Jim;
While I'll agree that the collapse of the "organized" auto industry (bearing in mind that the non-organized industry has NOT collapsed!) is not the total reason for the economic melt-down, it sure was a major component of it. As for a "laissez-faire" philosophy being responsible for the rest of it, including the financial markets...sorry, but I'm not buying that, either. Remember, it was over-regulation, in the form of demands that credit be extended beyond what it traditionally would, which led to the financial situation. Think Fannie Mae or Gennie Mac or Ginnie Mae were PRIVATELY created institutions do you? Do you think the laws against redlining and all the other prudent lending practices were imposed by financial institutions against the idea of being prudent? Who were major sponsors of that liberal legislation that very much led this country down the primrose path.
Close to home, who do you think caused the SIX BILLION dollar financial fiasco that was the Teamsters shake-down of UPS in terms of the CSPF withdrawal. "Yes", there was a "liability" there...but who CAUSED that liability?
As for the direct cause of the current situation? Well, I'm sorry, but one can date it almost to the day that the UAW walked out of American Axle these many months ago...and there were an ample number of prophets telling the UAW that striking a key 1st tier auto provider at the time would bring such an onslaught on. And this was against an employer that had ALREADY come perilously close to bankruptcy (with corresponding UAW job loss) just a few years later, which was salvaged by a buyer who, even well after the purchase, the UAW was hailing as it's "savior". They struck anyway. In striking, they closed down production of GM's most popular vehicles, and highly limited Fords. And the country went to Hell.
Yeah, eventually they walked back in, with a massively reduced workforce, and essentially no "gains" whatsoever...but not until they had struck GM directly where it most hurt; i.e. - striking the production of it's best selling model, the Malibu. By the time they were done, the country was - as predicted - reeling.
Meanwhile, workers who are laid-off due to UAW intransigence (and, remember, in the end, the UAW didn't get a damned thing out of their little adventure except more lost jobs), in the subsidiary industries affected as well as the primary auto providers, couldn't cover their mortgages and other loans. People who worked for Dana, Arvin-Meritor, etc. And then the firms that serviced THOSE firms started to knuckle under....and the whole damn snowball started rolling downhill.
With that observation in mind (and I, along with others, was watching it closely at the time), perhaps you'll excuse me if I DO express my belief that "the unions" were/are responsible for the meltdown we find ourselves in today.
Are there other reasons? Of course! While you may not see a political difference, those who invest their capital in this country and serve as its economic backbone surely do. Do you think it's any coincidence that the withdrawal of capital from the country's market didn't really begin until it was apparent that Obama was going to be elected? Nothing against Obama (I find him quite personable), but he scares the beejeesuz out of investors...and, as it turns out, rightly so. He literally expropriates investors hard-earned wealth. Not a biggie in and of itself - or at least its survivable - but who's going to do the future investing? Do you think that after having SECURED debt cast aside like just has been done with Chrysler and apparently will be done with GM, that investor are going to place their hard-earned funds in "organized" companies they see Obama being beholding to? Think China - after seeing secured bonds being dismissed as so much paper - is going to continue its massive lending to this country? Bottom line is that investors - and business in general - has absolutely no confidence in a government that seems so out of whack in terms of recognizing economic reality.
And who ultimately suffers? Why the worker, of course...because his soul has been sold to those that believe somehow "labor" can prosper WITHOUT those that hire such labor prospering, and/or "labor" needs to have wealth apportioned/"redistributed" to it than is beyond its market worth.
It's ironic, isn't it, that since when "labor's" (actually, ORGANIZED labor's) candidate won the election, "labor" itself - true labor, as in the average American worker - has had to suffer the most. Under the previous administration (which, believe me, I was no fan of) unemployment was consistently at historic lows. What's it at now?
Reading your post, I get the feeling that you think I'm against unions per se; that I feel the collective bargaining process isn't viable, and that I'm against the worker generally. If so, you couldn't be more wrong. I all FOR the American worker being able to VOLUNTARILY access a TRUE collective bargaining process. I think he/she has EVERY right to form a union and to have that union negotiate on his/her behalf. But I also believe that, in order that economic realities are brought into play early into the process, in order that the wild swings that accompany unrealized over-expectations, the CONSEQUENCES of such access have to be considered by them as well. "Organized" workers need to know that, when they go out on strike, they are absolutely walking away from "their" jobs, with the only likelihood of their getting them back resting with the TRUE economic value they have to offer their employer. They need to realize that if they CAN'T compete on a market basis, the can and WILL be replaced.
I noticed an article a day or two ago which I'm posting a link to (
http://www.reuters.com/article/GCA-autos/idUSTRE5546X920090605). In it, it is noted that the United States actually isn't doing that badly on a world scale in terms of manufacturing, and that the firms that are succeeding at it are [paraphrasing with directly accessing the article here, so forgive me if I'm a bit off] "ferociously competitive". Now, do you think most "organized" firms in the U.S. today are in a position to be "ferociously competitive"? If not, what do you think it going to happen to them?
I've seen - and worked in - countries where labor unions do NOT have the extreme adversarial relationship with the firms that employ their members as the unions here in the U.S. do. They actually work in a collegial manner to ENHANCE their employer's prospects. Think that happens much here? Just look on this board...which represents probably the most "ferociously competitive" ORGANIZED firm in the country. See an atmosphere generally that is very collegial, do ya'?
Lastly (and I've probably long since "lost my place" anyway, so who knows what "lastly" means), I'm by no means for unrestricted immigration...and for the life of me can't understand why illegal immigration is allowed to continue (although one can't help but note that labor unions have been the prime supporters OF the illegal immigrant). But one has to understand that an economy and it's labor market - like water - is eventually going to find it's own level. If the American worker is unwilling to be competitive - and by this I mean competitive on the world stage - then employers will find someone who IS willing to be competitive. As for what the "founding fathers" would condone, I think if you review your history, you'll find that they were much more advocates of FREE trade than even the most zealous of today's advocates...or have you forgotten that one of the primary reasons for the Revolution was the British RESTRICTION of trade (stamp act, British bottoms shipping regulations, British pass-through, manufacturing restrictions, etc.). Somewhat later, the British themselves arrived at the same conclusion; i.e. - that countries prospered most when trade was the most free...which led to the second (and by far largest) blooming of the British Empire. Of course, there are those who don't prosper under the auspices of "free trade"...but who are they? Well, they're the least capable, the least industrious, the least competitive, the least efficient. Should we design an economy simply to SUBSIDIZE these individuals...and penalize the majority who (as most Americans are today) ARE willing to be competitive? Would such a policy make sense over the long term? I think not.
Lastly (heh, didn't I say that already?!?...OK, VERY "lastly"), what makes anyone think that they can NEGATIVELY legislate economic salvation? Do workers actually believe that, on the world stage as it exists today, they can actually FORCE employers to hire labor at a non-competitive rate? Or that they can actually FORCE enterprises to subsidize a workers life-style that is unearned in terms of the world economy? With that in mind, I bring up the fact that, today, CHINA is the world's largest automotive market. Why? Because, today, many Chinese - in REAL terms - EARN more than some of their American counterparts. Oh, on the service, it may look like they're working for ridiculously little wages...but the fact is that their wages are not subsidized...and thus represent REAL economic value which, in turn, eventually translates into REAL buying power. Much of "organized" American labor has lost that buying power today, because their labor no longer represents much in the way of TRUE value; i.e. - they're not earning their way.
Sounds dismal, I know...but it's true, nevertheless. And it's worth repeating that the vast majority of American workers ARE competitive on a world stage. It's just those of the "organized" variety that have come up lacking.
YOU CAN'T TIE DOWN CAPITAL! And if you try, you will only serve to antagonize it. And if you antagonize it, what you'll find out will happen is that jobs will migrate elsewhere. That's a lesson that "organized" American labor just can't seem to comprehend.
.
.
