6 ms·
I've said it in every previous post where Boeing makes a profit vs safety trade-off: We should nationalize Boeing. It's in our strategic interest to be able t
by Pfhreak 6y ago
I've said it in every previous post where Boeing makes a profit vs safety trade-off:
We should nationalize Boeing.
It's in our strategic interest to be able to manufacture planes, Boeing provides lots of decent wage jobs, it has wildly overpaid executives, and it had shown that when given the choice it will choose profit over safety. Nationalization removes the profit motive, ends the bizarre tax subsidies that get pushed around.
- JumpCrisscross 6y agoWhy not just regulate it as a utility? Precedent for nationalisation in America is lacking, and the track record where it exists poor.
- Quarrelsome 6y agoHow much do upper management of utility companies get paid?
- JumpCrisscross 6y ago> How much do upper management of utility companies get paid? Competent, cheap and limited power. Pick two. The executive of Boeing, public or private, will control vast resources. If you underpay, you will get an idiot who follows the rules or someone who makes up the difference in undesirable ways. (Someone competent motivated by a sense of duty has better options in terms of executive staffing.)
- coliveira 6y agoThere is little evidence that highly paid executives make better decisions than other similarly educated individuals. They're just "smarter" in the sense of getting into a company and/or field that pays more for similar expertise. The reality shows that huge companies make lots of mistakes, but they're often protected from these mistakes by their strong position in the market. See for example companies such as IBM, GE, GM, etc.
- bosie 6y agocan you provide some references to the first sentence please. I am genuinely curious how you would create an experiment/data analysis to show this.
- jmcgough 6y agoAn excellent example would be Boeing before their merger with McDonnell Douglas. Boeing originally had an engineering-lead culture. After the merger, their exec salaries ballooned, profits grew, but engineering quality suffered. Lucratively high exec pay is a recent phenomenon. There were plenty of successful companies before the last 40 years. See https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/11/how-boeing-lost-its-bearings/602188/ https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/11/how-boeing...
- bosie 6y agosorry, i am not connecting the dots. how is this connected to the claim and/or how does it show the claim is correct?
- valuearb 6y agoNationalization would destroy it faster.
- Quarrelsome 6y agoEither ideology poorly implemented sucks because corruption infests either ideology just as good.
- deevolution 6y agoOr keep it alive for far beyond its expiration date.
- bilbo0s 6y agodestroy it faster [or] keep it alive for far beyond its expiration date? Place your bets. Seriously. Boeing is so far into ineptitude territory at this point that there really is open uncertainty as to which of these would happen.
- Ericson2314 6y agoI look forward to China finally getting it's airbus competing ready and watching DC freak out.
- coliveira 6y agoI don't think they're more than 2 or 3 years from that.
- aj7 6y agoThey can do airframes but they are still far behind in avionics and engines. If the C919 ships in 2-3 years at all, it will be with CFM LEAP engines and American avionics. The problem for China is you cannot cut quality in aviation; there is no such thing as an affordable, lower quality product as there is in consumer products. We’re talking ca. 2030 for a competitive Chinese airliner.
- coliveira 6y agoChina has been capable of creating quality products in other areas, for example their national high speed train, satellite, and electric car industries. Avionics take time, that is true, but I would say that in 3 years they will have the necessary technology.
- cameldrv 6y agoThe C919 is supposed to have its first deliveries next year.
- m0zg 6y agoCounterpoint: Sukhoi Superjet had its "deliveries" years ago, and now several of them have crashed and nobody wants to buy or fly them anymore. And that _Sukhoi_ - those guys have been designing and building planes for 81 years. Just not passenger ones. On paper, the plane is "competitive". Doesn't mean jack squat.
- bleepblorp 6y ago
- ChicagoBoy11 6y agoDisagree 100%. To me, what we are seeing IS the effect of a company that HAS been effectively nationalized, too big too fail, and time and time again doesn't feel the brunt of its horrendous decisions.
- AniseAbyss 6y agoThere used to be several US aircraft manufacturers. The US government wanted them to merge to better face competition from Airbus. Its not accidental that we have two global giants in aviation. Deliberate policy on both sides of the Atlantic.
- specialist 6y agoWith benefit of hindsight, I wonder how I would have driven that policy initiative, if I had been pro-monopoly. I think as the largest customer (US Fed Govt), my quid pro quo would stipulate keeping IP and mfg domestic, and curtail the financialization (execs, board, and biggest investors goosing the stock price, buy backs, etc). In other words, The New Deal. Forging national security thru appeasing both the war hawks and labor.
- retrac 6y agoIt's worse than that. It's like if Amtrak had its federal monopoly, but was still a private company.
- daveoflynn 6y agoBoeing is already a public/private enterprise. The down years in commercial aircraft are propped up by US Gov defence orders, lots of primary research is funded by the US taxpayer, the US Gov works very hard to help Boeing sell airplanes, and there’s heaps of tax breaks available at the State level. Many of the trade offs that Boeing has made - outsourcing, devaluing internal expertise, focusing on shareholder returns over risky long-term bets, and aggressively fighting unions - mirror US culture more generally. There’s little evidence that nationalising Boeing would change this - as an example related to this news story, the DoD is outsourcing more and more of its training and aggressor flying to private corporations. It is worth pointing out that many of the points about Boeing being a public/private enterprise also apply to Airbus.
- sheeshkebab 6y agoUs government typically doesn’t outsource work to shell companies setup on tax evading islands
- dfischer 6y agoYeah it does. In fact I’d argue the entire role of US gov within markets financially ends up on tax evading islands.
- njarboe 6y agoAnd according to the article the company is "incorporated in the Isle of Mann" which I'm pretty sure doesn't exist on this planet.
- ficklepickle 6y agoThe Isle of Man definitely exists on this planet, assuming we are both on planet Earth. I'm confused, why don't you think it exists?
- njarboe 6y agoIsle of Mann does not exist. Isle of Man does.
- deevolution 6y agoBoeing is already a nationalized business. They're financially propped up by the US government which is why they've been able to make all of these horrible decisions without any consequence. They're no longer a tech company. They're a zombie financial institution.
- SubiculumCode 6y agoThere is a difference between a government ran enterprise and a for-profit enterprise that has it's risk behaviors subsidized by the government.
- jasonzemos 6y agoYes, the latter escapes any legal accountability to its corruption.
- dfischer 6y agoAlmost opposite. If a government institution doesn’t have accounting on money then it’s easier to hide corruption.
- dfischer 6y agoAll government ran enterprises still rely on profit, it’s just pushing the profit incentives towards another group.
- dfischer 6y agoAbsolutely disagree. Boeing is a direct result of mismanagement and protection because of government involvement. What people use and want is the most effective signal. If regulation by government worked why hasn’t FAA succeeded? Largely many would argue they have statistically. I prefer something closer to an emergent regulatory body that convenes on conferences and protocols. Nationalism would be a nightmare. There’s so much to unpack there on mechanics and rights. No way.
- eternalban 6y agoThe point you are making is getting lost in splitting hairs over semantics of “nationalized”. It is rather short sighted for a nation that has for the past 2 decades given primacy to force over diplomacy to outsource military and critical industrial know-how. This stuff used to be state-craft 101 but apparently the ‘dumb down America’ project was more successful than possibly originally intended.