If Japan "cleaned our clocks" it is because the domestic three were saddled with unsustainable legacy costs, insane CAFE standards, and horrible work rules for North American assembly operations.

ISTR that GM was telling their stockholders that their benefits commitments were "fully funded". What happened? And didn't GM agree to those benefits because they didn't want to pay workers more in regular income?

What exactly is insane about CAFE standards? They were not very hard to meet, and lots of cars made elsewhere had no trouble meeting them. Perhaps GM should have spent more on product development and less on lobbying for relaxation of economy standards.

What really drove the last nail in GM's coffin was last year's spike in oil prices. GM had been getting almost all of their profits from oversized overpriced vehicles that people suddenly didn't want anymore. Did GM management somehow miss that fact that most of our oil comes from a very unstable part of the globe that has a history of frequent armed conflicts? How smart was it of them to put all their profit eggs into one basket that depended on oil staying cheap forever?

You really should look at this week's installment of Tom Tomorrow's "This Modern World". I think it's right up your alley.

So I ask- what is more painful? Making changes that are slightly uncomfortable in the short run, but ensure long term viability? Or "staying the course" (even if it's dead wrong) until things collapse around our ears?

These disasters aren't failures to the people who ran the companies.

Rick Wagoner (GM's recently-fired former CEO) is probably enjoying a very nice retirement, thanks to all the salary and bonus money he collected during the SUV boom.

Richard Fuld banked about a half-billion during his last 8 years as CEO of Lehman Bros.

I doubt these people think of the results as "failure", and I'm sure the next people who have opportunities to create similar successful (for themselves) failures won't hesitate to do so.

There's a low stretch in the street in front of my house that doesn't drain very well in heavy rain. It tends to flood during gullywashers, and the water can get a foot or more deep.

It seems that just about every time this happens, clowns come by in SUV's who think they can just plow through the "puddle". They get about halfway through and then their engines die because the ignition wires are soaked.

The funniest part is when they realize how deep the water really is. They don't seem to want to go wading to try to "do" something about their predicament, so they just sit there and look stupid.

I'll bet the thing Dick Cheney and friends fear most is a trial with the kind of judge that conservatives always say they want: One who reads the law literally.

... that Wall Street knows they can avoid jail by bribing congresscritters.

Shouldn't the people who choose to live in more dangerous areas pay higher insurance premiums? Why is that ever considered wrong?

Mr. Leonard pointed out that the insurance was very expensive, but I didn't notice any implication of wrongdoing in his words. All he seems to be saying is that maybe beach homes aren't worth the expense and hassle.

Only clear, concise, and direct answers will make a impact.

ISTR hearing lots of people giving clear, concise and direct answers that turned out to be completely wrong. Perhaps it's time that people learned that many big problems don't have nice simple easy-to-understand solutions, and that people who promise such solutions are idiots or liars.

Bringing the "service economy" back is going to require a lot of new "shitty" jobs to replace the old "shitty" jobs that are being shed as companies have made themselves lean ...

I think the "service economy" is a myth. Such an economy cannot survive by itself. It can only exist as a subset of a "real" economy that is driven by the actual creation of wealth.

Somebody once tried to describe the operation of a "service economy" to me. He said "I install carpets in your house for $5000, and you paint my house for $5000". The obvious problem is that this can't work. I have to buy paint, he has to buy carpeting, and we both have to have enough money left over to live on. Adding more players complicates the analysis but does not fix the problem. A "service economy" requires a continuous input of money from real wealth creation.

... I thought I might hear O'Reilly explain why this murder should not be called terrorism. However, this is Faux News, so we can be certain that question will never be aired.

Do what's right. For the country's future. For your children's future.

I suspect it's too late to save this mess. The time to act was decades ago, when we were being told that giving Wall Street everything they wanted was the best way to assure our prosperity.

They got everything they wanted, then they stole the rest. Now we're all screwed.

I am concerned about population growth. The impact of our activities is proportional to our numbers. Climate change wouldn't be an issue if there weren't so many of us.

I don't know if we can reverse climate change. I'm pretty sure that we CAN'T reverse it if we don't try. I think that the worst thing we can do right now is continue to invest in infrastructure that promotes the continuation of what we've been doing so far. Infrastructure has a pretty long lifetime, and the more wrong infrastructure we build, the more committed we become to our rush toward disaster. The investment in the mistake becomes a reason to make more of the same mistake.

As a first step, I'd like to see us stop making the problem worse.