Convert the Big Three into manufacturers of wind turbines, solar panels and all other forms of renewable energy. We have all of the cars and trucks we will need for the next 33 years. I use the transitive verb, because the Big Three won't do it themselves.

No slam against the previous poster for mentioning it, but I read it over and over. Does anyone have a credible source that explains why it is not scalable? It sounds fully scalable too me.

If you need 20 kilowatts for your house, you buy solar panels that can generate 20 kilowatts. If you need double the capacity you buy twice as many panels. If you need half the capacity, you buy half the number of panels. That sounds scalable to me. Nuclear? Coal? Gas? They ONLY work when you have plants that generate many, many megawatts.

The output of a solar (wind) powered plant would double if you doubled the number of panels (windmills). Again that IS scaling perfectly.

Can somebody provide a reference about what is meant when the statement is made that "Solar and Wind don't scale"? From what I can see, they scale PERFECTLY.

BAILOUTS ARE COMPLEX BEASTS

Here is a workable plan with common sense for the U.S. Auto Industry -

http://pacificgatepost.blogspot.com/2008/11/solution-for-detroit-gm-friends.html

Do not leave it to Paulson or Congress to come up with a creative plan or consider taxpayers' interests.

There is much creative talent hidden inside the U.S. Big 3 that has been smothered by mismanagement and the UAW.

Fusion is way in the future, but solar? wind? They are much closer, here are 2 articles from my area...

Belmar Unveils One of the Largest Solar Parking Structures in the

Western United States:

http://www.lakewood-colorado.org/PDFs/Belmar%20Dedication.pdf

Wind, solar bids surpass expectations

Developers give Xcel plans for 2,800 megawatts:

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/nov/04/wind-solar-bids-surpass-expectations/

And I have a co-worker who put solar panels on the roof of his home in Denver. It only provides a fraction of his electricity consumption, but it is a whole lot closer to reality than fusion.

Of course I know this is just a drop in the bucket, but these are real projects, implemented in the US, by real companies.

The attitude that people have toward the automakers demonstrates some very disturbing trends in our country.

The only way that workers anywhere got any kind of decent life was to stick together. A lot of liberal media types are starting to sound like a new aristocracy to me. In the past, reporters would automatically have taken the workers side. High wages? How much do you and the liberal elite make? This country was based on the middle class, that blue collar jobs with decent wages should be available.

Liberals decided that the Big 3 were not environmentalists. But don't millions of middle class employees qualify as an endangered species to protect? The Big 3 were not falling apart for a long time, until free trade introduced foreign cars with government paid health care. Japan has a closed market. They use it to perfect quality. We have an open market. Not surprisingly, it is now being flooded with slave labor, no environmental law products.

All workers in the U.S. are now in grave danger. Not just blue collar workers. What makes you think we should throw away manufacturing people? It is very high tech. That is how a competitive edge is kept. Why should we throw away 2 million jobs? The U.S. carmakers were trashed by business interests trying to destroy the unions. I own a GM car and it is great.

Do you still have healthcare, and sick days? Watch out, soon business will decide your labor is too expensive!

I agree we should think big. The job you save will be your own.

As an act of grace, let Google buy both GM and Ford, take the Fed loans, and undertake this Big Effort to get to Universal Hybrids, Solar Power, etc. etc.

Incredible situation and I agree with Mr. Leonard's characterization of this as amazing opportunity.

We need to send a message to the American car industry that now is the time for them to take the lead in green automotive innovation. Tell General Motors to re-brand and become Green Motors. Let them know it is okay now, that we believe in climate change now, that we're scared of peak oil now, that we like Smart Cars and like SUVs and hummers a little less, or at least, don't want to buy as many of them anymore. With or without a bailout, a bankruptcy, a restructuring, we need to do our part, as consumers, to push UP on the industry. Maybe this campaign thepoint.com/campaigns/save-general-motors-and-the-planet-at-the-same-time is the way to do it, maybe just thinking about the signal we send every time we buy. And they better listen!

I agree that in most cases thats exactly what happens.

But in GM's case, the bondholders stake (~$35 billion) is dwarfed by the "other" liabilities: deferred pension and healthcare costs - $80 billion. Essentially putting the US taxpayer on the hook for most of that through PBGC and the medicare system.

One way or another it looks as if the US taxpayer is going to get involved in owning some of the US automakers.

It seems to me, however, that it makes little sense for a traditional bankrupcy to take place: Without massive recapitalization, all that "erasing" GM's existing debts is going to do is put off, by five or ten years, their inevitable slide into irrelevance. And that time, GM, its factories, employees, and suppliers - may very well cease to exist.

The fact is that no amount of tinkering is going to prevent periodic crises like this. They are built into capitalism. Repeatedly over the past several centuries, great capitalist and mercantile powers have followed essentially the same trend: develop huge productive capacity through protective trade policies, amass enormous surplus capital, move production overseas, and focus on finance. Mega-finance breeds bubbles which inevitably burst. It happened to Spain, to the Netherlands, to England, to the US, to Japan, and now, again, to the US. Read Kevin Phillips's /Wealth and Democracy/.

But as long as we're tinkering, maybe breaking up the Big Three would be a good thing for the US. It would lower barriers to entry into the market and encourage smaller enterprises that would likely be more innovative. There would be considerable pain for workers, but that seems to be coming one way or another anyway.

Some of that could be offset by government infrastructure programs to shift us away from wasteful highway transportation and back to more efficient rail, as several people here have suggested.

The government should not bail out the financial industry. It should invest in infrastructure and production. Those things will produce more useful employment at better wages and return our economy to a more healthy basis.