well, that requires a plan. that's what i'm saying. at the moment, the "restructuring plan"
from gm entails the loss of 47,000 jobs and closeing 5 production facilities in north american--mostly in the united states if i understand this correctly...
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/18/bu...o.html?_r=1&hp
a plan geared around retaining jobs in the states from the state would operate quite differently than would a plan geared around financial considerations framed by neoliberal thinking--it would be directed toward underwriting the maintenance of us-based production facilities and r&d that would grow newer types of production that would be based in the states. not having a plan means that whatever gm--in this case--proposes becomes a baseline for negociations by default and the logic of that plan the frame of those negociations.
the plan requires in general a clear set of priorities.
this in turn requires that the state be conceptualized as an instrument that can be used/directed in a variety of ways as a function of the objectives...
neoliberal thinking has no way of understanding the state in any of these terms.
this is one reason why it is important that the administration break with that thinking harder and faster than it is doing--and while i understand the political motivation behind trying at least to operate in a bi-partisan manner, in terms of shaping the outcomes of the crisis, it makes no sense to do so because to do so means that the administration has to work through neoliberalism.
and that ideology is fundamental to all the problems, and a barrier to all the solutions.