After the government’s bailout of Chrysler in 1979 – a then-mind-boggling $1.5 billion undertaking -- Lee Iaccoca famously said, “If you can find a better car, buy it.” Subsequent droves of prospective GM buyers have heeded this trenchant advice, and acted accordingly. And so GM, underwater to the staggering tune of $90 billion, has finally tossed in the towel.
But in all the reportage of GM’s bankruptcy, precious little is being said of a root cause of the debacle. This is not, as might be thought, anything so abstract as brand identity dilution, or as arcane as GM’s wage/benefits competitive disadvantage, or as simply boneheaded as hiring gumshoes to dig up dirt on Ralph Nader, although all have contributed to The General’s demise No, this cause of GM’s decline from over half of the U.S. auto market to something under a fifth and a share price that won’t buy a cup of coffee is simply that car buyers, to an increasingly large extent, haven’t wanted to buy any of the passenger vehicles the company over-enthusiastically cranked out.
This seems odd on its face. You might think that a corporate entity with GM’s resources would have had the presence of mind and the ability to hire the wizards to plumb the depths of consumers’ automotive likes and dislikes, then build a product reflecting same and price it somewhere in the area of reasonable value-for-money. You might think, but evidently you would be wrong.
This is, after all – a phrase with a sadly relevant ring -- a company that brought to the unsuspecting and subsequently unimpressed auto market such triumphs as the Pontiac Aztek, the Cadillac Cimarron, and the Chevrolet Corvair . What could they possibly have been thinking?
Well, here’s what they weren’t thinking. To an appalling and eventually fatal degree, they weren’t thinking anywhere nearly enough like the people who decide they need new four-wheel transportation, look at some ads, do some research, talk to some friends, maybe go to a car show, check out a dealer or two, then sign up for a long series of monthly payments, drive their new pride and joy home from the dealer and park it proudly in their driveway. At which point, far too often in the case of GM products, it all starts to fall apart. At least figuratively,
Because while any number of car enthusiast publications and websites spin out performance numbers, the measurement that often matters most is how the buggy performs parked in front of its owner’s house. Does it support, even promote the owner’s self-image? Does it attract appreciative, even envious attention from the neighbors? And does it do so to an extent sufficient to sell enough copies to support the mind-bogglingly complex operation that is GM?.
Evidently not. A major reason for which is to be found on the streets of the U.S. auto industry’s hometown, the Motor City, Detroit. Or better, on the leafy avenues and lanes of Detroit’s suburbs where dwell the executives responsible, virtually always in committee, for saying, “Yup – this one’s as good as we can make it. Let’s crank up the production lines.” And who, at the end of their workday descend to the garage of their headquarters where, if a chauffeured limo does not await, they climb into a current-year, company-provided car which will have been washed, fueled and serviced by and at the company’s expense. And who, as a result, have only the gauziest understanding of how their supposed customers actually deal with, and relate to their products. If GM’s managers and friends – and Detroit is nothing if not a company town – drive the same cars in the same other-worldly fashion, how could they possibly appreciate, let alone anticipate the lack of buyer enthusiasm which regularly met GM’s product offerings?
Saturn, which GM launched with such optimistic fervor in 1990, was billed as “A different kind of car, from a different kind of company.” Although some 500 miles from Detroit, the new Saturn plant in Spring Hill, Tennessee was insufficiently distant to avoid the effects of GM’s fatal disconnect with its market. GM announced the plant will be one of two put on “standby” this fall, ready to resume production at some indefinite future date. As if.
Thursday, June 11, 2009
Monday, May 18, 2009
The Real Story
As we stumble about in the financial apocalyptic wilderness, thanks should be given for those too brief moments of frivolity and mirth, without which our days would be indeed drear. Most recently, such entertainment has been generously provided by the leaders, spokespeople, apologists, camp followers, and enablers associated with the Republican party. Not that they are a numerically impressive band, mind you. But clearly its members have taken with a vengeance to the notion that having nothing to say and saying it loudly go hand in hand.
So we have the present spectacle of the GOP waxing wroth over Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi’s efforts to clear the record on what she was, or wasn’t told by her CIA briefers and when she was, or wasn’t told it. As an attempt to divert attention, this is world class. The good Speaker will presumably sort out her stories and be judged, as is right and proper, by her Congressional colleagues and constituents. What is of nearly infinitely greater moment is the issue that gave rise to the Speaker’s discomfiture in the first place, that being the imposition of torture on detainees by and in the name of the U.S.
At the outset, it would be well to dispense with the prissy labeling of this practice as “enhanced interrogation techniques.” George Orwell couldn’t have done better. Beyond conjuring an anodyne name, those responsible for this long-playing horror show were evidently sufficiently concerned by what they were doing to be guided – exonerated before the fact, if you will – by legal opinions the logic of which was no less tortured than those subjected to the grotesque allowed practices.
But still come those, the former Vice President leading the pack, who claim the ends justified the means, and that the absence of a repetition of 9/11 is proof positive and ample justification for whatever was done. Against this outrageous position stand several arguments against the use of torture:
It’s illegal. A Nixonian (or, distressingly, Condoleezian) “If the President does it, that makes it legal” justification notwithstanding, torture – as the term is commonly understood – is prohibited by, among other strictures, the Geneva Convention. In 1947 a Japanese officer was tried, convicted and sentenced to 15 years hard labor for waterboarding a U.S. citizen.
It doesn’t work. Two “high value” Al Qaeda prisoners were subjected to 183 and 83 applications of waterboarding. One might wonder what fresh information was likely to be offered up after the 10th session. Let alone the 50th. Or 150th. Asked in 2008 if “enhanced interrogation techniques” had been effective, Robert Mueller, the Bush-appointed Director of the FBI, said, “I don’t believe that has been the case.”
It’s counter-productive. Beyond serving as an A+ recruitment tool for our enemies, the U.S. use of torture has been roundly condemned by our allies, even to the extent, in the specific case of Turkey, of inhibiting our Middle East military efforts. Even more distressingly and damaging, abandonment of the higher moral ground compromises our ability to lead by example, to engage in useful diplomacy, in fact to do much at all in pursuit of our legitimate interests in ways that don’t involve blowing things and people up. And by what right could we protest the inhuman treatment of a U.S. citizen by some unfriendly nation when we ourselves have done no less?
There are alternatives. In the real life, far away from Jack Bauer’s fantasy world, the elicitation of information from those who would initially rather withhold it is a practice about as old as hills. See, for example, any police drama or real-life practice. Someway, somehow, the commonweal has managed to survive an endless series of enemies, not to mention their lawyers, without resorting to the thumbscrews. A CIA officer offered this nice distinction: “If you torture a suspect, he may tell you the location of his safe house. If you befriend him, he may tell you it’s booby-trapped.”
So let’s review. Torture is a bad idea because it’s illegal, doesn’t work, is counter-productive, and has alternatives. And that, not Nancy’s self-justifications, is the real story.
So we have the present spectacle of the GOP waxing wroth over Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi’s efforts to clear the record on what she was, or wasn’t told by her CIA briefers and when she was, or wasn’t told it. As an attempt to divert attention, this is world class. The good Speaker will presumably sort out her stories and be judged, as is right and proper, by her Congressional colleagues and constituents. What is of nearly infinitely greater moment is the issue that gave rise to the Speaker’s discomfiture in the first place, that being the imposition of torture on detainees by and in the name of the U.S.
At the outset, it would be well to dispense with the prissy labeling of this practice as “enhanced interrogation techniques.” George Orwell couldn’t have done better. Beyond conjuring an anodyne name, those responsible for this long-playing horror show were evidently sufficiently concerned by what they were doing to be guided – exonerated before the fact, if you will – by legal opinions the logic of which was no less tortured than those subjected to the grotesque allowed practices.
But still come those, the former Vice President leading the pack, who claim the ends justified the means, and that the absence of a repetition of 9/11 is proof positive and ample justification for whatever was done. Against this outrageous position stand several arguments against the use of torture:
It’s illegal. A Nixonian (or, distressingly, Condoleezian) “If the President does it, that makes it legal” justification notwithstanding, torture – as the term is commonly understood – is prohibited by, among other strictures, the Geneva Convention. In 1947 a Japanese officer was tried, convicted and sentenced to 15 years hard labor for waterboarding a U.S. citizen.
It doesn’t work. Two “high value” Al Qaeda prisoners were subjected to 183 and 83 applications of waterboarding. One might wonder what fresh information was likely to be offered up after the 10th session. Let alone the 50th. Or 150th. Asked in 2008 if “enhanced interrogation techniques” had been effective, Robert Mueller, the Bush-appointed Director of the FBI, said, “I don’t believe that has been the case.”
It’s counter-productive. Beyond serving as an A+ recruitment tool for our enemies, the U.S. use of torture has been roundly condemned by our allies, even to the extent, in the specific case of Turkey, of inhibiting our Middle East military efforts. Even more distressingly and damaging, abandonment of the higher moral ground compromises our ability to lead by example, to engage in useful diplomacy, in fact to do much at all in pursuit of our legitimate interests in ways that don’t involve blowing things and people up. And by what right could we protest the inhuman treatment of a U.S. citizen by some unfriendly nation when we ourselves have done no less?
There are alternatives. In the real life, far away from Jack Bauer’s fantasy world, the elicitation of information from those who would initially rather withhold it is a practice about as old as hills. See, for example, any police drama or real-life practice. Someway, somehow, the commonweal has managed to survive an endless series of enemies, not to mention their lawyers, without resorting to the thumbscrews. A CIA officer offered this nice distinction: “If you torture a suspect, he may tell you the location of his safe house. If you befriend him, he may tell you it’s booby-trapped.”
So let’s review. Torture is a bad idea because it’s illegal, doesn’t work, is counter-productive, and has alternatives. And that, not Nancy’s self-justifications, is the real story.
Thursday, March 19, 2009
The New Scarlet Letter
Poor Ed Liddy. Hauled before a Congressional subcommittee yesterday he must have felt like the object of a multi-player Whack-a-Mole game. He took offense at one comment, only to have his interlocutor confirm that such was exactly his intention in making it. The disclosure of receipt of death threats by AIG employees was acknowledged, but probably not with such reassurance that the potential targets are eager to venture from their houses.
After a full dose of this verbal mutilation, Mr. Liddy offered that he was encouraging bonus recipients whose salary exceeded $100,000 to return half the bonus money. Too little, and likely too late, as the witch hunt for any half-plausibly responsible party continues. Hardly a wonder that the President has temporarily abandoned the capital fortress for the more congenial venues of a Los Angeles suburb town meeting and an appearance on the Tonight Show.
But ol’ Ed may be on to something. As Andrew Cuomo, New York State’s Attorney General seems intent on determining, those having pocketed the bonuses may have little protection from public disclosure of their names and respective extraordinary emoluments. Save of course, the seemingly attractive defense of having, after due consideration, returned them in their entirety.
As every parent knows, the instillation of desired juvenile behavior involves the careful application of both positive and negative reinforcement. And what, even allowing for the presumed adulthood of the AIG’ers at issue could be more conducive to subsequent right action, not to mention recouping the bonus money, and quelling the unseemly rush to judgment and execution of sentence, the latter two not necessarily in that order?
Surely not all eyes will weep for those with salaries of $100,000 having to make due without what were, in numerous cases, bonuses of stupefying magnitude. The total bonus pool of $165 million was spread over 418 employees – an average of just under $400,000 each and every one. And while some poor souls fell below that figure, fully 73 became first-time, or more likely multimillionaires.
After a brief period to allow calm reflection by those involved, AIG should accede to Congress’s request for the names of the 418 with salaries over $100,000, along with the amount of their bonus and, crucially, how much if not all has been returned.
One would hope those making the generous, not to mention prudent decision would be properly recognized, perhaps even partially exonerated for their past roles in leading AIG over the brink. For those choosing otherwise, well, the resulting scarlet letter might be more figurative than Hester Prynne’s, but might better serve to identify and shame.
After a full dose of this verbal mutilation, Mr. Liddy offered that he was encouraging bonus recipients whose salary exceeded $100,000 to return half the bonus money. Too little, and likely too late, as the witch hunt for any half-plausibly responsible party continues. Hardly a wonder that the President has temporarily abandoned the capital fortress for the more congenial venues of a Los Angeles suburb town meeting and an appearance on the Tonight Show.
But ol’ Ed may be on to something. As Andrew Cuomo, New York State’s Attorney General seems intent on determining, those having pocketed the bonuses may have little protection from public disclosure of their names and respective extraordinary emoluments. Save of course, the seemingly attractive defense of having, after due consideration, returned them in their entirety.
As every parent knows, the instillation of desired juvenile behavior involves the careful application of both positive and negative reinforcement. And what, even allowing for the presumed adulthood of the AIG’ers at issue could be more conducive to subsequent right action, not to mention recouping the bonus money, and quelling the unseemly rush to judgment and execution of sentence, the latter two not necessarily in that order?
Surely not all eyes will weep for those with salaries of $100,000 having to make due without what were, in numerous cases, bonuses of stupefying magnitude. The total bonus pool of $165 million was spread over 418 employees – an average of just under $400,000 each and every one. And while some poor souls fell below that figure, fully 73 became first-time, or more likely multimillionaires.
After a brief period to allow calm reflection by those involved, AIG should accede to Congress’s request for the names of the 418 with salaries over $100,000, along with the amount of their bonus and, crucially, how much if not all has been returned.
One would hope those making the generous, not to mention prudent decision would be properly recognized, perhaps even partially exonerated for their past roles in leading AIG over the brink. For those choosing otherwise, well, the resulting scarlet letter might be more figurative than Hester Prynne’s, but might better serve to identify and shame.
Madness
No, not the seasonal celebration of collegiate team ability to put a ball into a netted basket. We refer rather to the sentiment so memorably ellucidated by Howard Beale in “Network:” “I’m mad as hell and I’m not going to take this any more!”
Bringing these references to mind is, of course, the ongoing spectacle occasioned by payment of outsized bonuses to many of the very same AIG worthies responsible for bringing the global financial house of cards down around their – and our ears. It develops that AIG, having been showered with $200 billion in an as-yet unsuccessful effort to keep it vaguely afloat, dispensed some $165 million in bonuses to 418 lucky employees. And former employees, as 52 of the recipients no longer grace AIG’s payroll, a fact which somewhat undercuts the rationalization of the bonuses as necessary to prevent the slow-motion train wreck that is AIG from doing further damage. Politicians of every stripe are lining up for their sound bites expressing outrage at this unconscionable perversion of something or other, vowing to take all steps necessary to rescind the bonuses while their recipients, in one of the more extreme scenarios, are encouraged to fall on their ceremonial swords. Presumably in full public view.
Well, we’re all mad as hell. Politicians have no monopoly on anger at how a tiny group of individuals gamed the system for their own pecuniary benefit while the supposed regulators, perhaps mesmerized by a 14,000 Dow and beguiled by the apparent endless success of a let-‘er-rip approach to market oversight ignored any and all signs of an impending catastrophe and even the too-rare expert warnings.
If outrage could be monetized, this crisis would be over by lunch. But as we sharpen our poleaxes and head off for the castle in search of retribution and the heads of those responsible for, or at least proximate to the problem, some caution might be advisable.
Among the redresses being loudly advocated, including by some who should know better (front and center, Representatives Maloney and Frank) is the ex post facto voiding of the contracts under which the bonuses were paid. Or the imposition of a confiscatory tax rate on the misbegotten gains. While perhaps momentarily satisfying, these steps and similar others run a serious risk of exacerbating the problem.
Consider. The U.S. Government, through whatever agency matters not, undertakes to invalidate a legal document on the basis of its having regrettable, unforeseen results. Or, displeased with the financial doings of one or more of its citizens, subjects them to retroactive taxes on some portion of their income arbitrarily deemed offensive.
You want madness? The quick result would be a total destruction of any confidence in any undertaking, financial or otherwise, more complex than immediate barter. The notion of, for example, “full faith and credit” would be supplanted by Humpty Dumpty’s rather more flexible: “When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.” By these lights, a $10,000 U.S. Treasury note could, on a bureaucratic whim, be revalued at $50. The wretched citizens of Zimbabwe are too experienced with this sort of economic chaos, and theirs is a situation no sane person would welcome. Confidence that the vast amount of U.S. debt the Chinese hold is critical to their continued willingness to do so, and their disposal thereof would make the current meltdown look like a pleasant picnic in the park in late spring.
Let’s hold off on the mindless rage. At least before lining up the firing squad, let’s make sure it’s not in a circular formation.
Bringing these references to mind is, of course, the ongoing spectacle occasioned by payment of outsized bonuses to many of the very same AIG worthies responsible for bringing the global financial house of cards down around their – and our ears. It develops that AIG, having been showered with $200 billion in an as-yet unsuccessful effort to keep it vaguely afloat, dispensed some $165 million in bonuses to 418 lucky employees. And former employees, as 52 of the recipients no longer grace AIG’s payroll, a fact which somewhat undercuts the rationalization of the bonuses as necessary to prevent the slow-motion train wreck that is AIG from doing further damage. Politicians of every stripe are lining up for their sound bites expressing outrage at this unconscionable perversion of something or other, vowing to take all steps necessary to rescind the bonuses while their recipients, in one of the more extreme scenarios, are encouraged to fall on their ceremonial swords. Presumably in full public view.
Well, we’re all mad as hell. Politicians have no monopoly on anger at how a tiny group of individuals gamed the system for their own pecuniary benefit while the supposed regulators, perhaps mesmerized by a 14,000 Dow and beguiled by the apparent endless success of a let-‘er-rip approach to market oversight ignored any and all signs of an impending catastrophe and even the too-rare expert warnings.
If outrage could be monetized, this crisis would be over by lunch. But as we sharpen our poleaxes and head off for the castle in search of retribution and the heads of those responsible for, or at least proximate to the problem, some caution might be advisable.
Among the redresses being loudly advocated, including by some who should know better (front and center, Representatives Maloney and Frank) is the ex post facto voiding of the contracts under which the bonuses were paid. Or the imposition of a confiscatory tax rate on the misbegotten gains. While perhaps momentarily satisfying, these steps and similar others run a serious risk of exacerbating the problem.
Consider. The U.S. Government, through whatever agency matters not, undertakes to invalidate a legal document on the basis of its having regrettable, unforeseen results. Or, displeased with the financial doings of one or more of its citizens, subjects them to retroactive taxes on some portion of their income arbitrarily deemed offensive.
You want madness? The quick result would be a total destruction of any confidence in any undertaking, financial or otherwise, more complex than immediate barter. The notion of, for example, “full faith and credit” would be supplanted by Humpty Dumpty’s rather more flexible: “When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.” By these lights, a $10,000 U.S. Treasury note could, on a bureaucratic whim, be revalued at $50. The wretched citizens of Zimbabwe are too experienced with this sort of economic chaos, and theirs is a situation no sane person would welcome. Confidence that the vast amount of U.S. debt the Chinese hold is critical to their continued willingness to do so, and their disposal thereof would make the current meltdown look like a pleasant picnic in the park in late spring.
Let’s hold off on the mindless rage. At least before lining up the firing squad, let’s make sure it’s not in a circular formation.
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Nobody Knows Anything
To be accurate, the headline phrase, penned by screenwriter William Goldman some twenty years ago, referred to the entertainment industry. But it seems a pretty decent description of the current situation back here in the real world. In a recent example, it emerges that Merrill Lynch and its then soon-to-be owner Bank of America made a minor mistake in their assessment of the former’s projected earnings for the last quarter of 2008. This was, you will recall, the period immediately prior to the year-end consummation on the deal, when a cool $3.6 billion in bonuses was being distributed to top-level Merrill executives. Perhaps distracted by the size of their windfalls, these same geniuses were somehow a bit off in their estimate of Merrill’s quarterly loss. By about 100%, as it turned out. Instead of losing $8.3 billion – oops – turned out to be $15.3 billion.
Let’s pause for a moment to consider. The bonuses represented almost half of the originally projected quarterly loss. (For all of 2008, if you were wondering, the loss was $27 billion.) At the risk of cynicism, one might think the estimated loss error was intentional. “Hey, good news! Our bonuses were only a quarter of our losses, not half like we originally thought.”
Not that Merrill didn’t – and doesn’t – have multitudinous company in the ongoing perp walk of humbled former financial masters of the universe. New York City’s offer to provide retraining for those unwillingly separated from the Wall Street lush life risks becoming the kind of mob-scene usually associated with the distribution of free money, an act which, come to think, it vaguely resembles.
Meanwhile, 230 miles away at the southern end of the BosWash corridor, those we would hope are the current generation’s brightest and best are feverishly putting the finishing touches on the next iteration of the final, comprehensive package designed to restore confidence in the financial markets, end the housing crisis, bail out the auto companies (and any other industry with a lobbyist worth his salt), fix healthcare, rebuild the infrastructure, improve education, reduce global warming and, for good measure, put a chicken in every pot.
Maybe not that last one. “A chicken in every pot” was one part of a Herbert Hoover slogan during his successful 1928 Presidential campaign. But the other was “a car in every garage,” which as an idea might be a bit more useful. It’s hard to get a grip on an accurate number, but Treasury officials have recently indicated willingness to pump as much as $2.5 trillion (that’s “trillion” with a “t”) into the financial system. Besides representing a very tall stack of hundred-dollar bills, that amount would cover a $21,000 payment to each and every U.S. household – enough for a pretty decent set of new wheels, the production of which would certainly improve the health of the auto industry. Sounds like a plan.
But then I probably don’t know anything, either.
Let’s pause for a moment to consider. The bonuses represented almost half of the originally projected quarterly loss. (For all of 2008, if you were wondering, the loss was $27 billion.) At the risk of cynicism, one might think the estimated loss error was intentional. “Hey, good news! Our bonuses were only a quarter of our losses, not half like we originally thought.”
Not that Merrill didn’t – and doesn’t – have multitudinous company in the ongoing perp walk of humbled former financial masters of the universe. New York City’s offer to provide retraining for those unwillingly separated from the Wall Street lush life risks becoming the kind of mob-scene usually associated with the distribution of free money, an act which, come to think, it vaguely resembles.
Meanwhile, 230 miles away at the southern end of the BosWash corridor, those we would hope are the current generation’s brightest and best are feverishly putting the finishing touches on the next iteration of the final, comprehensive package designed to restore confidence in the financial markets, end the housing crisis, bail out the auto companies (and any other industry with a lobbyist worth his salt), fix healthcare, rebuild the infrastructure, improve education, reduce global warming and, for good measure, put a chicken in every pot.
Maybe not that last one. “A chicken in every pot” was one part of a Herbert Hoover slogan during his successful 1928 Presidential campaign. But the other was “a car in every garage,” which as an idea might be a bit more useful. It’s hard to get a grip on an accurate number, but Treasury officials have recently indicated willingness to pump as much as $2.5 trillion (that’s “trillion” with a “t”) into the financial system. Besides representing a very tall stack of hundred-dollar bills, that amount would cover a $21,000 payment to each and every U.S. household – enough for a pretty decent set of new wheels, the production of which would certainly improve the health of the auto industry. Sounds like a plan.
But then I probably don’t know anything, either.
Thursday, February 12, 2009
Guantanamo Redux
OK, here’s the plan. With President Obama’s welcome announcement that those currently detained at Guantanamo will be moved out in the foreseeable future, we’re stuck with the question of what to do with the place.
Leased in perpetuity over a hundred years ago as a base for naval operations in the then-dangerous Caribbean, it has long provided a convenient thorn in Cuba’s side as we await the demise of the First Secretary of the Communist Party. Not to mention the party. More recently, the treatment of Gitmo's involuntary residents has surely been a glowing example to Cubans of our government’s abiding respect for the law and due process. Then again, perhaps not.
But we digress. Having been transformed at who knows what expense – presumably little local labor was involved – into a facility for the extended confinement of those too dangerous to be allowed their freedom, why not put it to use as a long term residence for the financial masters of the universe recently responsible for the devastation of Wall Street, Main Street, and every avenue in between?
Certainly if some poor soul scooped up in the Tribal Areas of Pakistan and for all anyone knows for sure guilty of nothing more than bad luck can languish there for years, a sojourn at Guantanamo should be just the thing for the likes of Richard Fuld, who earned every penny of his $45 million salary presiding over the Lehman Brothers train wreck. Or John Thain, who as CEO of Merrill Lynch just before its fire sale at the end of a quarter when it chalked up a $15.3 billion loss made sure he and some 700 other swells divvied up $3.6 billion in bonuses. (While Mr. Thain might have some difficulty adjusting to the use of standard government facilities after having, if only briefly, use of his famous $1.2 million re-decorated office, surely the balmy temperature and tropical breezes would more than redress the balance.)
While we’re at it, a newly christened Guantanamo Club Fed would be just the place for Bernie Madoff. And how about the wizards of finance who developed and promoted like free pizza a mind-numbing array of financial instruments so arcane and far removed from anything with any tangible characteristics that for the most part they didn’t understand themselves what they were selling? Or the putative regulators and rating agency employees whose lack of attention or comprehension or both allowed the game to continue far beyond the departure of the last solvent player? Or the brokers only too eager to stuff unfortunates into houses with wildly inappropriate mortgages they had no hope of maintaining let alone ever paying off, even under the most pie-in-the-sky circumstances?
Wait a minute. That’s a lot of people. Maybe we should see if Fidel and Raul are open to expanding the lease.
Leased in perpetuity over a hundred years ago as a base for naval operations in the then-dangerous Caribbean, it has long provided a convenient thorn in Cuba’s side as we await the demise of the First Secretary of the Communist Party. Not to mention the party. More recently, the treatment of Gitmo's involuntary residents has surely been a glowing example to Cubans of our government’s abiding respect for the law and due process. Then again, perhaps not.
But we digress. Having been transformed at who knows what expense – presumably little local labor was involved – into a facility for the extended confinement of those too dangerous to be allowed their freedom, why not put it to use as a long term residence for the financial masters of the universe recently responsible for the devastation of Wall Street, Main Street, and every avenue in between?
Certainly if some poor soul scooped up in the Tribal Areas of Pakistan and for all anyone knows for sure guilty of nothing more than bad luck can languish there for years, a sojourn at Guantanamo should be just the thing for the likes of Richard Fuld, who earned every penny of his $45 million salary presiding over the Lehman Brothers train wreck. Or John Thain, who as CEO of Merrill Lynch just before its fire sale at the end of a quarter when it chalked up a $15.3 billion loss made sure he and some 700 other swells divvied up $3.6 billion in bonuses. (While Mr. Thain might have some difficulty adjusting to the use of standard government facilities after having, if only briefly, use of his famous $1.2 million re-decorated office, surely the balmy temperature and tropical breezes would more than redress the balance.)
While we’re at it, a newly christened Guantanamo Club Fed would be just the place for Bernie Madoff. And how about the wizards of finance who developed and promoted like free pizza a mind-numbing array of financial instruments so arcane and far removed from anything with any tangible characteristics that for the most part they didn’t understand themselves what they were selling? Or the putative regulators and rating agency employees whose lack of attention or comprehension or both allowed the game to continue far beyond the departure of the last solvent player? Or the brokers only too eager to stuff unfortunates into houses with wildly inappropriate mortgages they had no hope of maintaining let alone ever paying off, even under the most pie-in-the-sky circumstances?
Wait a minute. That’s a lot of people. Maybe we should see if Fidel and Raul are open to expanding the lease.
Thursday, February 5, 2009
HE’S B-A-A-A-A-CK
Near the end of almost every horror movie, there’s a moment when the good people have finally triumphed over the monster who (or which) has been tormenting them for the past hour and a half or so. General jubilation, uplifting music, and wait for the credit roll. But wait!
The monster’s not completely dead! Rising from its presumed final resting place, the monster goes one more round with the good folk before finally, permanently succumbing.
This tired dramatic cliché came to mind with the recent appearance of Dick Cheney’s first interview since he slithered out of office. Not content to let as much as a month go by before rising from his figurative crypt – no doubt in some undisclosed location – to defend himself and attack anyone so foolish as to disagree with him, the previously aptly named ‘Vice” hoisted his broadsword and heaved once again into battle with his enemies.
Which includes pretty much everyone, but most especially those now occupying the positions of power Cheney & Co. so recently vacated. One suspects that with their inevitable repetition, his efforts at self-justification will become simply tedious. For just now, however, their outlandish audacity can amaze.
For example, “If you release the hard-core Al-Qaeda terrorists that are held at Guantanamo, I think they go back into the business of trying to kill more Americans and mount further mass-casualty attacks. If you turn ’em loose and they go kill more Americans, who’s responsible for that?”
Who indeed? Isn’t it at least a reasonable possibility that what might drive a released Guantanamo resident to mayhem is the experience of having been bundled off to the place, held for years with no recourse to anything even vaguely resembling due process. “Well, you see how it is, Omar. Some tribal leader picked you up, sold you to the CIA for a bounty, which we paid figuring that anyone carrying a pen knife in the hills of Whatchamacallitstan is clearly up to no good and in all likelihood at least middle-level Al-Qaeda. So you were shuffled down some malign underground railroad and ended up a guest of the U.S. Government in Cuba for the past six years. No trial, no contact with your family, no hope the nightmare would end. But hey! No hard feelings, huh?”
Or, following Cheney’s pretzel logic, are we prepared to hold these individuals indefinitely? A more effective jihadi recruitment tool does not readily come to mind.
There’s more. “Those policies we put in place (terrorist surveillance, “enhanced” interrogation, the Patriot Act), in my opinion, were absolutely crucial to getting us through the last seven-plus years without a major-casualty attack on the U.S.” Surely this deserves a gold medal for specious reasoning, served up with a healthy side order of “We know what’s best.” Can it be seriously argued at this late date that the actions of Team Cheney over the past eight years were the best way of achieving our security? And at what cost? This year marks the semiquincentennial anniversary of a germane observation by one Benjamin Franklin: “They who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
As for Cheney, roll credits. The show’s over.
The monster’s not completely dead! Rising from its presumed final resting place, the monster goes one more round with the good folk before finally, permanently succumbing.
This tired dramatic cliché came to mind with the recent appearance of Dick Cheney’s first interview since he slithered out of office. Not content to let as much as a month go by before rising from his figurative crypt – no doubt in some undisclosed location – to defend himself and attack anyone so foolish as to disagree with him, the previously aptly named ‘Vice” hoisted his broadsword and heaved once again into battle with his enemies.
Which includes pretty much everyone, but most especially those now occupying the positions of power Cheney & Co. so recently vacated. One suspects that with their inevitable repetition, his efforts at self-justification will become simply tedious. For just now, however, their outlandish audacity can amaze.
For example, “If you release the hard-core Al-Qaeda terrorists that are held at Guantanamo, I think they go back into the business of trying to kill more Americans and mount further mass-casualty attacks. If you turn ’em loose and they go kill more Americans, who’s responsible for that?”
Who indeed? Isn’t it at least a reasonable possibility that what might drive a released Guantanamo resident to mayhem is the experience of having been bundled off to the place, held for years with no recourse to anything even vaguely resembling due process. “Well, you see how it is, Omar. Some tribal leader picked you up, sold you to the CIA for a bounty, which we paid figuring that anyone carrying a pen knife in the hills of Whatchamacallitstan is clearly up to no good and in all likelihood at least middle-level Al-Qaeda. So you were shuffled down some malign underground railroad and ended up a guest of the U.S. Government in Cuba for the past six years. No trial, no contact with your family, no hope the nightmare would end. But hey! No hard feelings, huh?”
Or, following Cheney’s pretzel logic, are we prepared to hold these individuals indefinitely? A more effective jihadi recruitment tool does not readily come to mind.
There’s more. “Those policies we put in place (terrorist surveillance, “enhanced” interrogation, the Patriot Act), in my opinion, were absolutely crucial to getting us through the last seven-plus years without a major-casualty attack on the U.S.” Surely this deserves a gold medal for specious reasoning, served up with a healthy side order of “We know what’s best.” Can it be seriously argued at this late date that the actions of Team Cheney over the past eight years were the best way of achieving our security? And at what cost? This year marks the semiquincentennial anniversary of a germane observation by one Benjamin Franklin: “They who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
As for Cheney, roll credits. The show’s over.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)