[HN Gopher] It's Time to Nationalize and Then Break Up Boeing
___________________________________________________________________
It's Time to Nationalize and Then Break Up Boeing
Author : samsolomon
Score : 122 points
Date : 2024-01-13 17:06 UTC (5 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.thebignewsletter.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.thebignewsletter.com)
| yyyfb wrote:
| Why, would US govt run it any better?! If you think financial
| types can't run an engineering and manufacturing business, wait
| until you see the politicians try.
| tenebrisalietum wrote:
| You trust the gov to run the military, which is literally
| essential to the nation's survival, so why not?
| anovikov wrote:
| Maybe that's the problem actually. We have to wait till Elon
| Musk turns his eye on the military and starts running it no
| matter what the states think of it.
| soupfordummies wrote:
| Well there's a nice horrifying thought on a Saturday
| morning :D
| 303uru wrote:
| You Elon cucks are flat out comedy at this point.
| jvanderbot wrote:
| Gp made a bait and switch, equating government ownership with
| Congress in the board room. The implication doesn't ring true
| crystaln wrote:
| The military is not a business. It doesn't have a revenue
| model that tries to maintain solvency.
| grecy wrote:
| Given large companies get bailouts whenever they need
| them, I would argue the same is true of many companies in
| the US.
| abduhl wrote:
| Name the last large company to receive a bailout. This
| question is important to see where you draw the line on
| something being a "bailout."
| grecy wrote:
| https://projects.propublica.org/bailout/list
|
| 991 times for a total of $635B
| crystaln wrote:
| I'm not sure it you're aware of the inefficiencies and
| corruption of the military, or the fact that - it's a cost
| center. It's also something we are able to spend unlimited
| funds on because it is existential. And privatizing the
| military would be a terrible idea.
|
| We definitely can't afford to operate other industries the
| way we operate the military, which consumes 15% of the annual
| budget.
| the_snooze wrote:
| Efficiency can be a problem in and of itself. Efficiency is
| a fine enough goal, though too often companies pursue it to
| the point that other important values like safety,
| resiliency, and long-term stability fall by the wayside.
| They'll also pursue efficiency by externalizing costs and
| risks to other parties. That's basically what you see in
| the rail shipping industry [1]. Companies will naturally
| pursue effiency. Nationalizing a company may be going too
| far, but we need something else (i.e., government) to
| pressure them to maintain other values too.
|
| [1] https://www.propublica.org/article/train-derailment-
| long-tra...
| yyyfb wrote:
| Trust by default. The difference is, I don't trust anyone
| else to run the military.
| paxys wrote:
| The US military isn't exactly the picture of efficiency. Let
| Boeing lose a trillion dollars every year and don't subject
| it to audits or any other oversight then yeah, I'm sure the
| government will run it great.
| peterfirefly wrote:
| And the military is horribly inefficient. So why not
| privatize it? Because that would almost certainly lead to
| other, very bad, outcomes...
| TheOtherHobbes wrote:
| Military procurement in the US is already privatised in
| everything but name. The brass get a place at the top table
| in matters of national policy and critical event response,
| but procurement is essentially privatised, with an open
| door between senior military figures, politicians, senior
| contractors/consultants, and C-Suite.
|
| Boeing is one the poster children for that. Costs would
| definitely be saved if there were more defence and
| aerospace bidders and engineering cultures, and Boeing
| couldn't rely on military pork to keeps its enshitified
| commercial arm in the air.
|
| In fact if I were in some kind of gov procurement position
| I'd be looking very hard at the quality, costs, and
| reliability of Boeing's military projects right now.
| CPLX wrote:
| Read the article. It proposes breaking it up into competitive
| firms, not having the government run it.
|
| Its premise is actually that it's essentially a government run
| entity now, and that's what needs to change.
| crop_rotation wrote:
| Wouldn't that make it much harder for Boeing to compete with
| Airbus due to the size disparity?
|
| One interesting observation I have is that in Europe, a career at
| Airbus is competitive with the other industries for talent, due
| to the relatively lower salaries at big tech and even lower at
| others. Whereas if you are in the United States, a job at Boeing
| or in Airspace is mostly not competitive with the tech options
| (even for a non tech job). SpaceX is doing well, but SpaceX
| compensation is better due to stock options and hiring is easier
| due to the Elon cult of personality/or the SpaceX mission.
| chrisco255 wrote:
| There's fairly low overlap between aerospace engineers and
| software developers. People that want to build jets and rockets
| don't tend to transition to enterprise SaaS development,
| regardless of the pay gap.
|
| At any rate the biggest reason Boeing salaries are lower is
| because they are the only competitor. The reason why silicon
| valley companies pay so much is because they're all competing
| for talent and the talent has optionality to go down the street
| and get paid more.
|
| SpaceX is a private company so no, the stock options are not
| the biggest pull there. Hiring may be easier due to strong
| leadership but that goes without saying.
| prlambert wrote:
| This is true in mid and late career, but not early. Lots of
| mathematically and engineering minded college students
| consider both CS and mech/aerospace as majors. Of course
| career prospects are a major influence.
|
| Also fwiw my wife left a 10 year aerospace career, moving
| from NASA to Google, largely for comp reasons. She was a
| structural aerospace engineer, now she's a data scientist.
| crop_rotation wrote:
| It's not just about software developers. All the program
| product management roles, as well as other similar non SWE
| roles are common across companies. Also as the other
| commenter said young people going to university will be
| totally not inclined to choose aerospace in US.
|
| Whether Boeing has competition or not is not relevant if
| Airbus salaries give their employees a better life and help
| them to recruit better in the european talent market.
|
| SpaceX does a private company version of stock options
| though, and Elon frequently cites this in his mails to
| employees on why they are not hurt by the company not being
| public.
| chrisco255 wrote:
| Domain knowledge matters, even at the management level,
| especially in industries like aerospace. Again, I assert
| there is very little overlap or talent lost as a result of
| some kind of Boeing to Silicon Valley brain drain. That's a
| poor excuse backed up by nothing.
|
| There isn't a need for nearly as many aerospace engineers
| as there is for software development, so whatever the
| market works out for that is fine. Nobody is talking about
| mechanical engineers at Tesla, Ford, GM, Toyota, etc are
| not doing the same thing nor is anyone blaming silicon
| valley for a lack of talent in those companies. Absolute
| scapegoating.
|
| Airbus and Boeing being located on different continents
| hardly compete for the same talent. Boeing's problems are
| almost entirely at the leadership level, not at the lower
| or mid levels. Everything else is downstream of that.
|
| No, SpaceX cannot give out stock options because if they
| give equity to too many people they will be forced to go
| public, which Elon has said he doesn't want to do. After
| 2500 people own a company's stock, the company has to IPO.
| They just pay well.
| sahila wrote:
| What's the 2500 rule from? Can the company not sell to
| another at the size and how long do they have before
| forced IPO?
| fl0ki wrote:
| Regulation can raise the floor of company quality, but
| nationalization also lowers the ceiling, especially if it means
| no competitors are ever viable. This needs more regulation, not
| nationalization.
| loloquwowndueo wrote:
| No competitors? _points at Airbus_
| ajkjk wrote:
| As the article clearly states near the top: if Airbus
| physically can't compete with Boeing because they have years
| of backlog and no ability to take on more orders, they are
| effectively not competing with Boeing.
| int_19h wrote:
| Maybe we should just have Airbus do safety reviews for
| Boeing and vice versa.
| MaxBarraclough wrote:
| > nationalization also lowers the ceiling on how good it can be
|
| How's that? What private company outshines, say, NASA
| (especially in its glory days)?
| abduhl wrote:
| In what metric? SpaceX outshines them on launches. In fact,
| NASA has consistently outsourced design and construction to
| the private sector. The space shuttle? Privately built by
| Rockwell. Hubble? Lockheed. ISS module 1? Boeing.
| geoffreypoirier wrote:
| How about humans on the moon? NASA's still crushing SpaceX.
| (Glory days.)
| tekla wrote:
| What does NASA build?
| dotnet00 wrote:
| If we're leaning on an excuse like glory days, why do
| anything to Boeing either?
|
| After all, no one yet outshines their glory days of building
| classic planes and building the SaturnV?
| MaxBarraclough wrote:
| I was responding to the suggestion that nationalization
| imposes a ceiling on quality.
| tehjoker wrote:
| explain how the soviet space program beat the us on every
| metric except moon landing (a vanity project hyped by the us to
| compensate for lagging)
| voakbasda wrote:
| They beat us by canibalizing their society. It works for a
| time, but eventually you have a revolution on your hands.
| gcanyon wrote:
| > every metric
|
| Sure, except: - First spacecraft to
| detect/study the Van Allen belt - First solar-powered
| satellite - First polar-orbit satellite - First
| photograph of Earth from orbit - First satellite
| recovered from orbit - First spy photos from space
| - First aerial recovery of an object returning from orbit
| - First great ape in space - First pilot-controlled
| space flight - First successful planetary flyby
| (Venus) - First spaceplane - First reusable
| piloted spacecraft - First geosynchronous satellite
| - First geostationary satellite - First piloted
| spacecraft orbit change - First successful Mars flyby
| mission - First rendezvous of manned spacecraft
| - First spacecraft docking - First direct-ascent
| (first orbit) rendezvous - First (and only) human
| orbit of the Moon - First (and only) humans to land on
| the Moon - First spacecraft to orbit another planet
| (Mars) - First spacecraft sent on solar escape
| trajectory - First spacecraft to enter the asteroid
| belt - First Jupiter flyby - First Mercury
| flyby - First Saturn flyby - First untethered
| spacewalk - First Uranus flyby - First Neptune
| flyby - First Pluto flyby
|
| So, yeah, vanity.
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_Space_Race
| https://www.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/o51254593.pdf
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_artificial_satellit
| es_and_space_probes
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Explorer_1
| dehrmann wrote:
| JFK really moved the goalpost on that one.
| trynumber9 wrote:
| What was the most useful application of early space launches?
| Corona observation satellites were operating since 1959. The
| TRANSIT positioning system was operating with a constellation
| of 5 satellites from 1960.
|
| Who was focused on vanity projects?
| skywhopper wrote:
| You missed the second part of the headline apparently.
| Nationalize and then break it up into new competing entities.
| abduhl wrote:
| So nationalize then privatize?
| cge wrote:
| Yes. I'm not sure that a clearer explanation of the
| author's argument would call this nationalization at all.
| The author seems to be arguing that Boeing is already
| essentially nationalized in terms of the disadvantages of a
| nationalized industry, without the advantages, while at the
| same time, is nationally essential and can't be made to
| stop operating, or even punished that harshly. I think the
| author's suggestion could be better summarized as: seize
| Boeing, and have the state keep it running during the time
| it takes to break it up into private companies that would
| compete with each other and would be actually private,
| rather than quasi-nationalized. If anything, the author
| seems to be _more_ pro-private-industry than many comments
| here.
|
| I'm not sure if the author used 'nationalize' in the title
| to be provocative, but if so, given the comments here, it
| seems to have been an unfortunate choice.
| obblekk wrote:
| I agree with the sentiment more than the solution.
|
| In the American system, the gov should assess punitive fines for
| regulatory failures, revoke self regulation privileges, and
| impose consent decrees on company behaviors.
|
| The combined impact of these actions would cost Boeing billions
| which would result in shareholder action to replace management.
|
| Perhaps the gov should also investigate willful neglect on the
| part of management. If it's found that engineers complained about
| policies for reasonable safety concerns and management ignored
| them, then personal liability, perhaps even criminal, would
| extend to the directors and executives.
|
| I don't know how much of this would happen, or be found guilty in
| court. But I do hope this isn't just another administrative slap
| on the wrist like 2019.
| ToucanLoucan wrote:
| It's difficult to imagine any meaningful consequences for any
| of these massive corporations. Their brass rotates in and out
| of the same regulatory agencies meant to be overseeing them.
| Conflict of interest, as a concept, is a joke in these spaces:
| these people all know each other and work together extremely
| closely. Better jobs in industry get you better jobs in
| regulation get you better jobs in industry and round and round
| they go, practically waving as they pass in the hallways.
| anigbrowl wrote:
| How has that approach been working out? It's become common for
| CEOs to massively cut corners in pursuit of profits and then
| fail up or retire in comfort unless. Occasionally one goes to
| prison for fraud if they've directly lied to stockholders, but
| 'looking the other way' and hiding behind bland assurances
| generally pays great. We have one political party that reliable
| decries any sort of regulatory action as interference with the
| free market or outright communism; the American system is
| infested with bad faith actors.
| Andrex wrote:
| The entire airline industry was nationalized at one time. I
| wonder how safe things were during this period versus today.
| jagged-chisel wrote:
| Don't forget to control for advances in technology.
| hawthornio wrote:
| Private vs public rail might be a good proxy--e.g., britain's
| privatization under thatcher, NYC acquiring various
| independent subway operators
| eterm wrote:
| UK Rail privitisation wasn't under Thatcher.
| Morte42 wrote:
| Boeing spread its operations over as many states as it could
| some time ago so any changes made to Boeing would impact a lot
| of politicians, changes that leave some losers and some winners
| will be fiercely contested. Its clearly a situation that
| requires some sort of change but since the government became
| involved with Boeing, things have gotten worse. Maybe the
| decline is not associated with that change in particular but I
| feel very sceptical about further government involvement being
| a cure.
|
| Boeing is just too integrated in too many places to interfere
| with. The governments of both Republican and Democratic states
| would need a comprehensive agreement to even consider making
| small moves on Boeing. Thats the issue, the biggest fight isnt
| with Boeing itself but the stake holders and beneficiaries.
| Boeing are very astute when it comes to business, they covered
| their bases well long before this drama started.
| arrosenberg wrote:
| > revoke self regulation privileges, and impose consent decrees
| on company behaviors.
|
| Why? I'm on board with punitive fines, but why should the
| government be in the business of being a babysitter to these
| spoiled executives. If they can't do their job without
| committing crimes, send them to jail and break up the company
| if it's too big to fail.
| salawat wrote:
| >why should the government be in the business of being a
| babysitter to these spoiled executives
|
| >If they can't do their job without committing crimes, send
| them to jail
|
| I'm getting mixed messages here. So you want them to be the
| Government's problem or not?
| arrosenberg wrote:
| Yes, the government should investigate crimes and prosecute
| them. They should not make consent decrees and babysit
| them.
| dudeinjapan wrote:
| Boeing can be broken up without being nationalized in the
| process.
| 4ggr0 wrote:
| socialize losses, privatize profits
| Synaesthesia wrote:
| Well that's been the modus operandi of American capitalism.
| Boeing is a fine example. It has existed and profited largely
| thanks to government funds, military contracts, bailouts etc.
| But the profits go to the owners.
|
| If it were actually nationalized that would be an improvement.
| But then there would be no need to break it up.
| amadeuspagel wrote:
| > [Airbus] was incorporated as the European Aeronautic Defence
| and Space Company (EADS) in the year 2000 through the merger of
| the French Aerospatiale and the German DASA, and later acquired
| full ownership of Airbus, a collaboration of European aerospace
| companies originally incorporated in 1970 to develop and produce
| a wide-body aircraft to compete with American-built airliners,
| which would later merge together.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus
|
| Europe created Airbus by merging different companies, but the US
| should break up its only competitor?
| NickC25 wrote:
| >Europe created Airbus by merging different companies, but the
| US should break up its only competitor?
|
| If that said competitor is not behaving, and abusing its status
| as a de-facto monopoly, than yes, the US should break up that
| competitor.
|
| It's not like Boeing is a book store or a video game developer
| which has little risk to society if things go belly up - it
| produces critical transportation infrastructure that can kill
| people if something goes wrong. That's a responsibility to not
| be taken lightly, and a track record of Boeing management
| ignoring safety checks and guidelines because it would cause
| shareholders to lose a bit in the short-term is just is
| irresponsible.
| amadeuspagel wrote:
| > It's not like Boeing is a book store or a video game
| developer which has little risk to society if things go belly
| up - it produces critical transportation infrastructure that
| can kill people if something goes wrong.
|
| I completely agree, I just don't think that more competition
| is necessarily the solution here, and that's the point of my
| example. Airbus is a trusted company, and it was created
| through merging different companies, through removing
| competition.
| vlovich123 wrote:
| Aren't we capitalists here? Capitalism would suggest that
| more competition is indeed good and actually should
| outcompete a larger behemoth provided you ensure the larger
| one can't do things like flooding the market or otherwise
| pushing out the smaller players. But given government
| contracts keep these players fed and happy (very lucrative
| military contracts), I'm not sure what the answer.
| NickC25 wrote:
| I see your point - and i don't disagree, and my overall
| point is that mergers and all that aren't bad, but when you
| agree to effectively allow companies to M&A their way to a
| monopoly, it is imperative for industry safety that that
| monopoly needs to be policed and regulated heavily
| ESPECIALLY if it's a piece of critical social
| infrastructure whcih also happens to be a public company
| acting in the best interests of its stock performance above
| all else.
|
| Industry can't M&A its way to a monopoly and then use the
| power of the monopoly to say "we get to do whatever we
| want". Great power, great responsibility and all that.
| chrisco255 wrote:
| Of course the US should. We have multiple manufacturers for
| every other industry and it's our biggest strength.
| storf45 wrote:
| Isn't that how Spirit became a standalone company?
| xxpor wrote:
| It's also how we got United Airlines and United
| Technologies earlier.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Aircraft_and_Transport
| _...
| dullcrisp wrote:
| Yes maybe? There's a story about three bears that I think you
| should read.
| pydry wrote:
| Boeing would probably work better with a keiretsu style
| structure anyway.
| dehrmann wrote:
| I agree, and I'm not sure how to fix this. You could peel away
| the defense part of Boeing, but that doesn't solve the issues
| the commercial side is having. Nationalizing has a sketchy
| track record in general, and the US isn't experienced in it, so
| I don't see that going well. It's really that the company has
| the wrong leadership and the wrong culture, and you can't just
| fix that.
| ReptileMan wrote:
| Wasn't the automakers and some banks de facto nationalized
| for a brief period in the 2008 financial crisis? Not a good
| analogy, but the US has competent and inventive
| administrators. Or at least had 15 years ago.
| georgeplusplus wrote:
| Its Boeings cozy relationship with the FAA that is leading to
| these engineering problems. If the FAA cannot do its job what
| makes people think nationalizing the whole thing will make it any
| better?
| eastbound wrote:
| Yes, the FAA should also be tried for willful negligence.
| dehrmann wrote:
| The door plug was likely an assembly issue, not an engineering
| one. The problem with both is there's too much for a regulator
| to effectively oversee.
| pydry wrote:
| Accountability to citizens at the ballot box is a step above 0
| accountability. Even if it's not as efficient as accountability
| to informed customers in a competitive market.
|
| It's the same reason that the telco duopoly is worse than
| municipal telcos.
| testfoobar wrote:
| Perhaps it should be something else - there should be an upper
| limit to the size of companies.
|
| The problem is that successful companies converge towards
| regulatory capture to maintain their advantage - this includes
| buying up all competitors in order to maintain
| cartel/monopolistic market positioning. Look at Ma Bell. It was
| broken up. It slowly reconstituted its old self - albeit in a
| more competitive, less monopolistic landscape.
|
| Boeing, like the too big too fail banks, like the airlines during
| Covid is already quasi-nationalized. Perhaps we should make that
| relationship explicit and demand divesture of business units in
| order to increase competition and transparency.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_System
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AT%26T
| crop_rotation wrote:
| In a single nation world yes, but in a multi country world, if
| the US limits size of it's companies the world will be simply
| dominated by Chinese/European companies and the QoL of life for
| ordinary citizens would nosedive.
| jampekka wrote:
| This is the reason why there used to be barriers of trade and
| capital controls.
| xxpor wrote:
| > if the US limits size of it's companies the world will be
| simply dominated by Chinese/European companies and the QoL of
| life for ordinary citizens would nosedive
|
| The conclusion does not follow from the premise. Has the QoL
| nosedived in NJ because the tech industry is dominated by
| California?
| crop_rotation wrote:
| This doesn't make any sense. NJ and California exist under
| a single nation with a common treasury. You are basically
| agreeing with my point. If the world was a single nation
| then sure.
| pixl97 wrote:
| >QoL nosedived in NJ
|
| A better question may be, has QoL nosedived in the rust
| belt because the tech industry is dominated by CA?
| arrosenberg wrote:
| This is projection that gets repeated by corporatists. We've
| let the large corporations have their laissez-faire way since
| the early 80's - foreign ownership is way up, middle class
| ownership is way down, and the QoL for ordinary citizens has
| nosedived. We need to go in the opposite direction - robust,
| competitive and small companies that innovate and outcompete
| foreign behemoths.
| crop_rotation wrote:
| You are just stating what you think is ideal and not
| disputing my point. How will these small companies compete
| in foreign markets against larger foreign rivals.
| dehrmann wrote:
| Did the article really make this argument without mentioning
| Spirit? It's not the same as being broken up, but a lot of the
| work has already been outsourced.
| PaulKeeble wrote:
| We live in deeply corrupt times where corporations have taken
| over large chunks of the mechanisms of state that are meant to
| regulate them. Nationalising it or asking for regulatory
| intervention isn't going to solve it because its one big club.
| This isn't just about Boeing, there are criminal corporations
| openly abusing customers, their staff and buying the government
| avoiding consequences every day. The electoral system ensures its
| nearly impossible to fix especially since this collective
| interest runs the media too. I do not see a way to fix such
| widespread corruption of democracy especially since its happened
| throughout the western world and dawned a new age of Feudalism
| and populism.
| jampekka wrote:
| > I do not see a way to fix such widespread corruption
|
| Maybe check out e.g. years 1688, 1775, 1779, 1848, 1917, 1947,
| 1953 and 1989 for some ideas?
| paulryanrogers wrote:
| Make private financing of campaigns illegal. Require same day
| primary elections. Outlaw professional lobbying.
| nightski wrote:
| We should not be nationalizing anything, sorry. The government
| should not be running companies as it takes away all natural
| market forces. While private ownership can be corrupt, market
| forces / competition can keep it in check. If anything we have
| seen the government's corruption fail us by allowing too much M&A
| destroying competition.
| nostrademons wrote:
| Need to have competition and actual market forces for that to
| actually work. A private monopoly has all of the downsides of
| the government with none of the oversight.
| nightski wrote:
| That's my entire point. The government created this
| situation. It wasn't always like this in aviation/aerospace.
| manmal wrote:
| > as it takes away all natural market forces
|
| What are those forces exactly, in a defacto monopoly? Building
| huge jets takes so much money and know how buildup that only
| nations and maybe the top 5 or so companies could pull it off.
| double0jimb0 wrote:
| They said the same thing about rockets.
| int_19h wrote:
| Market forces are only excluded if the entire industry is
| nationalized, not if one particular company is nationalized.
| gessha wrote:
| I see a lot of comments about nationalization but I don't think
| that is the American way.
|
| There should be a range of regulatory/policy actions that could
| be taken with nationalization being the most extreme.
|
| Just like the banks are regulated by FDIC so can be Boeing.
| They've done great things before and they can do it again. You
| "just" need to figure out the right incentive structure.
|
| If regulating it doesn't help, throw some billions into
| establishing a new Boeing, the US has a history of establishing
| new industries based on national priorities- most recently with
| the space industry, before that was the semiconductor industry,
| etc.
| notatoad wrote:
| >Just like the banks are regulated by FDIC so can be Boeing
|
| that's a good example, because when the FDIC runs out of
| regulatory measures it can apply to correct a problem, they
| have the option of nationalizing a bank to reduce the harm that
| can be caused. like we saw happen this spring with SVB.
|
| In that case nationalization isn't like argentina, which
| everybody in this thread seems ot be jumping to. it's a
| corrective measure to prevent a collapse, where the government
| takes over keeps things running until the assets can be sold or
| otherwise transitioned to owners who will handle them better.
| roenxi wrote:
| This seems like an overreaction. According to Wikipedia [0] the
| rate of fatal crashes has gone from 0.2 per million to 4 per
| million. That isn't a change that requires a crisis response.
| Even grounding the planes is probably overdoing it. Aircraft
| travel is already safer than makes sense for it to be.
|
| [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_737_MAX
| beAbU wrote:
| Are you kidding? That's an order of magnitude increase!
| roenxi wrote:
| An order of magnitude from approximately 0 to approximately
| 0. If I fly somewhere on a 737 Max, I've got great odds of it
| being a normal plane flight. And it'd be reasonable to assume
| the odds are getting better as pilots get used to the plane
| and remediations are put in place.
|
| If 1 in a million odds are going to scare you off a plane,
| you shouldn't be flying anyway. The response by the
| regulators is a waste of time and money. Let alone trying to
| remake an entire company as this article title calls for.
|
| Maybe a call for people to get a $ discount when flying on a
| 737 Max as hazard pay would be reasonable.
| wg0 wrote:
| Unless Americans want America to look like Argentina.
| Nationalization has a not a great story almost anywhere.
|
| Regulatory measures are what can force bean counters to respond.
| peter-m80 wrote:
| Argentina is an American country. Perhaps you want to say
| United States instead of America.
| jagged-chisel wrote:
| Eh. A large part of the world simply calls the USA "America"
| and then refers to other North and South American countries
| by name. It's a known convention.
| panarky wrote:
| Is that how Argentines speak?
| jagged-chisel wrote:
| I do not have knowledge about whether they are in the set
| "large part of the world" or outside of it.
| Andrex wrote:
| > Unless Americans want America to look like Argentina.
| Nationalization has a not a great story almost anywhere.
|
| The airline industry has already been nationalized once before.
| I don't think it was the end of USA.
|
| "Just look at <X> country" is also a really poor, unintelligent
| argument to make.
| irusensei wrote:
| Just look at Y continent then? South America is rich with all
| degrees of Argentina.
| jampekka wrote:
| Plenty of great stories of nationalized industry all over.
| hawthornio wrote:
| Nazi germany privatized vast swaths of their economy (steel,
| rail, etc.) [1]. So you want america to look like Nazi Germany?
| /s
|
| This is not a serious analysis of history. Besides, a large
| number of countries (e.g., Sweden, Norway, France) have more
| public ownership of corporations than Argentina.
|
| 1. http://www.ub.edu/graap/nazi.pdf
| hawthornio wrote:
| Coincidentally, the state of France holds around a tenth of
| Airbus stock
| AlbertCory wrote:
| Indeed, as I recall, government owning _part_ of a company,
| not all, is a fairly common practice worldwide. It
| recognizes that the company is quasi-governmental, as
| Boeing is.
|
| Is this "better?" I don't know, but for an extremely large,
| capital-intensive, national security-critical industry, it
| might be the least bad solution (and no, I'm not a
| socialist).
| wg0 wrote:
| >Nazi germany privatized vast swaths of their economy (steel,
| rail, etc.) [1]. So you want america to look like Nazi
| Germany? /s
|
| And how exactly that privatisation is at all related to
| fascism? The argument is totally irrelevant. Let's turn this
| on its head: Most of American corporations are
| privately/publicly (and not the government) so does America
| right now look like Nazi Germany?
| jemmyw wrote:
| ... did you miss the /s for sarcasm on the post you replied
| to? That's exactly the comments point.
| arrosenberg wrote:
| Argentina's economic problems have to do with its level of
| historical development compared to it's current economic
| potential. The same problems seem to occur cyclically whether
| things are nationalized or privatized.
| Lammy wrote:
| Meta: I would love to see "It's Time To..." added to HN's list of
| automatically-edited-at-submission title cliches, like "How..."
| and "The Story of..."
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-01-13 23:01 UTC)