334
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 09 Mar 2024
334 points (99.1% liked)
News
23413 readers
2468 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles donβt match the source wonβt be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we wonβt delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
I think Boeing should rethink their strategy. How are their Stockprices not at the bottom of the ocean yet? Cutting so many corners and risking so many lifes should not be legal. This should definitely be prosecuted. Either ban all the current executives or ban the planes.
Because they're busy buying back their stock, causing the stock price to go up.
I don't think public companies should be able to do this, but they seem to do it all the time.
I'm pretty sure it was made illegal after the stock crash, or at least way more tightly regulated. Then Reagan made it cool again.
That's what I don't get, their stock goes down for a while but then people think it's a good time to buy and it goes back up. Like it doesn't affect them at all. Casually kill 400 people and barely anything happens.
Every time there's a bad-news dip in Boeing's stock price, traders are treating that as a discount to buy the stock because they don't think the US government would ever allow Boeing to fail. Sadly, they're probably not wrong. If Boeing's financials get into deep trouble the US government would likely bail them out because they're a large employer and a strategic component of US economic hegemony.
Not to mention, they build a lot of the toys the military plays with.
The stock market is pretty damn efficient at processing all the information related to the stock price. Stock goes up because realistically Boeing isnβt going anywhere.
They are still going to make money.
Because the stock market knows the US government would never let Boeing fail. Ever since the 2008 crisis investors have been acting on the assumption that every company that is too important for the US economy will be bailed out (as in, given low interest loans, not nationalised like a sane government would do).
Boeing doesn't need to fail. They're not going to, government assistance or not, they are still a profitable company of their own right. This isn't a case of bad investments like in 2008. So unless every company buying aircraft cancels their orders, which they won't, Boeing will continue to be fine. Besides, simple fact is Airbus doesn't have enough production capacity to replace Boeing.
That said, I would love to see their stock price tank. That doesn't bankrupt the company. It will fuck up their investors though. And those investors are the ones who would demand new management and, if they act collectively, can actually force new management to happen within a year. Any shareholder can put forward a shareholder resolution. A shareholder resolution could replace any or all of the company management. And if a majority of shareholders vote for it by proxy at the next annual meeting, then that's what happens.
If I were a Boeing shareholder, I would put a shareholder resolution that upper management must step down within the next 8 months, and the company headquarters must move from Washington DC back to Seattle where they build airplanes. Furthermore, the company charter would be amended to say that only someone with an engineering background may serve as CEO or in certain other upper management roles.
Boeing is a national strategic asset, even if its commercial airliners ended up in the toilet the DoD would keep it alive on gov contracts alone
Then the USAF should be given control over those parts.
Thinking about it, it's not just peacetime military contracts, the entire company is a national security asset
I doubt the gov would ever actually let Boeing's domestic commercial airliner market share decline too far because they need the engineering capabilities and the production capacity left intact just in case we ever suddenly find ourselves at war, they'd just place tariffs on Airbus airframes until production is where they want it
That's why you nationalize the parts you need. Someone else will rise to make commercial planes.
That's what I'm saying, they need all of it, they'd have to nationalize the entire company if that's what they were going to do
Don't threaten me with a good time.
It is one of the annoying side-effects of capitalism. Many companies start in a good place with quality setting them apart from others, and they then experience natural organic growth. Then they go public, go through some merger/takeovers, the original owners are either forced out, retire, or die, and at that point, the focus is shareholder profits and not what got them there.
Their lack of QA eventually catches up with them, people die, bad things happen. They'll up their quality, hire QA engineers again, claim they are doing the best for quality for a few quarters until the public eye is off them. Then they'll just start cutting quality back again.
Publicly traded companies eventually never care about quality, or safety, or human lives. It is in their nature.
Last week's John Oliver had a great episode on how Boeing backslid after merging with McDonnell Douglas.
Yeah, Soviet Russia never had an aereal accident.
Hilarious. We either let corporations kill people or we live in Russia. There's nothing in between there. Nothing at all.
In the latest Boeing news (door plugs, bolts, this rudder thing) there have been 0 deaths. Nothing at all.
This time. Nobody went to prison for killing 400 people with MCAS or for lying about it after. And the documents that have come out prove they knew it was a deathtrap. Their own test pilots reported it was unrecoverable.
That's what I said.
No it isn't. You pointed out that the recent news has zero deaths. But it's just a matter of time until something critical fails and a Boeing falls out of the sky. If we don't hold them accountable for previous failures, they will not change.
So... that's what I said.
The prevalence of incompetence in large organizations and institutions is independent of economic and political systems, and is more so from the dilution of talent and accountability as it grows.
Well, that's not what the guy above said, it's all capitalism's fault, apparently.
One of my favorite activities, as someone who had to actually read both Adam Smith and Karl Marx in college, is to ask AnCaps and Tankies (and pretty much every other political and economic pontificator) to strictly define capitalism and socialism. Then I ask them if they think "pure" versions of those systems have ever existed.
π π π π π £π π π π ’
No true scotsman?
Last week John Oliver essentially said it is both, with capitalism (stock buybacks and cost cutting) being primary.
So is Airbus also equally bad? Also capitalist economy...
Or is it maybe greed, which exists in any system, and in this case has cough up with Boeing and the drop in share price is exactly what they wanted to prevent?
Boy what a straw man argument lol
I agree.
They are an arms manufacturer, too. I think this helps hedge their position(even though that side is having some issues also.)
Mostly I think it is because there is no competition.
I was wondering the same thing about one of these planes and the ocean, tbh.
I think there's a few execs over at Boeing who haven't seen All My Sons yet