***Official Political Discussion Thread***

There still would be Boeing if it were nationalized and it would largely run as it did before save for three things.

No more cutting corners on safety.

Much smaller pay for higher ups

The American people are the shareholders

  • No more cutting corners on safety.
    • Not justifying the 737 MAX crashes but can you please point to me outside of that design flaw where Boeing has cut corners that has led to safety in-service safety issues?
  • Much smaller pay for higher ups
    • This would be terrible for the entire industry because it would cause a mass exodus to remaining private companies.
  • The American people are the shareholders
    • Boeing has manufactured ~1/3 of of the world's in-service planes and does the MRO on a great deal of them. In addition to facilitatiing global air travel (~4.5B global and ~800MM domestic passengers) they also create the products that defend the freedoms of the United States and their allied nations. They might be private but they are working for Americans, shareholders or not.
How are you guys defining nationalization? Or, more to the point, what does nationalization look like (procedurally, in terms of democracy, inequality, etc)? What does nationalization look like given the challenges (and opportunities) of federalism? And if nationalization of Boeing means “no more cutting corners on safety” what of the idea of regulatory capture?

A lot to read these days, but I’ve been trying to think about just where nationalization fits, so to speak, within leftist politics. Very useful overview of the growing lukewarm support for nationalization post 1990s (Borris Kagarlitsky, “Is Nationalization Dead?” 2000).

Excellent point. I think we all might have differing definitions of nationalization. I am more so speaking against it conceptually but I would love to hear a more proper definition because I could be thinking about this the way.
 
Great point and I share the trepidation. The problem (at least from who I saw out and about) is spoiled suburban kids, but I could see the police targeting the wrong people. Also, the fines would be nothing to a rich family but could be disastrous for lower income families or for those who have lost their jobs.

Side note -- I saw Fauci talk about the second wave. I was referring to short-term waves, like every month or so, whereas he was talking about a second wave next winter since it appears coronavirus will migrate to the southern hemisphere over the news few months and then would return north just in time for next winter.

Great post. Especially because it helps sharpen the class critique of the crisis. Did you read about the rich fleeing to the Hamptons, hoarding food and compromising the health of others? (https://www.google.com/amp/s/nypost...virus-leads-to-class-warfare-in-hamptons/amp/)

Let’s be clear: social distancing was demanded of black folks way before corona. Poor folks long had limits on their access to and enjoyment of public space. It has been the rich and the wealthy who have despoiled the planet and who, because money is no object, pose the greatest danger. The stick for the rich. That’s a message I can stand by.
 
Yesterday Rusty said something to the effect of “Nationalize Boeing, screw the executives if they don't want to take government salary." That aside, looking at this as purely a matter of USA security, nationalizing them would also be screwing over the other 35k Boeing Defense employees by also giving them government salaries. You would then have to figure out how break up their Services division which would be a logistical nightmare. Not to mention, this nationalization would be a result of announced policy, so stockholders would have the heads up that the government is going to buy stock for a takeover, meaning the stock price will go up a lot, increasing the cost to taxpayers even more. If we look at all the defense companies that would fall in this "essential to national security" distinction then the US would also likely have to create a fund with enough money to buy all these companies and somehow spinoff the "non-essential parts". Other countries have partly nationalized militaries and it doesn't work so well because it's harder for the government to keep up with speed of technology than it is for a private company. If it was critical for any county to nationalize their defense industry then they could probably do it, but there would subsequently be a lot of court battles. I truly believe there would need to be a threat to mainland US for this to even be a realistic consideration.

What is really getting lost in all of this is that Boeing has three business units (Commercial, Defense and Global Services) so while their defense unit is critical for national security, it's not even the reason for the bailout.So unless the loan mandates this loan can only be used for Boeing Defense, at which point it would be more than likely rejected or not taken in full, then this bailout will be used for Commercial Airplanes. The national security bit was just a GOP way to slide them funds.

I don't know what to tell you about innovation and cost-savings being BS. The flight control system developed for the 737 MAX was the first of its kind and was designed to save airlines money. It would have cost way more if you didn't have the expertise of flight control engineers, simulator and test pilots, etc. that were apart of the original program (which you wouldn't if they were nationalized). Yes, there was a critical oversight which I have previously acknowledged and expressed grief for, but it wasn't so much Boeing's operations as it was their culture which led to quelling of the issue that caused the crash. I think similar levels of bureaucracy also exist within the government which would lead to similar problems except the taxpayers would be footing the bill.
What does all of this have to do with Boeing being "too big to fail," so to speak, which appears to be the premise for access to certain segments of the corporate bailout, which you brought up yourself? If they're not too big to let them fail within the boom-and-bust cycle of capitalism that they, then we should let them ****ing fail. If they are too big to let them fail, then they should not exist as an entity in the private sector. I mean, stop for a moment and think about the ramifications of a private sector company which operates with the knowledge that the federal government considers them too big to fail. What part of that dynamic seems acceptable to you?

Would there be practical challenges to nationalizing a company like Boeing? Of course. Those things could and should be discussed and debated. For example, I disagree with your argument about stock prices, at least in a timeframe beyond the immediate horizon—if it becomes known that the federal government is going to institute a takeover of Boeing, shareholders would likely be trying to offload those shares, since once the feds gain a majority share those stocks would be worth comparatively little. But regardless of a potentially perverse short-term effect on stock prices, saying something like "nationalizing a major corporation would be tough" doesn't seem like a particularly compelling argument against doing so in light of the alternative.

Lastly, the 737 fiasco isn't some anomaly in terms of utter disasters in the private sector driven by greed. It's just the most relevant example to the topic at hand. And, in that vein, it had a whole lot less to do with "a critical oversight" or a unique company "culture" than it did with the fundamentally sociopathic reality that quarterly stock dividends are the exclusive driving force of the private sector.
 
There still would be Boeing if it were nationalized and it would largely run as it did before save for three things.

No more cutting corners on safety.

Much smaller pay for higher ups

The American people are the shareholders
Oh yes, Mitch McCconells Wife has a much cleaner heart than Boeing Executives

Agree on much smaller pay top down, good luck with retaining talent

American people already subsidize Boeing through taxes via their defense division, I'd rather the opportunity to atleast make returns on the stock if I so choose
 


Where Susan at to call her Colleagues out for being disgraceful
unimpressed.png
 
I was thinking this today.

It was a warm, sunny day -- unusually warm for March where I live. I was feeling good about our prospects for defeating COVID-19. The streets had been empty the past few days and people seemed to be taking it seriously.

Then I saw that everyone was out. Especially kids. Playing football, talking in groups, treating this like summer vacation. Adults were out too, being less cautious about maintaining distance than they had been the past week.

It's only been a week since we really started shutting down. A bunch of these people ARE infected and don't know it. Today, they just infected a bunch more. Many of them will be asymptomatic too and won't know it. They will infect everyone they come in contact with over the next 2-3 weeks. We will see a second wave, and a third wave, and a fourth wave...
As healthcare professionals risk their lives to treat people, a bunch of ungrateful selfish Americans are helping to ensure there is no end to this.
 
This is following a nice pattern of "this is why we can't have nice things." At each step the government gives us a chance to show personal responsibility but we can't handle it so they have to increase the enforcement of rules.

At first cities tried encouraging social distancing... but people just huddled in bars. It kept getting upgraded so now it's stay-at-home except to go grocery shopping or for brief, solitary walks. But people are violating that too. So next is to shut down all parks.

Keep this up, idiots, and soon we'll have martial law.

That's what I'm hoping because the only type of social distancing these fools understand is a right hook to da jaw. Not hard to maintain a 6 foot buffer when you are laid out flat on your back waiting for the ref to count to 10.
giphy (26).gif
 
That's what I'm hoping because the only type of social distancing these fools understand is a right hook to da jaw. Not hard to maintain a 6 foot buffer when you are laid out flat on your back waiting for the ref to count to 10.
giphy (26).gif
This reminded me of the post in here a couple days ago (I think about Trump) along the lines of, "This is someone who's never taken a punch." :lol:

I can tell you the moment Richard Spencer's life changed forever.




IdealConstantHowlermonkey-small.gif
 
Great post. Especially because it helps sharpen the class critique of the crisis. Did you read about the rich fleeing to the Hamptons, hoarding food and compromising the health of others? (https://www.google.com/amp/s/nypost...virus-leads-to-class-warfare-in-hamptons/amp/)

Let’s be clear: social distancing was demanded of black folks way before corona. Poor folks long had limits on their access to and enjoyment of public space. It has been the rich and the wealthy who have despoiled the planet and who, because money is no object, pose the greatest danger. The stick for the rich. That’s a message I can stand by.
This reminds me of that lady a couple days ago who bought dozens of boxes of toilet paper and was loading them in the back of her truck.

Fact is, many Americans are ****ty people who, when left to their own devices, are dangerous cowards and opportunists. Factor in the entitlement that comes with being white and/or wealthy, and you can see who the habitual linesteppers are and what needs to be done to them.


IdealConstantHowlermonkey-small.gif
 
Boeing asking the the Federal Government for a no strings attached bailout is like when Zel asked Big Mama to pay his back child support or else they gonna suspend his license.

And Zel says Big Mama has to do it because Zel is her ride to church and Bingo.

To get the money Zel refuses to go to AA, refuses to go to anger management, refuses to go get a job at the factory with Lester, refuses to stop any of his previous bad behavior.

He won't even accept letting her hold onto the keys, or selling the car to Big Mama; so he can have the funds.

Welp Zel and Boeing, take yo *** to Moneytree and if things don't work out we will cop your 2003 Altima and Defense Department at the local auction on the low low

So for the time being...
giphy.gif
 
Boeing asking the the Federal Government for a no strings attached bailout is like when Zel asked Big Mama to pay his back child support or else they gonna suspend his license.

And Zel says Big Mama has to do it because Zel is her ride to church and Bingo.

To get the money Zel refuses to go to AA, refuses to go to anger management, refuses to go get a job at the factory with Lester, refuses to stop any of his previous bad behavior.

He won't even accept letting her hold onto the keys, or selling the car to Big Mama; so he can have the funds.

Welp Zel and Boeing, take yo *** to Moneytree and if things don't work out we will cop your 2003 Altima and Defense Department at the local auction on the low low

So for the time being...
giphy.gif
This analogy is amazing :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
 
And while we are talking about the 737. What about the Dreamliner. Poland’s airline Lot’s entire international fleet was Dreamliners. They’ve been leasing planes and crew from air Italia and Belgium airlines because their multi billion dollar contract has been grounded for over a year now.

Lets keep it real, Boeing is a shade of the company it once was. People became to focused on streamlined cost cutting and profit maximization.
 
What does all of this have to do with Boeing being "too big to fail," so to speak, which appears to be the premise for access to certain segments of the corporate bailout, which you brought up yourself? If they're not too big to let them fail within the boom-and-bust cycle of capitalism that they, then we should let them ****ing fail. If they are too big to let them fail, then they should not exist as an entity in the private sector. I mean, stop for a moment and think about the ramifications of a private sector company which operates with the knowledge that the federal government considers them too big to fail. What part of that dynamic seems acceptable to you?

I don't think Boeing should be penalized for being the only company of it's kind (Large scale Commercial + Large Defense). That entanglement alone is almost a non-stop to nationalization. Do you think the government should control commercial airplanes? If not, who steps up to buy that segment of the company (this question is also relevant if they failed and the government didn't take control)? What expertise, outside of potentially leadership, is that entity bringing that Boeing Commercial Airplanes doesn't have access to? That just leads to a series of other questions that also make this unlikely. I'm not saying they operate as if they are too big to fail. They just simply are. If the government or world wants to change that then more competition would have to enter the market. China is trying that (although their using Boeing's Design Manuals and IP from Boeing and China :lol: ) so we'll see how a nationalized aircraft manufacturer goes.The aircraft manufacturing business is extremely complex and the barrier to entry is impossible to clear in the private sector.

But regardless of a potentially perverse short-term effect on stock prices, saying something like "nationalizing a major corporation would be tough" doesn't seem like a particularly compelling argument against doing so in light of the alternative.

Why is this alternative better for employees, passengers, taxpayers, the US government, the allied nations of the US, the military, shareholders?

Lastly, the 737 fiasco isn't some anomaly in terms of utter disasters in the private sector driven by greed. It's just the most relevant example to the topic at hand. And, in that vein, it had a whole lot less to do with "a critical oversight" or a unique company "culture" than it did with the fundamentally sociopathic reality that quarterly stock dividends are the exclusive driving force of the private sector.

Yes, dividends and financial metrics are important to private sector companies. I would contend that it varies from industry to industry i.e. a financial services vs. a heavy industrial company. Safety at Boeing is paramount to the point that the 787 and 777X wing are structurally over-designed (which directly correlates) to account for safety because static, fatigue and damage tolerance issues are going to be your main sources of crashes. Overarching decisions were made to implement certain solutions to present customers with the optimal product, not dividends or EPS. Expecting the CEO or Board to know the level of detail that went into exactly what caused the crash prior to what happening is unrealistic. As I've said before, the individuals responsible for the issue getting passed along to the aircraft had no interest in dividends or stock price. A majority of them only owned Boeing stock through 401K or pensions but also weren't near retirement age. They were acting out of greed for themselves. If they argument is that the executives and Board only care about stock price there is no way this conversation is being had because it wouldn't have come to this.
 
And while we are talking about the 737. What about the Dreamliner. Poland’s airline Lot’s entire international fleet was Dreamliners. They’ve been leasing planes and crew from air Italia and Belgium airlines because their multi billion dollar contract has been grounded for over a year now.

Lets keep it real, Boeing is a shade of the company it once was. People became to focused on streamlined cost cutting and profit maximization.
I don’t know how true it is, but I think there were reports that the early 787’s had airframes with questionable quality (and these are supposedly still flying today).

I was in Japan and scheduled to fly back on a 787 when the report came out that their oxygen systems were faulty. I was definitely nervous on that flight home.
 
I don’t know how true it is, but I think there were reports that the early 787’s had airframes with questionable quality (and these are supposedly still flying today).

I was in Japan and scheduled to fly back on a 787 when the report came out that their oxygen systems were faulty. I was definitely nervous on that flight home.

The Dreamliner series in its current state is a joke. Aerospace such as this shouldn’t be outsourced all over the world for component making And then hoping quality will be as good as what you did or what your core 3-5 partners have done in the past. Again this was purely a cost cutting move and it backfired. And airlines like LOT and many others now have to deal with contingency plans to get out of this cluster****. **** they should have kept their old 747 rather than retiring them.
 
Not justifying the 737 MAX crashes but can you please point to me outside of that design flaw where Boeing has cut corners that has led to safety in-service safety issues?
The decision to make the warning light for the MCAS sensors optional is an example of Boeing cutting corners.
The 737 max was sold as an old plane that didn't require full blown pilot training, when in fact it had features that made it significantly different from the previous versions of 737.

The other aspect of the scandal to note is that the FAA didn't do its due diligence. They essentially let Boeing run the validation process of their planes on the assumption that no company would think about selling planes that are unsafe to fly. The reason why you need a second set of eyes to examine engineering work is because you can never trust the engineer to think about all the ways their product is going to malfunction (In fact, they never think that their product is imperfect until it fails :emoji_laughing: ). I don't think (or know how) nationalization by itself addresses inadequate regulatory work.
 
:lol: at any nurse working for $24/hr
he housekeepers at my hospital make more than that

I think he means the unemployment would pay 24 and hour. Either way he’s dumb af because no nurse is getting laid off now.

“nah I’m gonna sit this out and take the lay off“ :lol: it’s nursing not construction.

I hope that extra 600 actually becomes a thing. I’m gonna be the unemployment king. :lol:
 
Back
Top Bottom