3 ms·

Boeing is (yet another) cautionary tale for what happens to a company when the finance people take over, which is essentially inevitable once a company has a "m

by jmyeet 2y ago

Boeing is (yet another) cautionary tale for what happens to a company when the finance people take over, which is essentially inevitable once a company has a "monopoly". Yes I know there's Airbus but a duopoly can be pretty functionally similar to a monopoly. The oft-quoted Steve Jobs quote on why Xerox failed [1] is always relevant. Starliner, SLS and Artemis both behave exactly like a jobs program gone bad. Now I'm not opposed to a jobs program per se. We could honestly use more of that. But the difference between Boeing's efforts and SpaceX's efforts is just astounding. Starliner launches on the fully expendable Atlas V N22 rocket, which reportedly costs $164 million [2] to launch. Falcon 9 seems to cost ~$62 million per launch [3] before you even factor in reuse. I don't know how (or even if) a company can be rescued when it gets to this stage. It becomes a rent-seeking Frankenstein of tiny warring fiefdoms. We've also seen this with Intel's complete inability to internally collaborate as mid-level VPs seemingly engage in turf wars rather than share resources and information. EDIT: fixed typo (Xerox) [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tGKsbt5wii0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tGKsbt5wii0 [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlas_V https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlas_V [3]: https://nstxl.org/reducing-the-cost-of-space-travel-with-reusable-launch-vehicles/ https://nstxl.org/reducing-the-cost-of-space-travel-with-reu...

oldpersonintx 2y ago
[dead]
black_13 2y ago
If you took the same amount of money spent on the starliner and spent it on education poverty eradication and just universal income Americans would howl.
- CrazyStat 2y ago
  The total cost of starliner (including Boeing’s expenses beyond what NASA paid for) is about $6.7 billion over the last decade. We spend several hundred times that on education and poverty eradication every year.
- toss1 2y ago
  Umm, spread across 330 million people in the US, $6.7 billion would amount to a UBI of about $20 per person. Since it's over a decade or so, that's about $2/year/person. Hardly enough to even be noticed, let alone make a difference. The argument "we shouldn't go to space before solving problems on earth" is only for people who don't understand actual large (budget) numbers. Unfortunately, this is a very large portion of the voting population. (And, no I am not saying that $6.7B would be meaningless if deployed in a program with effective results leverage, or that we shouldn't demand better than Boeing is giving us, only that the soace & science initiatives are worth far more than the single-digit-percentages allocated to them)
AlbertCory 2y ago
Jobs is pretty much right on there. Engineers are denigrated as "product guys" or at US auto companies, "car guys." As if that's a bad thing. (btw, it's Xerox, not "Zerox.")
marcosdumay 2y ago
> Now I'm not opposed to a jobs program per se. In the 1990s we managed to get enough evidence that useless jobs are worse than just giving people money in every way. So that idea died almost everywhere. Governments putting money on unprofitable but useful things is great. But they really should try to be efficient on those.
- candiddevmike 2y ago
  > In the 1990s we managed to get enough evidence that useless jobs are worse than just giving people money in every way. Because the government money never goes equally to the workers. Would there be better outcomes if government money only went to co-ops and worker unions?
  - robertlagrant 2y ago
    There would be better outcomes if the money were used to pay down debt, to reduce future inflation, or give rebates, to boost growth somewhere.
    - marcosdumay 2y ago
      > to pay down debt Government debt? That one is not clear at all. My best guess is that it depends on lots and lots of factors. > to reduce future inflation There exist an optimum number for inflation, making it smaller makes things worse. That optimum number is almost always greater than 0. > or give rebates Nope, sending the money to poor people is almost always better than rebating taxes. (Taxes rebates is such a weird concept. I've only seen it discussed on the US.) > to boost growth somewhere Giving money to poor people is a very effective way of achieving this.
      - immibis 2y ago
        Fun fact: There's actually no solid evidence that 2% is a good level of inflation. For all we know it could be 1%, 0% or -2%. The computer industry has been experiencing inflation around -10% a year for almost a century - if deflation is such a problem, why hasn't it collapsed yet? People delay their purchases a few months, but the foreseen total dry-up of purchasing just doesn't happen. (Except to Osbourne.)

by jmyeet 2y ago

oldpersonintx 2y ago

[dead]

black_13 2y ago

If you took the same amount of money spent on the starliner and spent it on education poverty eradication and just universal income Americans would howl.

CrazyStat 2y ago
The total cost of starliner (including Boeing’s expenses beyond what NASA paid for) is about $6.7 billion over the last decade. We spend several hundred times that on education and poverty eradication every year.
toss1 2y ago
Umm, spread across 330 million people in the US, $6.7 billion would amount to a UBI of about $20 per person. Since it's over a decade or so, that's about $2/year/person. Hardly enough to even be noticed, let alone make a difference. The argument "we shouldn't go to space before solving problems on earth" is only for people who don't understand actual large (budget) numbers. Unfortunately, this is a very large portion of the voting population. (And, no I am not saying that $6.7B would be meaningless if deployed in a program with effective results leverage, or that we shouldn't demand better than Boeing is giving us, only that the soace & science initiatives are worth far more than the single-digit-percentages allocated to them)

AlbertCory 2y ago

Jobs is pretty much right on there. Engineers are denigrated as "product guys" or at US auto companies, "car guys." As if that's a bad thing. (btw, it's Xerox, not "Zerox.")

marcosdumay 2y ago

> Now I'm not opposed to a jobs program per se. In the 1990s we managed to get enough evidence that useless jobs are worse than just giving people money in every way. So that idea died almost everywhere. Governments putting money on unprofitable but useful things is great. But they really should try to be efficient on those.

candiddevmike 2y ago
> In the 1990s we managed to get enough evidence that useless jobs are worse than just giving people money in every way. Because the government money never goes equally to the workers. Would there be better outcomes if government money only went to co-ops and worker unions?
- robertlagrant 2y ago
  There would be better outcomes if the money were used to pay down debt, to reduce future inflation, or give rebates, to boost growth somewhere.
  - marcosdumay 2y ago
    > to pay down debt Government debt? That one is not clear at all. My best guess is that it depends on lots and lots of factors. > to reduce future inflation There exist an optimum number for inflation, making it smaller makes things worse. That optimum number is almost always greater than 0. > or give rebates Nope, sending the money to poor people is almost always better than rebating taxes. (Taxes rebates is such a weird concept. I've only seen it discussed on the US.) > to boost growth somewhere Giving money to poor people is a very effective way of achieving this.
    - immibis 2y ago
      Fun fact: There's actually no solid evidence that 2% is a good level of inflation. For all we know it could be 1%, 0% or -2%. The computer industry has been experiencing inflation around -10% a year for almost a century - if deflation is such a problem, why hasn't it collapsed yet? People delay their purchases a few months, but the foreseen total dry-up of purchasing just doesn't happen. (Except to Osbourne.)