6 ms·

It feels crazy to me to see 'make training profitable'. A) Not everything has to bring you a profit, jeez. B) You know how you profit from training? By actual

It feels crazy to me to see 'make training profitable'. A) Not everything has to bring you a profit, jeez. B) You know how you profit from training? By actually providing solid training to pilots who then fly your planes skillfully and don't crash and don't have any trouble landing. You not only get money from customers paying you for those pilots to fly them, you also save money by not getting sued into oblivion for your negligence.

ljm 7y ago
It feels crazy to me that there's no proper accountability for it. "Let's make training profitable" + every other decision on the software side = 346 dead people. Those deaths weren't an accident, they were a result of Boeing's desire for perpetual growth at any cost, and to try and beat Airbus at their game. No one except the families of the victims will suffer from that. But go ahead and carry a bag of weed and be prepared to spend your life in the system. Maybe it's time we rethink how limited liability works; and we get rid of this notion that corporations are beyond reproach (and they are, because the fines cost less than the profits).
- andrepd 7y ago
  Sadly it's not a feature of Boeing, but a feature of unchecked capitalism.
  - ljm 7y ago
    I think all of us here remember the setup for the Wall Street crash in 1929. That was influenced heavily by unchecked capitalism, along with the pressure of WW1 going on in Europe and other world events. One of the responses was to restrict capitalism (it became fettered vs. unfettered at the point). And it was a good one, one that has seemingly been forgotten or ignored. Unfettered capitalism, through history, is a net loss for society. But the more we deregulate and seek profit at any cost, the more we re-align with that old view. In this instance, Boeing seems to be ok with the death of ~350 people.
    - TaylorAlexander 7y ago
      So I’m a leftist. So I sympathize with what you are saying. But you have to be careful using the term “capitalism”. It’s a highly overloaded term. For example I’ve come to realize that libertarians use the term quite differently from leftists. So if you use the term in mixed company you will find a lot of confusion results. It can be helpful to use other terminology which is less confusing. For example, Marxist economist Richard Wolff describes “capitalism” as the mode of production where a small elite own and control the means of production, inevitably shifting the focus of production to satisfy the needs of that small elite (endless growth being one). But libertarians describe “capitalism” as free economic exchange through markets. Richard Wolff was recently in a debate with a prominent libertarian and the man agreed with Wolff on almost everything. And Wolff is not opposed to markets, he’s opposed to elite control of the means of production. So it’s best not to use “capitalism” in the leftist sense and expect people to understand you. I also think there is a very serious and legitimate concern over the power of the state. The US state killed the leader of the Black Panthers, for example. We need regulatory control in the hands of the people. You may do well to study leftist critiques of the state. Mikhail Bakunun was active at the same time as Marx and was a critic of Marxism. Bakunin famously said in 1873: When the people are being beaten with a stick, they are not much happier if it is called "the People's Stick"
      - blotter_paper 7y ago
        Anarchist here, used to identify as a communist. I'd argue that both of your "capitalism" definitions can be pointed to as potential causes of the 737 fiasco, but that the latter ("free economic exchange through markets") seems more in line with what GP was wanting to, err, correct; I read GP as wanting more regulation for airplanes, which is antithetical to free exchange. I feel like the market itself will correct for these problems on a long enough time scale -- if people value the lives of their families enough they'll stop buying tickets for flights on planes made by this clearly inept entity, and if they don't value the lives of their families that much then that's another tradeoff they're free to make. (Yes, some people are too poor to exercise choice between options of varying cost, but that's a problem with poverty rather than choice -- regulating single engine Cessnas out of existence won't mean that radically impoverished people have access to better planes, it will just take away their freedom to bet their lives on flying in the first place.)
  - JumpCrisscross 7y ago
    > unchecked capitalism Airplane manufacturing has lots of problems. But it’s a highly regulated industry. “Unchecked capitalism” is a bad description.
    - TaylorAlexander 7y ago
      Well, yes the airplane industry is highly regulated. But the endless pursuit of growth is a feature of unchecked capitalism. And my understanding is that there has been more “self regulation” attitudes in the airline industry in recent years. So it makes sense that you would begin to see features typical of unregulated capitalism in an industry that is relaxing regulation.
      - WoodTree 7y ago
        Regulation doesn’t mean it would be safer, just more bureaucratic. There are plenty of examples in the US of regulators failing to properly regulate like in Flint. Adding these regulations often benefits the capitalists more, as it raises the barrier of entry for smaller competitors and makes the market less competitive in the long run.
  - nosianu 7y ago
    Because in feudalism and before, or more recently in socialism - where I grew up - nobody ever took shortcuts, for selfish reasons or to please someone or to fulfill some goal (set by some boss or by the "central committee", does not matter) and everybody only thought of the greater good? Many times when there is discussion about issues like the environment there is such a comment blaming capitalism. I can assure you from my own personal live experience and from having seen huge changes after reunification, in capitalism-free East Germany the environment was orders of magnitude worse off than in capitalist West Germany. Don't blame human behaviors on capitalism/socialism/whatever.
    - andrepd 7y ago
      Precisely. People generally do as the system rewards them. If you live in a society of good opportunities and strong law enforcement, people have no incentive to steal, and will probably mostly not do so. If punishment for rape is lax, and/or the culture does not strongly censor it, then sexual crimes will abound. Etc. And of course, in neoliberal growth capitalism, the pursuit of perpetual growth will mean that some very stupid things are going to be done because they please the system: planned obsolescence, burning unsold clothes to keep the brand valuable, etc. They would mine the earth dry if it would make them a penny in their quarterly reports.
ragerino 7y ago
I think what they meant was making training less costly for their customers. It's a lost opportunity, when pilots train instead of sitting behind the wheel/stick flying goods or customers around the world.

ljm 7y ago

It feels crazy to me that there's no proper accountability for it. "Let's make training profitable" + every other decision on the software side = 346 dead people. Those deaths weren't an accident, they were a result of Boeing's desire for perpetual growth at any cost, and to try and beat Airbus at their game. No one except the families of the victims will suffer from that. But go ahead and carry a bag of weed and be prepared to spend your life in the system. Maybe it's time we rethink how limited liability works; and we get rid of this notion that corporations are beyond reproach (and they are, because the fines cost less than the profits).

andrepd 7y ago
Sadly it's not a feature of Boeing, but a feature of unchecked capitalism.
- ljm 7y ago
  I think all of us here remember the setup for the Wall Street crash in 1929. That was influenced heavily by unchecked capitalism, along with the pressure of WW1 going on in Europe and other world events. One of the responses was to restrict capitalism (it became fettered vs. unfettered at the point). And it was a good one, one that has seemingly been forgotten or ignored. Unfettered capitalism, through history, is a net loss for society. But the more we deregulate and seek profit at any cost, the more we re-align with that old view. In this instance, Boeing seems to be ok with the death of ~350 people.
  - TaylorAlexander 7y ago
    So I’m a leftist. So I sympathize with what you are saying. But you have to be careful using the term “capitalism”. It’s a highly overloaded term. For example I’ve come to realize that libertarians use the term quite differently from leftists. So if you use the term in mixed company you will find a lot of confusion results. It can be helpful to use other terminology which is less confusing. For example, Marxist economist Richard Wolff describes “capitalism” as the mode of production where a small elite own and control the means of production, inevitably shifting the focus of production to satisfy the needs of that small elite (endless growth being one). But libertarians describe “capitalism” as free economic exchange through markets. Richard Wolff was recently in a debate with a prominent libertarian and the man agreed with Wolff on almost everything. And Wolff is not opposed to markets, he’s opposed to elite control of the means of production. So it’s best not to use “capitalism” in the leftist sense and expect people to understand you. I also think there is a very serious and legitimate concern over the power of the state. The US state killed the leader of the Black Panthers, for example. We need regulatory control in the hands of the people. You may do well to study leftist critiques of the state. Mikhail Bakunun was active at the same time as Marx and was a critic of Marxism. Bakunin famously said in 1873: When the people are being beaten with a stick, they are not much happier if it is called "the People's Stick"
    - blotter_paper 7y ago
      Anarchist here, used to identify as a communist. I'd argue that both of your "capitalism" definitions can be pointed to as potential causes of the 737 fiasco, but that the latter ("free economic exchange through markets") seems more in line with what GP was wanting to, err, correct; I read GP as wanting more regulation for airplanes, which is antithetical to free exchange. I feel like the market itself will correct for these problems on a long enough time scale -- if people value the lives of their families enough they'll stop buying tickets for flights on planes made by this clearly inept entity, and if they don't value the lives of their families that much then that's another tradeoff they're free to make. (Yes, some people are too poor to exercise choice between options of varying cost, but that's a problem with poverty rather than choice -- regulating single engine Cessnas out of existence won't mean that radically impoverished people have access to better planes, it will just take away their freedom to bet their lives on flying in the first place.)
- JumpCrisscross 7y ago
  > unchecked capitalism Airplane manufacturing has lots of problems. But it’s a highly regulated industry. “Unchecked capitalism” is a bad description.
  - TaylorAlexander 7y ago
    Well, yes the airplane industry is highly regulated. But the endless pursuit of growth is a feature of unchecked capitalism. And my understanding is that there has been more “self regulation” attitudes in the airline industry in recent years. So it makes sense that you would begin to see features typical of unregulated capitalism in an industry that is relaxing regulation.
    - WoodTree 7y ago
      Regulation doesn’t mean it would be safer, just more bureaucratic. There are plenty of examples in the US of regulators failing to properly regulate like in Flint. Adding these regulations often benefits the capitalists more, as it raises the barrier of entry for smaller competitors and makes the market less competitive in the long run.
- nosianu 7y ago
  Because in feudalism and before, or more recently in socialism - where I grew up - nobody ever took shortcuts, for selfish reasons or to please someone or to fulfill some goal (set by some boss or by the "central committee", does not matter) and everybody only thought of the greater good? Many times when there is discussion about issues like the environment there is such a comment blaming capitalism. I can assure you from my own personal live experience and from having seen huge changes after reunification, in capitalism-free East Germany the environment was orders of magnitude worse off than in capitalist West Germany. Don't blame human behaviors on capitalism/socialism/whatever.
  - andrepd 7y ago
    Precisely. People generally do as the system rewards them. If you live in a society of good opportunities and strong law enforcement, people have no incentive to steal, and will probably mostly not do so. If punishment for rape is lax, and/or the culture does not strongly censor it, then sexual crimes will abound. Etc. And of course, in neoliberal growth capitalism, the pursuit of perpetual growth will mean that some very stupid things are going to be done because they please the system: planned obsolescence, burning unsold clothes to keep the brand valuable, etc. They would mine the earth dry if it would make them a penny in their quarterly reports.

ragerino 7y ago

I think what they meant was making training less costly for their customers. It's a lost opportunity, when pilots train instead of sitting behind the wheel/stick flying goods or customers around the world.