President Bush is now in Peru, telling the leaders of the large Asia-Pacific region how to manage the world economy that his Administration destroyed.

Robert Reich posts that Obama is on track for starting rescue activities on day one of his Presidency, January 20, 2009. http://www.truthout.org/112308Z

On the Fareed Zakaria www.CNN/GPS program Niall Ferguson, who just released “The Ascent of Money” said that in the British system you have elections and when you win you move in on day one. watching what goes on now in the US - the British system is much better. Watching the deliberations in Congress and the way the Secretary of the Treasury, Mr. Paulson, threw around money without clear attempt at seeking results, it seems  VACUUM is the order of the Washington day. The stock-market was nose diving and the mere hint of an Obama new man, January 20, 2008 at the helm, brought some relieve to the disoriented market.

Gail Collins, wrote in the New York Times: “Time for Him to Go” http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/22/opinion/22collins.html?_r=1&scp=2&sq=Gail%20Collins&st=cse. We agree!

****

The Fareed Zakaria CNN/GPS second section today was titled GLOBAL MELTDOWN. His guests were Thomas Friedman, Niall Ferguson, and Anne-Marie Slaughter and they discussed the Present Economic Crises. He also had an exclusive interview with former VP Al  Gore.   http://www.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/fareed.z…

Thomas Friedman started out with the question: ” Are we supposed to sit now for two months and do nothing? The bailout has not worked and 2 mo. we may be in a hole that next Administration is finished before it starts.”

We have a depression each century and this might be the one for the 21st century. He then proceeded by pointing at  four issues that converged on us now:

a. the degree of leverage,

b. the degree of globalization,

c. the degree of complexity,

d. it all started in America.

The last point means that we cannot escape from the consequences and we are the responsible factor at a time that globalization made things universal and the amount of leverage and the complexity of our mechanisms caused us to export our problems, even though others might be even more leveraged then we are. It is the derivatives that we put on the global market that became our version of weapons of mass destruction and the game has now forced a situation of MAD between the US and China. We buy their tennis shoes and they buy our derivatives.

But Anne-Marie, who worked last year in China, brought up the possibility of the evolution of a China market for China’s products. That is the internal huge market they can develop and which then makes them independent of us - then why should they continue to buy US treasuries? That will send the US running to the printing presses and it will create even a worse situation here.

***

In his interview with Al Gore, Zakaria wanted to know what he thinks about the post-Cheney Vice Presidency, and he answered that actually it was Walter Mondale who gave meaning to the job, and he himself modeled his office after Mondale. Now, about Cheney, it was not the powers but the way the authority was assumed by the VP that was the problem. This was a clear hint to the Bush insanity in letting in a self-recommended VP who was not going to even compete eventually for the Presidency. G.W. Bush did not do in only country and world, but even his own party.

On the automotive Industry Detroit debacle, Al Gore said it is tragic  that GM let deliberately Toyota have a 7 year head start on the hybrid drive train used in the Prius. Shifting to electric cars is the best way to make sure that the US does not continue to be dependent on the Persian/Arab Gulf which is above all a security problem. AL GORE LOVED WHAT HE HEARD FROM PRESIDENT ELECT OBAMA - THAT IN THE ENERGY AREA WE WENT “FROM SHOCK TO TRANS.” Above means that only a 4-dollar/gallon of gasoline gets us to work on alternatives, but as in the past, it will be all forgotten when the price of the gasoline falls.

Further he said that clean coal is an idea that was never proven in the US, and like in other cases, this might just be the same technic as used by Detroit when they were showing models of great vehicles that were never built - the clear slow-it-down technic that brought us down to our knees.

***

Prior to the GPS program, the regular Wolf Blitzer CNN program had Mr. Robert Reich, while Malcolm Forbes, and Joe Lieberman where on other programs.

Reich knew to tell us that the original Obama idea for a stimulus package amounted to $175 billion - now it will be between $500-700 billion. he longer we wait - the more it will cost as the economy gets worse.

***

The problem with the Lieberman approach is that he wants President Bush and Mr. Obama agree to an immediate joint approach to the size of the stimulus package - in short, he thinks that Bush should invite Obama to step in and coo-own the disaster with him. We think that would be crazy for Obama - we feel that Gail Collins has a much more sound view of the kind of cooperation that is feasible in a system that allows one President-at-a time and creates these insane waiting periods. If Bush Resigns, Obama could take over via an intermediary Pelosi Presidency.

Further, Lieberman brought to live the old joke of “the Operation was successful but the patient died.” He actually said that with the $700 billion the financial institutions were sound but no money was being made available for loans.

***

On another program, Mort Zuckerman said that the loss of wealth is close to 16 (sixteen) billion dollars. The CitiGroup might be in trouble also - nobody knows what are their losses from the credit-cards business. The reality is that nobody is spending money and nobody is now borrowing either. So, his conclusion is also that Obama not be allowed to stay on the sideline and wait out his time.

Pat Buchanan chipped in that the recession is already baked into the cake and will continue for 1-2-3 years and that the extreme spending that was started under Bush will continue under Obama.

***

Steve Forbes concluded that Paulson is the “worst Treasury Secretary we have ever had.” To which Robert Reich added - “I have no trust in his policies, he was not transparent and got the $700 billion under false pretenses.”

About the Auto Manufacturers, Steve Forbes said that they make smaller more efficient cars overseas, for the local markets there, but were never allowed to bring the to the US. So the blame is with the US labor unions we assume.

Regarding an explanation of the “Derivatives” Ponzi scheme - please see our third attachment. Why did nobody act on what Warren Buffett described as a time-bomb already in 2003? Those derivatives were an economic
weapon of mass destruction of self-destruction that is!

***

Following above interesting exchanges, it is crystal clear that only a policy revolution in the US governing philosophy will do - no hybrids please. When it comes to the empty debate if Obama’s appointees are from the left of center or the right of center - it is obvious that moving right or left will not do - it must be a move FORWARD. That is the only kind of move that will do and he must have the field to himself - so again - the patriotic thing for President Bush to do now is to have Cheney and himself resign, and let the Constitution take its course without delay. Ms. Pelosi could then take over nominally and let Obama’s cabinet start working without the insane delay.

—————————————-

How Obama Is Already Taking Charge
Saturday 22 November 2008
by: Robert Reich, Robert Reich’s Blog, as reported on truthout and also verified on Sunday’s TV programs.

Barack Obama with weeks left before he takes office faces a country involved in two wars and the US economy in crisis. (Photo: Alex Brandon / AP)

Obama’s immediate challenge is to fill the leadership vacuum created by a lame-duck president with historically-low approval ratings who seems to have lost interest in his job (at this writing, he’s out of the country) and who’s disappeared from the media, and a Treasury chief who has all but punted on coming up with any workable solution to the crisis. But Obama doesn’t become president until 12 noon eastern standard time on January 20 - and the national economy is imploding right now.

How does Obama manage this feat? Two ways: (1) appointing a highly-capable economic team, and (2) telling the nation what he plans to do starting the afternoon of January 20. Specifically:

(1) The members of Obama’s new economic team fit the bill. They’re reported (I have no inside knowledge) to include Tim Geithner at Treasury, Peter Orszag at the Office of Management and Budget, Jack Lew and Jason Furman at the National Economic Council, and Austan Goolsbee at the Council of Economic Advisors. All have several things in common. They’re relatively young, in their late 30s or 40s, representing a generational change and a fresh start. Despite their youth, they’re also experienced; almost all were up-and-comers in the Clinton Treasury, NEC, and OMB.

All are pragmatists. Some media have dubbed them “centrists” or “center-right,” but in truth they’re remarkably free of ideological preconception. All have well-earned reputations as hard workers, well-versed in the technical details of public and private finance. They are not visible veterans of the old battles over supply-side economics or deficit reduction, nor are they well-known to the public. They are not visionaries but we don’t need visionaries when the economic perils are clear and immediate. We need competence. Obama could not appoint a more competent group.

(2) The President-Elect has also signaled the country what he wants to do: enact an “Economic Recovery Plan” that will mean 2.5 million more jobs by January of 2011. In his words (from Saturday’s radio address) a plan “big enough to meet the challenges we face … a two-year, nationwide effort to jumpstart job creation in America and lay the foundation for a strong and growing economy.” Again, I have no inside knowledge, but I’d expect it to be about $600 to $700 billion.

Its focus will be on infrastructure of a sort that will not only put people to work but also improve the productivity of the economy. His words: “We’ll put people back to work rebuilding our crumbling roads and bridges, modernizing schools that are failing our children, and building wind farms and solar panels; fuel-efficient cars and the alternative energy technologies that can free us from our dependence on foreign oil and keep our economy competitive in the years ahead.”

In short, Obama’s job-stimulus plan will be a down-payment on his larger plan to increase the nation’s public investment. “These aren’t just steps to pull ourselves out of this immediate crisis,” he says, “these are the long-term investments in our economic future that have been ignored for far too long. And they represent an early down payment on the type of reform my Administration will bring to Washington.” He could not be more specific, at least while still President-Elect.

At a time when aggregate demand is shriveling because consumers aren’t spending and investors have stopped investing, and exports are shrinking, Obama recognizes that government must be the spender of last resort. He will combine old-fashioned Keynesian economics with newly-fashioned public investments to pull the economy out of its slump.

By putting his economic team in place barely three weeks after he was elected, and telling the nation what he plans to do immediately after he takes office, the President-Elect is asserting leadership at a time when the the Bush administration has all but abdicated.

————–

OP-ED COLUMNIST
Time for Him to Go: Thanksgiving is next week, and President Bush could make it a really special holiday by resigning.

By GAIL COLLINS
Published: November 22, 2008, The New York Times.

Seriously. We have an economy that’s crashing and a vacuum at the top. Bush — who is currently on a trip to Peru to meet with Asian leaders who no longer care what he thinks — hasn’t got the clout, or possibly even the energy, to do anything useful. His most recent contribution to resolving the fiscal crisis was lecturing representatives of the world’s most important economies on the glories of free-market capitalism.

Putting Barack Obama in charge immediately isn’t impossible. Dick Cheney, obviously, would have to quit as well as Bush. In fact, just to be on the safe side, the vice president ought to turn in his resignation first. (We’re desperate, but not crazy.) Then House Speaker Nancy Pelosi would become president until Jan. 20. Obviously, she’d defer to her party’s incoming chief executive, and Barack Obama could begin governing.

As a bonus, the Pelosi presidency would put a woman in the White House this year after all. On the downside, a few right-wing talk-show hosts might succumb to apoplexy. That would, of course, be terrible, but I’m afraid we might have to take the risk in the name of a greater good.

Can I see a show of hands? How many people want George W. out and Barack in?

A great many Americans have been counting the days all year on their 2008 George W. Bush Out of Office Countdown calendars. I know a lot of this has been going on because so many people congratulated me when the Feb. 1 Bush quote turned out to be from one of my old columns. (“I think we need not only to eliminate the tollbooth from the middle class, I think we should knock down the tollbooth.”)

This was not nearly as good as Feb. 5 (“We ought to make the pie higher”) or Feb. 21 (“I understand small business growth. I was one.”) But we do what we can.

In the past, presidents have not taken well to suggestions that they hand over the reins before the last possible minute. Senator J. William Fulbright suggested a plan along those lines when Harry Truman was coming to the end of a term in a state of deep unpopularity, and Truman called him “Halfbright” for the rest of his life. Bush might not love the idea of quitting before he has a chance to light the Christmas tree or commute the execution of one last presidential turkey. After all, he still has a couple more trips planned. And last-minute regulations to issue. (So many national parks to despoil, so many endangered species to exterminate … .) And then there’s all the packing.

On the other hand, he might want to consider his legacy, such as it is.

In happier days, Bush may have nurtured hopes of making it into the list of America’s mediocre presidents, but somewhere between Iraq and Katrina, that goal became a mountain too high. However, he might still have a chance to avoid the absolute bottom of the barrel, a spot currently occupied by James Buchanan, at least in my opinion. Buchanan nailed down The Worst President title in the days between Abraham Lincoln’s election and inauguration, when the Southern states began seceding and Buchanan, after a little flailing about, did absolutely nothing. “Doing nothing is almost the worst thing a president can do,” said the historian Michael Beschloss.

If Bush gives up doing nothing by giving up his job, it’s possible that someday history might elevate him to the ranks of the below average. Better than Franklin Pierce! Smarter than Warren Harding! And healthier than William Henry Harrison!

The person who would like this plan least probably would be Barack Obama. Who would want to be saddled with the auto industry’s problems ahead of schedule? The heads of America’s great carmaking corporations are so dim that they couldn’t even survive hearings run by members of Congress who actually wanted to help them. Really, when somebody asks you exactly how much money you need, the answer should not be something along the line of “a whole bunch.”

An instantaneous takeover would also ruin the Obama team’s plan to have the tidiest, best-organized presidential transition in history. Cutting it short and leaping into governing would turn their measured march toward power into a mad scramble. A lot of their Cabinet picks are still working on those 62-page questionnaires.

But while there’s been no drama with Obama, we’ve been living a Technicolor version of “The Perils of Pauline.” Detroit is tied to the railroad tracks and the train is coming! California’s state government is falling into the sea! The way we’re going now, by the time the inauguration rolls around, unemployment will be at 10 percent and the Dow will be at 10.

Time for a change.

President-elect Barack Obama has revealed in his November 22, 2008 weekly statement that he has directed the Transition’s economic team to develop the details of a plan for a two-year, nationwide effort to strengthen the economy. It will center around creating 2.5 million new jobs by January 2011 - jobs rebuilding crumbling roads and bridges, modernizing schools, and making America a leader in alternative energy.

We accept his statement as a declaration of the need for immediate action. The easiest is thus to start by repairing the infrastructure that was neglected during the last 8 years - repairing and rebuilding roads and bridges that were built during the economy revitalization efforts in the FDR and Eisenhower Administrations. He will also start the effort to modernize schools - we assume both as infrastructure work and as modernizing the education system. This immediate set of moves is forced upon Mr. Obama by the fact that this year alone, 1.2 million jobs were already lost, and it is easy to see that next year several more millions of jobs will be lost by the way the economy is evolving because of the past neglect.

The third item, that we agree will take some more preparation, but which we think will be the real signature act of the incoming administration, is in what was mentioned in the introductory statement as “making America a leader in alternative energy.” This is further elaborated in the video as saying that wind farms and solar panels will be established, fuel efficient cars will be built and energy efficiency will be introduced.

From our point of view, those last remarks mean that the Obama Presidency will bring the creation of a Green Economy to the level of  the JFK “putting a man on the moon” or building the FDR Infrastructure - as the cornerstone of the National Vision that will finally start the wheels of ingenuity spinning, and help the world with a US quantum jump into the 21st century.

 Watch the President-elect’s Weekly Address and share your reaction - is the way to find the Presidential video message - http://www.change.gov/page/s/economym

Today is the Saturday of the Weekend of Twinning of Mosques and Synagogues in the US. The New York Synagogue and the Islamic Cultural Center of New York will have a dialogue, at the Synagogue, led by the Rabbi’s wife - Tobi Rubinstein Schneier on the topic - “Women in Judaism and Islam.” I am sure that the Islamic side will bring up the fact, that in their own way, the women are honored in the Islamic tradition like in the Mosaic tradition, but I am not sure that  the subject of the intrusion by the dealers in petroleum will come up.

Let us face the reality that it was the merchants in human flesh, that came by ship from far places, that created the market for exports of slaves from Africa, now it is the traffic of petroleum tankers that impacted the Muslim world, and those that did not want to see cultural foreign intrusion started to take it out against the sources of this intrusion. This is neither perpetuated by Africans, nor is it a rejection of the idea that money can buy power. The problem is the type of power that is envisioned. The culture envisioned is neither the idea of Western equality between men and women, nor the political equality of Western way of life and the traditional Oriental style of life. That is why we see in what goes on around the shores of the failed state of Islamic Somalia just another aspect of the Wahabbi led Saudi rejection of the non-Islamic world.

Please - do not call this Africa - the black Africans were the victims in the past and are victims today. Abyssinia is now called Ethiopia in rejection of the colonial way of looking at Africa, let us find a more accurate way when interpreting what goes on in the region of the Horn and put the blame where it belongs. The Horn belonged to Africa, now it belongs to the Jihadist Islamic movement and the pirates are not just robbers - they are driven by self justification based in Islam even if they do not sport the green flag of Islam.

From: James Hansen <jeh1@columbia.edu>
Date: November 21, 2008
Subject: Tell Barack Obama the Truth — The Whole Truth.

A draft write-up from Dr. James Hansen - Tell Barack Obama the Truth — The Whole Truth - find it at:

 http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2…

Criticisms are welcomed — it was written pretty quickly as I am leaving this weekend for a long trip.

Jim

 http://www.columbia.edu/%7Ejeh1/mailings…

November 24th, Monday - 6:30pm - 9:00pm:

Monday, November 24th
New York Press Club Penthouse
330 W 42 Street (8th & 9th) 33 floor
6:30pm - 9:00pm

***
These turbulent economic times have not spared media companies. The presses at the New York Sun are silent. The Daily News, Newark Star Ledger and many other news outlets are offering buy-outs. Cut-backs, down-sizings, consolidations, and all kinds of other retrenchments are disturbingly common.

Is journalism as we know it a dead-end career? Will the rise of “citizen journalism” and the Web mean we’ll soon get our news from journalists with day jobs in some other industry?

We’ve assembeled a panel of media-focused experts in a number of disciplines who will survey the scene, offer predictions and field your questions.

Leah Moses
Executive Producer/Recruiter at NY1 News. Leah has worked at NY1 for 10 years, moving up from intern to writer to associate producer to producer.

Justin Peters
Managing Web Editor, Columbia Journalism Review, where he heads Campaign Desk, CJR’s acclaimed daily review of the political press. He is founding editor of Polite and a frequent contributor to Slate.

Win Sheffield
A career coach in private practice in New York. After 20 years in finance, Win transitioned into career coaching. He is certified as a career coach through the Five O’Clock Club and has spoken on topics such as Networking without Anxiety, Organizing Your Job Search and Managing Your Career while Working.

Laurel Touby
Founder of mediabistro.com. A former journalist and media planner, Leah launched a Web site in 1996 that eventually became mediabistro.com, the daily ‘must visit’ Web destination for hundreds of thousands of media types, particularly job seekers. If anyone has a handle on who’s looking and who’s hiring - Laurel is it.

Moderator:
Sree Sreenivasan
A journalism educator and freelance journalist, Sree is Dean of Student Affairs at Columbia University’s journalism school, where he runs the new media program. He’s also technology reporter for WNBC (and spent six years in the same capacity for WABC-TV). Sree’s work explaining technology has appeared in The New York Times, BusinessWeek, Rolling Stone and Popular Science.

Members: $10 | Non-members: $15

RSVP by credit card or PayPal

****

New York Press Club Foundation Holiday Party
December 8th, Monday

Cafe Martinique
Radisson Martinique Hotel
49 W 32nd St at Broadway
6:00pm to 9:00pm

Always a contender for the season’s “most convivial,” this year’s Holiday Party will not be an exception.

Things being the way they are - what better way to celebrate / circulate / commiserate (pick one - or more) than by spending a convivial evening among friends and colleagues?

We promise food and drink ‘aplenty and plenty of good cheer, all for the benefit of the Press Club Foundation and our favorite charities.

The Comestibles (Eats!)

Three Hours Open Bar

Cold Station Includes
Tossed Green Salad with an Assortment of Dressing
Fresh Mozzarella and Plum Tomato Salad
Three Bean Salad

Hot Station Includes
Grilled Breast of Chicken in Capers and Lemon Butter Sauce
Seafood Pasta and Pasta Primavera
Side dishes:
Chef’s Choice of Vegetables, Rice, Roasted Potatoes
An assortment of breads

Attendant Carving
Choice of
Honey Roasted Ham Brisket or Roasted Beef
Dessert includes an array of cookies and savory cakes

Please don’t forget to bring an unwrapped toy that the Foundation will deliver to where it is needed most.

Members: $60 | Non-members: $75

RSVP via credit card or PayPal (This event sells out quickly!)

Bailout or Bust: How to Save the Big Three From Themselves?

Opinion by: Titus Levi, Truthdig, Thursday, November 29, 2008.

CEO’s of the big three automakers were on Capital Hill Wednesday requesting a bailout. (Photo: Getty Images)
The American automobile industry occupies a near-mythic status in the nation’s cultural and economic imagination. President-elect Barack Obama echoes the sentiments of many when he says that Detroit is “the backbone of American manufacturing.” If it is-Detroit’s economic importance is great but now occupies a lesser role than it did before it entered a slow-but-steady decline in the 1970s-then it suffers from acute and advanced damage that will require major surgery. And like any major surgery, treating Detroit’s malaise will be a complicated affair with no assurance of success. However, doing nothing may be worse, especially for the state of Michigan.

According to Bureau of Labor Statistics’ figures for September 2008, Michigan’s labor force was about 4.9 million, with about 4.5 million holding jobs. That’s a significant decline from September 2007, when the labor force numbered just over 5 million, with 4.6 million employed. The state lost roughly 149,000 jobs in the period and saw unemployment rise from 7.3 percent to 8.7 percent, which is 2.2 points higher than the national average. The rate would have been even higher if people hadn’t dropped out of the labor force altogether.

The Big Three trimmed thousands of jobs in the state during that period, which no doubt triggered additional job cuts among automotive subcontractors and suppliers, various retailers, and even homebuilders and home improvement firms. These job losses keep politicians, business leaders and citizens up late at night. As Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm recently quipped: “Forget ‘Drill, baby, drill.’ Here it’s ‘Jobs, baby, jobs.’ “

All told, General Motors, Ford and Chrysler employ somewhere around 500,000 people, many of them outside Michigan. However, these figures underestimate the total employment impact, since at least 3 million Americans rely on the U.S. auto industry for their jobs, with the highest concentration in and around Michigan. The Center for Automotive Research calculates much higher estimates: about 7 million jobs directly and indirectly tied to the industry, with 2.5 million hanging in the balance in the event of a 50 percent contraction in output from the Big Three.

This brings us to a simple cost-benefit analysis: $25 billion in loans for the industry that will save millions of jobs and about $150 billion in economic activity in 2009 alone. So it’s a no-brainer, right? Well, not exactly.

There is no guarantee that throwing money at Detroit will save these companies and the network of jobs that they sustain. Even if the companies do survive, we can almost certainly anticipate steep job losses anyway. Job losses will be increased if GM and Chrysler’s parent company, Cerberus Capital Management merge. But will cutting jobs now spare jobs in the long run? That question dominates all others in the conversation.

Focusing on jobs moves us from an argument about nostalgia for American manufacturing prowess and bailouts of large, and largely incompetent, firms to the more meaningful conversation about livelihoods. Doing so takes us beyond purely economic analysis, since the value of a job exceeds its economic value to individuals, their families and their communities. Livelihood includes paying for basics like food and shelter, but also touches upon important, if hard to measure, assets like one’s sense of identity and the health of neighborhoods and towns.

Applying a cold, hard economic calculus would probably throw cold water on the idea of a bailout for Detroit. First, the companies may well be beyond hope. They have been slow to change, they repeat the same mistakes and they turn out products that too often do not compete successfully with imports. Quality, safety, durability and customer satisfaction numbers remain spotty. Moreover, the so-called “bridge” funding that Detroit hopes to receive may be a bridge to nowhere: It will take years to work off the debts that weigh down consumers and governments, which will constrain spending for several quarters if not years.

Once we emerge from this hole, Americans may renounce our spendthrift ways and that could leave the entire automobile market much smaller over time. In short, the demand side of the market may not rebound sufficiently to resuscitate Detroit. The supply side looks no better: Over time, Detroit will face tough competition on many fronts. Japanese, German, Korean-and it had to happen-Chinese and Indian automakers will battle American carmakers tooth-and-nail. Simply put, the amount of money that Detroit can earn over the next 10 years may not cover the “loans” they want from the Feds. Taxpayers will likely end up footing the bill.

But if Detroit doesn’t get an infusion of cash, then what? The companies could declare bankruptcy, but so far they have stubbornly refused to consider that possibility-with good reason. Market research shows that 80 percent of consumers will not buy cars from insolvent firms. Therefore, GM’s leadership equates bankruptcy with liquidation. However, this view may well be somewhat overwrought. Bankruptcy would likely allow some leaner, meaner and more durable versions of GM and/or Ford to survive. (Chrysler looks like a dead duck; the only reason GM has any interest in the firm is its $11 billion cash stash.) Overcapacity could be pared back more rapidly under the watchful eye of bankruptcy courts and the companies could shed various obligations. This bodes ill for livelihoods and communities and must be carefully managed to lessen the damage to both. However, while going the bankruptcy route may make short-term economic sense, it may be too high a price to pay in terms of the devastation it would inflict on jobs, families and communities.

So what to do? No shortage of ideas have floated through the media, the blogosphere (The Huffington Post has been especially active on the subject, including articles by Neil Young, GM family man Ricky van Veen, and Raymond J. Learsy), broadcasters’ letters’ sections, and probably over many a kitchen table conversation, including my own, where friends engaged in a spirited examination of Detroit’s tendency to confuse novelty-releasing “new models” each year-with genuine innovation.

First, let’s put together a careful cost-benefit analysis. To begin with, Detroit must open its books to thorough scrutiny, and that includes the tight-lipped Cerberus. As a taxpayer, I’m sick and tired of the leap-before-you-look approach to taking action. I’m equally exasperated with Detroit’s tired claims of “trust us, we’re professionals” in demonstrating genuine recalcitrance to changing its organizational culture.

Second, we need to produce a no-holds-barred assessment of the managerial dysfunction at these firms and come to terms with what needs to be done to improve performance and change organizational cultures for the better. Given the track record of these firms, and their reaction to the bad news that immediately had them pulling back on innovation and new product development, I’m not sanguine about the quality or nimbleness of the current leadership. They have to go as part of this process.

Third, jettison utterly hopeless brands and initiatives like Hummer while focusing on integrating innovative ideas into GM’s R&D, design and production systems.

Fourth, engage in a thoughtful analysis of what individuals, families and communities lose in an environment of sweeping job losses and what can be done to ease the pain. This is especially important in places like Michigan, which will suffer near-Great Depression levels of unemployment and disruption, at least in the short run.

Fifth, Detroit could become a public-private partnership built around encouraging innovative and viable ideas in transportation technology. This would allow the automakers to readily leverage the research going on in the U.S. on various fronts and to create systems for developing ideas into commercially viable packages and processes. Even if the Little Two lose some money, they will provide jobs and harness economic benefits that will accrue across the country and even the world.

Finally, if GM and Ford do go into bankruptcy, they probably need to be given some federal support in the form of debtor-in-financing, since financial markets will not back Detroit given the conditions of banks and the auto industry.

My instincts as an economist tell me to cut the Big Three loose, letting them go into bankruptcy so that “the market” can decide their fate, but my heart tells me that we must do something to assure that communities most dependent on the automotive industry and its jobs do not suffer as post-Katrina New Orleans-or pre-Katrina New Orleans-has. After all, that city suffered through a century of decline before its final humiliation and abandonment. Parts of Michigan have endured long-term decline as well, and this experiment in market adjustment has produced far too many losers to regard as anything like a successful treatment.

As a nation and as an economy, we probably can survive the loss of cities like Detroit and Flint, but letting that happen will likely bring on human losses that do not show up in economic statistics. As we decide the automobile industry’s fate, we need to consider something else in this process: What kind of lives will we consign the people of Michigan to living? What kind of people have we become when we plan for, and perhaps execute, the demise of whole cities and even states? How can we prevent genuine harm from coming about and begin the healing process for those who have been and will continue to be displaced by the shrinking of the U.S. automobile industry? How can we, to borrow a sentiment from Albert Camus, strive our utmost to be healers?