5 ms·

>We saw the same rhetoric on Holmes and Bankman-Fried. Once they were charged [...] It’s a lazy learned helplessness that’s always potentially right because i

by jasode 2y ago

>We saw the same rhetoric on Holmes and Bankman-Fried. Once they were charged [...] It’s a lazy learned helplessness that’s always potentially right because it feeds into a type of cynicism The gp's key argument for Boeing is based on the "Too Big To Fail" idea. I.e. Boeing's deep relationship with the government. So far in this subthread, nobody has actually engaged with that specific part of his argument. Mentioning Theranos Holmes and FTX SBF who are _not_ deeply intertwined with the government like Boeing isn't really a counter to that. The cynicism comes from previous "too big to fail" situations such as 2008 Financial Crisis and nobody from Goldman Sachs, etc going to prison for fraud. Fines and financial settlements as punishments -- yes. But jail time for those bank executives -- no. It points to a subtle part of gp's comment I think replies are overlooking which is "corporation" vs "employees": - Boeing Inc the corporate entity may be criminally charged and found guilty. The corporation then pays a punitive fine or settlement. (The proverbial "financial slap on the wrist.") vs - actual Boeing employees are found guilty and sent to jail. Gp's "this will go nowhere" frustration is based on this scenario which history has shown to be very unlikely to happen.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> Boeing is based on the "Too Big To Fail" idea. I.e. Boeing's deep relationship with government These are two separate concepts and you’re right, nobody has directly addressed them. Let me try. Too big to fail “is a theory in banking and finance that asserts that certain corporations, particularly financial institutions, are so large and so interconnected that their failure would be disastrous to the greater economic system, and therefore should be supported by government when they face potential failure” [1]. A key part to it is financial institutions can’t meaningfully go bankrupt—they don’t materially have tangible assets, they just fail. (It’s why bad banks go into receivership.) Boeing is not a bank. It’s not built almost solely on confidence. It, like the auto manufacturers, can go bankrupt without threatening its production. (GM and Chrysler went bankrupt [2]. Bankruptcy doesn’t mean we raze the factories.) Put succinctly, Boeing is NOT too big to fail. It does, however, have a deep and diverse relationship with government. Boeing has, by design, employees in every Congressional district. It’s strategically important to the U.S. and its allies and possesses an industrial-strength wheel greaser. That broad base of employees protects the plants. But as we’ve already seen, financial failure and even prosecution of senior leadership doesn’t blow up the plants. The strategic importance, meanwhile, is a two-edged sword. Boeing has power because it’s useful. Not only is that usefulness preserved through reörganisation, but if someone can claim it’s increased through it, the usefulness becomes a source of weakness. (Nobody cares if Chik-fil-a is mismanaged. They do when Boeing creates a national embarrassment at the ISS.) The only part that remains is the wheel greasing [3]. In this, Boeing is far from unique. It’s also unprotective against financial failure. Because, again, the wheels stay on if Boeing is reörganised. That may not be true if it continues on its current path. Especially as we’re lining up for a potential war in the South China Sea, Boeing’s military-industrial ties may be what forces those who’d prefer to look the other way to stare down the problem. We can’t win that war, if we have to fight it, with Boeing a shitshow. And we’re more likely to have to fight it every time Beijing sees it’s a shitshow. So yes, Boeing does have a deep relationship with government. But that doesn’t protect it from criminal prosecution or financial failure, and in some cases, may encourage the people pining for its reörganisation. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Too_big_to_fail https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Too_big_to_fail [2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_the_2008%E2%80%932010_automotive_industry_crisis_on_the_United_States https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_the_2008%E2%80%93... [3] https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2023/05/revolving-door-lobbyists-help-defense-contractors-get-off-to-strong-start-in-2023/ https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2023/05/revolving-door-lobb...
- jasode 2y ago
  >Boeing is not a bank. [...] Put succinctly, Boeing is NOT too big to fail. >[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Too_big_to_fail https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Too_big_to_fail Dissecting the origin of "too big to fail" and the wikipedia cite isn't relevant to gp's argument because many journalists/observers in media already use "too big to fail" to characterize companies like Boeing: https://www.google.com/search?q=boeing+%22too+big+to+fail%22 https://www.google.com/search?q=boeing+%22too+big+to+fail%22 In other words, the "too big to fail" meme has already expanded beyond banking's original usage.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > many journalists/observers in media already use "too big to fail" to characterize companies like Boeing Your counterargument is there are memes that say Boeing is TBTF, Q.E.D.?
    - jasode 2y ago
      >Your counterargument is there are memes that say Boeing is TBTF, Q.E.D.? I wasn't making any counterargument. I can 100% agree with you that TBTF was originally associated with the banking industry but simultaneously show that this isn't the meaning that others are using for Boeing. This seems like an obvious fact from a neutral viewpoint of seeing how language usage evolves (e.g. see the google examples) so not sure why stating it is controversial.
      - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
        > this isn't the meaning that others are using for Boeing But that’s why it’s wrong. TBTF only works because financial institutions are built on confidence. You can’t reboot them through bankruptcy. Boeing can be put into bankruptcy to facilitate reörganisation without causing ripple effects. (Like GM and Chrysler were.) TBTF as a general-purpose meme fundamentally doesn’t work.
        2y ago

by jasode 2y ago

JumpCrisscross 2y ago

> Boeing is based on the "Too Big To Fail" idea. I.e. Boeing's deep relationship with government These are two separate concepts and you’re right, nobody has directly addressed them. Let me try. Too big to fail “is a theory in banking and finance that asserts that certain corporations, particularly financial institutions, are so large and so interconnected that their failure would be disastrous to the greater economic system, and therefore should be supported by government when they face potential failure” [1]. A key part to it is financial institutions can’t meaningfully go bankrupt—they don’t materially have tangible assets, they just fail. (It’s why bad banks go into receivership.) Boeing is not a bank. It’s not built almost solely on confidence. It, like the auto manufacturers, can go bankrupt without threatening its production. (GM and Chrysler went bankrupt [2]. Bankruptcy doesn’t mean we raze the factories.) Put succinctly, Boeing is NOT too big to fail. It does, however, have a deep and diverse relationship with government. Boeing has, by design, employees in every Congressional district. It’s strategically important to the U.S. and its allies and possesses an industrial-strength wheel greaser. That broad base of employees protects the plants. But as we’ve already seen, financial failure and even prosecution of senior leadership doesn’t blow up the plants. The strategic importance, meanwhile, is a two-edged sword. Boeing has power because it’s useful. Not only is that usefulness preserved through reörganisation, but if someone can claim it’s increased through it, the usefulness becomes a source of weakness. (Nobody cares if Chik-fil-a is mismanaged. They do when Boeing creates a national embarrassment at the ISS.) The only part that remains is the wheel greasing [3]. In this, Boeing is far from unique. It’s also unprotective against financial failure. Because, again, the wheels stay on if Boeing is reörganised. That may not be true if it continues on its current path. Especially as we’re lining up for a potential war in the South China Sea, Boeing’s military-industrial ties may be what forces those who’d prefer to look the other way to stare down the problem. We can’t win that war, if we have to fight it, with Boeing a shitshow. And we’re more likely to have to fight it every time Beijing sees it’s a shitshow. So yes, Boeing does have a deep relationship with government. But that doesn’t protect it from criminal prosecution or financial failure, and in some cases, may encourage the people pining for its reörganisation. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Too_big_to_fail https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Too_big_to_fail [2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_the_2008%E2%80%932010_automotive_industry_crisis_on_the_United_States https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_the_2008%E2%80%93... [3] https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2023/05/revolving-door-lobbyists-help-defense-contractors-get-off-to-strong-start-in-2023/ https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2023/05/revolving-door-lobb...

jasode 2y ago
>Boeing is not a bank. [...] Put succinctly, Boeing is NOT too big to fail. >[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Too_big_to_fail https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Too_big_to_fail Dissecting the origin of "too big to fail" and the wikipedia cite isn't relevant to gp's argument because many journalists/observers in media already use "too big to fail" to characterize companies like Boeing: https://www.google.com/search?q=boeing+%22too+big+to+fail%22 https://www.google.com/search?q=boeing+%22too+big+to+fail%22 In other words, the "too big to fail" meme has already expanded beyond banking's original usage.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > many journalists/observers in media already use "too big to fail" to characterize companies like Boeing Your counterargument is there are memes that say Boeing is TBTF, Q.E.D.?
  - jasode 2y ago
    >Your counterargument is there are memes that say Boeing is TBTF, Q.E.D.? I wasn't making any counterargument. I can 100% agree with you that TBTF was originally associated with the banking industry but simultaneously show that this isn't the meaning that others are using for Boeing. This seems like an obvious fact from a neutral viewpoint of seeing how language usage evolves (e.g. see the google examples) so not sure why stating it is controversial.
    - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
      > this isn't the meaning that others are using for Boeing But that’s why it’s wrong. TBTF only works because financial institutions are built on confidence. You can’t reboot them through bankruptcy. Boeing can be put into bankruptcy to facilitate reörganisation without causing ripple effects. (Like GM and Chrysler were.) TBTF as a general-purpose meme fundamentally doesn’t work.
      - 2y ago