Global Financial Crisis (2 Viewers)

ALC

Ohaulick
Oct 28, 2010
42,751
Are they considered some sort of key defence contractor?

They should fail under the weight of their own shitness, but I doubt that would be allowed to happen.
they do manufacture aircraft for the military. That can remain although the contracts are bloated, but the commercial sector should feel the wrath of their fuckup

- - - Updated - - -

No. Let them all crash.

What's the point of free market if you have government guarding your back and paying for your shitty mistakes.
I agree 100%

- - - Updated - - -

is it because of all their employees and small
companies that rely on them?
 

ALC

Ohaulick
Oct 28, 2010
42,751
Of course, strategic company for the USA. Too big to fail, if Boeing sinks imagines the number of subcontractors and all the indirect jobs threatened, that's huge.
Boeing could get bought out by airbus and finally operate under a competent board, or the small companies can re-tool.

what’s to stop other companies from not running their companies irresponsibly if they keep getting bailed out?
 

Raphaël

Senior Member
Apr 17, 2013
2,422
Boeing could get bought out by airbus and finally operate under a competent board, or the small companies can re-tool.

what’s to stop other companies from not running their companies irresponsibly if they keep getting bailed out?
Theory and practice.

First, it's a question of patriotism, Boeing is one of the pride and sign of American power, USA will not accept that such a prestigious company is acquired by a foreign company.

1st or 2nd civil aircraft manufacturer, one of the first players in military aviation,It is a high-tech key company (the Americans are the only ones with Airbus who know how to build series aircraft, Canada Brazil and China are minors players).
The social concern (153,000 employees - subcontractor - indirect employment), if Boeing coughs the USA will get cold it's the same with GM.
Financial aspect, in a globalized world the avionics market is growing, the company is going through a bad time but it will be able to recover, and a finally a question of sovereignty, key company of the industrial military complex, with Lockeed, Boeing is the entreprise who signs the most contract with the Pentagane and it is unimaginable that USA depend of a foreign company to ensure their national security.


I believe that defence, energy, transport (airport and ports), banks, health are too vital sectors for a country's economy and that a state must intervene when it's necessary despite the mediocrity of executives who didn't know how to run the company.
 
Last edited:

Raphaël

Senior Member
Apr 17, 2013
2,422
I’d only be okay with a buyout if the shares are split amongst the taxpayers. Also revamp the board of directors
The incompetents who brought the company into the wall will have to be fired on the spot and explain themselves in court if they sold the aircraft despite the knowledge of the failures, and that once the company is restored, Boeing will have to repay the aid and interets that U.S. taxpayers brought to the company.
 

Bjerknes

"Top Economist"
Mar 16, 2004
101,680
Theory and practice.

First, it's a question of patriotism, Boeing is one of the pride and sign of American power, USA will not accept that such a prestigious company is acquired by a foreign company.

1st or 2nd civil aircraft manufacturer, one of the first players in military aviation,It is a high-tech key company (the Americans are the only ones with Airbus who know how to build series aircraft, Canada Brazil and China are minors players).
The social concern (153,000 employees - subcontractor - indirect employment), if Boeing coughs the USA will get cold it's the same with GM.
Financial aspect, in a globalized world the avionics market is growing, the company is going through a bad time but it will be able to recover, and a finally a question of sovereignty, key company of the industrial military complex, with Lockeed, Boeing is the entreprise who signs the most contract with the Pentagane and it is unimaginable that USA depend of a foreign company to ensure their national security.


I believe that defence, energy, transport (airport and ports), banks, health are too vital sectors for a country's economy and that a state must intervene when it's necessary despite the mediocrity of executives who didn't know how to run the company.
The topic of government bailouts is centered on the concept of morale hazard. If corporations know they have a government backstop when something goes wrong, they may take on additional risk and leverage, socializing the losses. In the lead up to the financial crisis in 2008, the large wall street banks were completely over-leveraged in mortgage backed securities and other leveraged instruments, and didn't seem to care. The government then proceeded to bail out certain firms who made bad bets, while letting Lehman fail, so they basically chose who to save. In the current crisis, we have a combination of the virus (a problem not created by bad management or excessive risk) and in some cases leftover problems from 2008 (debt and leverage). So should well-managed firms with little risk be bailed out since they have no control of the virus?

Bailing out the large investment banks in 2008 was a terrible decision as the idea the government will save you became more prevalent, IMO.

- - - Updated - - -

The american unemployment curve has taken a blue pill.
It is new, but too eerily similar to the 1920's.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 2)