Just imagine - a company fails after making astonishingly poor decisions, both financial as well as management ones for several consecutive years running. What a shock! Who would have thought? Some companies played it smart and saved the cash (Apple, for example) during good times, but instead Boeing chose to have a big non-stop party throughout the second half of the last decade. Now the chickens have come home to roost.
Yes, of course it would suck for employees if Boeing goes under, but why does it have to suck for some but not for others? Who chooses to decide which company is worthy of bailing out? As with thousands of bankruptcies which happened before and will happen after - the most precious know-how and worthy left-overs would most certainly be picked up by other companies and something good might come out of it. It's a cycle which was engraved into capitalism and that's what makes it function correctly. If you start interfering - it goes pear shaped pretty quickly. Funny enough I reckon that precisely due to the decision made during 2008-2009 to bail out a few "important" companies it must have encouraged big-boy execs to have a blast and don't plan properly during the following years. Deep down they always knew that "government had their back". So as a side note - yes, the legal framework should exist for past accountability in order for management board to be summoned, questioned and then executed prosecuted. But as the whole system is corrupt to the core there is no point in dreaming. Rant over.
In the end though, of course Boeing will be bailed out. Of course execs will get to keep all the bonuses. Of course Fed will print more money to socialize the losses. All in the name of the greater good and the so-called "Too Big Too Fail" club. Hence I would not worry about Boeing. At all. Even if MAX is scrapped altogether. They still will be fine.
Last edited by wigbam; 18th Mar 2020 at 00:56.
Reason: spelling