Has there been any push to break up Boeing?
Nowadays, to realistically restore competiveness in an industry, you'd have to coordinate a worldwide breakup of similarly-integrated competitors.
(and whilst you've got the scope to leave the airframe design/sales op alone and [further] vertically disintegrate the supply chain instead, that might actually make it worse, with the Spirit/Boeing relationship plausibly having a causal relationship with this incident)
Business school may say if your product never fails perhaps you are overspending on it and some known small failure rate is acceptable to control costs to have better profits. Boeing leadership may have took that logic and applied it to airplanes.
This is not a problem of "pointy haired MBA's", we can either fix this within the current regime by imposing heavy fines on this sort of reckless behavior, or we can tear down the current regime and replace it with communism/fascism/monarchy/whatever. In the system we are currently in, what happened at Boeing looks to be "correct", in the sense that it's what the system incentivizes.
PS: I realize you're not the person responding previously.
Part of this was because WWII subsidized an unsustainable and frankly absurd level of demand. For instance, Grumman almost exclusively built carrier-based fighters, and by the end of WWII they were producing planes so quickly that the Navy stopped doing periodic heavy maintenance of their aircraft in lieu of dumping them into the sea and replacing them with brand new planes. Obviously business for Grumman would never be quite that good ever again.