4 ms·

> Boeing has terrible management and deserves to go under for the 737 Max fiasco This seems a bit like throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Boeing employ

> Boeing has terrible management and deserves to go under for the 737 Max fiasco This seems a bit like throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Boeing employees 145,000 people. You're advocating making the equivalent of a small city jobless based on the actions of a very small contingent. Additionally, aerospace is a capital intensive business. To give up Boeing would mean the likely-permanent loss of sophisticated manufacturing capabilities in the United States. Nobody is starting a new aircraft manufacturer on AWS using Javascript. It would take tens of billions of dollars to even begin to attempt to re-create a company with Boeing's capabilities.

jellicle 6y ago
> You're advocating making the equivalent of a small city jobless based on the actions of a very small contingent. No one has ever advocated that every person at Boeing be fired and that's not what happens in large corporate bankruptcies. So no, that's not what the other poster was advocating. In general, I've seen people advocating that Boeing's shareholders be wiped out, senior management fired and the company be rebooted with a thorough dedication towards "safety first" as opposed to "short-term profits first".
- mprovost 6y ago
  Aren't most "shareholders" actually index funds or pensions at this point? The effects of wiping out such a large chunk of stock all at once would be felt pretty widely.
  - fgonzag 6y ago
    They shouldn't have invested in a badly managed company then. As long as investors don't feel their moral Hazzard, companies will keep doing the same things. Because investors will keep investing in them because they'll get bailed out at the end. Why wouldn't you invest in boeing if you know they are going to prioritize short term profits (good for you) and as soon as that comes back to bite the company it's going to be bailed out. And if you keep bailing them out, it's in the companies best interest to prioritize short term profits over long term consequences, because that's what's best for investors. Government bailouts pervert the market in extreme ways (you are essentially subsidizing risk), and it's the very reason why too big to fail companies keep doing the stuff they do. The point of the "market" is leaving the pricing to investors, if they fail to price the company correctly then it's their loss, just like it's their win when the stock goes up. The best option for too big to fail businesses failing is to buy 100% of it's shares when it declares bankruptcy (at close to $0), fire all top level management and the board, inject the cash needed and fix the companies culture to a prdoduct focused instead of finance focused (that's why the people rescued it), then IPO once it's numbers are in the green (or give one share to every tax paying resident)

jellicle 6y ago

> You're advocating making the equivalent of a small city jobless based on the actions of a very small contingent. No one has ever advocated that every person at Boeing be fired and that's not what happens in large corporate bankruptcies. So no, that's not what the other poster was advocating. In general, I've seen people advocating that Boeing's shareholders be wiped out, senior management fired and the company be rebooted with a thorough dedication towards "safety first" as opposed to "short-term profits first".

mprovost 6y ago
Aren't most "shareholders" actually index funds or pensions at this point? The effects of wiping out such a large chunk of stock all at once would be felt pretty widely.
- fgonzag 6y ago
  They shouldn't have invested in a badly managed company then. As long as investors don't feel their moral Hazzard, companies will keep doing the same things. Because investors will keep investing in them because they'll get bailed out at the end. Why wouldn't you invest in boeing if you know they are going to prioritize short term profits (good for you) and as soon as that comes back to bite the company it's going to be bailed out. And if you keep bailing them out, it's in the companies best interest to prioritize short term profits over long term consequences, because that's what's best for investors. Government bailouts pervert the market in extreme ways (you are essentially subsidizing risk), and it's the very reason why too big to fail companies keep doing the stuff they do. The point of the "market" is leaving the pricing to investors, if they fail to price the company correctly then it's their loss, just like it's their win when the stock goes up. The best option for too big to fail businesses failing is to buy 100% of it's shares when it declares bankruptcy (at close to $0), fire all top level management and the board, inject the cash needed and fix the companies culture to a prdoduct focused instead of finance focused (that's why the people rescued it), then IPO once it's numbers are in the green (or give one share to every tax paying resident)