This comment represents, unfortunately, what's wrong with capitalism and, at the same time, what makes it work. Bankruptcy is used by companies to get rid of debt and refocus their business, which is good. In the case of Boeing, an eventual bankruptcy comes as a consequence of a decade of buybacks to fill investor targets and lousy engineering in the case of the 737 Max. But hey, with infinite FED money, Boeing is not going down that easily.
> This comment represents, unfortunately, what's wrong with capitalism and, at the same time, what makes it work. Bankruptcy is used by companies to get rid of debt and refocus their business, which is good. In the case of Boeing, an eventual bankruptcy comes as a consequence of a decade of buybacks to fill investor targets and lousy engineering in the case of the 737 Max. But hey, with infinite FED money, Boeing is not going down that easily.
The Federal Reserve system is anti-capitalistic because it removes choice and agency from the market, which are critical components of capitalism.
Bankruptcy is also used by creditors to take possession of the assets of bad borrowers, which typically is not to the benefit of the borrowers.
Financing issues rarely impact engineering decisions. If there is something outside of Boeing influencing this, the more likely culprit is regulatory capture effectively blocking innovators from entering the market.
I can completely agree with this if Boeing is nationalized. While it's not, if they receive FED money, they would just use it to keep operating, come back to profits in a few years and distribute dividends then. This is a capitalist behavior.
I wouldn't generalize the fact that financial issues can't impact engineering decisions because I've seen that happening in the past. In the case of the 737 Max is evident: they adapted the 737 with a new engine that was too big and because there was no space to put it, they placed it in an odd position and compensated with Software that was operating silently. They did this to avoid developing a new plane, which would cost them time and money.
> I can completely agree with this if Boeing is nationalized. While it's not, if they receive FED money, they would just use it to keep operating, come back to profits in a few years and distribute dividends then. This is a capitalist behavior.
> I wouldn't generalize the fact that financial issues can't impact engineering decisions because I've seen that happening in the past. In the case of the 737 Max is evident: they adapted the 737 with a new engine that was too big and because there was no space to put it, they placed it in an odd position and compensated with Software that was operating silently. They did this to avoid developing a new plane, which would cost them time and money.
Agreeing that the Federal Reserve system is anti-capitalistic but things under it are capitalistic is a nonsensical argument. You seem to be applying "capitalism" to anything you don't like. This is poor argumentation and makes for very poor discussion.
Every engineering project has some sort of budgetary constraints, no matter the source of the funding. Even under ideal conditions, poor engineering decisions have been made. Attempting to just blame everything on a singular cause that you happen to not like does not result the important critical thinking required to uncover and correct actual causes of actual problems.
You were the one bringing up there was some kind of connection between money and the engineering mistakes with the 737Max. If you read my critical thinking above, I'm just saying that capitalistic behaviors (stock buybacks to pursue investor targets) together with lousy engineering (proven in the case of the 737Max) are the actual cause of the problem. Now I clearly don't know enough about plane engineering but from what is known, the main reason for the issue was cost.