In the same New Republic article referenced in the previous post, Susan Helper concludes, "While I'm disappointed in the plans so far, I still feel the industry is worth saving. Note, among other things, that this level of detail is far more than the banks have ever been asked to provide--despite getting orders of magnitude more money from the taxpayers."But bailouts are not predicated upon detailed and gracefully written restructuring reports. If they were, journalists would be swimming freestyle in giant warehouses filled with crisp federal bills (I nominate Rick Hertzberg as lead author and lament that David Foster Wallace isn't around to handle footnotes). Rather, the bank bailout was -- actually, is -- justified in terms of consequences: If the banks fail, so too does our economy.That is not true for Detroit. If GM fails, our economy simply worsens: There's more joblessness, and there's the psychological blow of losing a fabled company that seemed no less permanent than the mountains or the sky. But it is not, by any means, an existential threat.Helper is on firmer ground when she justifies further help in terms of jobs, rather than by analogy to banks. "The automakers remain key to preserving 2 to 3 million manufacturing jobs in states already very hard hit by the economic downturn," she says. "For this reason alone, industry collapse would be a disaster." Or at least unwise. The auto companies need $14 billion or so -- it may well prove to be more -- to preserve two to three million manufacturing jobs and all the jobs (nearby coffee shops and local hotels and Michigan Wal-Mart's and so on) that depend on those jobs. Given that the $800 billion stimulus was meant to create or preserve three to four million jobs, this may be a smart investment. But this is stimulus. It cannot be an enduring federal commitment to ensure that Detroit never perishes. Deciding that this is not the time to lose the jobs provided by GM cannot be the same as deciding that we can never lose GM. Because here, the analogy to banks is actually clarifying: Our economy need banks. It doesn't need dying auto companies. DO WE NEED DETROIT?
In the same New Republic article referenced in the previous post, Susan Helper concludes, "While I'm disappointed in the plans so far, I still feel the industry is worth saving. Note, among other things, that this level of detail is far more than the banks have ever been asked to provide--despite getting orders of magnitude more money from the taxpayers."But bailouts are not predicated upon detailed and gracefully written restructuring reports. If they were, journalists would be swimming freestyle in giant warehouses filled with crisp federal bills (I nominate Rick Hertzberg as lead author and lament that David Foster Wallace isn't around to handle footnotes). Rather, the bank bailout was -- actually, is -- justified in terms of consequences: If the banks fail, so too does our economy.That is not true for Detroit. If GM fails, our economy simply worsens: There's more joblessness, and there's the psychological blow of losing a fabled company that seemed no less permanent than the mountains or the sky. But it is not, by any means, an existential threat.Helper is on firmer ground when she justifies further help in terms of jobs, rather than by analogy to banks. "The automakers remain key to preserving 2 to 3 million manufacturing jobs in states already very hard hit by the economic downturn," she says. "For this reason alone, industry collapse would be a disaster." Or at least unwise. The auto companies need $14 billion or so -- it may well prove to be more -- to preserve two to three million manufacturing jobs and all the jobs (nearby coffee shops and local hotels and Michigan Wal-Mart's and so on) that depend on those jobs. Given that the $800 billion stimulus was meant to create or preserve three to four million jobs, this may be a smart investment. But this is stimulus. It cannot be an enduring federal commitment to ensure that Detroit never perishes. Deciding that this is not the time to lose the jobs provided by GM cannot be the same as deciding that we can never lose GM. Because here, the analogy to banks is actually clarifying: Our economy need banks. It doesn't need dying auto companies. 
