Friedman- Startups, not bailouts.

[Gregorian]

I love this article by Friedman. But I can already hear moaning from the audience. I want to say something that may be painful to hear. Many of us are dependent upon someone else for our income. In places like Detroit, that someone is letting us down. We have several options. Bail them out, and hope we can survive, or let them fade while searching for new life. The problem is, you have a mortgage to pay every month. There's another article in the NY Times by Frank Rich today. It's about denial. I think we better prepare for the worse and do what is right. Let's look at tomorrow. I know this is violently distasteful, but unless we do we risk going down a rat hole.


http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/22/opinion/22friedman.html

Snip-

I’ve been traveling all across the country on a book tour, and every evening I return to my hotel with my pockets full of business cards from inventors in clean energy. Our country is still bursting with innovators looking for capital. So, let’s make sure all the losers clamoring for help don’t drown out the potential winners who could lift us out of this. Some of our best companies, such as Intel, were started in recessions, when necessity makes innovators even more inventive and risk-takers even more daring.

Yes, we have to shore up the banking system, which underpins everything; and finding a fair way to prevent hardworking people, who played by the rules, from losing their homes to foreclosure is both right and essential for stability.

But beyond that, let’s think, talk and plan in more aspirational ways. We’re down, but we’re not out. As we invest taxpayer money, let’s do it with an eye to starting a new generation of biotech, info-tech, nanotech and clean-tech companies, with real innovators, real 21st-century jobs and potentially real profits for taxpayers. Our motto should be, “Start-ups, not bailouts: nurture the next Google, don’t nurse the old G.M.’s.”

[depakid]

1. That's Friedman- not Krugman

and he still doesn't get it. Probably never will.

[stray cat]

12. So bailing out companies that have little to offer in terms of competence is good?

[Gregorian]

13. Well for our sake, please explain.

Because I obviously don't get it either.


I guess I need to explain as well. I think an all or nothing approach is wrong. And the current one is far too biased in the bailout direction. I know there is alternative energy money, but the emphasis is on existing old school businesses. Ones that keep many Americans alive. So it's a tough problem, I admit.

My bottom line is, I want to see energy independence. We should be highly focused on that, and not more garbage out of Detroit. And I admit that we can't hang families out to dry.

[zbdent]

2. The ReRushicans still get the victory ... the word "bailout" is used when describing the loans

to the auto industries ... when they are LOANS ...

What Bush signed for the banks was a PURE BAILOUT ... no questions asked ...

What the auto industry has to do is spell out practically where every dollar is going ... and that they have to pay it back, too.

[Donnachaidh]

3. err, that's Friedman -- the flat earth f*ckwit who helped the problem along

He's doing penance for being a global cheerleader. He's still got tons of his flat earth book in remainder bins across the country. He should take a long walk off a short pier with a 200 pound belt around his waist.

He's an asshole looking to stay relevant.

[SoCalDem]

4. and trying desperately to keep his wife's financial hopes alive

:rofl:

[Christian30]

5. I'm not a huge fan of Friedman

but I don't find anything to really disagree with in this article. I do think more jobs would be created by funding start ups versus keeping Citigroup on life support under its current disastrous management.

[Warpy]

8. Actually, we'll be best served by doing both

providing loans to GM with enough strings that they dump the gas guzzlers they don't make very well (and Ford does, the F-series pickup) and concentrate on new generations of ultra efficient gas, hybrid, alcohol, electric, and other personal transportation.

That's the only way they're going to remain a viable company, letting go of their past strategy of trying to do everything and doing it poorly while fighting efficiency tooth and nail every time the subject comes up in Congress.

Dumping the last major industry we have in this country instead of providing the means to morph it into something a little more useful is a losing strategy, throwing thousands and thousands of people out of work at just the time we need to be putting people to work.

Friedman, as usual, doesn't get it at all.

[Gregorian]

9. Geez, I knew this wouldn't go over well. But not this bad.

I thought he was making pretty sane points.


Edit- Shit. My subject line was incorrect, and even this post is in the wrong spot. Sorry.

I think I'll just step away from the internet.

[scarletwoman]

6. Geeze! Change your subject line NOW! You've posted an article by FRIEDMAN, not Krugman!

Friedman should put it stocks in the middle of Detroit where the unemployed can throw rotten vegetables at him all day long.

Krugman is someone with an actually functioning brain who shits higher quality stuff than Friedman will ever write.

sw

[Donnachaidh]

7. Please CHANGE the OP -- it's incorrect as to who is the author n/t

[JOE MURPHY]

10. bankruptcy

with bankruptcy, the federal government (we the people)  pick
up the cost of the pensions and health insurance for all of
the retirees and we the people will sufer the lower wages
resulting from the existing companies demise

[stray cat]

11. I think he is absolutely right! I hope people pay attention

[Occam Bandage]

14. I'm inclined to agree, but unfortunately

while those startups can give the highest return on our investment, they can also completely and totally fail. Moreover, those mostly only offer direct employment to highly educated white-collar professionals, for whom employment relief is not so badly needed.

[Gregorian]

15. So true. But there are many that are guaranteed success. Like battery technology.

I know we can't just let families lose their livelihood. And an all or nothing plan is wrong. In other words, I think spending the amount we've spent to bail out some of the faltering companies is not a good thing. Maybe unemployment for a period of time in which startups can become fully functional. Otherwise we're possibly going to end up with crap products from GM, instead of building a technology infrastructure that will benefit all companies and all Americans. I don't think the stimulus plan is heavy enough in these other departments. Far more is needed in getting us off of petroleum. And that is far far more important than I can even mention politely here. Unemployment pales in comparison.

[msongs]

16. yes, time to kill the internal combustion engine cold dead asap nt

[jwirr]

18. We are facing two crises: banking and housing. Startups may give

the banks a better return on investments but they will not stop the foreclosure problems. We may be angry at GM but we are not angry at their workers. If this economic crisis had never happened it would have been possible to finance new startups and bring about the kind of change we need slowly but we now have people in need involved and they need to be rescued. If they are not rescued we will be spending more money on their support: unemployment, food stamps, rent subsidies, family supports, etc. If it comes to that then we will have little money left over to start anything so we are being forced to help those old companies.

[leftstreet]

17. We need to create a few million Civil Service jobs

Fuck the Capitalists