3 ms·

>> As emotionally-satisfying as it may be to see Boeing go under for its arrogance, it's neither helpful nor likely. (A well-managed break-up, on the other hand

>> As emotionally-satisfying as it may be to see Boeing go under for its arrogance, it's neither helpful nor likely. (A well-managed break-up, on the other hand...) Not Likely is the key word here. They are large and have a strategic value to the US and hence Too Big To Fail https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Too_big_to_fail https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Too_big_to_fail I'd bet the US Government steps in to re-structure and backstop as required to save the company. There are numerous ways we've discovered to do so post 2008.

oska 7y ago
> There are numerous ways we've discovered to do so post 2008. All of them bad. Companies should fail and keeping bad companies alive via artificial means is bad. You get zombie companies and eventually a zombie economy (see Japan). (And "Too big to fail" is a phrase meant to identify a problematic ideology, not a bailout excuse). Boeing failing doesn't necessarily mean that the USA loses their technology and production facilities. It does mean some substantial losses to investors in the company, but that should be part of the risk of investment.
- mehrdadn 7y ago
  I don't think the parent was endorsing this approach. It seemed like the opposite to me.
  - TuringNYC 7y ago
    Correct. I'm the parent. Not endorsing this. Just accepting the reality. Most off our TBTF bailouts were unnecessary in my opinion, or if actually necessary, the bailouts were insufficiently punitive to investors. Most of it comes down to the political power and DC influence of the company management.
- dirtyid 7y ago
  >Too big to fail Maybe too strategically important to fail is more apt.
- honestoHeminway 7y ago
  You loose the technology over time due to - to big to flail. Meaning huge fonds, that buy up whole industry, establishing invisible monopolies, and preventing real competition, except with outliers who are not under theire control

oska 7y ago

> There are numerous ways we've discovered to do so post 2008. All of them bad. Companies should fail and keeping bad companies alive via artificial means is bad. You get zombie companies and eventually a zombie economy (see Japan). (And "Too big to fail" is a phrase meant to identify a problematic ideology, not a bailout excuse). Boeing failing doesn't necessarily mean that the USA loses their technology and production facilities. It does mean some substantial losses to investors in the company, but that should be part of the risk of investment.

mehrdadn 7y ago
I don't think the parent was endorsing this approach. It seemed like the opposite to me.
- TuringNYC 7y ago
  Correct. I'm the parent. Not endorsing this. Just accepting the reality. Most off our TBTF bailouts were unnecessary in my opinion, or if actually necessary, the bailouts were insufficiently punitive to investors. Most of it comes down to the political power and DC influence of the company management.
dirtyid 7y ago
>Too big to fail Maybe too strategically important to fail is more apt.
honestoHeminway 7y ago
You loose the technology over time due to - to big to flail. Meaning huge fonds, that buy up whole industry, establishing invisible monopolies, and preventing real competition, except with outliers who are not under theire control