[dclowd9901]

And, what, undo capitalism? The motivating forces here are profit, plain and simple. I've come to think that it's not only probable, but _inevitable_ that any growth-oriented, profit-motivated company (read: any company) will reach a point that their only remaining growth path is to undermine quality.

[Zigurd]

Capitalism in practice is an artificial environment. People speak of it as if it is a force of nature, but anywhere it is put into practice it is put into practice in the context of norms and regulations. Undo capitalism is a conversation terminating tactic.

If the Jack Welch style of capitalism is failing, it can be changed. For example, there is a national Labor relations board because we don't do this anarchically.

[anadem]

> there is a national Labor relations board

Unless/until Amazon, Starbucks, SpaceX and Trader Joe’s manage to gut the NLRB with their recent legal challenges.

[GuB-42]

> And, what, undo capitalism?

No, they just have to make following a safety culture less expensive than not. For example, by conducting proper audits. If not following safety requirements means that new planes are not certified and the others get grounded before it is fixed, then it is going to get more costly for Boeing than doing it right to begin with.

That's what regulations are for.

And undermining quality is often not profitable. That's because their customers also want to maximize their profits, and a bad plane, one that doesn't last, requires frequent repairs, is unreliable, has a bad reputation with passengers, etc... isn't going to be very valuable. Customers will pay more for a good plane that offers better returns on investment. This is the same for any B2B company. Consumers are a bit easier to fool, especially with good advertising (which is also expensive), but at some point, they too will realize that a brand is worthless.

[MomoXenosaga]

Short term profits. Literally nobody gives a shit anymore what happens to a company ten years in the future.

Outsourcing and building the Max fast led to good numbers at the annual shareholder meeting. Arguably it still does because what is anyone going to do? Buy Airbus? They have waiting lists too.

[calf]

This is reducing culture to money, which I imagine the safety culture theorists anticipated a layperson, misinformed understanding of it.

[masklinn]

Capitalism is a tool, not a force of nature*.

It can be channeled, directed and mitigated. That is what regulations and regulatory agencies do. Although of course you need to watch the watchers so they don't get captured.

* and even if it were, we channel, direct, and mitigate forces of nature all the time, if not always to great success, or without consequences

[bumby]

>of course you need to watch the watchers

I don't cut Boeing much slack, but some of this also falls on the FAA for delegating certain oversight activities to the manufacturer. I assume they do it for manpower reasons (ie there just aren't enough FAA employees to do the job sufficiently).

[masklinn]

I don't think there's any need to cut Boeing any flack to point out that the regulators did fail to do due diligence.

It is understandable that regulators would take a lighter hand to a company which has shown good ethics — which was historically the case of Boeing (more of an issue if that is because of not being able to handle the load), it's a problem if they go completely hands off.

I don't think the FAA is the sole culprit here either, we've not heard much of non-american regulators. While it makes sense that the FAA would be the primary regulator for Boeing, that regulators would cooperate internationally, and that non-primary regulators would have to be careful e.g. around the risk of being called out for trade restrictions, I still feel non-US regulators should have been a lot more involved with and suspicious of Boeing following the MCAS mess.

[bumby]

One of the looming risks is that other nations lose faith in the FAA to certify their aircraft. Particularly smaller nations, which, in effect, inherit the FAA certification as safe instead of levying their own.

[dclowd9901]

I’ll take your point a step further:

If you ask a company, any company, what the most important aspect of their product is, they’ll proudly crow “the quality of it.”

And yet, we still, for some reason, have to deploy the FAA to make sure profits didn’t take a front seat to not killing hundreds of people.

The FAA shouldn’t need to exist. It only does because private industry _never_ holds up its end of the bargain. It’s a race to the bottom. Unfortunately it’s not just consumer products that eventually get enshittified, it’s also big things that can kill us (737 Max 8s and Tesla autopilots apparently).

[p_l]

Both major cases of regulatory lack of oversight in USA involved presidential mandate to "deregulate" and "free" the airliner market (DC-8 cargo door failure history, and 737-MAX)

[iskander]

Exceptions so far are Novo Nordisk and CostCo. Not sure if there are many others at scale.

[hodgesrm]

> And, what, undo capitalism?

No, just make it very costly to have quality lapses. Capitalism takes care of the rest. When it's effective government regulation makes companies pay for costs that would otherwise be externalized.

[akira2501]

Well, how about, just enforce laws already passed by congress? Monopolies are illegal. They have been for 100 years and it has yet to "undo capitalism."

[bbor]

Undo American capitalism :). A true capitalism would have strong regulations to prevent this sort of thing, and companies that recognize that making bad products is bad for themselves and society in the long run.

That said, I hope to god you’re a socialist lol. The stance “capitalism inevitably leads to corner cutting, but it’s still the best we’ve got” would have the potential to literally break my mind with consternation.