Detroit's bankruptcy: Dysfunction's dystopia
New York Times resident government apologist Paul Krugman argues — and we use the term loosely — that Detroit was forced into bankruptcy not because it “had especially bad governance” (which it did), but because “for the most part the city was just an innocent victim of market forces.”
But there's nothing “innocent” about market perversions that led to the largest municipal bankruptcy in U.S. history. It's all about ignorance of market forces and the fatal conceit that they can be trumped.
For more than a few decades, Detroit has been a cesspool for social “enlightenment” — kowtowing to the cartels of unionism, rabid reliance on race-baiting and a long string of crooked politicians as “leaders.” Three results of many have been the highest per capita tax burden in Michigan, a soaring crime rate and a population of blacks who have become wards of the state, if not the street.
“None of this is the product of the ‘creative destruction' of capitalism,” reminds National Review Editor Rich Lowry; “it is the destructive destruction of corrupt statism.”
Detroit is a dystopia of dysfunction and destruction at just about every level.
But Detroit had to fail, and on such a grand scale, to prove the fallacy of the “progressive” regressive state, a state that can only implode.
As another National Review commentator put it, the parasite outgrew its host.
Thus, the key to any Detroit recovery is to make certain such parasites are not saved to feed another day. And that's going to be quite the tall order for those who will continue to believe in the unbelievable.
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments â either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.