3 ms·

Boeing is a US military supplier and a strategic US asset in the airspace industry, the US government will ensure that they do not go under no matter how much d

Boeing is a US military supplier and a strategic US asset in the airspace industry, the US government will ensure that they do not go under no matter how much damage they do (see car industry). Furthermore even if that wasn't the case the people who cause these issues have almost zero chance of facing personal liability. As a result, it's in the personal interest of the people running Boeing to cut corners and extract maximum short term reward (ie: personal promotions, stock grants valuations, etc.).

aabeshou 8y ago
This is an excess of capitalism: those with capital are given too much power, and their self interest ends up being entirely selfish at the expense of society at large. Capitalism needs regulation, and if the system ends up entrenching itself so that regulation becomes impossible (because of corruption, self-interest, short-term gains, etc), then it means the entire system of capitalism is faulty.
- CamperBob2 8y ago
  Regulation is exactly why the problem that you're complaining about exists. Only in the presence of regulation does a company become "too big to fail." That's not an attribute of market economics. Note that I'm not making a value judgment about regulation in the general case, just pointing out that you've misidentified the problem in this particular case.
  - aabeshou 8y ago
    I'm not saying market economics is the problem. I think that concept gets conflated with capitalism too often. I think markets are a good tool for economic organization. The problem is the system of capitalism, i.e. the centralization of power and capital in the hands of the few, and the rules of a system that incentivize and enable that. This bad system of rules, capitalism, is certainly a form of regulation (is that what you mean?). But when I use the word regulation, I mean a rule that checks the otherwise unlimited exploitative power of capital, rather than any rule at all. Maybe you think that any rule at all would cause this, and I think that's not true.
- isostatic 8y ago
  A big problem we found 11 years ago was that some companies were "too big to fail" The solution isn't to stop those companies from failing, it's to prevent companies from being "too big to fail"
bluedino 8y ago
Couldn't they just bring it back to life under a new name?
- VBprogrammer 8y ago
  I'd be very surprised if Boeing have their assets structured in such a way that a massive liability in one area could take out the entire business. At a very minimum they will have Boeing spares and maintenance ltd. Probably one in each country they operate in.
glonq 8y ago
So they are 'too big to fail' ?

aabeshou 8y ago

This is an excess of capitalism: those with capital are given too much power, and their self interest ends up being entirely selfish at the expense of society at large. Capitalism needs regulation, and if the system ends up entrenching itself so that regulation becomes impossible (because of corruption, self-interest, short-term gains, etc), then it means the entire system of capitalism is faulty.

CamperBob2 8y ago
Regulation is exactly why the problem that you're complaining about exists. Only in the presence of regulation does a company become "too big to fail." That's not an attribute of market economics. Note that I'm not making a value judgment about regulation in the general case, just pointing out that you've misidentified the problem in this particular case.
- aabeshou 8y ago
  I'm not saying market economics is the problem. I think that concept gets conflated with capitalism too often. I think markets are a good tool for economic organization. The problem is the system of capitalism, i.e. the centralization of power and capital in the hands of the few, and the rules of a system that incentivize and enable that. This bad system of rules, capitalism, is certainly a form of regulation (is that what you mean?). But when I use the word regulation, I mean a rule that checks the otherwise unlimited exploitative power of capital, rather than any rule at all. Maybe you think that any rule at all would cause this, and I think that's not true.
isostatic 8y ago
A big problem we found 11 years ago was that some companies were "too big to fail" The solution isn't to stop those companies from failing, it's to prevent companies from being "too big to fail"

bluedino 8y ago

Couldn't they just bring it back to life under a new name?

VBprogrammer 8y ago
I'd be very surprised if Boeing have their assets structured in such a way that a massive liability in one area could take out the entire business. At a very minimum they will have Boeing spares and maintenance ltd. Probably one in each country they operate in.

glonq 8y ago

So they are 'too big to fail' ?