The issue was not expensive to fix and according to news reports GM in fact did order many other recalls that were more expensive, yet had less of a safety payoff, than this recall would have had. That is one reason I find the evidence (so far) compatible with an incompetence theory, in which GM had saddled itself with such bad internal processes and management culture that it failed to make intelligent use of the information on hand to pursue its own management objectives. But who knows — maybe the lawyers will succeed in portraying GM execs as villains who knew just what was happening and cackled atop their gold piles while twirling their mustaches. That’s the version the juries will get to hear, most likely.

The ignition switch hoopla drives me nuts. Wear in the switch should have been noticeable to drivers. Every mechanical system is subject to wear. 13 deaths out of 300,000 traffic deaths is at the edge of detectability. “Death Traps” is idiocy.

Ted Franks thoughts would be interesting.

Considering that the word “incentives” has magical powers among conservatives in fields as far flung as welfare and oil drilling and tax policy, how about we apply it to tort law: your incentive to not make a death trap is that you have to pay for it.

The irony here is that tort litigation is a drop in the bucket for companies like GM. Their concern is more NHTSA and DOT and, more than that, bad press. You can make them wholly immune and they’ll do this just the same — likely more, IMHO, and with the problems coming to daylight less readily.

I am dismayed when our president improperly uses his power to shake down folks as Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson do. Think BP. Thugs are thugs.