6 ms·

I think the cracking down on incompetent elites that aren't that elite is something Republicans feel should be left to the market to decide. I don't think it's

by TimPC 3y ago

I think the cracking down on incompetent elites that aren't that elite is something Republicans feel should be left to the market to decide. I don't think it's an easy sell to argue the government should shut down an entire company over issues rather than letting the issues lead to fewer sales and having the market sort it out. I think most Republicans would vehemently disagree with a statement like "the government should decide who the elites are", which this action seems to be doing. I agree the profit-seeking company killing Americans is an easy sell with democrats and possibly even a good chunk of independents.

ciabattabread 3y ago
Boeing is also a major defense contractor, and has facilities spread out across many states. No politician of either party is going to call for the shutdown of a major employer of their constituents and a key component of national security.
- acdha 3y ago
  That’s true but it’s very easy to imagine at least one party being more than willing to have the FAA be less deferential.
- tough 3y ago
  why don't they acquire Boeing into a government owned company (for the defense stuff)
  - takinola 3y ago
    The US doesn't do government-owned (except in exceptional circumstances). For one, they would be sued by the shareholders (unfair seizure) and competitors (unfair competition). It also is not clear that the government acquiring something would make it run better.
- smegger001 3y ago
  seems to me that you might want quality control on those defense/weapon systems. if the rot is this bad in one part of the company like as not it is just as bad on the govenrment contract side as well.
  - zardo 3y ago
    The pressure to cut costs may be a little lower on the government contract side.
    - bumby 3y ago
      Depends on the contracting mechanism. If it's something like cost-plus, there is less pressure. But on fixed cost, it might be just as great.
dotBen 3y ago
Sure, but due to its nature the aircraft industry for commerical planes isn't really a free market. Obviously, Boeing and Airbus represent a duopoly. When you factor in one of them is US-based and is relied upon to deliver on certain national security projects, defense etc no politician is going to let the commercial arm fail and risk the national security arm failing too. Also there is a lag in the system around failure. The market could decide that Boeing planes are poorly constructed, but how many accidents and deaths would have to happen in order for customer (airlines) to decide to no longer put in orders. That's not really feasible. "Too big to fail"

by TimPC 3y ago

ciabattabread 3y ago

Boeing is also a major defense contractor, and has facilities spread out across many states. No politician of either party is going to call for the shutdown of a major employer of their constituents and a key component of national security.

acdha 3y ago
That’s true but it’s very easy to imagine at least one party being more than willing to have the FAA be less deferential.
tough 3y ago
why don't they acquire Boeing into a government owned company (for the defense stuff)
- takinola 3y ago
  The US doesn't do government-owned (except in exceptional circumstances). For one, they would be sued by the shareholders (unfair seizure) and competitors (unfair competition). It also is not clear that the government acquiring something would make it run better.
smegger001 3y ago
seems to me that you might want quality control on those defense/weapon systems. if the rot is this bad in one part of the company like as not it is just as bad on the govenrment contract side as well.
- zardo 3y ago
  The pressure to cut costs may be a little lower on the government contract side.
  - bumby 3y ago
    Depends on the contracting mechanism. If it's something like cost-plus, there is less pressure. But on fixed cost, it might be just as great.

dotBen 3y ago

Sure, but due to its nature the aircraft industry for commerical planes isn't really a free market. Obviously, Boeing and Airbus represent a duopoly. When you factor in one of them is US-based and is relied upon to deliver on certain national security projects, defense etc no politician is going to let the commercial arm fail and risk the national security arm failing too. Also there is a lag in the system around failure. The market could decide that Boeing planes are poorly constructed, but how many accidents and deaths would have to happen in order for customer (airlines) to decide to no longer put in orders. That's not really feasible. "Too big to fail"