Another Flawed Bailout

I work in the film industry, and one thing I take for granted from time to time is America's demand for entertainment. Film and television employs millions of workers directly and indirectly in Hollywood. Los Angeles would be an oversized orange grove otherwise. So as Congressional Democrats look to bail out Chrysler, GM, and Ford with $25 billion in loans to "save" the auto industry, and treasury Secretary Paulson continues to pump-fake his economic rescue plan, no one has stopped to think about what would happen if America stopped watching t.v. and picked up a book. The WGA strike last summer gave Los Angeles a small taste of economic recession, and mama didn't like. Many of us spent months subsisting on coffee and grilled cheese sandwiches while writers marched outside studios, and though they received much support for their cause, workers at the bottom end of the movie-making spectrum struggled to make ends meet.

But seriously, what would happen if America needed substantially less, or at least substantially better, film and television? Some would argue that that's already the case. So imagine for a moment Los Angeles really dried up. Who would all the caterers feed? Where would all those Teamsters stand? Who would the PA's get coffee for? Millions of people in the area would be unemployed, followed by mass exodus, and Los Angeles might start to look like, well, like something out of a movie featuring Kurt Russell (see Escape from LA).

Realistically, though, if Warner Brothers, Sony, Paramount, et al. ever went under because they were too inept to produce material that people wanted to watch, I hesitate to suggest that they should get financially bailed out simply because an industry of workers depends on their survival. Sure it would be tough to find work for a while, but inevitably someone else would develop better, sexier, and more dangerous products that would attract viewers again. Money and property would change hands, Teamsters would still grumble about their commute from Santa Clarita, and business would go on as usual, because a healthy America will always want to see people similar to ourselves doing sexier, more dangerous things that we don't have time to do on the average weeknight.

For the auto industry, this isn't just a fantastical scenario. Detroit also employs millions of people and produces vehicles that many Americans rely on, and unfortunately, right now we aren't buying what they're selling. Part of the problem has to do with gas prices strangling a middle-class that's already stretched thin in an economic crisis, but another part of the problem is self-inflicted. Automakers' new "fuel efficient" car models that are being foisted on consumers barely tip 34 mpg. My 1982 BMW gets better gas mileage.

And it's hardly the best product automakers could have offered. I urge those interested to go online and type into any search engine "gas vapor technology." You'll find dozens of links to different mom and pop companies designing vehicles that reach 80+ mpg. The technology has been available for many, many years, but the "Big Three" in the American auto industry failed to implement it into new designs and thereby failed to offer mainstream consumers a competitive product. Their choice was the Hollywood equivalent of hoping America would want to see another cheap, light-hearted romance comedy starring Ben Affleck, when in actuality we wanted a dynamic action-thriller with Matt Damon (see Gigli and The Bourne Identity. Actually, just see The Bourne Identity).

It's irresponsible for Congress to protect a lazy oligarchy of American car manufacturers that insisted on producing products with outdated technology that Americans now can't afford to operate. How sympathetic would we be if Panasonic went under because they decided to continue pushing tape decks. In the wake of the so-called Big Three's failure, smart investors and clever entrepreneurs who invested in newer automotive technology should be allowed to rise to the top of their industry. We can't afford to promote impractical auto-making in a financially and climate-threatened world.

So let the Big Three go under, and let them accept the responsibility for directly and indirectly letting down three million workers (if the numbers thrown around are accurate). Those autoworkers will eventually find new jobs with new companies making and servicing cars that Americans can afford to drive and that our climate can endure. Sure, it will be tough for a while, but inevitably money and property will change hands, Teamsters will still complain about their commute from Santa Clarita, and business will go on as usual. Because most Americans will still need a car even if it's only to get them to a movie theater, preferably one that gets better gas mileage than an '82 BMW.