• conditional_soup@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    186
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    5 months ago

    This is one of the supposed benefits of the free market. If left alone, under normal conditions, what’s supposed to happen is that badly ran, uncompetitive firms end up showing themselves the door, making room for new market competitors who may not be so badly managed. Don’t fucking save them, especially don’t advocate for saving them if you claim to love free markets.

    • Rookwood@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      58
      ·
      5 months ago

      The problem with free markets is they are incredibly unstable and create booms and busts and people don’t like this so we get the worst of all worlds which is unfettered capitalism and no competition or failure weeding out poorly managed companies. Maybe free markets are just a shitty ideal?

      • MrVilliam@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        39
        ·
        5 months ago

        Maybe free markets are just a shitty ideal?

        Yes. The answer to that question is yes. Free market capitalism encourages cutthroat competition in which the only factor in any decision-making process is maximizing profits. Safety isn’t a factor. Employee well-being isn’t a factor. National security isn’t a factor. The economy at large isn’t a factor. Long term investments aren’t even a factor. Line go up this quarter equals good quarter. Regulations ensure mandatory minimums for societal prosperity.

        • JoJo@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          5 months ago

          Until corporations realise they can cheat and change the game by bribing politicians to tip the scales in their favour.

          Business exists only for one thing; exploiting systems, even if that means meta-exploitation, since that’s the highest form of exploitation, and the inevitable endgame.

      • AShadyRaven@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        free markets are a shitty idea, but ive never seen one in real life before.

        I think America would actually benefit from switching to a free market economy, instead of our current bullshit where our politicans are too spineless to tell companies like Boeing “sucks to suck” when they ask for yet another handout instead of doing any real work

    • Chocrates@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      36
      ·
      5 months ago

      Agreed, but the big players have their hands tied up in Congress and the military so much that it’s not gonna happen.

      • WhatAmLemmy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        67
        ·
        5 months ago

        Then they should be nationalized, because they’ve already got the benefits, but none of the downsides, while the public get none of the benefits, and all of the downsides… At this point “too big to fail” are essentially critical government infrastructure setup by wealthy criminals to steal directly from tax payers.

        • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          33
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          Nationalizing industries? In America? We don’t do that here, friend. We give corporations massive bailouts and forgive all felonies.

          • satanmat@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            5 months ago

            Ya know… I was going to say “You dropped this /s”

            But then sadly, I realized you didn’t :-(

          • Trainguyrom@reddthat.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            5 months ago

            I mean the US came shocking close after the Penn Central collapse, even operating Conrail for several years as a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Federal Government for several years

        • FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          5 months ago

          I think you could make the argument it is already nationalized if the government bails them out to protect it’s military industry sector.

    • AShadyRaven@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      we dont have a free market. We have what i can only describe as Inverse Socialism

      its socialism for the wealthy and the corporations, and “free market” for everyone else

      this is part of the reason why theft of property from the rich, or violence against them, is not morally wrong.

      They get tax breaks that we all pay for, and they influence policies that help themselves while killing us.

      You cant steal what you already paid for, and its not murder when its self defense

      • conditional_soup@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        4 months ago

        It is, afaik, the literal, actual, unironic definition of the fascist economic model. Basically, the public sector only really exists in the form of “private” companies that are tightly coupled to the government.

        • AShadyRaven@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          4 months ago

          thats what they taught us about communist Russia when i was in highschool

          Our economics class learned that their “public” sector was a mix of private companies acting as both private citizens AND government agencies.

          And my teacher was like “imagine if all the roads and utilities and infrastructure for the country was run by private, FOR PROFIT businesses that benefit from laws written for citizens, AND from laws written for corporations but are not bound by either”

          20 years later i realize thats how its been here the whole time

    • orcrist@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      Historically I don’t think that’s what the term “free market” was referring to, although some people do use it that way now. As always, we need to remember that there are no normal conditions, and free markets aren’t free. If you don’t have anti-monopoly legislation, if you don’t have anti-corruption legislation, then large corporations will win.

  • Album@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    147
    ·
    5 months ago

    Look I’m fine if the govt wants to say a particular corporation is too big to fail. But trying to let that company remain private is not how too big to fail works. If you want a bailout, the govt owns your company, and the govt is obliged to maintain ownership for as long as it’s deemed too big to fail…e.g. critical to national interests.

    • Wes4Humanity@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      24
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      Personally I think all publicly traded companies should be partly owned by the people… Like sure you can have an IPO, and still make a zillion dollars… But society automatically owns a large enough share that you have to check with us before doing anything drastic

    • MrMakabar@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      To big to fail should mean splitting up the company. At the very least when bailed out. Intresstingly the US actually made a profit bailing out banks in the 2008 crisis.

      • Aceticon@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        If I remember it correctly, that “profit” was nominal, i.e. without including the devaluation of that money due to Inflation, much less doing the proper investment accounting (as the Finance types do) were profit is a yield above a risk free investment (which, curiously, is normally Treasuries) and if it’s below that it’s not a good investment and beyond this the risk of losing your money also determines if the yield is worth.

        Pretty much by definition the yield wasn’t worth it in helping the banks at the interest rate the Government got, as why nobody else was willing to lend them the money at that interest rate.

  • Herding Llamas@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    95
    ·
    5 months ago

    I’m so sick of companies pissing away all of their profit and money to make rich people richer then when the smallest problem hits it is our problem. We pay. Fuck them.

    Looking at this (below) with some super sloppy math they have made in the last ten years 25 billion in profits and 5 billion in losses totally 20 billion in profits (give or take as my interest in totalling this accurately is zero). The fact that they used their money irresponsibly and didn’t say for a raining day, or it’s raining planes day, is not the tax payers that need to save them. I’m in my mid 30s, you know how many times I’ve seen extremely profitable and successful “too big to fail” businesses bailed out. Fuck the fucking fuckers and anyone who trys and correct my math.

    https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/BA/boeing/gross-profit

    • WhoIsTheDrizzle@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      22
      ·
      5 months ago

      Between 1998 and 2018, the plane manufacturer also manufactured a whopping $61.0 billion in stock buybacks, amounting to 81.8 percent of its profits. Add in dividends and Boeing’s shareholders received 121 percent of its profits.

      Stock buybacks should be illegal or at least heavily regulated. They’re stealing money from their employees, putting their company in peril by not having cash on hand, and stunting innovation. Imagine if major companies had to put profit back into their company? Instead it’s a game to see how much you can exploit the working class, how little you can innovate and still get by (it’s easy when you have no competition), and gamble (after lobbying with minimal money) that your political plants will force the taxpayers you’re exploiting to bail you out. It’s pretty disgusting.

      https://greenalphaadvisors.com/boeings-struggles-highlight-the-perils-of-stock-buybacks/

      https://www.tipranks.com/stocks/ba/buybacks#google_vignette --> they’re still doing it as of March of this year.

      • billybong@lemmynsfw.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        5 months ago

        Stock buybacks aren’t really the issue, if they didn’t exist they’d just be paying dividends with the money instead. The real issue is the reckless pursuit of maximising shareholder payouts, particularly for too big to fail corps.

        • WhoIsTheDrizzle@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          5 months ago

          While you are correct that dividends would be paid, it just wouldn’t happen on this scale or to this detriment, imo. Buybacks are used as a crutch to generate Short-term profit and lead to executives and companies focusing on short-term goals. They artificially increase EPS for executive compensation. This is all exacerbated when companies know they’re going to be bailed out by taxpayers because there are only 2 companies that make planes now, or 3 media companies setting prices together.

    • Zorg@lemmings.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      27
      ·
      5 months ago

      That would make a lot of sense …until we’re reminded that USA is a kleptocracy, masquerading under a thick coating of we the people, freedom!™, liberty and justice for alla select group of people. Then it becomes clear the obvious and only solution, is for the government to pump a couple billions into Boeing.

  • microphone900@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    68
    ·
    5 months ago

    Maybe Boeing should have thought of that before making poor decisions. It should learn a little something called personal responsibility and if it goes broke, well, that’ll be a shame. Anyway!

  • BlitzoTheOisSilent@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    55
    ·
    5 months ago

    Can’t wait to see another multi-billion dollar corporation get bailed out while I still don’t have health insurance, and I’m still paying off credit card debt from during the Pandemic when the government gave people a measly $2400 over two years but handed out PPP loans and forgiveness to anyone that asked.

    Fuck this country makes me ashamed to be a veteran.

    • Fedizen@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      30
      ·
      5 months ago

      there’s a long, proud tradition in this country of screwing over veterans starting in 1776

      • werefreeatlast@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        10
        ·
        5 months ago

        Don’t believe the homeless…many homeless people are not veterans. Many were just regular citizens like you and I who worked their asses off every day but then got screwed and into the streets.

        • orrk@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          13
          ·
          5 months ago

          veterans are a sizeable portion of the homeless, most American service men/women come from extremely poor backgrounds, they are the workers.

          there is a reason it’s called a poverty draft.

          learn some solidarity.

          • werefreeatlast@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            5 months ago

            I was being sarcastic. However you’re right. At least back in Sandy San Diego, a bunch of the homeless people I got to meet were of different backgrounds. Some were migrants, many were veterans but I would say more than 50% were people down on their luck. I used to walk by St Vicents on my way to school. Many of them were on drugs. Over the years the population changes a lot though.

            • orrk@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              5 months ago

              being honest here, “down on their luck” is already a fucking joke. these people arn’t poor because they diden’t have enough luck, they are poor because the system they live in wants them to be poor, poverty and homelessness isn’t a symptom, it’s a feature.

              • werefreeatlast@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                5 months ago

                Yeah, basically. You know, I don’t think there is an evil mastermind behind any of it. We just basically made up a system that causes homelessness, but because it doesn’t affect us, then we do nothing to fix it. Later on, when we are affected in old age or when we loose our home, we simply don’t have a voice to say anything about it. So we do nothing.

                • orrk@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  5 months ago

                  the funny thing about that, the rich have class consciousness, they know from rational self-interest what to do

    • Ragnarok314159@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      5 months ago

      If you have not filed for VA compensation, you need to. If you want some help with the process let me know, I don’t feel like typing out a book.

  • uis@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    55
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    5 months ago

    Capitalists: Under capitalism inefficient companies fail, and this is good.

    Also capitalists: Save Boeing!!!11oneone

    • chonglibloodsport@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      5 months ago

      Boeing isn’t the best example of a capitalist enterprise. It’s too big to fail. The US government is too dependent on it and the country depends on Boeing strategically.

      Boeing is basically a pseudo-state corporation.

      • uis@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        It’s too big to fail.

        Then FTC has some work to do. Or nationalize.

        • chonglibloodsport@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          5 months ago

          What would the FTC do? Boeing builds aircraft for the US military. Breaking up the company or allowing it to fail jeopardizes the US’s strategic interests.

          Nationalization is an option but the political climate in the US is extremely hostile to that option. Instead what I expect will happen is a massive bailout and a forced reorganization of management to fix all the issues. The government will dictate the changes the company needs to make but otherwise will remain hands off. This is how the US has done these things in the past.

          • uis@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            5 months ago

            What would the FTC do?

            Break it up. So it won’t be “too big”.

            Breaking up the company or allowing it to fail jeopardizes the US’s strategic interests.

            Ah. So you see the problem with capitalism.

            The government will dictate the changes the company needs to make

            And what will happen if nothing changes? Another bailout?

            • chonglibloodsport@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              5 months ago

              Ah. So you see the problem with capitalism.

              It’s a double-edged sword. Boeing developed these aircraft. They’ve given the US the military advantage they’ve enjoyed since the Second World War.

              • orrk@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                5 months ago

                Boeing developed the aircraft with taxpayer money, they build the aircraft with taxpayer money, and then they get a ton of money as profits from our taxpayer money, and lastly we bail them out with our taxpayer money.

  • Liome@pawb.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    47
    ·
    5 months ago

    Oww, poor litlle boeing, not having enough money :C
    Maybe they would still have some, if they didn’t pay hitmen, they probably don’t come cheap.
    Let 'em die. No, fine them even more, and lock up the management.

    • orrk@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      5 months ago

      oh, I see how it is, you want poor American workers to lose their jobs, eh? now give us money fucking slave.

  • experbia@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    48
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    5 months ago

    deprivatize the aerospace industry. imagine the boon to the American economy if these failing, debt-ridden, dysfunctional aerospace manufacturers and airlines were replaced by a massive jobs program with the goal of optimizing air travel safety, affordability, and access. we’re a big country. we could massively benefit from an aeronautical empire that gives any person safe, enjoyable 30 dollar flights, coast to coast.

    (edit, oops, forgot a prefix. wow)

      • jaschen@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        5 months ago

        In my opinion, HSR is a supplement, not a replacement. Flying is still fast and in some cases easier to get to than rail.

    • Leviathan@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      5 months ago

      If any politician would run this on a platform I’d make a bingo game of the canned responses you’d see all over the “free thinker” side of social media.

        • raspberriesareyummy@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          No. If flights are dirt cheap, people will kill this planet using them. It’s not about the price, it’s about the amount (& type) of energy used to accomplish transportation.

          • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            5 months ago

            If flights are dirt cheap

            HSR is generally more convenient and less expensive than air travel, thanks to the ability to run trains directly out of the center of major cities while airports are flung to the outskirts. If you’ve got the choice between a $30 plane + hours of driving and TSA and boarding and landing, or a straight shot to your train station and then $30 to pop on the next one that’s scheduled to leave, its an easy choice.

            it’s about the amount (& type) of energy used to accomplish transportation.

            Its also about speed and convenience. We’ve made train travel painfully obtuse. Other countries don’t do it this way, so people spend far less time in the air.

            • raspberriesareyummy@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              5 months ago

              My apologies, when you referred to HSR, especially considering the context of Boeing, my brain deciphered that as “health & safety regulations”. I take it you are talking about a train system operator / railway network? And yes, train network in the US sucks compared to Europe, if I may say so as a European. But also here (Germany), it is painfully expensive - and I want to lynch some responsible politicians for making train tickets more expensive than regular flights for even short distances…

  • Etterra@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    41
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    5 months ago

    Government: It’s too big to fail!

    Me: The last time you said that the Banks you bailed out made record profits.

    • Freefall@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      5 months ago

      The GF wanted to do some Inverse Cramer this morning…and brother, I am just not as flexible as I used to be…

      Or we talking about something else?

      • casmael@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        Gotta remember to warm up first or you could sprain your kazoo getting it setup - don’t ask how I know

      • casmael@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        Cramer loves broken clocks - he’s bought some this morning or if he hasn’t he’s wishing he had, just rolled up his sleeves and got to work on it - they’ve been on the line and off the line, two at a time, three at a time, and now all the guys on the phones on the floor are saying they missed it. Broken clocks are going one way folks, and that’s up

        ^after hours: BRKCLK down 25%^

  • pyre@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    30
    ·
    5 months ago

    here’s some bootstraps mate, good luck!

    also get fucked. what needs to be saved is the people from your utter disregard for human life.

    you should use the last bit of your money to fly your CEO and entire management on one of your shitty planes and watch them fly through whatever fucking hole inevitably opens up.