So the summary is, Boeing ruined Boeing. Government is not to blame nor are rules. They decided to be greedy asses who skipped on checks and quality control just to get bigger bonuses for their management.
this post was submitted on 08 Feb 2024
69 points (97.3% liked)
politics
19135 readers
2596 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
I'll save you some time:
The FAA even lets the company regulate its own planes starting in 2009 (“self-regulation”).
You're welcome.
But I was told the free market would sort it out! That some other person would see the need for planes that don't fall apart, and take on building multi-million dollar planes against a multi-billion dollar corporation and that the public would decide whose is better!
No no, you see it's up to the consumer to choose the planes that are safe! After all, we are all rational economic actors with perfect knowledge, so we of course know which planes are dangerous in advance!
Weird how that happened after 10 years of heavy lobbying. An interesting curiosity
Aka no regulation.
🤣😭🤣
What a clown show.
"A door hanging on by a thread*
"Looks fine to me"
Market Capitalism exists to feed insatiable greed.
These aren't specific bad actors, this is what it means to be a publically traded corporation.
We're going to destroy the planet and civilization will collapse sooner rather than later, but if hypothetically we cared about our species/children/future, capital markets would have to either go, or capital investment would have to be the party receiving a small fraction of the value produced while the labor that generates that value gets most of it, as always should have been the case.
Capital markets, in theory, were supposed a way to seed businesses to grow, now they run the table, threaten legal action against corporations who don't self-cannibalize for short term cash grabs, and at this terminal stage are eating one a other's empires in their desperation to grow/metastasize on a saturated, capitalist conquered finite world.
Having currency isn't the problem, having a do nothing investment class that provides no labor but expects ever Moooooooooaaaaar merely for presenting chips from their last trip to the human exploitation casino is destroying civilization and our sole, shared, COMMUNal habitat is.
Labor makes the world run, builds the goods, provides the services, makes the discoveries, grows our food, etc. Do nothing capital investors are societal leeches claiming all the value generated to keep their livestock desperate, in subsistence, and perpetually separated from the resources to buy their own means of production to form cooperatives and the like, as is the core function of market capitalism.
Give a man a gun and he can rob a bank. Give a man a bank and he can rob the world.
I hate the finance sector.
I hate biased, ivy league, self-serving economists pretending to be and having the gravitas of scientists when they declare this intentionally corrupt, thieving economy to be the optimal system for distributing goods and services to the society it is supposed to be in service to instead of the other way around as it has become.
Giving the rich people all the money isn't efficient at distributing good and services in such a way as to maximize the well-being of the citizenry(isn't that supposed to be the POINT of any economy?), its only efficient giving the rich people all the money.
I hate biased, ivy league, self-serving economists pretending to be and having the gravitas of scientists when they declare this intentionally corrupt, thieving economy to be the optimal system for distributing goods and services to the society it is supposed to be in service to instead of the other way around as it has become.
People compare academic models to real world scenarios without considering whether the underlying assumptions made in a model are met. A lot of times a free market economy is supposed to have many competing vendors, and there is supposed to be many customers who are all well educated about the marketplace and the product and the prices, and the widgets being sold are all virtually identical, etc. I think there are some good ideas in economics, but it is closely linked to politics and it seems like there are many people who are acting in bad faith, or are otherwise little more than accountants that like to dabble in philosophy.
Market economies are an efficient system for distributing goods and services. Capitalism is an efficient system for funneling wealth to an investor class. Markets don't require capitalism. We can distribute surplus revenue back to the workers instead of non-working investors, and the market forces will continue to do all the things economists praise them for, without concentrating profit in bourgeoisie pockets.
Every worker a member of the board.
Give poor people money and let the rich find ways to earn their spending. We broke capitalism by removing any incentive to do anything for people. Just serve other rich people because they have all the money.