8 ms·

Basically best to understanding Boeing and the US Government as one and the same the only difference is Boeing has a ticker symbol.

gumby 3y ago
Boeing is a negligible subset of the USG though. I find it more weird when Lockheed, CSC etc contract to run non-military programs for the USG. Whatever your opinion of military matters, I think it’s a bad idea to have a company whose main objective is killing people manage a program designed to, say, keep people from starving to death.
- m463 3y ago
  I agree, for example the Grumman LLV https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grumman_LLV https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grumman_LLV
- voidfunc 3y ago
  Eh... also gotta consider Boeing employs 145K people.. it would be really bad if it went under.
- philwelch 3y ago
  80% of the work a military does is to keep people from starving to death. It’s called “logistics”.
  - gumby 3y ago
    Yeah, but not Lockheed
    - philwelch 3y ago
      That’s not true. Lockheed makes cargo planes and helicopters.
      - gumby 3y ago
        Yes but someone else ( the military) operates them, just as they do trucks and forklifts and whatever. I’m talking about Lockheed contracting with civilian governments to operate welfare systems and such.
        philwelch 3y ago
        I didn’t know Lockheed did that; do you have any sources? I’ve seen similar things (for instance, defense contractors also make mail trucks for the Postal Service), and the main reason for that is because doing business with the government is a big enough pain in the ass that it becomes a core competency in and of itself. Incidentally Sodexo—the cafeteria company—also has military contracts to run mess halls on military bases. So they are technically also a defense contractor. This isn’t surprising because they run cafeterias in hospitals and schools and prisons so they are also good at doing business with the government.
    - p_l 3y ago
      Lockheed has considerable logistical arm, though mostly unrelated to feeding people anything other than lead and depleted uranium. It also sucks hilariously and if you think F-35 had avionics problems then you're just not ready for Lockheed-Martin quality in logistics.

gumby 3y ago

Boeing is a negligible subset of the USG though. I find it more weird when Lockheed, CSC etc contract to run non-military programs for the USG. Whatever your opinion of military matters, I think it’s a bad idea to have a company whose main objective is killing people manage a program designed to, say, keep people from starving to death.

m463 3y ago
I agree, for example the Grumman LLV https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grumman_LLV https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grumman_LLV
voidfunc 3y ago
Eh... also gotta consider Boeing employs 145K people.. it would be really bad if it went under.
philwelch 3y ago
80% of the work a military does is to keep people from starving to death. It’s called “logistics”.
- gumby 3y ago
  Yeah, but not Lockheed
  - philwelch 3y ago
    That’s not true. Lockheed makes cargo planes and helicopters.
    - gumby 3y ago
      Yes but someone else ( the military) operates them, just as they do trucks and forklifts and whatever. I’m talking about Lockheed contracting with civilian governments to operate welfare systems and such.
      - philwelch 3y ago
        I didn’t know Lockheed did that; do you have any sources? I’ve seen similar things (for instance, defense contractors also make mail trucks for the Postal Service), and the main reason for that is because doing business with the government is a big enough pain in the ass that it becomes a core competency in and of itself. Incidentally Sodexo—the cafeteria company—also has military contracts to run mess halls on military bases. So they are technically also a defense contractor. This isn’t surprising because they run cafeterias in hospitals and schools and prisons so they are also good at doing business with the government.
  - p_l 3y ago
    Lockheed has considerable logistical arm, though mostly unrelated to feeding people anything other than lead and depleted uranium. It also sucks hilariously and if you think F-35 had avionics problems then you're just not ready for Lockheed-Martin quality in logistics.