3 ms·

Is Boeing the company of strategic interest to the U.S., or just its intellectual property and factories? Its brand has been seriously damaged by these scandal

Is Boeing the company of strategic interest to the U.S., or just its intellectual property and factories? Its brand has been seriously damaged by these scandals. It used to be, "If it's not Boeing I'm not going," now it's, "If it's Boeing, I'm not going." Let the company go bankrupt, enact export controls on its capital and IP. The free market will do a better job than the government could.

djsumdog 6y ago
I agree. Boeing, if it cannot find investors to keep it afloat, can simply sell off its IP. There are a considerable number of aerospace engineers who would kill for a fresh start. Look at the recent article on the Colorado startup with their supersonic experiment, or SpaceX. And yes, SpaceX does got a lot from tax payers and there are issues with that, but it's also a case of the State investing in something rather than owning it. Nationalization for something like an airplane company is terrible idea.
- castratikron 6y ago
  As SpaceX (and Tesla) have shown, sometimes in order to make real progress you need to restart things from zero. Tech debt piles up and political lines become entrenched to the point where nothing but marginal change can be made. Nationalizing the company would basically make this impossible. And maybe putting a real engineer in charge of a freaking engineering company wouldn't be a bad first step either...
alistairSH 6y ago
Is Boeing the company of strategic interest to the U.S., or just its intellectual property and factories? Both. Strategic interest because Boeing has a massive military business. Plus, the sheer size of the company and the fact that's it's one of two airline manufacturers worldwide (ignoring the few companies that focus solely on the regional jet business).
taneq 6y ago
> The free market will do a better job than the government could. I see this sentiment a lot, but nobody ever says what it will do a better job of: Innovation? Meeting customers’ needs? Or just providing a minimum marketable product while maximising returns for shareholders?

djsumdog 6y ago

I agree. Boeing, if it cannot find investors to keep it afloat, can simply sell off its IP. There are a considerable number of aerospace engineers who would kill for a fresh start. Look at the recent article on the Colorado startup with their supersonic experiment, or SpaceX. And yes, SpaceX does got a lot from tax payers and there are issues with that, but it's also a case of the State investing in something rather than owning it. Nationalization for something like an airplane company is terrible idea.

castratikron 6y ago
As SpaceX (and Tesla) have shown, sometimes in order to make real progress you need to restart things from zero. Tech debt piles up and political lines become entrenched to the point where nothing but marginal change can be made. Nationalizing the company would basically make this impossible. And maybe putting a real engineer in charge of a freaking engineering company wouldn't be a bad first step either...

alistairSH 6y ago

Is Boeing the company of strategic interest to the U.S., or just its intellectual property and factories? Both. Strategic interest because Boeing has a massive military business. Plus, the sheer size of the company and the fact that's it's one of two airline manufacturers worldwide (ignoring the few companies that focus solely on the regional jet business).

taneq 6y ago

> The free market will do a better job than the government could. I see this sentiment a lot, but nobody ever says what it will do a better job of: Innovation? Meeting customers’ needs? Or just providing a minimum marketable product while maximising returns for shareholders?