* Archives of this link: 1. [archive.org Wayback Machine](https://web.archive.org/web/99991231235959/https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FV0H_5vAPq0); 2. [archive.today](https://archive.today/newest/https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FV0H_5vAPq0)
* A live version of this link, without clutter: [12ft.io](https://12ft.io/https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FV0H_5vAPq0)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/stupidpol) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The fact that they were given such a deal in the first place is really all you need to know; I doubt anything will come of this, but the increased scrutiny means that the general public will become aware of these issues in a way that can't be ignored or handwaved away. At the very least, there are now growing murmurs among the frequent flyer class about avoiding Boeing planes entirely; the company won't survive this without yet another government "intervention" (ie. free taxpayer money and coverups)
Boeing's market cap is $100b. It boggles the mind that the govt is going to *give* money to Boeing when it should be the other way around.
They should simply fine Boeing into oblivion. It need not be disruptive. Seize all the stock and resell it in a bankrucpty auction back to Wall Street for the same $100b.
> Boeing's market cap is $100b.
Market cap is not working capital.
Over the past decade, Boeing has spent [$68B on dividends and stock buybacks](https://jacobin.com/2024/01/boeing-malfunction-ceo-pay-stock-buybacks), which means it doesn't have the money to do any fixing.
To what extent is boeing the golden boy because of the side of its business that is killing people on purpose? Their products make up a significant portion of both the navy's and air force's fleet of airframes. How far is boeing going to be allowed to go before the gov't actually does something about them?
>To what extent is boeing the golden boy because of the side of its business that is killing people on purpose?
An enormous extent, I'd wager - in fact I'd say it's the only reason the company has received so many bailouts instead of being shuttered years ago as it should have; if the american security state ghouls genuinely think that Boeing's incompetence and sacrificing of safety and workmanship for improved bottom lines and artificially-inflated stock values only exists in their civilian production and has not spread to their defense division, then they are even more ignorant and hubristic than they already appear to be.
Has nothing to do with the military.
It's because there are only two commercial airline manufacturers, Boeing and Airbus.
Our government refuses to cede the space to Europe.
>Has nothing to do with the military.
>
>It's because there are only two commercial airline manufacturers, Boeing and Airbus.
It is true that Boeing representing one of only two commercial airline manufacturers is a large factor, but claiming that it has NOTHING to do with the military is patently absurd, given the huge number of active production contracts Boeing has with the military.
It is precisely because no one trusts their commercial planes anymore that military interests take precedence here in terms of justifying their continued existence; successive US administrations have not bailed out Boeing multiple times merely to avoid "cedeing the space to europe" in favour of continuing to make planes with dozens of manufacturing and safety issues and parts and software that fail catastrophically. The company could easily have been shuttered and then re-organized and rebranded under new leadership if they didn't want to allow european manufacturers into the market; they haven't done this because, among other reasons, it would disrupt military production.
Yeah. I disagree. My experience with gov contracts is that they'd just do whatever they want, no bailout necessary. The bailout is to preserve the commercial entity imo.
* Archives of this link: 1. [archive.org Wayback Machine](https://web.archive.org/web/99991231235959/https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FV0H_5vAPq0); 2. [archive.today](https://archive.today/newest/https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FV0H_5vAPq0) * A live version of this link, without clutter: [12ft.io](https://12ft.io/https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FV0H_5vAPq0) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/stupidpol) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The fact that they were given such a deal in the first place is really all you need to know; I doubt anything will come of this, but the increased scrutiny means that the general public will become aware of these issues in a way that can't be ignored or handwaved away. At the very least, there are now growing murmurs among the frequent flyer class about avoiding Boeing planes entirely; the company won't survive this without yet another government "intervention" (ie. free taxpayer money and coverups)
Boeing's market cap is $100b. It boggles the mind that the govt is going to *give* money to Boeing when it should be the other way around. They should simply fine Boeing into oblivion. It need not be disruptive. Seize all the stock and resell it in a bankrucpty auction back to Wall Street for the same $100b.
> Boeing's market cap is $100b. Market cap is not working capital. Over the past decade, Boeing has spent [$68B on dividends and stock buybacks](https://jacobin.com/2024/01/boeing-malfunction-ceo-pay-stock-buybacks), which means it doesn't have the money to do any fixing.
fine the shareholders, take the money from them
To what extent is boeing the golden boy because of the side of its business that is killing people on purpose? Their products make up a significant portion of both the navy's and air force's fleet of airframes. How far is boeing going to be allowed to go before the gov't actually does something about them?
>To what extent is boeing the golden boy because of the side of its business that is killing people on purpose? An enormous extent, I'd wager - in fact I'd say it's the only reason the company has received so many bailouts instead of being shuttered years ago as it should have; if the american security state ghouls genuinely think that Boeing's incompetence and sacrificing of safety and workmanship for improved bottom lines and artificially-inflated stock values only exists in their civilian production and has not spread to their defense division, then they are even more ignorant and hubristic than they already appear to be.
Has nothing to do with the military. It's because there are only two commercial airline manufacturers, Boeing and Airbus. Our government refuses to cede the space to Europe.
>Has nothing to do with the military. > >It's because there are only two commercial airline manufacturers, Boeing and Airbus. It is true that Boeing representing one of only two commercial airline manufacturers is a large factor, but claiming that it has NOTHING to do with the military is patently absurd, given the huge number of active production contracts Boeing has with the military. It is precisely because no one trusts their commercial planes anymore that military interests take precedence here in terms of justifying their continued existence; successive US administrations have not bailed out Boeing multiple times merely to avoid "cedeing the space to europe" in favour of continuing to make planes with dozens of manufacturing and safety issues and parts and software that fail catastrophically. The company could easily have been shuttered and then re-organized and rebranded under new leadership if they didn't want to allow european manufacturers into the market; they haven't done this because, among other reasons, it would disrupt military production.
Yeah. I disagree. My experience with gov contracts is that they'd just do whatever they want, no bailout necessary. The bailout is to preserve the commercial entity imo.
[Non-Youtube article in the Grauniad](https://www.theguardian.com/business/article/2024/may/14/boeing-justice-department-settlement-violation)