4 ms·

Capitalism is working in this case. Boeing is being punished. Market forces are not always instantaneous. The China boom made investors demand unreasonable retu

by Cyder 7y ago

Capitalism is working in this case. Boeing is being punished. Market forces are not always instantaneous. The China boom made investors demand unreasonable returns for domestic companies as well. A good business plan and making solid money over time is no longer acceptable. The China boom changed the expectations of investors to unreasonable rates. But the China boom wasn't capitalism. The Chinese economy is highly controlled and this influence on more capitalistic markets is what happens where the two separate markets converge.

bgutierrez 7y ago
Yes. If enough customers die using a product, people will stop using that product.
- maxharris 7y ago
  Both of you have a point! I believe that I have identified a crucial factor in my comment here (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21972656 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21972656) that identifies the root of the problem. I hope that it helps in resolving this disagreement.
gnulinux 7y ago
Capitalism is not working in this case since making faulty aircrafts should not be possible, by regulation, in the first place. Waiting for market to react gives companies to sort of "binary search" the market to find a sweet spot where they don't overspend on engineering, or underspend on engineering by making faulty aircrafts. The point of having regulation is to force companies not be able to perform this "binary search" so that there is a baseline they have to spend on engineering to be able to produce a commercial airliner.
thendrill 7y ago
Yeh also "capitalism is working" is a very biased expressions. I am pretty sure you would be singing a different tune, if "market forces" were directly effecting you ( example: if u had family on a crashed 737 Max). Or you lost your job coz it is cheaper elsewhere.
temac 7y ago
The quite detailed root cause (technical and even economical) was already known after the first crash. So if that's "capitalism" working that it needed a second one, I actually don't like "capitalism" very much.

by Cyder 7y ago

bgutierrez 7y ago

Yes. If enough customers die using a product, people will stop using that product.

maxharris 7y ago
Both of you have a point! I believe that I have identified a crucial factor in my comment here (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21972656 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21972656) that identifies the root of the problem. I hope that it helps in resolving this disagreement.

gnulinux 7y ago

Capitalism is not working in this case since making faulty aircrafts should not be possible, by regulation, in the first place. Waiting for market to react gives companies to sort of "binary search" the market to find a sweet spot where they don't overspend on engineering, or underspend on engineering by making faulty aircrafts. The point of having regulation is to force companies not be able to perform this "binary search" so that there is a baseline they have to spend on engineering to be able to produce a commercial airliner.

thendrill 7y ago

Yeh also "capitalism is working" is a very biased expressions. I am pretty sure you would be singing a different tune, if "market forces" were directly effecting you ( example: if u had family on a crashed 737 Max). Or you lost your job coz it is cheaper elsewhere.

temac 7y ago

The quite detailed root cause (technical and even economical) was already known after the first crash. So if that's "capitalism" working that it needed a second one, I actually don't like "capitalism" very much.