Panic In Detroit

(Apologies to Bowie for the title. It's a reach, but I like the song and wanted to use it.)

Why is there so much vitriol directed towards Detroit over their potential government bailout, so much scrutiny of their recovery plans, when Wall Street - whose bailout is at least thirty times more expensive, and still counting! - gets off without any demands for recovery plans or ridiculous harping about their CEOs' modes of transportation? After all, the automakers actually produce something, it's not just money and paper changing hands. Maybe (call me cynical) it can be traced back to campaign contributions; there was a lot more money on Wall Street, some of which naturally found its way down to D.C. Maybe it's simply a question of bad timing - "bailout fatigue" on Capitol Hill - the Big Three are last to the window, so they have to beg for the leftovers. Or maybe they're simply easy targets. These companies obviously don't have the best reputation over the last 30 years. So even though they have, by all acounts, cleaned up there act a lot in the past five years or so, they're still being punished, fairly or not, for past mistakes and shortsightedness. Not that fairness has anything do do with this economic mess at this point - after Bear Stearns, AIG, Citigroup, et cetera, "fairness" hasn't been spotted around here in quite awhile.

But how did Detroit really get into this situation? Well, I'm not the biggest Malcolm Gladwell fan, but this article by the pop-statistician from The New Yorker two years ago explains the long history of the troubles in Motown (and for American industry, in general) better than anything else I've read recently.

The Dude and The Gray Lady

The Dude moves up in the world! (but is this a positive development?): a mention in the New York Times, with a focus on the Caucasian.