in short, friedman obviously thinks the bailout of GM, Chrysler, and the other “Big” 3 might possibly be the worst investment we can make as american taxpayers. as he puts it, this is “the equivalent of pouring billions of taxpayer money into improving typrewriters on the eve of the birth of the PC and the internet”…
i think friedman exaggerates a bit, and some of his disdain may be a bit misplaced. however, is this not what paul hawken and the lovins brothers were warning us in their treatise “natural capitalism“??
it is obvious that we cannot keep producing and consuming frivolous luxury goods or disposable products, and calling that “economic growth.” what exemplifies this disposibility more than the automobile? what hawken, the lovins brothers, and now friedman are trying to ask us is: “why can’t we make things that require us to treat people and their environment better than ‘goods’?”
how might we revolutionize the auto industry while treating people and their environment ‘better than goods’? of course, the most obvious part of this answer is that cars must increase their fuel efficiency and be made of materials and technologies which may be re-used within a life-cycle that may be re-birthed/resurrected. [i use these terms to describe a car which, at the end of its use stage, may be returned to the manufacturer for re-use of its parts and/or materials in new cars… i apologize for forgetting the technical terms.]
the other part (and this is where shai agassi and better place comes in) is developing such cars within a service-oriented model, where such cars can be inventoried, marketed, and maintained. jobs would be preserved, because you will need not only manufacturers and “post-use processors,” if you will, but also an extensive corps of technicians, service coordinators, and IT professionals to manage the fleet of cars. the environment will be preserved as innovation will be focused on minimizing the costs associated with maintenance and re-use of the cars, since the business model will rely on re-use and “networked” service, similar to the cell-phone. while re-use is still lagging far behind for cell phones [yet another area where manufacturers and phone companies should be required to retrieve used goods for re-use and re-birth… maybe we should write legislation or demonstrate a business plan for this??], the idea that cars may be produced according to the same business model represents an exceptional possibility.
so, what’s stopping us from producing cars that treat the people who produce them and the environment who recieves them better? if our best entrepreneurs and creative minds don’t answer this question fast, we are in for some serious trouble in the world of innovation and economic competitiveness…