Five Useful Reads About the Big Three

.: David Brooks' column today: If ever the market has rendered a just verdict, it is the one rendered on G.M. and Chrysler. These companies are not innocent victims of this crisis. To read the expert literature on these companies is to read a long litany of miscalculation. Some experts mention the management blunders, some the union contracts and the legacy costs, some the years of poor car design and some the entrenched corporate cultures.

.: Megan McArdle for the last week or so, particularly on the demise of Western New York: These vital towns, where generations of people lived happy lives and raised fat, burbling babies to a middle-class adulthood, are all dying. Should the government save these places too? Shall we support Eastman Kodak indefinitely, whether or not it can produce a product anyone wants to buy? And Xerox, and Carrier, and a thousand companies you've never heard of? Shall we make it illegal to make a better product than American corporations? Why not just ban new products that make old ones unprofitable?

.: Tom Friedman seemd to offer some half-assed conditions for any government subsidy but is pissed about doing it: Last September, I was in a hotel room watching CNBC early one morning. They were interviewing Bob Nardelli, the C.E.O. of Chrysler, and he was explaining why the auto industry, at that time, needed $25 billion in loan guarantees. It wasn’t a bailout, he said. It was a way to enable the car companies to retool for innovation. I could not help but shout back at the TV screen: “We have to subsidize Detroit so that it will innovate? What business were you people in other than innovation?” If we give you another $25 billion, will you also do accounting? (Special Note: You'll remember of course that Bob Nardelli is the former CEO of Home Depot who was chased out of there after following a failed strategy and pissing off employees and shareholders alike.)

.: Paul Ingrassia seemed to think the industry could survive. At least he did in June: Yet there is a scenario in which the Detroit companies—at least Ford and G.M.—can emerge somewhat smaller but far stronger. Their size and costs would be based on current realities instead of on pining for the good old days. And their cars would actually be products that people want to buy instead of merely settle for. I’ve been covering the car business for 23 years and have seen corporate crises, ill-conceived acquisitions, boardroom revolts, C.E.O. sackings, and more. Through it all, Detroit’s cycles have been biblical: Prosper, go astray, repent, recover. It’s repentance time now, and there are concrete reasons to believe that the Detroit Three will recover.

.: John Derbyshire's reader . . . and response: This looks to me like a problem with no solution.