Blue collar hell, white collar heaven. Follow the $$. Which paid more bribery, ur....., campaign contributions?

China has to get paid or they will take away our credit cards. That's why Wall street gets to be treated so easy.

The Economist magazine has put a lot of effort into arguing that banks are different than any other industry.

They recently described commercial banking (as opposed to investment banking) as a sort of utility. I think this is a good concept, and is basically summarized by one of the closing sentences in the above article:

And let's remember that notwithstanding the huge size of GM is and its centrality to the economy of the United States, the logistical complexities and downstream impact of a GM bankruptcy restructuring likely pale against those involved with a Citigroup or a Bank of America.

The loss of these services would be as disruptive as the loss of water or electricity. Basically, the banks are central to our monetary system...they are like government contractors in this sense.

Of course, this implies that the "utility" components of banks should be isolated from the more entrepreneurial aspects of the financial industry.

AL,

thanks for linking Simon Johnson's article in the Atlantic, important piece of work. yes, we have a long way to go.

something else to take a look at is the William Greider interview on Moyers--

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/03272009/profile.html

Just an FYI, Indiana has lost more auto/RV manufacturing jobs than either Ohio or Michigan. I don't know why the national media does not mention this. It's always "Michigan or Ohio." I raisde this issue because I want the rest of the US to know that Indiana is hurting too and our residents have been building and assembling the things that Americans purchase, not just grow the corn and soybeans that you eat.

Let's suppose there is some legal restriction on the use of TARP money, or that Congress placed restrictions on this. Of course some banks have tried to give TARP money back, but Treasury also pressed banks to take this money. Banks could be mandated to give enhanced consumer terms to buyers of domestic products. The question we might hear, is should the taxpayer be bailing out Toyota? I don't see how Obama can separate banks and the big three, and Congress may have a say in the matter.

Hurting GM hurts unions. Hurting Wall Street doesn't. Wall Street will continue to be handled with silk gloves as they loot the treasury for the greater good.

The auto industry is being treated like crap because the government blew the bank bailout badly (and yes that was largely under the previous regime). $350 billion poured down the drain and no one on main street can see or feel the benefit. Hundreds of billions more given to companies that give millions in bonues to their management staff. The political reality of the moment is that somebody has to get in it in the shorts to satisfy the public's need for blood.

To Washington, the auto industry fits the bill. Percieved by the public to be 'bloated' and beholden to overpayed union workers (damn those people who can afford THREE meals a day on their salary). With a reputation (deserved or not) of making poor products and not being able to innovate. And, most importantly, declining influence in Washington. They make a perfect target to vent frustration over failures elsewhere.

So the auto industry gets to die in place of the financial industry that caused most of our current problems.

It's no mystery what's wrong with the US auto industry. Legacy health care costs for the big three are crippling - a point that union-busters overlook when they talk about Toyota in the US, along with the different staffing management approach - all slack has been squeezed of the supply chain, etc., etc.

On the other hand, banks still using the opacity of deregulation to try and control the perception of their respective conditions. They are trying to avoid having to re-do their books on one-time valuations of mortgage securities and loan valuations. Getting that into the open is a pre-requisite to pulling the trigger as has happened to GM and Chrysler.

Not being in possession of a crystal ball, I can't say if the heads of Citibank etc., are in for the Waggoner treatment - but forcing their balance sheets into the cold light of day would be a good first step.

Took the whole article to read but you finally gave a explanation that wasn't tainted with conspiracies or, well, evil.

Maybe the banks are much more integral to the US economy than the auto industry. It's an interesting theory and I would love to see it fleshed out in terms of repercussions if one of the giants would fall.

Recent history is on the side of those who believe that Wall Street pulls the strings. Only the course of events over the next few months will tell us whether the alternative explanation holds water. But as I watched Obama speak, I could not shake the feeling that this was a trial run, rather than a sell-out, as preparation for the application of further strong medicine, rather than avoidance of the real problem. He's too smart, and his advisers are too smart, to think that he could go before the American public and criticize the "principle of endless bailouts" without knowing that he would be held to account for those words.

I certainly hope you're correct in your assessment of Obama's intelligence, (and I'm glad you have abandoned your previous stance that criticism of Geithner's newest scheme is counterproductive) but from my experience, there is a huge disconnect within the Wall Street community concerning various definitions of "labor," especially one which includes both blue collar and highly skilled, white collar employees as sharing a similar social and economic tier. There is a longstanding distaste for individuals who work with their hands or possess (Quelle horreur!) union memberships. To those who are employed by the best financial firms, who have advanced degrees from the most prestigious universities and who socialize in the most exclusive of circles, your argument is a prime example of false equivalence and those perceptions are as wide spread in Washington as they are elsewhere where financial acumen holds sway. In fact, there is acknowledged social distinction between financial firms in their own right with Morgan Stanley playing the part of the slightly louche hanger-on so desperate to belong, it will carry water for the more popular members of the cliché, especially Goldman which represents the epitome of the American banking industry. Considering there exists a social hierarchy within the banking industry itself, can one even imagine the distaste for someone who is employed by an automotive company in DETROIT (of all places) and works with his or her HANDS?! If one doesn't understand the various bigotries, social hierarchies and classist assumptions of the "Street" or recognize fully how pervasive those perceptions have become outside of the financial community, one would assume that similar harsh treatment for both the "lords" of Detroit and Wall Street would be self-evident, and therein lies the tragedy and eventual disillusionment.