Contributors

Friday, July 19, 2013

Be Careful What You Wish For

When a corporation files for bankruptcy, it's the culmination of a series of unfortunate events that was likely caused by some sort of government over regulation. When a city like Detroit files for bankruptcy, it's a "win" for the Right and their minions in the blogsphere. Why? Well, it goes something like this.

Detroit is a city that has largely employed liberal polices.
Detroit has just gone bankrupt.
Employing liberal policies means every city every where will go bankrupt.

Indeed, the very definition of a logical fallacy. This is all they have. By this logic, San Francisco should be in deep, deep shit. The opposite, of course, is true. The city attracts the 4th most foreign tourists of any city in the world, ranking 35th out of 100 worldwide. Juxtaposed with the millions brought in by tourism are the 30 international financial institutions, seven Fortune 500 companies, and a large support infrastructure of professional services—including law, public relations, architecture and design. Liberal policies there certainly are not affecting that city in an adverse way. Or New York, for that matter. We don't see Wall Street relocating to a red state any time soon, right?

Once you get past the adolescent game of "See? I told you!!" it's easy to see that Detroit has gone bankrupt for a number of reasons, none of which have to do with liberal policies. The city's woes have piled up for generations. In the 1950s, its population grew to 1.8 million people, many of whom were lured by plentiful, well-paying auto jobs. Later that decade, Detroit began to decline as developers started building suburbs that lured away workers and businesses. Then beginning in the late 1960s, auto companies began opening plants in other cities. Property values and tax revenue fell, and police couldn't control crime. In later years, the rise of autos imported from Japan started to cut the size of the U.S. auto industry.

By the time the auto industry melted down in 2009, only a few factories from GM and Chrysler were left. GM is the only one with headquarters in Detroit, though it has huge research and testing centers with thousands of jobs outside the city. Detroit lost a quarter-million residents between 2000 and 2010. Today, the population struggles to stay above 700,000.Detroit lost a quarter-million residents between 2000 and 2010. Today, the population struggles to stay above 700,000.

Add in the usual amount of corruption that goes on in big cities and it's easy to see how Detroit has fallen so far. Cory Williams over at AP has an interesting piece told from the perspective a primary source. The over riding diagnosis is severe mismanagement of public funds and a decided lack of even basic fundamental services. Of course, it's much more than that.

Detroit is a metaphor for globalization. It represents how the spread of free market capitalism around the world ended up eroding it here at home. It was the epicenter of the Golden Age of American Manufacturing at the heart of the Rust Belt. The various factors above brought about its fall and the main lesson to heed from this devolution is that if we want the world to be a democratic place rooted in free markets and liberal economic theory in practice, we must be careful what we wish for.

Because we got it.


14 comments:

Kevin said...

By this logic, San Francisco should be in deep, deep shit.

It's not?

What is the color of the sky on your planet?

Mark Ward said...

Got anything more current?

I'd say that fact that seven Fortune 500 companies make their home in SF and have not left means they are not Detroit.

Here is some more data...

http://www.forbes.com/places/ca/san-francisco/

Mos def not Detroit.

Anonymous said...

Presence of certain companies in a city do not speak of the city's fiscal state.

Said fiscal state is directly related to that city's outlays versus income.

Don't matter how much money they take in if they spend in excess of that......

Almost like....it's....a.....spending problem......


Oh and BTW;

If I had a city, it would look like Detroit.

Anonymous said...

Got anything more current?


Uhhh, right. Like in three years the city COMPLETELY turned around it's fiscal problems.......

Kevin said...

Got anything more current?

Sure.

Are you suggesting that they're actually getting themselves out of the hole they've dug? Why should SF be any different than the Federal government?

Juris Imprudent said...

I think you have to be a real idiot to argue that anyone on the other side is gleeful about the Detroit bankruptcy. But far be it for me to argue with those voices in your head - you do more than enough of that.

Mark Ward said...

Kevin, the fundamental problem I have with all the hysteria over government debt is that it somehow has become a measure of success. It's not. Government debt is much different from individual debt. Governments presumably will exist forever. People do not. Debt is a long term problem not a short or even middle term problem. SF's pension problems are not going to last forever and will obviously change when baby boomers pass away. Every city has economic challenges but that doesn't mean all the liberal ones are going to become like Detroit. You are looking at one aspect of their economy. How about the whole thing?

I'm sure we'll be hearing quite a bit about Detroit just like we still hear about Greece. The comparisons are quite silly. They are about as silly as me saying that all liberal policies work because SF has a good economy.

Juris Imprudent said...

Governments presumably will exist forever.

It really is amazing that you can read, presumably, and still not learn anything.

Doubleplusungood.

Kevin said...

Kevin, the fundamental problem I have with all the hysteria over government debt is that it somehow has become a measure of success. It's not. ... Governments presumably will exist forever.

And Markadelphia moves the goalposts once again!

GuardDuck said...

SF's pension problems are not going to last forever and will obviously change when baby boomers pass away.

Or when they run out of money and have to file bankruptcy. Whichever comes first. But then - if they do go broke - it won't be their fault will it????

You are looking at one aspect of their economy

No! Their economy is not their money. Their budget - their income vs. outlays - THAT is all that matters. I don't give a rats ass about their 'economy'. Because, as we've fucking shown over and over again - it does not matter how much they get if they still SPEND MORE THAN THAT.

Mark Ward said...

I didn't put up he link, Kevin, you did. Show me where 7 of the Fortune 500 are fleeing San Francisco. Show me how their tourism industry is failing. Show me the vanishing private wealth, the poor education system, and large swaths of vacant buildings in SF.

It's a very liberal city and it is econmically vibrant. Therefore, you don't get to be petty and "win" on Detroit. Liberal policies have nothing to do with why Detroit is in trouble. And, if we are going to use bankruptcy as a metric for success, does that mean that all the corporations that have gone bankrupt are now evidence of the failure of capitalism?

It most certainly does not.

Larry said...

And the baby boomers will have died off by ...when? 2030, 2040? Assuming no further medical advances have been made? You also forget that the 'pension bomb' is only going to get worse because the number of city government employees that will be retiring each year isn't going to be going much each year, and as pension payments eat more and more of each year's budget, less will be available for police and simple stuff like road maintenance, etc. Your constant refrain seems to be, "But it hasn't happened yet, therefore it won't happen!"

And of course their will always be some form of government. That's the kind of retort I'd expect from a not overly bright high school freshman. Argentina still has a government, so does Greece, Germany, and China. It might not be the same government, and there might have been periods of near-anarchy, strong-man rule, and worse, but obviously they still have governments. But sometimes governments repudiate their debts and earlier promises and tell their people to like it, lump it, or else. Maybe that government gets replaced quite quickly, but if they don't have the money to honor their obligations, guess what? They won't, because they can't.

GuardDuck said...

And, if we are going to use bankruptcy as a metric for success, does that mean that all the corporations that have gone bankrupt are now evidence of the failure of capitalism?

If the comparison metric was that the bankruptcy of a government was evidence of the failure of all governments.....

But that wasn't the comparison.

Since a company's bankruptcy is indeed evidence of the failure of that company's strategies, product or activities then the appropriate comparison to a bankrupt government and that being the failure of it's strategies, product or activities.....

Unknown said...

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/353917/what-detroits-debt-problem-looks-veronique-de-rugy

Government debt IS different than individual debt because the government uses different accounting standards. You keep trusting the government Markadelphia. You really are desperate to claim that liberal policies have nothing to do with the bankruptcy. Keep rationalizing and refusing to admit fault. You used to say that Detroit wasn't doing that bad. You were wrong and you refuse to admit it.