Keep in mind the “company” might run out of money.
This does not mean the CEO’s and higher ups don’t get their 100 million$$ paycheck.
If those paychecks were proportional the company would have money and record profits again.
That + bailout means CEO and share members get major pay
Golden parachutes should be illegal.
Boeing, and anyone like them, NEEDS to fail.
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!
Boeing stopped pulling on its bootstraps and wants government welfare.
If Boeing had just put a few dollars a week into a savings account when it was 18, it could have retired by now.
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.
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?
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.
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.
Agreed, but the big players have their hands tied up in Congress and the military so much that it’s not gonna happen.
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.
I think you could make the argument it is already nationalized if the government bails them out to protect it’s military industry sector.
That’s actually really sad to think about.
Nationalizing industries? In America? We don’t do that here, friend. We give corporations massive bailouts and forgive all felonies.
Ya know… I was going to say “You dropped this /s”
But then sadly, I realized you didn’t :-(
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
I would bring back Conrail immediately.
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.
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
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.
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
“WON’T SOMEBODY THINK OF THE POOR CORPORATIONS???”
Did they try not cutting costs to the point planes fall out of the sky?
Mmm, then they wouldn’t have had the money to buy back their shares to boost the stock price. So no, your ideas would not pass muster at a board meeting.
You know, I caught a few minutes of his show. my grandparents were into it, I guess. Not that they ever made money off his tips, or anything. The reality is his show was a coke fueled investment-related infomercial. Like the shamwow guy, but shorter and bald-er
(in the 90’s he gave an interview about how as a fund manager or whatever, he’d pay the press to run hit pieces, even. now he is the hit piece.)
Capitalism as it is supposedly “intended” say whuuuut? O.O /s
Solidarity to all the workers at Boeing!
Did they try pulling themselves up by their bootstraps?
Fuck Jim Cramer by the way.
“We moved all our production to non union factories across the country and put out shittier products, now we can’t pay bills anymore!!”
I love the ‘quotation’ marks
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.
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.
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.
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
While I don’t disagree with you in principle, this begs definitions of what “us” and “anything drastic” means, which could vary to such an extent as to prove whatever law you’re proposing meaningless or to be so draconian as to stifle all technological progress.
That’s called taxes.
So maybe tax megacorps so much that they have to pay with shares?
Lots of decisions are made with our taxes and we aren’t consulted.
That’s why the government owns us.
In the finance world it’s called share buybacks.
Then claw it back from the fraudulent CEO and board of flunkees.
I believe several stocks are a complete grift and that CNBC is part of the disinformation dissemination scamming investors/swaying sentiment.
