5 ms·

> Boeing decided they wanted to focus on maximizing profits > The shareholders/board decided to gut the company so they can get richer with stock buybacks Are

> Boeing decided they wanted to focus on maximizing profits > The shareholders/board decided to gut the company so they can get richer with stock buybacks Are you not saying the exact same thing, just being more explicit about the implicit "short-term" profits? The shareholders/board (e.g. Boeing...the decision makers) decided to gut the company so they can get richer (e.g. maximize [short-term] profits, since the profits accrue to the shareholders/board) with stock buybacks.

wnevets 3y ago
I separate Boeing the business entity from the private capital that receives the cash.
- MattGaiser 3y ago
  The former is under the control of the latter.
  - wnevets 3y ago
    I'm not arguing that parasites don't have control over their host [1], I'm arguing that they're separate entities. [1] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31980266/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31980266/
    - wharvle 3y ago
      They're separate, but one owns and controls the other. I'm not seeing how pointing out that they're separate (a point on which I don't believe anyone here was confused in the first place) adds anything material to this exchange. "Boeing decided something", in a business strategy context, is just shorthand for "the people who control Boeing decided something", because Boeing doesn't ever decide anything. It can't.
      - wnevets 3y ago
        > because Boeing doesn't ever decide anything. It can't. Something tells me the board & shareholders will disagree if any criminal investigations are open on these failures. When companies break the law the shareholders never claim its impossible decisions were made without them. [1] [2] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wells_Fargo_cross-selling_scandal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wells_Fargo_cross-selling_scan... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswagen_emissions_scandal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswagen_emissions_scandal
- pie420 3y ago
  that's ridiculous. it's like saying i separate myself the employee from the private individual receiving the salary. the two are the same. Just because the catholic church can get away with separating the same entity into multiple parts doesn't mean anyone can or should
  - wnevets 3y ago
    So if a company goes bankrupt you believe the board & shareholders are now on the hook for that debt?
    - okanat 3y ago
      We would probably live in a better world, if it did.
      - wnevets 3y ago
        Perhaps but there would probably be a lot less people starting companies if that was the case. LLCs were created for a reason and are effectively what this commenter [1] described. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39108118 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39108118
        wolverine876 3y ago
        Doesn't that describe many forms of incorporation, not just LLCs?
        wnevets 3y ago
        Yes but LLCs are usually easier/less paperwork if you're starting a new company or doing what the linked commenter described.
      - mrcwinn 3y ago
        I can connect to the sentiment of that, but it's a ridiculous thought in practice. The board, which can come and go, is not a personal guarantor. They have a fiduciary duty, of course, but they're not individually bringing in the billions of dollars of public investment in the public company they serve. And so why should they be personally liable for its debt? And even if they should, how could they be? If a company goes bankrupt and it owes creditors, say, $10 billion, but together the board members have, say, $5 million in their accounts, creditors are still short $9.99+ billion. What value is there in that, apart from the moralizing?

wnevets 3y ago

I separate Boeing the business entity from the private capital that receives the cash.

MattGaiser 3y ago
The former is under the control of the latter.
- wnevets 3y ago
  I'm not arguing that parasites don't have control over their host [1], I'm arguing that they're separate entities. [1] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31980266/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31980266/
  - wharvle 3y ago
    They're separate, but one owns and controls the other. I'm not seeing how pointing out that they're separate (a point on which I don't believe anyone here was confused in the first place) adds anything material to this exchange. "Boeing decided something", in a business strategy context, is just shorthand for "the people who control Boeing decided something", because Boeing doesn't ever decide anything. It can't.
    - wnevets 3y ago
      > because Boeing doesn't ever decide anything. It can't. Something tells me the board & shareholders will disagree if any criminal investigations are open on these failures. When companies break the law the shareholders never claim its impossible decisions were made without them. [1] [2] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wells_Fargo_cross-selling_scandal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wells_Fargo_cross-selling_scan... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswagen_emissions_scandal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswagen_emissions_scandal
pie420 3y ago
that's ridiculous. it's like saying i separate myself the employee from the private individual receiving the salary. the two are the same. Just because the catholic church can get away with separating the same entity into multiple parts doesn't mean anyone can or should
- wnevets 3y ago
  So if a company goes bankrupt you believe the board & shareholders are now on the hook for that debt?
  - okanat 3y ago
    We would probably live in a better world, if it did.
    - wnevets 3y ago
      Perhaps but there would probably be a lot less people starting companies if that was the case. LLCs were created for a reason and are effectively what this commenter [1] described. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39108118 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39108118
      - wolverine876 3y ago
        Doesn't that describe many forms of incorporation, not just LLCs?
        wnevets 3y ago
        Yes but LLCs are usually easier/less paperwork if you're starting a new company or doing what the linked commenter described.
    - mrcwinn 3y ago
      I can connect to the sentiment of that, but it's a ridiculous thought in practice. The board, which can come and go, is not a personal guarantor. They have a fiduciary duty, of course, but they're not individually bringing in the billions of dollars of public investment in the public company they serve. And so why should they be personally liable for its debt? And even if they should, how could they be? If a company goes bankrupt and it owes creditors, say, $10 billion, but together the board members have, say, $5 million in their accounts, creditors are still short $9.99+ billion. What value is there in that, apart from the moralizing?