'm being discriminated against, it means freedom of choice is based on the available options. so what about all of the people out there who want cars that run on alternative fuels? where is their freedom of choice? there are sparse few cars out there that don't use gas to some degree (yes, all you prius owners, time to fess up, your car does use gas), so what's the big deal about offering them more? and really, what's the big deal about offering the gas fans less? you've got too many options out there as it is. i mean, how many cars out there are actually decent compared to the number that are available for purchase? so we get rid of the duds and add some efficient cars in the process.

3) but pontiac is a sacred american institution.

no it's not.

4) we're all going to end up driving cars that look the same, like the prius and insight.

idiot. ok, so the prius and insght look the same. so do the sienna and quest, so do the toureg and the cayenne and the xc90, so do the avalon, malibu, and the last generation accord, so do the challenger and camaro, so do the g8 and the last generation altima, so do the fit and the aveo, so do the 300c and everything bentley makes, so does everything maserati makes and everything aston martin makes, so does the accord and the genesis sedan. need i go on? cars have mimicked each other since the dawn of the wheel (they just couldn't sell that square wheel, no matter how utilitarian it looked). so two of the hybrids look the same, they are in the same market segment, hunting the same consumers. and the civic doesn't look like the prius, nor does the camry look like the insight, nor do the escape or fusion resemble any of the above and those are all available as hybrids.

5) small cars are unsafe on the road.

nope. small cars are just as safe as any other. car companies want you to believe big cars are safer because big cars pull more commission, but cars are also being designed with smaller and smaller windows, because while inside, less glass feels safer. but in reality, i'd rather not be driving behind someone who has no windows aft of the B or C pillar, and a rear windshield the size of my bank account (real small). small cars feel less safe, because you are surrounded by massive cars and trucks and because there's an urban legend out there that makes that claim, but the bottom line is, the same safety features are possible in all cars no matter the size, and the real danger about driving any car is the driver.

6) but GM has hybrids now.

false. GM has "mild" hybrids. that means that the new malibu hybrid gets approximately 2mpg better on the freeway than the regular malibu, and costs approximately $4000 more. oh, the government will subsidize your purchase of the malibu "hybrid" to offset the cost? yeah, the government will. after you give that extra money to GM. get it yet? oh, chevy has the volt. not yet they don't. and don't hold your breath. but if they do come through on that one, i have some questions. why only 40 miles per charge when the saturn EV-1 got 60, ten years ago? why does it switch to full gas engine, instead of switching to a version of hybrid power? last i checked cars still have alternators, and charging batteries is what they are bolted to your engine block for. alternator thing not flying with you? how about regenerative breaking? that's been happening with success for some years now. why not use all electric for X miles, then switch to gas/electric hybrid using regenerative breaking? and if GM was making cars with 60 mile batteries ten years ago, without the aid of regenerative breaking, then couldn't the application of regenerative breaking boost the life of a charge, at least by ten miles or so?

but what do i know?

now, if you've made it this far, thank you, and you are about to be rewarded with some humor: the dodge viper brand name is for sale, and the most serious bidder is the "garlic bread king" of michigan.

is it that bad, chrysler?

if it truly is, then i think it's time to face the music, america. when it comes to the auto industry, we have the technology. we can rebuild it, better, faster, more efficient. but GM and chrysler aren't the american auto industry, they are just players in the game. the industry is what we make it, regardless of the names on the roster. so when it comes to GM and chrysler, instead of buying them a puppy and enrolling them in the remedial market, i think it's time we took them for a nice walk down to the river, and tell them all about the rabbits.

don't look back, lenny. just keep looking out across that river... and i'll tell you all about the rabbits... 

suggested reading:

1) the communist manifesto karl marx and friedrich engels

2) of mice and men john steinbeck

suggested watching:

1) who killed the electric car?

2) see no evil, hear no evil (fight scene available here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9FHF2TWFNAw )

for transparency's sake:

when not causing multiple car pile-ups on my bicycle, i drive one of the nondescript gas hogs pictured below. see if you can pick out which one makes me a hypocrite.