5 ms·

Expropriate the company, at least 51%, take control and let public officials (knowing the US way, it will be some army general) set up checks and controls where

by orwin 2y ago

Expropriate the company, at least 51%, take control and let public officials (knowing the US way, it will be some army general) set up checks and controls where necessary, then sell the shares (maybe keep an 'oversight' part, like 10% to keep a state official on the board). Current stock owners will loose half their value (which is a good enough punishment for this lack of oversight), the state will have access to privileged company information which will allow the prosecution of human responsibles, top executives will be sacked (and their comp reduced by half since their comp is in stocks) and maybe the company will start on good base again.

vt85 2y ago
[dead]
bitcharmer 2y ago
That sounds like the right thing to do. And that's why it's never going to happen
wrren 2y ago
I don’t think millionaires losing some money is sufficient punishment for hundreds of lives lost. What’s so crazy about prosecuting individuals?
- dspillett 2y ago
  Why not both? Punish those making the decisions with prison time, and those turning a blind eye because it was profitable with at least some of that profit.
- hibikir 2y ago
  It's not crazy, but many company divisions are set up in such a way to dilute guilt, and make people feel helpless about fixing issues near them. It will often be difficult to follow a paper trail and find that yes, X Y and Z were the people that decided on a criminally negligent tradeoff. Just like the unread targets in Wells Fargo, nobody asks for the fraudulent behavior by name, but the incentives often make it inevitable.
  - walleeee 2y ago
    > many company divisions are set up in such a way to dilute guilt not only the internal structure of the firm, but the legal framework in which firms operate, not to mention the cultural mythology situating it all diffusion of responsibility as one of the defining characteristics of the modern era
- ben_w 2y ago
  Likewise. In olden times, the monarch's wealth was the state's wealth, and vice-versa. CEOs being shareholders has a similar problem, in that the only monetary punishment possible against the collective necessarily also harms those with no power to prevent the actions which were punished because it's not a democracy. (One dollar one vote != one person one vote; also the workforce generally, not sure about Boeing in particular, have minimal to zero shares/votes). For this reason, I favour a degree of personal responsibility for management all the way from line managers to the board… and for government officials all the way from parking inspectors to presidents. The details of such a system to make it fair and balanced are an entire constitution, not something I'd be qualified to write, and definitely to big to fit into this comment.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > In olden times, the monarch's wealth was the state's wealth, and vice-versa Most monarchies at least pretended to separate the state and privy purses, FYI.
michaelt 2y ago
> Current stock owners will loose half their value (which is a good enough punishment for this lack of oversight) I'm not opposed to this. But I think our corporations should be regulated by the government, not by shareholder oversight. After all, shareholders are essentially powerless in the current system. Each individual shareholder's power is far too dilute, many people owning shares through pension funds don't even know they're shareholders, the minority shareholders have no way to contact each other to coordinate, and it's completely normal for the likes of Apple to spend billions on secret projects and the shareholders to only find out after the fact. Hell, Google even has three classes of shares - one with no voting rights, one with 1x voting rights, and a special class with 10x voting rights for Larry and Sergei ensuring they have a majority of the votes even without majority ownership. If we think shareholders are supposed to be providing oversight to companies, they need vastly more power to do so.
- skizm 2y ago
  Shareholders have the power to not buy the stock.
- black_puppydog 2y ago
  The way I read GP's argument, the (yes, very diluted, but real) "oversight" would come from the fact that every shareholder would have to base their bidding price for e.g. Boeing shares on, among other things, the probability of this company being devalued by 51% following a scandal like this. If (and I understand this is a huge "if") this kind of action was more common, you might think twice before investing into any companies that run a serious risk of direct government interaction to protect the public.
  - teitoklien 2y ago
    Might work in a world where only america exists. What you are suggesting will instead lead to a downward spiral of investor confidence in investing in American companies, and letting other world powers dominate in key tech areas of strategic interest where investors have more confidence and dont have to worry about gov punishing shareholders with no voting rights by taking away their shares These kinda ideas often seem to originate from a place of revenge or vengeance on someone folks feel is responsible (here its ‘shareholders’) Better to just install more government oversight (instead of more regulation) improve transparency, amend whistleblower laws to prevent retaliations that boeing did, etc. Those are much more important and useful for this country.
ajsnigrutin 2y ago
Or like slap them on the wrist, fine them a few million and act as if nothing has happened, like every time before. Considering how tight boeing is with the government, which scenario is more realistic? :)
monksy 2y ago
This and criminal proceedings is really the only way corruption and malicious behavior can be stopped. Even though it will harm shareholders, they still have a responsibility in attempting to limit the behavior. (Although from the boards perspective they'll claim they can do anything as long as they're there)
JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> Expropriate the company, at least 51%, take control and let public officials (knowing the US way, it will be some army general) set up checks and controls where necessary Why? Just criminally charge and fine them into bankruptcy. This wipes out shareholders and lets the creditors—the government would be a big one, on account of the fine—reorganise the company and review all the books and records in a legally precedents venue. Everyone keeps trying to invent new mechanisms for what fines and bankruptcy already do.
- tonetegeatinst 2y ago
  It looks like you misspelled the word fines. Its spelled the following way: "acceptable cost of operations" See the tiny fine the government handed the cellular providers for selling user data
  - bryanlarsen 2y ago
    JumpCrissCross said "fine them into bankruptcy".
__MatrixMan__ 2y ago
> Current stock owners will loose half their value (which is a good enough punishment for this lack of oversight) Generally speaking, I don't think it is. If you own a significant stake, you should be worried about jailtime. It's no different than if your dog bites someone.
pjc50 2y ago
> Expropriate Fifth Amendment says no. I'm not even an American and I know that will never fly. The US is not China, which very much can and does do this. It's not actually necessary either! There's plenty of scope for fines and compliance orders. Heck, the US government could even ban them as a supplier, putting them out of business .. if there was another plane company in the US. The whole fiasco is the fault of wrongly approving the creation of a US plane monopoly in the merger with McDonnell-Douglas.
- danaris 2y ago
  ...Fifth? (right to non-self-incrimination) Are you sure you don't mean Fourth? (right to security from unlawful search and seizure)
  - pjc50 2y ago
    https://constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/amendments/amendment-v/clauses/634 https://constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/amendments/a... "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." Final clause. (this is why unrelated sub-clauses should be numbered, not just appended with semicolons)
    - tracker1 2y ago
      Would it not be a possible resolution via court order as a punishment for conviction of crimes? I mean, they killed hundreds, that's a capital crime in most places for individuals, I think collectively killing half the company, or even literally in case of executives and board members might be appropriate.

by orwin 2y ago

vt85 2y ago

[dead]

bitcharmer 2y ago

That sounds like the right thing to do. And that's why it's never going to happen

wrren 2y ago

I don’t think millionaires losing some money is sufficient punishment for hundreds of lives lost. What’s so crazy about prosecuting individuals?

dspillett 2y ago
Why not both? Punish those making the decisions with prison time, and those turning a blind eye because it was profitable with at least some of that profit.
hibikir 2y ago
It's not crazy, but many company divisions are set up in such a way to dilute guilt, and make people feel helpless about fixing issues near them. It will often be difficult to follow a paper trail and find that yes, X Y and Z were the people that decided on a criminally negligent tradeoff. Just like the unread targets in Wells Fargo, nobody asks for the fraudulent behavior by name, but the incentives often make it inevitable.
- walleeee 2y ago
  > many company divisions are set up in such a way to dilute guilt not only the internal structure of the firm, but the legal framework in which firms operate, not to mention the cultural mythology situating it all diffusion of responsibility as one of the defining characteristics of the modern era
ben_w 2y ago
Likewise. In olden times, the monarch's wealth was the state's wealth, and vice-versa. CEOs being shareholders has a similar problem, in that the only monetary punishment possible against the collective necessarily also harms those with no power to prevent the actions which were punished because it's not a democracy. (One dollar one vote != one person one vote; also the workforce generally, not sure about Boeing in particular, have minimal to zero shares/votes). For this reason, I favour a degree of personal responsibility for management all the way from line managers to the board… and for government officials all the way from parking inspectors to presidents. The details of such a system to make it fair and balanced are an entire constitution, not something I'd be qualified to write, and definitely to big to fit into this comment.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > In olden times, the monarch's wealth was the state's wealth, and vice-versa Most monarchies at least pretended to separate the state and privy purses, FYI.

michaelt 2y ago

> Current stock owners will loose half their value (which is a good enough punishment for this lack of oversight) I'm not opposed to this. But I think our corporations should be regulated by the government, not by shareholder oversight. After all, shareholders are essentially powerless in the current system. Each individual shareholder's power is far too dilute, many people owning shares through pension funds don't even know they're shareholders, the minority shareholders have no way to contact each other to coordinate, and it's completely normal for the likes of Apple to spend billions on secret projects and the shareholders to only find out after the fact. Hell, Google even has three classes of shares - one with no voting rights, one with 1x voting rights, and a special class with 10x voting rights for Larry and Sergei ensuring they have a majority of the votes even without majority ownership. If we think shareholders are supposed to be providing oversight to companies, they need vastly more power to do so.

skizm 2y ago
Shareholders have the power to not buy the stock.
black_puppydog 2y ago
The way I read GP's argument, the (yes, very diluted, but real) "oversight" would come from the fact that every shareholder would have to base their bidding price for e.g. Boeing shares on, among other things, the probability of this company being devalued by 51% following a scandal like this. If (and I understand this is a huge "if") this kind of action was more common, you might think twice before investing into any companies that run a serious risk of direct government interaction to protect the public.
- teitoklien 2y ago
  Might work in a world where only america exists. What you are suggesting will instead lead to a downward spiral of investor confidence in investing in American companies, and letting other world powers dominate in key tech areas of strategic interest where investors have more confidence and dont have to worry about gov punishing shareholders with no voting rights by taking away their shares These kinda ideas often seem to originate from a place of revenge or vengeance on someone folks feel is responsible (here its ‘shareholders’) Better to just install more government oversight (instead of more regulation) improve transparency, amend whistleblower laws to prevent retaliations that boeing did, etc. Those are much more important and useful for this country.

ajsnigrutin 2y ago

Or like slap them on the wrist, fine them a few million and act as if nothing has happened, like every time before. Considering how tight boeing is with the government, which scenario is more realistic? :)

monksy 2y ago

This and criminal proceedings is really the only way corruption and malicious behavior can be stopped. Even though it will harm shareholders, they still have a responsibility in attempting to limit the behavior. (Although from the boards perspective they'll claim they can do anything as long as they're there)

JumpCrisscross 2y ago

> Expropriate the company, at least 51%, take control and let public officials (knowing the US way, it will be some army general) set up checks and controls where necessary Why? Just criminally charge and fine them into bankruptcy. This wipes out shareholders and lets the creditors—the government would be a big one, on account of the fine—reorganise the company and review all the books and records in a legally precedents venue. Everyone keeps trying to invent new mechanisms for what fines and bankruptcy already do.

tonetegeatinst 2y ago
It looks like you misspelled the word fines. Its spelled the following way: "acceptable cost of operations" See the tiny fine the government handed the cellular providers for selling user data
- bryanlarsen 2y ago
  JumpCrissCross said "fine them into bankruptcy".

__MatrixMan__ 2y ago

> Current stock owners will loose half their value (which is a good enough punishment for this lack of oversight) Generally speaking, I don't think it is. If you own a significant stake, you should be worried about jailtime. It's no different than if your dog bites someone.

pjc50 2y ago

> Expropriate Fifth Amendment says no. I'm not even an American and I know that will never fly. The US is not China, which very much can and does do this. It's not actually necessary either! There's plenty of scope for fines and compliance orders. Heck, the US government could even ban them as a supplier, putting them out of business .. if there was another plane company in the US. The whole fiasco is the fault of wrongly approving the creation of a US plane monopoly in the merger with McDonnell-Douglas.

danaris 2y ago
...Fifth? (right to non-self-incrimination) Are you sure you don't mean Fourth? (right to security from unlawful search and seizure)
- pjc50 2y ago
  https://constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/amendments/amendment-v/clauses/634 https://constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/amendments/a... "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." Final clause. (this is why unrelated sub-clauses should be numbered, not just appended with semicolons)
  - tracker1 2y ago
    Would it not be a possible resolution via court order as a punishment for conviction of crimes? I mean, they killed hundreds, that's a capital crime in most places for individuals, I think collectively killing half the company, or even literally in case of executives and board members might be appropriate.