The Big Three

Good article in the NYT on the bailout and the Big Three.

I am not a big fan of the bailout. The "czar" concept is stupid. As the article linked to above points out, the Big Three's problem is mainly that people don't want their cars. And reading lefty bloggers rejoice that the bailout could allow Congress to direct automakers to build only "green" cars should scare the hell out of every sane person.

I will, however, take a moment to defend the Big Three on a few charges. The CEOs have faced some scathing commentary, some of it deserved (going to Congress to ask for billions and having zero ideas on what the plan to remain viable is) and some of it unfairly placed (that the specific CEOs in question ran their companies into the ground). I love cars. I can't fix them or work on them. In fact the only thing I know how to do is drive one and put gas in it. But I'm a gear head in that I read all the reviews and have followed the plight of Detroit for multiple years. The Big Three have taken numerous steps to remain competitive, from negotiating concession with workers, to shedding products and lines, to making vastly improved vehicles.

The last point, in particular, is important. Detroit is making much, much better vehicles today than they were even a decade ago. Their issue reminds me of the struggles the Italians faced in the wine industry. Unlike the French, the Italians decided to export all of their terrible wine. As such, Italian wine long suffered a reputation of being terrible. Ford, GM, and Daimler suffer much the same way. They have changed, they are making better and more relevant products, but it is hard to get people to come back after years of slapping a Cadillac symbol over a Cavalier and marking it up $10K.

I don't support the bailout as structured and I definitely agree that the Big Three have made some really bad decisions. My pnly point here is that it is unfair to say that the CEOs and the workers have continued slinging out terrible products because they haven't.