Slummin' it.

We’re a little pressed for time and as such we are reduced at the moment to performing Cliff notes for other people’s articles. David Brooks of the NYT provides a nice summation of why the Fed’s involvement in auto manufacturing is a bad idea in article, here and the talking points therein, are provided below:

1. Because of how the current private investors have been treated, future outside investment and thus a potentially powerful source of external commercial pressure and innovation will be muted.

2 The old bosses have been kicked out only to be replaced by insiders that have no experience running a business. Also, an entity that fought tooth and nail for “job banks” has been given a larger role in running the company.

3. Since we now own G.M. and will continue to funnel money its way for ever after, what is now the profit motive?

4. No evidence that G.M. will be able to produce the smaller green deathtraps dictated to them by Congress and the Administration. No worries: see #3. (The President has advised us that he has no interest in running GM or Chrysler. We have no doubt he is speaking the truth. However, never confuse the day-to-day operations in running a business with imposition of demands on that business from afar)

5. Conflicts of interest. The fact G.M. has successfully sought to restrict the import of cars that might compete with G.M. brands would represent an anti-trust violation were we living in normal times.

6. The ever-thickening relationship between the new owners in government, G.M.’s management and the unions represents an unnamed system of governance that never really seems to work out. Oh, and Congress will be increasingly involve. What could possibly go wrong?

And for a bonus point let’s not forget the potential loss of liability protection to consumers uncovered by Ralph Nader.