3 ms·

This whole situation was already depressing. Now it is even more so considering that shareholders, who lost nothing of real value, are likely to receive to lar

This whole situation was already depressing. Now it is even more so considering that shareholders, who lost nothing of real value, are likely to receive to largest compensation. "Hey your kid dying might make you feel sad, but look what happened to my balance sheet! I'm the biggest victim here!" If you insist on putting a monetary value on human life, at least make sure you got your numbers in order. Here's hoping some of those shareholders take that money and give it somewhere where it does good. Personally I couldn't keep it and live with myself.

adventured 8y ago
> Now it is even more so considering that shareholders, who lost nothing of real value Your point is entirely correct, that people are more valuable than money. The notion that time isn't a real value, is absurd, however. There are very few things worth more than time. Your time is what your money represents under most circumstances. Your savings - millions of people own shares in Boeing, directly or indirectly - is your productive time frozen for later use, when you're not as able to work (or simply want to retire regardless). It represents potentially years of your life. Years away from your loved ones; years of physically or mentally taxing labor; years of stress; and so on.
- Bud 8y ago
  I figure if you made the mistake of buying Boeing, that's on you. I don't see why shareholders should be compensated at all. If companies do other kinds of stupid things, and they lose market value, shareholders aren't compensated for that. Why should this be any different?
  - BonesJustice 8y ago
    Because failing to present material information accurately to current and prospective shareholders is securities fraud. That’s the allegation—not that they did something stupid, but that they misrepresented their risk exposure. I’m of the opinion that they should pay for that. Who better to receive the proceeds than those who lost money investing based on flawed disclosures?
twblalock 8y ago
Shareholders lost money, which is definitely of value. Passengers lost their lives. Both of these things are true, and both of them are losses, even though one of those things is worse than the other. > "Hey your kid dying might make you feel sad, but look what happened to my balance sheet! I'm the biggest victim here!" No shareholder has said that, and I don't see anybody claiming that the shareholders are the biggest victims.
- chmod775 8y ago
  > No shareholder has said that Which is... rather the point? Nobody would ever say that, so nobody should reasonably expect a larger compensation than the aggrieved families either. I already get a migraine whenever I hear of monetary compensation for the loss of a human life, but this time it's just that much more twisted. Quoting myself here: > If you insist on putting a monetary value on human life, at least make sure you got your numbers in order. The answer to whether we should put a price tag on a human life is: We should not, but we have to. So let's at least get it right.

adventured 8y ago

> Now it is even more so considering that shareholders, who lost nothing of real value Your point is entirely correct, that people are more valuable than money. The notion that time isn't a real value, is absurd, however. There are very few things worth more than time. Your time is what your money represents under most circumstances. Your savings - millions of people own shares in Boeing, directly or indirectly - is your productive time frozen for later use, when you're not as able to work (or simply want to retire regardless). It represents potentially years of your life. Years away from your loved ones; years of physically or mentally taxing labor; years of stress; and so on.

Bud 8y ago
I figure if you made the mistake of buying Boeing, that's on you. I don't see why shareholders should be compensated at all. If companies do other kinds of stupid things, and they lose market value, shareholders aren't compensated for that. Why should this be any different?
- BonesJustice 8y ago
  Because failing to present material information accurately to current and prospective shareholders is securities fraud. That’s the allegation—not that they did something stupid, but that they misrepresented their risk exposure. I’m of the opinion that they should pay for that. Who better to receive the proceeds than those who lost money investing based on flawed disclosures?

twblalock 8y ago

Shareholders lost money, which is definitely of value. Passengers lost their lives. Both of these things are true, and both of them are losses, even though one of those things is worse than the other. > "Hey your kid dying might make you feel sad, but look what happened to my balance sheet! I'm the biggest victim here!" No shareholder has said that, and I don't see anybody claiming that the shareholders are the biggest victims.

chmod775 8y ago
> No shareholder has said that Which is... rather the point? Nobody would ever say that, so nobody should reasonably expect a larger compensation than the aggrieved families either. I already get a migraine whenever I hear of monetary compensation for the loss of a human life, but this time it's just that much more twisted. Quoting myself here: > If you insist on putting a monetary value on human life, at least make sure you got your numbers in order. The answer to whether we should put a price tag on a human life is: We should not, but we have to. So let's at least get it right.